Zone1 Should Greenland be under the administrative control of the United States?

[alang1216]

It's a population of 57,000 people. Denmark is incapable of securing Greenland the way it needs to be and Greenland would be even more vulnerable as an independent nation. This may sound imperialist, but when we're a nation of 300 million potentially looking at a conflict with another world superpower, there comes a point where it doesn't matter what 57,000 people want. We need to look out for American interests over anything, and securing the Arctic is absolutely in our interest.

What 'world superpower' are we looking at? Can't be Russia, they can't even take over Ukraine. If we're afraid of them, aiding Ukraine would be a much better path for the US than doing here what the Russians are doing there.

 

[alang1216]

that can certainly change, given time and positive incentives.

His threats have not worked yet, in fact I'd bet they're counter-productive.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We have 600 troops stationed there and some missile detection. If we got into a conflict with Russia for another reason they would be able to occupy Greenland and use it as a vantage point into North America. It's necessary that we take full control of the land so we can set up sufficient defenses.

i doubt that could happen....

 

[GavanPeacefan]

His threats have not worked yet, in fact I'd bet they're counter-productive.

Trump's threats to NATO members haven't been counter-productive at all ;-)
We're now paying double for membership :-D

 

[Captain Caveman]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

No, anything connected to the US is a recipe for disaster.

Greenland being part of Denmark benefits from being away from arrogant arseholes, imo.

 

[alang1216]

Trump's threats to NATO members haven't been counter-productive at all ;-)
We're now paying double for membership :-D

Non-sequitur. We're further from getting Greenland than ever as we lose the support of the Greenies.

 

[GavanPeacefan]

Non-sequitur. We're further from getting Greenland than ever as we lose the support of the Greenies.

how are you going to revolutionize production towards 'green' if your society faces ehm, significant bullying by revengeful-across-centuries(!) rival world powers?
fact is, the Republicans turned it via the false flag op known as 9/11 (Bin Laden was a CIA ally until they grew 'apart' and then hateful towards each other) into the First War on (of?) Terror, and now they OWN us all.
i sure hope they know what they're doing, or we'll have to come for them. we'll leave their pretty wives and daughters alone, but the boys will be pigmeat, i guarantee you that.
signed : the EU Resistance Movement, well, one of it's primary bases in NW-EU, my home.

 

[GavanPeacefan]

perhaps i shouldn't have been so rash, and just less frustrated with the fact that Humanity never seems to learn from it's very violent past.
but that's difficult.
the male instinct likes to fight violence with violence.

i hope to find a better way before i die, and publish it.

 

[candycorn]

Should Greenland be under the administrative control of the United States?​

no

If Denmark wants to sell it to us for fair market value (multiple other-party appraisals; toss out the high and the low and average the others)...absolutely! We bought Alaska...we bought Manhattan island...nothing new.

What is new is the orange mara-lard-ass having to suggest taking it. It will take decades to repair the damage this damn fool is doing to US credibility.

 

[PeterPilot]

I believe it absolutely should, this article sums it up quite well.

But in short, we're seeing a race for the Arctic on the global stage between America, Russia, and China. A country as defenseless as Denmark has zero business administering what might be the single most important territory in or around the Arctic circle. If the U.S./NATO got into a full scale conflict with Russia, Greenland would be invaded by them immediately, and they'd do it with ease. On top of that, Denmark does not have the economic mobility to extract and profit off of Greenland's natural resources, the result of this is that despite standing over a $4.4T reserve of rare earth oxides, Greenland has a GDP of $3B and the entire economy is based on fish. No matter how you twist it, Greenland benefits zero from being a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and their continued administration is a multi-continental security threat.

No, we should not take control of Greenland. We have enough HUGE problems here at home that the government should be working on.

 

[byapollo]

A couple of thoughts:

1) If the USA set up Greenland as a military checkpoint or stronghold then Greenland becomes a literal target. I'm sure that makes that worthless "57,000," expendable pawns as happy as larks.

2) If we're to see Greenland as a pawn on a chessboard isn't the goal of chess to take out the king? If so, who are the kings that Trump is concerned about? Why is he going after the weak nations or territories instead of the perceived enemy?

Greenland is more of a target when it's as under-militarized as it is. If we're going to use a chess analogy, Greenland is more like an open square exposing OUR king. We should put our pieces there to block our enemies out.

 

[byapollo]

I'm reasonably sure, that the so-called "tensions and wars," between nations are manufactured. I am suspect that these are really the existential struggles nations had, like before the great reset.

I knew that Biden would win, that was a forgone conclusion. The folks that run the entire show telegraphed that fact to us during the 2020 campaign, regardless of who voted for which candidate.

". . . Regular readers know I would tend towards the latter. Fundamentally, I cannot reconcile the two worlds with which we are presented.

On the one hand, we have a set of nation-states wholly in concert on almost all the broader issues. They all work together to promote pandemics and climate catastrophes; they synchronise in passing near-identical legislation to tackle the same non-existent or heavily exaggerated problems.

