Greendland - why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Russia is not holding back in the Ukraine. That is an idiotic statement. Russia has lost 3 armies against 1980’s technology against a country with a fourth of its population and a 10th of its GDP. NATO without the US would destroy Russia even with the US bricking the F35 and surveillance tech. NATO without the US has a population of 610 million and a GPD of 26 trillion vs Russia’s 144 million and GDP of 1.8 trillion. Who do you think would win?

If the US takes Greenland 7 European states will go nuclear within a month with missiles pointed at the US. Also NATO will be over and the US will lose all European bases(31 major bases and 50-80 shared access). The US military will not be allow to enter or refuel/resupply in European territory. They will sanction the US(and Israel). Israel’s survival depends on US pressure on Europe and would be crippled with European sanctions.

The US would lose Australia joint bases, British Indian Ocean Territory naval bases(Diego Garcia), Canadian air force bases, Singapore air force bases, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (United Kingdom) air force bases, Ascension Island (United Kingdom) space force bases, etc. The logistics problem supplying the US fleet would be almost unworkable. Oh and Five Eyes and all intelligence sharing would be over.

Without NATO we would have to conservatively increase our defense spending by 3-4 times to maintain the same presence. Seems like a great trade for a place that will be cover with 2 miles of ice for 500-1,000 years, we can access any of their resources through the free market and we already have bases on.

You republicans have chosen Russia over Europe and NATO. It is utterly stupid(see above)

Russia doesn’t use their heavy bombers/missiles on Ukraine, they could but don’t.

It sounds like you think Europe can defend itself w/o the US in NATO. I agree, fantastic, close the US bases in Europe and send all the troops/equipment home. WWll ended 75+years ago, why are still there given all their economic/military power that you cite ? The rest of the bases can be negotiated with the other countries. But, the more that are closed, the better. The US has been defending the world forever, let others step up. We’ll worry about the Western hemisphere, which includes Greenland.

Russia probably uses WWI planes. All their equipment is crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Russia is not holding back in the Ukraine. That is an idiotic statement. Russia has lost 3 armies against 1980’s technology against a country with a fourth of its population and a 10th of its GDP. NATO without the US would destroy Russia even with the US bricking the F35 and surveillance tech. NATO without the US has a population of 610 million and a GPD of 26 trillion vs Russia’s 144 million and GDP of 1.8 trillion. Who do you think would win?

If the US takes Greenland 7 European states will go nuclear within a month with missiles pointed at the US. Also NATO will be over and the US will lose all European bases(31 major bases and 50-80 shared access). The US military will not be allow to enter or refuel/resupply in European territory. They will sanction the US(and Israel). Israel’s survival depends on US pressure on Europe and would be crippled with European sanctions.

The US would lose Australia joint bases, British Indian Ocean Territory naval bases(Diego Garcia), Canadian air force bases, Singapore air force bases, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (United Kingdom) air force bases, Ascension Island (United Kingdom) space force bases, etc. The logistics problem supplying the US fleet would be almost unworkable. Oh and Five Eyes and all intelligence sharing would be over.

Without NATO we would have to conservatively increase our defense spending by 3-4 times to maintain the same presence. Seems like a great trade for a place that will be cover with 2 miles of ice for 500-1,000 years, we can access any of their resources through the free market and we already have bases on.

You republicans have chosen Russia over Europe and NATO. It is utterly stupid(see above)

Russia doesn’t use their heavy bombers/missiles on Ukraine, they could but don’t.

It sounds like you think Europe can defend itself w/o the US in NATO. I agree, fantastic, close the US bases in Europe and send all the troops/equipment home. WWll ended 75+years ago, why are still there given all their economic/military power that you cite ? The rest of the bases can be negotiated with the other countries. But, the more that are closed, the better. The US has been defending the world forever, let others step up. We’ll worry about the Western hemisphere, which includes Greenland.

Russia probably uses WWI planes. All their equipment is crap.

