Trump declares that the U.S. needs to have Greenland

[scruffy]

But if NATO disappears, I don't think the USA will save money or benefit militarily. Only our adversaries will benefit.

NATO won't disappear. It was created to balance the Soviet Union, but China is equally expansionist at the moment. If anything happens with SEATO, Europe will be called on to participate and likely will.

 

[Correll]

Question.


What if Trump gave like 50k American soldiers a mission, told them to infilitrate Greenland, claim to be refugees fleeing Trump's America, demand asylum, and then vote in the next election, and elect Pro-join the us candidates to demand admission to the UNION?


After all, humans supposedly have a "right" to go wherever they want, right? According to lefties.

Only horrible "fascists" like MAGA believe otherwise.

So, that would work right? Greenland would have no choice but to accept "asylum seekers", right?

 

[toobfreak]

Agreed. He's not going to get the results he wants that way.

Yes, I'm still following the issue interested in how it all resolves. PUBLICLY, Trump is saying stuff that to me sounds more like he is trying to give Greenland reasons NOT to hook up with us! The question is what is being said PRIVATELY.

Trump plays to win and he sees his controlling Greenland as one of the best ways of really screwing up the plans of Russia and China.

Also publicly, people like the head of Columbia and I think Mexico have bristled for public show issuing warnings Trump better not come after them--- but privately, I'm sure they know by now watching what happened in Venezuela that their militaries are 3rd world jokes in comparison and cannot even hope to compete against the USA.

 

[Alex_northern_germany]

Yes, I'm still following the issue interested in how it all resolves. PUBLICLY, Trump is saying stuff that to me sounds more like he is trying to give Greenland reasons NOT to hook up with us! The question is what is being said PRIVATELY.

Trump plays to win and he sees his controlling Greenland as one of the best ways of really screwing up the plans of Russia and China.

Also publicly, people like the head of Columbia and I think Mexico have bristled for public show issuing warnings Trump better not come after them--- but privately, I'm sure they know by now watching what happened in Venezuela that their militaries are 3rd world jokes in comparison and cannot even hope to compete against the USA.

I'm being completely honest and going with my gut feeling. Without wanting to get into a political discussion about Trump, I actually think the security argument regarding Russia or China is being used as a pretext, and someone just wants to make money in Greenland. Like I said, just a gut feeling.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm being completely honest and going with my gut feeling. Without wanting to get into a political discussion about Trump, I actually think the security argument regarding Russia or China is being used as a pretext, and someone just wants to make money in Greenland. Like I said, just a gut feeling.

You could be right, I'm sure someone will make money somewhere, but for the USA, we would rather our making money for ourselves and Greenland and having some control over the situation, than for it to go to Russia or China with either of those countries having any controlling influence so close to us right above Canada.

It gives those countries far too much political, economic, and strategic influence far too close to us.

 

[Alex_northern_germany]

You could be right, I'm sure someone will make money somewhere, but for the USA, we would rather our making money for ourselves and Greenland and having some control over the situation, than for it to go to Russia or China with either of those countries having any controlling influence so close to us right above Canada.

It gives those countries far too much political, economic, and strategic influence far too close to us.

I'd rather cut off my own hand than let Greenland fall under the influence of China or Russia. But I don't understand what facts this is supposed to be based on. Where are the masses of Chinese and Russian ships supposedly planning to invade Greenland? And Greenland is a NATO member, so if one of these countries attacks Greenland, we have a NATO collective defense clause (Article 5), and then it's time to arm the missiles. But I see absolutely no evidence of an imminent Russian or Chinese attack on Greenland.

 

[toobfreak]

I'd rather cut off my own hand than let Greenland fall under the influence of China or Russia.

Well, Greenland offers an obvious strategic value from its location, but first and foremost, I think China wants Greenland to monopolize the market of resources vital to battery and computer chip manufacture and similar things, and the USA wants Greenland so it doesn't have to depend on China for these strategic minerals.

Where are the masses of Chinese and Russian ships supposedly planning to invade Greenland?

Well, Russia is already right there. All Russia needs to do is cross over the North Sea and they are there. And China and Russia are pals and share and share alike. They are central to the whole BRICS thing designed to damage the US Dollar.

And Greenland is a NATO member, so if one of these countries attacks Greenland, we have a NATO collective defense clause (Article 5), and then it's time to arm the missiles.

Has NATO ever been tested recently? Do you really think all of Europe is going to arm missiles and go to war to defend Greenland? Europe right now is not even doing well at defending itself from foreign invaders walking right across their open borders.

As usual, it will fall on the USA to defend Greenland and burden 90% of the cost.

 

[Alex_northern_germany]

Well, Greenland offers an obvious strategic value from its location, but first and foremost, I think China wants Greenland to monopolize the market of resources vital to battery and computer chip manufacture and similar things, and the USA wants Greenland so it doesn't have to depend on China for these strategic minerals.


