Greendland - why not?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

You could save yourself a lot of typing just by stating "might makes right".

Tell me again - how did Denmark come to "own" Greenland? Oh, right - the European colonial regimes just showed up and took it, without regard for the handful of Inuit people living there, then traded it around like a poker chip. Sounds a lot like "might make right" to me.

Denmark wouldn't even exist if not for America. Denmark was invaded by Germany during WW2 and we liberated it. The least they can do is not make a fuss about returning this chunk of ice in North America to its logical owners, when we have such a clear need of it for our national defense.

Not that it actually matters, but Denmark was largely liberated by the British, small parts were liberated by the Soviets.

Nobody’s liberated if the US doesn’t “invade” (yes I said it) France on D-Day. Ungrateful MFers should go read some of their own history.

We didn't liberate Europe as much from the Nazis, as we preliberated the continent from a far more enduring threat: communism and the Soviets. We went in to save western Europe from domination by the Soviets.

We would be on the other side today.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

You could save yourself a lot of typing just by stating "might makes right".

Tell me again - how did Denmark come to "own" Greenland? Oh, right - the European colonial regimes just showed up and took it, without regard for the handful of Inuit people living there, then traded it around like a poker chip. Sounds a lot like "might make right" to me.

Denmark wouldn't even exist if not for America. Denmark was invaded by Germany during WW2 and we liberated it. The least they can do is not make a fuss about returning this chunk of ice in North America to its logical owners, when we have such a clear need of it for our national defense.

Not that it actually matters, but Denmark was largely liberated by the British, small parts were liberated by the Soviets.

Nobody’s liberated if the US doesn’t “invade” (yes I said it) France on D-Day. Ungrateful MFers should go read some of their own history.

Sounds like you're an ungrateful MFer since you conveniently forget that were it not for the French, you would be hailing King Charles and not the Great Orange Blunder.

Wrong, England was running out of money, no way they control this entire country. Would have just taken longer. Plus, your taking about massive differences in men, equipment, and lives lost.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

You could save yourself a lot of typing just by stating "might makes right".

Tell me again - how did Denmark come to "own" Greenland? Oh, right - the European colonial regimes just showed up and took it, without regard for the handful of Inuit people living there, then traded it around like a poker chip. Sounds a lot like "might make right" to me.

Denmark wouldn't even exist if not for America. Denmark was invaded by Germany during WW2 and we liberated it. The least they can do is not make a fuss about returning this chunk of ice in North America to its logical owners, when we have such a clear need of it for our national defense.

Not that it actually matters, but Denmark was largely liberated by the British, small parts were liberated by the Soviets.

Nobody’s liberated if the US doesn’t “invade” (yes I said it) France on D-Day. Ungrateful MFers should go read some of their own history.

We didn't liberate Europe as much from the Nazis, as we preliberated the continent from a far more enduring threat: communism and the Soviets. We went in to save western Europe from domination by the Soviets.

We would be on the other side today.

No, we ARE on the other side today.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

Wow, if Trump said it this way, it might go over better. I’ve thought from the beginning that some kind of deal gets done. This is just another trading opportunity for Wallstreet.

Agreed. President Trump is not articulate about it (he just tweets out "WE NEED GREENLAND") but that doesn't mean he's wrong. It's very important for the USA.

Then why wasn’t it mentioned in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released two months ago?

Or what about his first term? Was Greenland not important then, or was Trump too dumb to care about it then?

He was talking about acquiring Greenland during his first term. And Russia and China have made great strides in hypersonic missile technology that brings new urgency to the need for a robust missile defense system to protect the United States, of which Greenland is an essential component.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

Wow, if Trump said it this way, it might go over better. I’ve thought from the beginning that some kind of deal gets done. This is just another trading opportunity for Wallstreet.

Agreed. President Trump is not articulate about it (he just tweets out "WE NEED GREENLAND") but that doesn't mean he's wrong. It's very important for the USA.

Then why wasn’t it mentioned in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released two months ago?

Or what about his first term? Was Greenland not important then, or was Trump too dumb to care about it then?

He was talking about acquiring Greenland during his first term. And Russia and China have made great strides in hypersonic missile technology that brings new urgency to the need for a robust missile defense system to protect the United States, of which Greenland is an essential component.

We already have a base there.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

Wow, if Trump said it this way, it might go over better. I’ve thought from the beginning that some kind of deal gets done. This is just another trading opportunity for Wallstreet.

Agreed. President Trump is not articulate about it (he just tweets out "WE NEED GREENLAND") but that doesn't mean he's wrong. It's very important for the USA.

Then why wasn’t it mentioned in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released two months ago?

Or what about his first term? Was Greenland not important then, or was Trump too dumb to care about it then?

He was talking about acquiring Greenland during his first term. And Russia and China have made great strides in hypersonic missile technology that brings new urgency to the need for a robust missile defense system to protect the United States, of which Greenland is an essential component.

