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

[Flopper]

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?

The problem with your plan is Demark owns Greenland and even if the Greenlanders wanted to join the US, Demark would probably not approve.

However that is irrelevant. 85% of Greenlanders oppose the idea of an American takeover, and many Danes see the historical ties with Greenland as an integral part of Danish national identity.

Greenlanders have a unique quality of life, with strong social safety nets (free healthcare/education), very low crime rates, strong family ties, stunning nature, and cultural richness. What they see on TV and movies makes American pretty undesirable place.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Trump has only got less than 3 years and if republican lose either House, he will be just a lane duck raving and ranting about invading other American countries.

I expect American interest will coincide with European interest for a long time. Europe is one of our largest trading partners and as long as Russia and China represent a threat to both the US and Europe, NATO, which is the largest military alliance in the world will continue to create a bond between the two.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Most every nation in existence today only exists because at some point in its past, someone STOLE the territory (conquered it) for themselves from someone else.

Any attempt to seize it would violate international law and undermine the very alliances that keep us secure.

Alliances that keep us secure? Can you name a single alliance we have that secures us more than it does anyone else? Most every alliance we are in mainly is for the betterment of others hoping to secure greater global peace.

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.

So, if we attack Greenland, we are really attacking ourselves. And as such, we might have to come to our defense to protect us from the ourselves!

In other words, any military action against Greenland would trigger the very alliance we helped build.

So, we might be attacked by the same countries which can't even close their own borders to muzzie invasion? But they can destroy us?

Beyond the legal consequences,

There are no legal consequences. There is no international court nor law save for that which we choose to recognize and obey. The international court has condemned Russia since they took the Crimea, and nothing has been done but give money to their victims and throw a few white collar "sanctions" against them. Putin wipes his ass with your legal consequences.

such an action would severely damage our relationship with one of our most reliable allies.

Denmark is our most important ally? It is a little patch of land sticking out into the Baltic Sea.

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.

Is Denmark paying you to say all of that?

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.

Relax, I mostly agree with you and point out that I think it highly unlikely we actually invade Greenland and take it. If Trump really intended that, he would not be announcing it first. No one announces they are coming to conquer anyone and give them time to prepare a defense!

 

[Rogue AI]

Trump has only got less than 3 years and if republican lose either House, he will be just a lane duck raving and ranting about invading other American countries.

I expect American interest will coincide with Europe interest for a long time. Europe is one of our largest trading partners and as long as Russia and China represent a threat to both the US and Europe, NATO, which is the largest military alliance in world with continue to create a bond between the two.

It is an uneven bond and it has no legitimate purpose without the Soviet threat. You speak of nostalgia, not real world interests. Europe has little to offer, few resources, limited long term stability, and tons of liability. The faster we remove ourselves from NATO the better. We should be moving towards being a neutral arbitrator outside our hemisphere and treat everyone equally. Within our hemisphere we should end the narco-states and foster greater development. Long term foreign entanglements are a detriment never a boon.

 

[toobfreak]

The problem with your plan is Demark owns Greenland and even if the Greenlanders wanted to join the US, Demark would probably not approve.

Wrong. Greenland was granted the power to declare themselves fully independent of Denmark by the self-rule charter of 2009. If Greenlanders want to join the USA, all they have to do is vote for 100% independence first.

In effect, instead of hanging onto a voluntary ligature of support from Denmark, they could and simply would be switch it over to being backed up by the USA now instead.

Who do you think could really support and defend Greenland better, Denmark or us?

 

[Flopper]

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.

Russia and China are a combined threat today. They of course have divergent interests but they will stand together in a time of war.

 

[toobfreak]

Russia and China are a combined threat today. They of course have divergent interests but they will stand together in a time of war.

Exactly, and now you know why Trump captured Maduro and has destabilized Iran. Between embargoing Venezuelan oil and toppling Iran, (BTW, the USA created, invested and built the oil facilities in Venezuela) that Maduro was using to now benefit our enemies) between these two actions, Trump is close to cutting off a major portion of China's vital oil supplies. Trump is going for China's short hairs.