Well, Russia is already right there. All Russia needs to do is cross over the North Sea and they are there. And China and Russia are pals and share and share alike. They are central to the whole BRICS thing designed to damage the US Dollar.


Has NATO ever been tested recently? Do you really think all of Europe is going to arm missiles and go to war to defend Greenland? Europe right now is not even doing well at defending itself from foreign invaders walking right across their open borders.

As usual, it will fall on the USA to defend Greenland and burden 90% of the cost.

I still believe in NATO, although I agree with them that we've neglected our military far too much, something I've been nagging people about for 30 years. But if an alliance clause is invoked, which we've never experienced before, then I think we'll fight. I would fight for Denmark, just as I made that decision when I was only 19. I served in a German/Danish NATO corps. And as a West German, I've known since childhood that the next major war might be the last humanity experiences. And if they occupy Greenland, you'll cover 100% of the costs. And throw the NATO in the trash.

The immigrants into our social welfare system, which I criticize strongly, have nothing to do with NATO. They're laws that I don't like either, but unfortunately, they exist.

 

[toobfreak]

I still believe in NATO,

Sure, Europe DEPENDS on NATO. It is their counterpoise against Russia, and Russia is right next to Poland and Belarus.

although I agree with them that we've neglected our military far too much, something I've been nagging people about for 30 years.

Correct. NATO took the heat of Russia off of Europe combined with massive financial backing from the USA, that this allowed EU countries to divert much of their economy which should have been spent on investing into their military instead into other social causes aimed at idyllic quality of life. But those days are ending; the USA is drawing close its constant massive funding of all of these programs.

Honestly, if the USA were attacked, I don't see a single other country coming to our aid. So, I see the issue being forced now where the EU countries will have to start investing more into these programs themselves as well as their militaries if they want to stay abreast of the Russian threat.

But if an alliance clause is invoked, which we've never experienced before, then I think we'll fight. I would fight for Denmark, just as I made that decision when I was only 19.

Denmark is right over the border just north of you. Of course you would fight for Denmark. If Denmark is attacked, you are next. Germany is the biggest economy in the EU and a technological leader, so would be a prime target for a country like Russia.

And if they occupy Greenland, you'll cover 100% of the costs. And throw the NATO in the trash.

I don't see Greenland being occupied in the conventional sense. Warfare has changed over the last 50 years from a kinetic conflict into more of a cyber conflict. You can now hurt people more easily with computers than you can battleships.

The immigrants into our social welfare system, which I criticize strongly, have nothing to do with NATO. They're laws that I don't like either, but unfortunately, they exist.

That too will eventually have to change if the EU is to survive in the long term.

 

[Alex_northern_germany]

Sure, Europe DEPENDS on NATO. It is their counterpoise against Russia, and Russia is right next to Poland and Belarus.


Correct. NATO took the heat of Russia off of Europe combined with massive financial backing from the USA, that this allowed EU countries to divert much of their economy which should have been spent on investing into their military instead into other social causes aimed at idyllic quality of life. But those days are ending; the USA is drawing close its constant massive funding of all of these programs.

Honestly, if the USA were attacked, I don't see a single other country coming to our aid. So, I see the issue being forced now where the EU countries will have to start investing more into these programs themselves as well as their militaries if they want to stay abreast of the Russian threat.


Denmark is right over the border just north of you. Of course you would fight for Denmark. If Denmark is attacked, you are next. Germany is the biggest economy in the EU and a technological leader, so would be a prime target for a country like Russia.


I don't see Greenland being occupied in the conventional sense. Warfare has changed over the last 50 years from a kinetic conflict into more of a cyber conflict. You can now hurt people more easily with computers than you can battleships.


That too will eventually have to change if the EU is to survive in the long term.

I think it's not just a question of cost, but a question of the will to have a powerful army. We haven't just spent too little money, but after the Cold War, we've lacked the will. My father, himself a colonel, always said: "Every country has an army, if not its own, then a foreign one." And just as I believe in NATO, I would fight for the USA; we've always been allies in arms since the 1950s. I've always felt that we're on the same side. And these days, you only win a war if you're globally networked and strategically coordinated, not as a lone wolf.

 

[toobfreak]

We haven't just spent too little money, but after the Cold War, we've lacked the will.

That is the thing. When you go a long time with life too comfortable and cozy, people tend to get lazy. Now these activities by Russia in Ukraine are re-awaking people to the importance of being vigilant.

And these days, you only win a war if you're globally networked and strategically coordinated, not as a lone wolf.

That is probably true, but I'm convinced now that the USA can hold its own against anyone including Russia or China if it has to, and we will be getting even stronger to deal with the contingency of Russia and China uniting as a combined threat.

 

[Alex_northern_germany]

That is the thing. When you go a long time with life too comfortable and cozy, people tend to get lazy. Now these activities by Russia in Ukraine are re-awaking people to the importance of being vigilant.


That is probably true, but I'm convinced now that the USA can hold its own against anyone including Russia or China if it has to, and we will be getting even stronger to deal with the contingency of Russia and China uniting as a combined threat.