So he’s afraid of Russia and China but he’s ceding all power in the world, economically, to China, while inviting Russia to his Temu NATO Pedo Lardo Club and leaking intelligence on Ukraine to Russia?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

Wow, if Trump said it this way, it might go over better. I’ve thought from the beginning that some kind of deal gets done. This is just another trading opportunity for Wallstreet.

Agreed. President Trump is not articulate about it (he just tweets out "WE NEED GREENLAND") but that doesn't mean he's wrong. It's very important for the USA.

Then why wasn’t it mentioned in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released two months ago?

Or what about his first term? Was Greenland not important then, or was Trump too dumb to care about it then?

He was talking about acquiring Greenland during his first term. And Russia and China have made great strides in hypersonic missile technology that brings new urgency to the need for a robust missile defense system to protect the United States, of which Greenland is an essential component.

We already have a base there.

There are so many silly angles to this. They are letting a mentally incompetent leader in the US set the world back decades because…?

I still can’t figure out why. I mean, besides money.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

You could save yourself a lot of typing just by stating "might makes right".

Tell me again - how did Denmark come to "own" Greenland? Oh, right - the European colonial regimes just showed up and took it, without regard for the handful of Inuit people living there, then traded it around like a poker chip. Sounds a lot like "might make right" to me.

Denmark wouldn't even exist if not for America. Denmark was invaded by Germany during WW2 and we liberated it. The least they can do is not make a fuss about returning this chunk of ice in North America to its logical owners, when we have such a clear need of it for our national defense.

Not that it actually matters, but Denmark was largely liberated by the British, small parts were liberated by the Soviets.

Nobody’s liberated if the US doesn’t “invade” (yes I said it) France on D-Day. Ungrateful MFers should go read some of their own history.

We didn't liberate Europe as much from the Nazis, as we preliberated the continent from a far more enduring threat: communism and the Soviets. We went in to save western Europe from domination by the Soviets.

The Soviet's didn't have the military might of Germany in that era and were only able to overcome the German march to Moscow due to Germany attempting to fight wars on two fronts. Europe, with or without the help of the US, could have fought off a Soviet invasion much more easily than what they were dealing with from Nazi Germany.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

Wow, if Trump said it this way, it might go over better. I’ve thought from the beginning that some kind of deal gets done. This is just another trading opportunity for Wallstreet.

Agreed. President Trump is not articulate about it (he just tweets out "WE NEED GREENLAND") but that doesn't mean he's wrong. It's very important for the USA.

Then why wasn’t it mentioned in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy released two months ago?

Or what about his first term? Was Greenland not important then, or was Trump too dumb to care about it then?

He was talking about acquiring Greenland during his first term. And Russia and China have made great strides in hypersonic missile technology that brings new urgency to the need for a robust missile defense system to protect the United States, of which Greenland is an essential component.

We already have a base there.

+10000000000000000

This is so stupid.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

You could save yourself a lot of typing just by stating "might makes right".

Tell me again - how did Denmark come to "own" Greenland? Oh, right - the European colonial regimes just showed up and took it, without regard for the handful of Inuit people living there, then traded it around like a poker chip. Sounds a lot like "might make right" to me.

Denmark wouldn't even exist if not for America. Denmark was invaded by Germany during WW2 and we liberated it. The least they can do is not make a fuss about returning this chunk of ice in North America to its logical owners, when we have such a clear need of it for our national defense.

Not that it actually matters, but Denmark was largely liberated by the British, small parts were liberated by the Soviets.

Nobody’s liberated if the US doesn’t “invade” (yes I said it) France on D-Day. Ungrateful MFers should go read some of their own history.

Sounds like you're an ungrateful MFer since you conveniently forget that were it not for the French, you would be hailing King Charles and not the Great Orange Blunder.

Wrong, England was running out of money, no way they control this entire country. Would have just taken longer. Plus, your taking about massive differences in men, equipment, and lives lost.

You are just doubling down on proving you're an idiot.

"Without the direct and indirect assistance of France, it is doubtful that Americans could have won the war for independence. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French national debt incurred during the war contributed to the fiscal crisis France experienced in the late 1780s, and that was one factor that brought on the French Revolution. In the end, the French people paid a high price for helping America gain its independence."

https://www.jyfmuseums.org/learn/research-and-collections/essays/how-did-the-french-alliance-help-win-american-independence

[Anonymous]

Lavrov: “If Greenland is ‘U.S. security,’ then Crimea is ‘Russian security.’”

Russia predictably using this as cover. Putin is pleased. (H/T @allenanalysis )

[Anonymous]

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

You could save yourself a lot of typing just by stating "might makes right".

Tell me again - how did Denmark come to "own" Greenland? Oh, right - the European colonial regimes just showed up and took it, without regard for the handful of Inuit people living there, then traded it around like a poker chip. Sounds a lot like "might make right" to me.

Denmark wouldn't even exist if not for America. Denmark was invaded by Germany during WW2 and we liberated it. The least they can do is not make a fuss about returning this chunk of ice in North America to its logical owners, when we have such a clear need of it for our national defense.

Not that it actually matters, but Denmark was largely liberated by the British, small parts were liberated by the Soviets.

