The Greenland War of 2026

[Dr Grump]

NATO has been a sinkhole for American taxpayers for 60 years.

Back in 1948, there was a reason for American taxpayers to defend European countries devastated by a war they started.

But Europe is all grown up and don’t need to live of Mom and Dad’s money anymore.

Time for Europe to pay its own way and send their own sons and daughters to war.

1) No it hasn't. It has been part of a system that kept Communism at bay.
2) Europe didn't start the war, Germany did.
3) I agree. Europe needs to pay its own way.
4) They have always sent their own sons and daughters to war.

 

[Eman623]

I know what you mean.

First there was Korea, that first war they fought for you..oh, that's right..nothing to do with Europe.
Mind you, then there was Vietnam, another war you fought for them - oh, again, another war that you didn't fight for them. And you lost.
Let's talk about 1982. The Falklands War! Whoops. My bad. The US had nothing to do with that either. Just one UK aircraft carrier that kicked the Argies arses.
Let's fast forward to Gulf War 1. A joint venture in which everybody won! Well done.
Let's talk about the last two wars the US fought (which weren't really for Europe were they?). Iraq and Afghanistan <sarcasm - you and I both know jnr started those 'police' actions> . Whoops! Wrong again. They were both US wars. One in which the US and its ALLIES kinda won. The latter - well, once again, the US left with its tail between its legs.

Pray tell Eman...what are you talking about...loser...

Loser? You really are a grump.

Looking over your recent posts, I can see none of them are worth my infinitely valuable time. We can try again later.

 

[Dr Grump]

Loser? You really are a grump.

Looking over your recent posts, I can see none of them are worth my infinitely valuable time. We can try again later.

That was a bit harsh. Maybe just sick of the same old tropes being bandied about by those who worship The Orange Man. I note that particular post had some interesting points, but much like Patel and Bondi in front of Senate Committees, you choose to ignore them. I wonder why. See below I guess.

I just adjusted your last sentence to read better:

"Looking over your recent posts, I can see I don't have any counter arguments to some very well made points."

To which I say - colour me surprised!

 

[skye]

 

[fncceo]

Europe didn't start the war, Germany did.

I’m no cartographer … but I’m fairly certain Germany is IN Europe.

By EU standards, World War II started as a civil war.

 

[Dr Grump]

I’m no cartographer … but I’m fairly certain Germany is IN Europe.

By EU standards, World War II started as a civil war.

Germany is PART of Europe. It is not Europe.
So the Mexican-American War of 1846 was a civil war? Using your definition? Uh, ok....

 

[fncceo]

Germany is PART of Europe. It is not Europe.
So the Mexican-American War of 1846 was a civil war? Using your definition? Uh, ok....

There currently is an European Union … apparently Europeans feel comfortable with identifying as a single entity.

There has never been a North American Union. Canada, United Stated, and Mexico do not now or never have considered themselves a single entity.

 

[Lumpy 1]

We`ll support the Kings while you support the pedophiles.

It’s Democrats that devalued children ... starting with abortion and now it's carving them up. I wonder what's next ..

 

[fncceo]

It’s Democrats that devalued children ... starting with abortion and now it's carving them up. I wonder what's next ..

Baby Food.

 

[Leo123]

There is no war in Greenland, loons.

 

[Captain Caveman]

This is obviously going to just be my take on this:
1. Most of Europe (not all) are hellbent on being part of the Globalist New World Order, no nation borders policies, which allow open borders and thus has had a huge influx of millions of Muslim males of combat age into their nations. Some of those nations have been complaining at the EU meetings that the EU is becoming Marxist and Islam is impacting the nations decisions.
2. As those same nations are part of the NATO alliance and many of those nations stick to the Marxist Globalist New World Order, in time they would cease to be a reliable ally to the United States. Marxist nations are not now, nor ever have been allies with the United States and its free-market capitalism and freedoms.
3. So the United States "should" reconsider its alliance with NATO and meet with those European and Eastern European (Baltic) nations who are unhappy with the direction that the EU continues on and discuss forming a different alliance. Poland, Hungary and Italy are nations that are unhappy with the direction of the EU and nations like Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania might also go along with this.

Your take "on this" is just a bunch of clichés.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Glad to see we agree. Anyway, back to Greenland and NATO.

NATO may be a defensive pact, but it's not to defend America. America's geography and military might make it unassailable with or without NATO.

NATO was always meant America will defend Europe against the USSR. Well, the USSR doesn't exist anymore, America is less interested in spending its wealth to defend Europe, and Europe is taking the hint and finally building up its own military.

Having said that, I don't support the US unilaterally taking Greenland. We already got all the bases there we want. We don't need the headaches of running the island too.

What happened to TACO? The left spent several cups of coffee telling us that Trump always chickens out. Which was bad. But now he might actually follow through, which is also bad. For reasons.

NATO was there because the US felt it needed to get as many countries on its side as possible. The more they had, the more powerful they were. Still holds today.

 

[fncceo]

NATO was there because the US felt it needed to get as many countries on its side as possible. The more they had, the more powerful they were. Still holds today.

When NATO was founded, back in 1949, The Soviets were an existential threat to Europe and would shortly become one to The USA with nuclear weapons.

The Soviets haven’t been a legitimate threat to us or Europe since their empire collapsed and arguably a decade or more earlier.

