Anonymous
01/06/2026 23:43
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.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.
NATO
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 23:15
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.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.
NATO
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.
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.
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)
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:50
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Beg to differ, the US was probably the greatest colony of all time. Seems to have learned a lot from its colonizers.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's the cycle of life. Larger animals eat smaller ones. More sophisticated nations conquer unsophisticated ones. Don't try to fight what comes naturally.
People can evolve and use their brains to make choices.
We chose to buy Greenland.
Disgusting colonialist. You've learned nothing from history. Shame on you.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:47
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's the cycle of life. Larger animals eat smaller ones. More sophisticated nations conquer unsophisticated ones. Don't try to fight what comes naturally.
People can evolve and use their brains to make choices.
That's not evident from many of the posts on this forum....and the idiot OP who can't even spell Greenland correctly.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:45
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's the cycle of life. Larger animals eat smaller ones. More sophisticated nations conquer unsophisticated ones. Don't try to fight what comes naturally.
People can evolve and use their brains to make choices.
We chose to buy Greenland.
Disgusting colonialist. You've learned nothing from history. Shame on you.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:22
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.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.
NATO
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:21
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's the cycle of life. Larger animals eat smaller ones. More sophisticated nations conquer unsophisticated ones. Don't try to fight what comes naturally.
People can evolve and use their brains to make choices.
We chose to buy Greenland.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:21
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:It's the cycle of life. Larger animals eat smaller ones. More sophisticated nations conquer unsophisticated ones. Don't try to fight what comes naturally.
People can evolve and use their brains to make choices.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:19
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:Well, that is the point of this thread, see the title. If you have something else to discuss/complain about, there is probably a separate thread for that, or start one for your topic of choice. But this one is about Greenland.[/]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.
No, we’re on the same page. I meant the US/our administration has a lot of other things to worry about and should leave Greenland alone.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:13
Subject: Greendland - why not?
It's the cycle of life. Larger animals eat smaller ones. More sophisticated nations conquer unsophisticated ones. Don't try to fight what comes naturally.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:10
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Sure, just make lies to avoid the question. Did Trump control Biden to quit the race and replace with Kamala when Biden was sure to lose ?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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 ?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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 ?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.
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.
Trump was controlling Biden according to you people.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:09
Subject: Greendland - why not?
The US, in 1916, gave up any objection to Denmark having Greenland, and got the US Virgin Islands in the deal for $25M, to better be able to protect the Panama Canal.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:04
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Sure you’re right. Right after France shoots their nukes at Russia to save Greenland, per the prior post. LoL !Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh yeh right. First, the UK would stay completely out this, they know where their bread is buttered. So that leaves the French to fire nuclear weapons at Russia to save Greenland for Denmark. Good one.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.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.
NATO
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.
Both UK and France have submarines with nuclear missiles that can reach Valdai or wherever Putin is hiding.
There have been a lot of stupid posts on this thread, but you have truly surpassed them all by a wide margin. Congratulations !
DP. No the UK honors its treaties. They are part of NATO and would go to war with the US. Just keeping calling name and living in your fandom world.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:01
Subject: Greendland - why not?
You managed write an entire paragraph that really says nothing. It is a skill, I will give you that. But, you don’t address any substantive in the prior post, so there is nothing to say back. It is a nice quote at the end though.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ending NATO would save the US gobs of money, especially bringing back the 100,000 troops as you say. The US doesn’t need NATO, we are not the ones landlocked with Russia, that would be Europe. So, I don’t think Europe is walking away from NATO on behalf of Greenland. Most of what you argue is completely unsupportable.Anonymous wrote:There is zero point in "taking" Greenland. It's already part of NATO. We have a military base there. Denmark has said the US is welcome to expand its military presence in Greenland. They have also said the US is welcome to compete for mining deals and concessions.
But taking Greenland by force would be the end of NATO. The US will lose its military bases in Europe. 100,000 US troops will go home. A very successful trans-Atlantic alliance will be gone.
Europe, the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand will form a separate alliance, isolating the US. And naturally, a US seizure of Greenland will lead to the end of the US dollar as the reserve currency. No one will be buying the $39 trillion of debt the US currently has outstanding. Interest rates will soar in the US. Unemployment will skyrocket. And the US will stand alone in its modern great depression.
And for what? Trump seems determined to change the US from the only global superpower in the world to being nothing more than a regional bully - like Russia or Iran. Taking Greenland makes no strategic sense whatsoever. The costs to the US are enormous. And there's no coming back from it. If the US makes that move, the entire security and trade structure that has served the US very well for 80 years is gone.
I am sometimes surprised by the breathtaking stupidity of Republicans. But taking Greenland goes even further than that. There really needs to be a thorough investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. A move like taking Greenland destroys American national security. And only Russia and China benefit from that.
Europe is not walking away because NATO as we know it would seize to exist when one member attacks another. You are talking about Greenland as if it’s an undiscovered land but it is Denmark. You are declaring war on Denmark, part of Scandinavia - Arctic warfare veterans, neighbor to Germany, in the heart of Europe, member of the European Union. Europe would have no choice but to stand with Denmark, and Canada, and half the Pacific would join them. You know who will offer aid then to get rid of the aggressor?
“When an ally attacks another ally the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend.” We have seen this movie before and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Anonymous
01/06/2026 22:01
Subject: Greendland - why not?
Anonymous wrote:Oh yeh right. First, the UK would stay completely out this, they know where their bread is buttered. So that leaves the French to fire nuclear weapons at Russia to save Greenland for Denmark. Good one.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.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.
NATO
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.
Both UK and France have submarines with nuclear missiles that can reach Valdai or wherever Putin is hiding.
There have been a lot of stupid posts on this thread, but you have truly surpassed them all by a wide margin. Congratulations !
DP. No the UK honors its treaties. They are part of NATO and would go to war with the US. Just keeping calling name and living in your fandom world.