If the US were truly at war with Russia and China, fought by any means necessary, wouldn't you be glad to have 31 other countries on your side?

 

[toobfreak]

If the US were truly at war with Russia and China, fought by any means necessary, wouldn't you be glad to have 31 other countries on your side?

That is a hypothetical situation I'd rather not think about but will leave to Generals well-paid to deal with it. Global war serves no one but the companies manufacturing all of the weapons.

 

[Alex_northern_germany]

That is a hypothetical situation I'd rather not think about but will leave to Generals well-paid to deal with it. Global war serves no one but the companies manufacturing all of the weapons.

I would very much like to hear what US generals think about NATO's strategic advantages. I place more trust in their military qualifications than in those of politicians.

 

[Clipper]

We have a large base on the northwest coast that has not been been fully developed. There is no need to take over Greenland to increase our military presence. And if we want that base to be much larger we can do that too without annexing Greenland.

Exactly. And that's what Denmark has related to that lunatic Trump & his lackeys such as Little Marco.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Question.


What if Trump gave like 50k American soldiers a mission, told them to infilitrate Greenland, claim to be refugees fleeing Trump's America, demand asylum, and then vote in the next election, and elect Pro-join the us candidates to demand admission to the UNION?


After all, humans supposedly have a "right" to go wherever they want, right? According to lefties.

Only horrible "fascists" like MAGA believe otherwise.

So, that would work right? Greenland would have no choice but to accept "asylum seekers", right?

They can just fly there. WE ALREADY HAVE BASES THERE.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump wants to destroy NATO for his Russian puppet master.

Trump wants to make a legacy of imperialism, because he is jealous of his Russian puppet master.

Trump also is being fueled by billionaires who are manipulating him, as they want Greenlands resources. They just compliment the fat rapist charity thief, and it's like a shot of adrenaline directly to his heart.

 

[Flopper]

We will pay the lions share in blood and treasure if there is a conflict over Greenland. The Danes will offer a mere fraction of what is required to defend it. Why shouldn't we own it? It isn't a temporary measure, it's a permanent situation. It should have been done right after WWII.

Why shouldn’t the United States “own” Greenland? To begin with, Greenland has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark since 1380, and it is not for sale. Any attempt to seize it would violate international law and undermine the very alliances that keep us secure.

Under the NATO charter, an attack on Greenland is an attack on Denmark and therefore an attack on NATO itself. That would obligate every NATO member, including the United States, to respond. In other words, any military action against Greenland would trigger the very alliance we helped build.

Beyond the legal consequences, such an action would severely damage our relationship with one of our most reliable allies. Denmark has never voted against a U.S. resolution at the United Nations. They have stood with us in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo, providing both troops and logistical support. They also play a critical role in monitoring naval traffic from two of Russia’s most important bases—Kaliningrad and Severomorsk, headquarters of the Russian Northern Fleet. Losing Danish cooperation would cost us far more in intelligence and strategic awareness than any hypothetical gain from seizing Greenland.

It is also unnecessary. The United States already has all the military access it needs under existing defense agreements with Greenland and Denmark. We maintain one active base on the northern coast that is only about 10% developed, along with seven former sites that could be reactivated if needed. The northern coast of Greenland is sparsely populated, home mostly to polar bears, not people, so there is ample room to expand our presence without violating sovereignty or provoking conflict.

In short, attempting to take Greenland would damage our alliances, weaken our intelligence capabilities, violate international law, and undermine U.S. leadership, all to gain something we already have through peaceful cooperation.

 

[Flopper]

We will pay the lions share in blood and treasure if there is a conflict over Greenland. The Danes will offer a mere fraction of what is required to defend it. Why shouldn't we own it? It isn't a temporary measure, it's a permanent situation. It should have been done right after WWII.

It would not be the Danes that defended Greenland it would be NATO which includes the US.

Why would anyone want to attack Greenland. It would mean a war with NATO including the US and what would be gained. There are certainly minerals and oil in Greenland but the cost of extraction is so high that there is very little production there. There are at least a dozen countries including the US, Russia, and China that have more minerals than Greenland and can be extracted far easier.

Now if the US put a dozen or so military sites with missiles pointed at Russia and China, then there certainly would be reasons to attack Greenland.

 

[Rogue AI]

It would not be the Danes that defended Greenland it would be NATO which includes the US.

Why would anyone want to attack Greenland. It would mean a war with NATO including the US and what would be gained. There are certainly minerals and oil in Greenland but the cost of extraction is so high that there is very little production there. There are at least a dozen countries including the US, Russia, and China that have more minerals than Greenland and can be extracted far easier.

Now if the US put a dozen or so military sites with missiles pointed at Russia and China, then there certainly would be reasons to attack Greenland.

Things change, this is a long term measure. How long will our interests coincide with Europe's? Not forever, and they have already screwed us over many times. Extracting resources in Greenland, even if expensive may still be a better option than trying to extract them here against the NIMBY crowd.