No, the Russians still have cold war era bombers, but they are afraid to put them directly over Ukrainian airspace because they would get shot down. But that said, increasing numbers of those have been getting destroyed at air bases far inland from the Ukrainian border thanks to long range drones and covert sabotage operations - along with more and more becoming inoperable due to general decay from lack of maintenance and budget. And, those long range bombers are not easily replaceable, especially given that many of the Soviet designers and engineers who were responsible for designing and building them were Ukrainians, Russia lacking the know-how, along with Russian factory capabilities being lacking, and sanctions preventing them from importing needed parts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever.

Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved.

No. Russia has lost more than 400 aircraft in this war, and an additional 350 or so helicopters. Ukraine too has its losses, which is why the F-16s and so on tend to only operate in western Ukraine to shoot down drones and missiles. Neither side is getting anywhere close to the line of contact. Anything in the air gets shot down. And Ukraine is very good at it. They do have Patriots and other systems to make Russian air power pretty useless except for long distance glide bombs.

This war would be very different if one side had air dominance. But neither does. So we have this war of attrition. We should all be very grateful we have F-22s, F-35s, and stealth bombers so that American soldiers never have to fight this kind of war.

Russia has cruise missiles that they are holding in reserve, they are unstoppable. But they are not using them for some reason.

The Kalibr? Ukraine shoots down most of them, but not all. Regardless, Russia is not holding anything back - except nukes. What you see in Ukraine is what you get from Russia. This is total war for them. And Poland would defeat them in a week if Russia chose that course of action.

They have been using their Kalibrs, but the other one they occasionally talk about is the Oreshnik, hypersonic, MIRV, nuclear capable. But that one's largely unproven. The only videos that seem to exist of Oreshnik in use seems to show them failing, either fragmenting or the MIRVs coming in tumbling and unguided with their warheads unable to detonate. And it's also weird that they claim the West does not have hypersonic missiles - bizarre given we've had hypersonic Minuteman ICBMs since the 1960s.

[Anonymous]

Why not? Because the US wants to invade another country and take it over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever.

Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved.

No. Russia has lost more than 400 aircraft in this war, and an additional 350 or so helicopters. Ukraine too has its losses, which is why the F-16s and so on tend to only operate in western Ukraine to shoot down drones and missiles. Neither side is getting anywhere close to the line of contact. Anything in the air gets shot down. And Ukraine is very good at it. They do have Patriots and other systems to make Russian air power pretty useless except for long distance glide bombs.

This war would be very different if one side had air dominance. But neither does. So we have this war of attrition. We should all be very grateful we have F-22s, F-35s, and stealth bombers so that American soldiers never have to fight this kind of war.

Russia has cruise missiles that they are holding in reserve, they are unstoppable. But they are not using them for some reason.

You have to have a target that's a good fit for them.

Plus they have to work, which is often a problem for the Russians. Many of their announced weapon systems are vaporware. They have a very long history of doing that.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t clicked into this thread, but wow. I didn’t think it would be a MAGA post. OP if you’re fine with forcibly becoming Russian, or Chinese then your question is valid. Otherwise, STFU!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who gives an F about Greenland. We have more than enough issues here to worry about; why are we concerned with taking over some country that as far as I can tell we have no right to take.

Because Trump needs more distractions from the Epstein files so we’ll all stop talking about how he was supplying girls for a world’s biggest pedo ring.

Oh yea, everything goes back to the Epstein files. Dems will talking about those files 50 years from now, like people talked about the JFK files for all those years. Can someone tell me why Biden didn’t release the files ?

Because Biden was a placeholder who didn't work out as intended. The current president is more embarrassingly awful than Biden was. Trump is that current president and Epstein was his close friend during a large portion of the darkest Epstein years so it's fair to ask for those files.

So what if he’s placeholder, that didn’t stop him and his autopen from doing all kinds of really stupid shit. A more plausible reason is that Epstein was “friends” with a lot of Democrats, probably more than Republicans. Ever think of that ?

Biden was a big ole mistake and 95% of Dems aren't afraid to admit that. Trump was nominated three consecutive times and there are still idiot MAGAS who don't understand and acknowledge that mistake. Intelligence advantage is firmly in the Dem's favor.