Trump is working for the long term health, safety and security of the USA by looking perhaps decades down the road.

 

[Flopper]

It is an uneven bond and it has no legitimate purpose without the Soviet threat. You speak of nostalgia, not real world interests. Europe has little to offer, few resources, limited long term stability, and tons of liability. The faster we remove ourselves from NATO the better. We should be moving towards being a neutral arbitrator outside our hemisphere and treat everyone equally. Within our hemisphere we should end the narco-states and foster greater development. Long term foreign entanglements are a detriment never a boon.

Going it alone is a very bad idea. NATO could not stop Russia without the US, particularly If Russia had the help of North Korea and China which it probably would. We would be back in the same situation we had after WWII except it would worse. Europe, Russia, China, and North Korean would stand against the US both militarily and economically. Creating the nuclear standoff we had in 50's would not be possible.

 

[toobfreak]

Going it alone is a very bad idea.

Do you really think that out of 193 countries, the USA will ever be alone?
The one country which has done more, help more, than any other country in history?
I guess these fuchs never really were our friends after all.
What you call fair-weather friends.

Yet Russia acts as it does and gets by.
China does what it does and gets by.
Countries like Iran, NorK, and others who vow genocide against others like Israel still get by.
And they are just tiny countries.

But the great USA with so much wealth and resources is walking on eggshells if they offend anyone for any reason?

 

[Flopper]

Exactly, and now you know why Trump captured Maduro and has destabilized Iran. Between embargoing Venezuelan oil and toppling Iran, (BTW, the USA created, invested and built the oil facilities in Venezuela) that Maduro was using to now benefit our enemies) between these two actions, Trump is close to cutting off a major portion of China's vital oil supplies. Trump is going for China's short hairs.

Trump is working for the long term health, safety and security of the USA by looking perhaps decades down the road.

You think he can look decades ahead when he is wrong in predicting an end to the Ukraine war, inflation in the US, hostage releases, etc. Sorry, but Trump has no crystal ball. No one does.

 

[Rogue AI]

Going it alone is a very bad idea. NATO could not stop Russia without the US, particularly If Russia had the help of North Korea and China which it probably would. We would be back in the same situation we had after WWII except it would worse. Europe, Russia, China, and North Korean would stand against the US both militarily and economically. Creating the nuclear standoff we had in 50's would not be possible.

No need to go it alone. Short term alliances of convenience are all that are necessary. That keeps everyone honest.

You fail to realize, the only threat this nation truly faces is ICBMs. Placing our troops all over the world will never change that. Keep our troops here, continue to develop the best defense technology in the world and maintain a military force capable of handling any threat is all that is needed.

Our primary driver of international relations should be commerce. It is not our place to tell others what to do, but rather to show them what can be done.

 

[Flopper]

Do you really think that out of 193 countries, the USA will ever be alone?
The one country which has done more, help more, than any other country in history?
I guess these fuchs never really were our friends after all.
What you call fair-weather friends.

Yet Russia acts as it does and gets by.
China does what it does and gets by.
Countries like Iran, NorK, and others who vow genocide against others like Israel still get by.
And they are just tiny countries.

But the great USA with so much wealth and resources is walking on eggshells if they offend anyone for any reason?

America is respected throughout the world because we are not the kind of country that takes over other country because we say we need what they have. Invading another country under the guise of toppling a drug king pin when our real goal is take their oil certainly does create respect by other nations. Trump threatens our's neighbors with invasion if they don't bend to his will. The US image has fallen significantly due to lack of confidence in Trump.

Majorities in most countries express little or no confidence in Trump’s ability to handle specific issues, including immigration, the Russia-Ukraine war, U.S.-China relations, global economic problems, conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, and climate change. It is hard for a president to get any respect from other countries when he makes it clear to his supports that he cares only for the US and does give a shit about other countries.

We can not hope to maintain the respect of nations when they see our president as arrogant and dangerous, and dishonest.