It has outlived it’s usefulness and costs is billions every year.

We are being forced to support an expensive treaty to protect our economic competition against an enemy that is no longer a threat.

We may as well give a billion dollars a year to China for upkeep on The Great Wall in case Genghis Khan comes back.

 

[Dr Grump]

There currently is an European Union … apparently Europeans feel comfortable with identifying as a single entity.

There has never been a North American Union. Canada, United Stated, and Mexico do not now or never have considered themselves a single entity.

You were talking about two world wars. There was no European Union back then.

 

[Flopper]

Yeah, no.
Look, Denmark isn't protecting their own country, let alone a territory multiple times larger. No.

You don't understand a military alliance. An attack on one member is an attack on all. NATO will defend Denmark and it's possession from an aggressor.

What happens when the aggressor is the largest member of NATO?

If Donald Trump continues to insist that Greenland “must” belong to the United States, Denmark will almost certainly be forced into negotiations, not because it wants to sell territory, but because it must avoid the unthinkable: military confrontation with its own ally.

The most likely outcome is not an invasion, but a deal. That deal could be minor, such as a revision of the 1951 defense agreement that already grants the United States extensive and largely unrestricted access to Greenland for military purposes. Or it could be far more consequential, potentially involving the sale or long-term control of part of the island’s northern territory. Either way, Trump would declare a historic triumph, proclaim himself a master negotiator, and very likely brand the result as a personal conquest perhaps even symbolically renaming Greenland itself.

Another possibility is that Trump deliberately drags out negotiations until public attention fades, then abruptly ends the process. I consider this unlikely. Trump does not seek a stalemate; he seeks a victory, a visible “win,” not a prolonged impasse.

The final and most dangerous scenario is an outright invasion of Greenland, bringing U.S. forces into direct conflict with NATO troops. This would effectively shatter the NATO alliance overnight. The consequences would extend far beyond the Arctic: it would hand Vladimir Putin an open invitation to begin absorbing Eastern European nations, confident that the alliance meant to stop him no longer exists.

This is the least likely outcome, but it cannot be dismissed. Its prevention depends on whether enough members of Congress particularly Republicans are willing to find the courage to restrain a president before he irreparably damages the most successful defensive alliance in modern history.

That is the real question at stake: not Greenland, but whether NATO can survive a world in which its strongest member becomes its greatest threat.

 

[22lcidw]

You were talking about two world wars. There was no European Union back then.

Europe conquered the planet with colonies everywhere going ack in recorded history. According to you whites are the worst on the planet. I care no for your Prog cities. For an uneasy exitance we need more avenues of potential revenue that Greenland may provide. How about this. We jettison Puerto Rico. Face it, they are one of the biggest pariahs in modern times. You say nothing.

 

[Dr Grump]

Europe conquered the planet with colonies everywhere going ack in recorded history. According to you whites are the worst on the planet. I care no for your Prog cities. For an uneasy exitance we need more avenues of potential revenue that Greenland may provide. How about this. We jettison Puerto Rico. Face it, they are one of the biggest pariahs in modern times. You say nothing.

Couldn't give a shit what you do with Puerto Rico. My DNA is 66 per cent Scottish, 31 per cent Irish and 4 per cent Nordic. If I was any more whiter I'd be snow. I'm not from the US. I have no time for wokism either. Even less for Trump. You're all idiots.

 

[fncceo]

You were talking about two world wars. There was no European Union back then.

In fact, there have been more than 1,000 European wars in the last 2,000 years.

The longest continuous period of peace between Europeans was 50 years.

And yet, they know have such a cultural and historical affinity that they want to be considered a single European entity.

If that’s the case, then they don’t need us to protect them from themselves.

 

[Dr Grump]

In fact, there have been more than 1,000 European wars in the last 2,000 years.

The longest continuous period of peace between Europeans was 50 years.

And yet, they know have such a cultural and historical affinity that they want to be considered a single European entity.

If that’s the case, then they don’t need us to protect them from themselves.

I agree. I think they should look after themselves. In saying that, it is always good to have allies. I think a lot of right-wing Americans are isolationists. That's not a good idea either.

 

[fncceo]

I agree. I think they should look after themselves. In saying that, it is always good to have allies. I think a lot of right-wing Americans are isolationists. That's not a good idea either.

I am very much a foreign policy isolationist.

In the wake of the 2nd World War when we had the only totally intact military on the globe. We had more ships, planes, and tanks that went straight from the factory to the scrap yard than any other country had in service (including the USSR). We had a military industrial complex second to none and the spectre of a predominant USSR in Europe to inspire fear.

This prompted us into believing that we could continue to be the arsenal of the “Free World” and protector of the globe.

This mindset led us into Korea, into Vietnam, into the Middle East, even back into Europe when Yugoslavia fell apart.

None of these interventions have been a positive for us. Our “allies” support us militarily (without actually supply much in the way of military) while they compete with us economically - with the economic advantage of not having to pay for their own defence.

America isn’t under threat form a foreign power - although we have managed to be under threat from foreigners we have allowed to flood in.

There is no legitimate reason for this to continue this status quo from the last 80 years. If weaker nations want the benefit of Pax Americana, they need to pay the tribute.

You can’t burn to the American flag in your parliament and expect the American flag to come to your rescue when the chips are down.