You still don’t explain why Biden or his handlers didn’t release the files if they are the holly grail of truth that every Democrat on this board now claims them to be. Why, Why, Why ? Stop hiding behind Biden was a mistake, that doesn’t cut it.

let's release the files and find out why. Sunlight is what is needed.

[Anonymous]

Ogles: "It's important that we have a stake in Greenland, that they are quite frankly a protectorate of the US. They've been in relationship with Denmark - that needs to end. We've spilled more blood protecting Greenland than the Danes... we are the dominant predator force in the Western Hemisphere"


He is right WE are the predator force, which goes against all of our values going back 250 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside how he has gone about it, what's wrong with the idea of Greenland joining the US. It cannot be negative for the very small population over there, and could be positive for them. As for the US many many benefits. So, setting aside the rhetoric, what's wrong?

As a Canadian, I can tell you that nobody living in a rich country wants to be part of the sh$tshow called the US.

Who would want to be governed by a narcissistic psychopath with dementia?

Who would want to live is a country where brown people are grabbed off the street by masked ICE with no due process?

Who would want to live in a country where measles and whopping cough are making a comeback?

Who would want to live in a country where kindergartners must do active shooter drills?

Do you really think that is what Greenlanders want?

Eh ? Sure.

[Anonymous]

What is the basis of Denmark's claim on Greenland ?

This is an issue best left to the citizens of Greenland based on an informed campaign.

Greenlanders are not happy with Denmark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the basis of Denmark's claim on Greenland ?

This is an issue best left to the citizens of Greenland based on an informed campaign.

Greenlanders are not happy with Denmark.

They can vote themselves out anytime they want. Denmark has already stated that they would respect their independence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the basis of Denmark's claim on Greenland ?

This is an issue best left to the citizens of Greenland based on an informed campaign.

Greenlanders are not happy with Denmark.

Greenlanders want full independence, not to become subjects to a different power. Except they also want to keep money coming in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the basis of Denmark's claim on Greenland ?

This is an issue best left to the citizens of Greenland based on an informed campaign.

Greenlanders are not happy with Denmark.

Greenlanders want full independence, not to become subjects to a different power. Except they also want to keep money coming in.

There is, and has been, support in Greenland for becoming closely attached to the United States of America currently and since the 1860s.

Denmark claims responsibility for the defense of Greenland, yet the Danish military is smaller than the New York City police dept.

China has tried to invest in major infrastructure projects in Greenland with the most recent being two airports. Greenland Ned's & is seeking outside investment which Denmark is incapable and/or unwilling to provide.

President Trump and his advisors see the future clearly regarding Greenland. The real issue is whether Greenlanders prefer to learn Mandarin or English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the basis of Denmark's claim on Greenland ?

This is an issue best left to the citizens of Greenland based on an informed campaign.

Greenlanders are not happy with Denmark.

Actually Greenlanders are very happy with Denmark and have no interest in becoming an affiliate of the US. Facts matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the basis of Denmark's claim on Greenland ?

This is an issue best left to the citizens of Greenland based on an informed campaign.

Greenlanders are not happy with Denmark.

Greenlanders want full independence, not to become subjects to a different power. Except they also want to keep money coming in.

There is, and has been, support in Greenland for becoming closely attached to the United States of America currently and since the 1860s.

Denmark claims responsibility for the defense of Greenland, yet the Danish military is smaller than the New York City police dept.

China has tried to invest in major infrastructure projects in Greenland with the most recent being two airports. Greenland Ned's & is seeking outside investment which Denmark is incapable and/or unwilling to provide.

President Trump and his advisors see the future clearly regarding Greenland. The real issue is whether Greenlanders prefer to learn Mandarin or English.

This is a silly take, but if they are paying attention to the world at all right now I think that they’d gladly take the order of China over the ignorant chaos of the US.

All one has to do is look at the trajectories of the two and it’s easy to see that the US is in steep decline while China is accelerating its advantage under poor US leadership.