Nobody’s liberated if the US doesn’t “invade” (yes I said it) France on D-Day. Ungrateful MFers should go read some of their own history.

We didn't liberate Europe as much from the Nazis, as we preliberated the continent from a far more enduring threat: communism and the Soviets. We went in to save western Europe from domination by the Soviets.

We would be on the other side today.

God I wish. We fought for the wrong side.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FAFO

*DANISH PENSION FUND AKADEMIKERPENSION TO EXIT US TREASURIES

Greenland has 56,000 total residents.

The NYPD could conquer Greenland with a few overtime shifts.

But they will not be fighting Greenlanders, so what then.

They won't be fighting anyone. Europe is not going to do anything. They will be completely wrecked if they attack any Americans sent to secure Greenland.

They are treaty bound to defend Greenland. What kind of a fantasy world do you live in? China is laughing.

oh, my bad. There's a treaty huh? Surely the EU will attempt to use military force against the U.S. because there's a treaty with some words on paper. lol. lmao even.

How old are you? Guessing that you had no relatives who fought and died in WWII. You may have no historical understanding of the world order, but Europeans do, even if their relatives who fought in that war are no longer with us.

Not sure what your point is in invoking WW2. The U.S. military stepped in an saved the UK/France/etc's bacon in WW1 and again in WW2. Do you actually think the EU is going to use military force against the U.S. when we secure Greenland as part of of America? If anything, they should be happy to give it to the United States to secure as a key strategic location in the accelerating geopolitical Arctic game.

Look at the ICBM path of potential missiles from Russia or China to the United States and you'll see why we need to control Greenland as a vital part of American security in the 21st Century.

We don't need to own it. They literally are happy for us to have bases there. Their people do not need to be US citizens and we don't need to make them, or acquire Greenland, to protect it, in turn protecting both our interests and theirs.

The argument that we must "own" it is twaddle.

The U.S. is about to embark on a major missile defense system (Golden Dome) to protect America from incoming missiles from the major geopolitical rivals Russia, China, and maybe others one day. Greenland is critical to the defense of America in that respect. We cannot be expected to rely on little Denmark to give us "permission" to protect the United States from missile attack by leveraging Greenland. We can't be expected to spend trillions of dollars on equipment and installations on land that Denmark will "own" and that is so critical for defending the USA.

Greenland is a big frozen rock on the North American continent with a "population" that could fit inside Dodger Stadium. Denmark has no claim to ownership of Greenland and no reason to deny the United States this critical island that we need to protect ourselves against incoming missiles. Denmark has no need for Greenland and no moral claim to why they should own a colony in the Americas. This has been basic U.S. foreign policy since the Monroe Doctrine.

You could save yourself a lot of typing just by stating "might makes right".

Tell me again - how did Denmark come to "own" Greenland? Oh, right - the European colonial regimes just showed up and took it, without regard for the handful of Inuit people living there, then traded it around like a poker chip. Sounds a lot like "might make right" to me.

Denmark wouldn't even exist if not for America. Denmark was invaded by Germany during WW2 and we liberated it. The least they can do is not make a fuss about returning this chunk of ice in North America to its logical owners, when we have such a clear need of it for our national defense.

Not that it actually matters, but Denmark was largely liberated by the British, small parts were liberated by the Soviets.

Nobody’s liberated if the US doesn’t “invade” (yes I said it) France on D-Day. Ungrateful MFers should go read some of their own history.

Sounds like you're an ungrateful MFer since you conveniently forget that were it not for the French, you would be hailing King Charles and not the Great Orange Blunder.

Wrong, England was running out of money, no way they control this entire country. Would have just taken longer. Plus, your taking about massive differences in men, equipment, and lives lost.

You are just doubling down on proving you're an idiot.

"Without the direct and indirect assistance of France, it is doubtful that Americans could have won the war for independence. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French national debt incurred during the war contributed to the fiscal crisis France experienced in the late 1780s, and that was one factor that brought on the French Revolution. In the end, the French people paid a high price for helping America gain its independence."

https://www.jyfmuseums.org/learn/research-and-collections/essays/how-did-the-french-alliance-help-win-american-independence

Whatever, you skipped the part about England running out of money. And the difference in lives lost. Doesn’t fit your narrative, right? And I didn’t even mention WWI. US has sacrificed 10000x over for what France has done. Only someone who inherently hates this country would take your position. You should just leave and live with your beloved Europeans.

[Anonymous]

Can we get back to Greenland?

Denmark is being unreasonable here. Denmark does not need Greenland for its national security, as the missile threat from Russia to Denmark does not pass over Greenland. (Not to mention, the United States has provided security for Denmark for the last 80 years.)

Denmark is a tiny country located on a different continent entirely and is not capable of establishing a missile defense system to protect the United States.

The USA cannot spend the required trillions on a missile defense system in Greenland in to protect America if that system is contingent on the permission of another country.

Denmark doesn't need Greenland. We've been standing up defending the Free World for decades and now that we need something to protect ourselves our so-called "ally" is denying us. Make it make sense.