They all have central banks “printing” fake money, they all have so-called “free-market” capitalism (in reality, a construct of state-protected monopolies that siphon public money into the private sector).

They all agree to pretend that Covid is a thing and the vaccines are safe and the climate is changing and the internet will be nothing but snuff films and child pornography if they don’t put a digital surveillance chip in everyone’s brain as soon as possible

Central bank digital currency, digital identity, genetically modified food…All of this is resolved supranational policy.

They tell the same lies to serve the same ends. They are all the same.

And yet, on the other hand, we’re told they cannot work out a single territorial or political conflict or disagreement in anything but the most crude, base or violent ways. . . . "

Quick Take – The world is burning…but are the flames real?

I’ve had a cold, and as a cold Traditionalist, that means I’ve been sitting on the couch in my dressing gown, sipping herbal tea with honey in it. (The Zealots from The Church of New Co…

off-guardian.org

Oh no a qanon guy found this

 

[byapollo]

No, we should not take control of Greenland. We have enough HUGE problems here at home that the government should be working on.

Our government can multi-task

 

[byapollo]

What 'world superpower' are we looking at? Can't be Russia, they can't even take over Ukraine. If we're afraid of them, aiding Ukraine would be a much better path for the US than doing here what the Russians are doing there.

Russia can't take over Ukraine because we've funded their military to the tune of tens of billions. Ukraine alone against Russia wouldn't last a week. Their military is extremely powerful. Not as good as ours, but a lot of people would die if we fought them. We want every hedge against that possibility.

 

[byapollo]

No, anything connected to the US is a recipe for disaster.

Greenland being part of Denmark benefits from being away from arrogant arseholes, imo.

I wasn't asking you, redcoat We stopped asking you for permission 250 years ago

 

[alang1216]

Russia can't take over Ukraine because we've funded their military to the tune of tens of billions. Ukraine alone against Russia wouldn't last a week. Their military is extremely powerful. Not as good as ours, but a lot of people would die if we fought them. We want every hedge against that possibility.

The Russians invaded well before we began pouring billions into Ukraine and they were stopped by the Ukrainians. Their military is a paper tiger, the only reason they are still fighting in Ukraine is that they are willing to lose a million men and a lot of their hardware rather than admit defeat.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Greenland is more of a target when it's as under-militarized as it is. If we're going to use a chess analogy, Greenland is more like an open square exposing OUR king. We should put our pieces there to block our enemies out.

I like the "king" comparison. Sorta apropos these days. But, again, if we're using the chess analogy ... why mess with pawns when we can just go in for the checkmate. Just like when they kidnapped Maduro. Fly in -- rope down -- capture Putin or Jinping -- claim their resources -- install a new pro-dollar, pro-Israel leader -- and be the masters of the universe.

 

[task0778]

What a bullshit article. It fails to mention that those rare earths are under a mile of ice. It also fails to mention those airbases are in Russia.

What air bases are you referring to? The article mentions Thule AB, now renamed to Pituffik Space Base but it ain't in Russia.

Does Greenland fall under NATO's protection? I don't see the Russians or Chinese able to install anything on Greenland, certainly without us knowing about it and destroying whatever they do. So, what is the status quo? Why does Greenland need additional protection?

 

[MisterBeale]

Oh no a qanon guy found this

Let me give you a little piece of advice n00b. You should get to know folks you disagree with before you make an attempt to launch your ad homs. Otherwise, you might just end up looking like an ass. . . . IMO.

Post in thread 'Who is Q?'

Jun 3, 2022

Why do you keep posting the same thing, over and over again? IN the same forum? Why not just add to your previous threads?

The founder of QAnon?

In this Yahoo article, Paul Furber is identified as the founder of QAnon. He is a software developer in South Africa. It says Ron Watkins took over Q after Paul Furber. Both deny being Q. https://news.yahoo.com/qanon-machine-learning-205618665.html

www.usmessageboard.com

QAnon

I think whoever Q is, took the idea of The Cabal or group of men ruling the world and added the idea that they are pedophiles who rape children. I do not know if Q provided evidence for this claim. I am just glad that the idea of The Cabal is known by many people around the world. Thank you Q!

www.usmessageboard.com

You expect something different with the third time you post this thread?

Was “Q Anon” an FBI Psyop?​

Was “Q Anon” an FBI Psyop?

A recent Reuters investigation might indicate that “Q Anon” was in fact an FBI cyber psyop.

swprs.org

'Q-Anon' Bears Striking Resemblance to Bolshevik Psy-Op...​

• MisterBeale

• 
• 

 

[byapollo]

I like the "king" comparison. Sorta apropos these days. But, again, if we're using the chess analogy ... why mess with pawns when we can just go in for the checkmate. Just like when they kidnapped Maduro. Fly in -- rope down -- capture Putin or Jinping -- claim their resources -- install a new pro-dollar, pro-Israel leader -- and be the masters of the universe.

Because that would be retarded and it would trigger world war 3. The idea is to be prepared for a WW3 scenario, not provoke it.