 

[Flopper]

No need to go it alone. Short term alliances of convenience are all that are necessary. That keeps everyone honest.

You fail to realize, the only threat this nation truly faces is ICBMs. Placing our troops all over the world will never change that. Keep our troops here, continue to develop the best defense technology in the world and maintain a military force capable of handling any threat is all that is needed.

Our primary driver of international relations should be commerce. It is not our place to tell others what to do, but rather to show them what can be done.

The only reason a country needs Troops in its own country is the people do not trust their own government. When people trust their government they do not hit the streets in protest and riots. When a nation has to put troops on the streets to control the people, it is no longer a servant of the people but it's master.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No need to go it alone. Short term alliances of convenience are all that are necessary. That keeps everyone honest.

You fail to realize, the only threat this nation truly faces is ICBMs. Placing our troops all over the world will never change that. Keep our troops here, continue to develop the best defense technology in the world and maintain a military force capable of handling any threat is all that is needed.

Our primary driver of international relations should be commerce. It is not our place to tell others what to do, but rather to show them what can be done.

When other countries threaten that commerce, do you then pack up your military, load them onto ships and wait weeks or months for them to get to the offending nation to take action?

 

[Rogue AI]

When other countries threaten that commerce, do you then pack up your military, load them onto ships and wait weeks or months for them to get to the offending nation to take action?

Is that so different than what we do now? We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan in days.

 

[toobfreak]

You think he can look decades ahead when he is wrong in predicting an end to the Ukraine war, inflation in the US, hostage releases, etc. Sorry, but Trump has no crystal ball. No one does.

Oh, so now you need a crystal ball to see what China and Russia have been working toward for years? Years of trying to put BRICS together? Years of gathered intelligence by the CIA? You don't need a crystal ball for that Flopper, all you need is a ******* NEWSPAPER! That and some business acumen and the desire and willingness to act against it not wanting to see America maneuvered into being between a rock and a hard place, instead of a guy like Joe Biden who didn't care, probably wants it to happen or at least is willing to look the other way if you bribe him enough to make it worth his while.

After all, what does Joe have left? Maybe two years more years on this planet? He and his ENTIRE FAMILY have built their lives and fortunes off sponging on the rest of us.

And no one ever said Trump was clairvoyant with Ukraine or inflation... who is? All Trump ever said was that the Ukraine War wouldn't have started had he been in office and that he would have been able to end it in weeks had he been in office at its start. I don't know if that is true, but I sure prefer a leader with a can-do git-er-done attitude than Joe Biden's attitude of never having even once ever talked with Putin in his four years after the war began.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Is that so different than what we do now? We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan in days.

We had aircraft carriers and Marines already there, dumbass. Days not weeks or months. You propose having them at home.

 

[Alex_northern_germany]

We had aircraft carriers and Marines already there, dumbass. Days not weeks or months. You propose having them at home.

You have already a camp there Camp Century - Wikipedia

 

[Correll]

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

Aw come on, let's put a LITTLE effort into the story. They are "REFUGEES", fleeing terrible MAGA AMERICA.....

lol. Doesn't matter that it is an obvious lie. As "refugees", they get to land and then get government assistance and soon enough can vote.

 

[Correll]

The problem with your plan is Demark owns Greenland and even if the Greenlanders wanted to join the US, Demark would probably not approve.

However that is irrelevant. 85% of Greenlanders oppose the idea of an American takeover, and many Danes see the historical ties with Greenland as an integral part of Danish national identity.

Greenlanders have a unique quality of life, with strong social safety nets (free healthcare/education), very low crime rates, strong family ties, stunning nature, and cultural richness. What they see on TV and movies makes American pretty undesirable place.

Except, if 50k american "refugees" move there, and "Become" Greenland residents, because people have a RIGHT, supposedly to cross national borders, according to the left,


then a majority of "greenlanders" can vote to join the US. And anyone that says that those "Greenlanders" are not real greenlanders, are clearly "racist" or some such shit.