We’ve always had access to do this which is why the whole invasion thing made no sense
295
Otherwise-Green30671 day ago
+93
He has always wanted it for the sole reason that it looked big on a map …
Edit: typo
93
burner461 day ago
+42
He had a big donor to his campaign with investments there.
That’s what it’s always about with him.
42
Otherwise-Green30671 day ago
+8
Order there was messed up. The big donor who wanted it for his special cities came around in 2024
Donald has been on this since 2017
8
TheGringoDingo1 day ago
+2
Every thing involving land either involves building something awful on it or tearing the earth apart until there’s nothing left.
I don’t think the main plot of the bible is correct, but boy did the New Testament get some things right about money.
2
National-Two24171 day ago
+6
Don't tell him about Antarctica... the penguins will kick our ass.
6
brentspar1 day ago
+6
He's already softened up the penguins by imposing tariffs on them!
6
National-Two24171 day ago
+1
I thought it hardened them ready for war.
1
NephRP1 day ago
+1
Tekeli-li Tekeli-li Tekeli-li
1
old_righty1 day ago
-1
*sole
-1
Otherwise-Green30671 day ago
-2
You really have nothing better to do than to call out a typo?
-2
VaultBall71 day ago
-5
Or it’s directly between Russia and the U.S., where missiles would fly over and could be intercepted from? I mean I hate the guy but if you never try to understand anything then you’re just as bad as the right, they’re incapable of saying that anything the left does makes sense
-5
ccblr061 day ago
-91
No, its to secure trade routes as ice melts up north, it makes sense considering that denmark is way over in Europe and the US would have to secure it in the first place from China or Russia.
-91
Euronated-inmypants1 day ago
+47
"way over in Europe?" Do you understand that Denmark is part of NATO so its not just being defended by Denmark.
Your comment sounds like it's from an American child because Denmark/Europe is closer to Greenland than the US is by 1000km(600miles)🤦♂️
47
H0bbituary1 day ago
+21
The adults and children sound the same here. It really sucks.
21
Euronated-inmypants1 day ago
+12
Its wild considering how easily such information can be verified before making such comically poor assumptions
12
Otherwise-Green30671 day ago
+27
Take your exaggerated, Trump approved and grossly misrepresented talking points somewhere else.
The ONLY and I mean ONLY point you make that is in good faith is that Ice melting will open up trade routes. The rest is either twisting truth, ignoring international law, or grossly misrepresenting fact
27
ccblr061 day ago
-56
You guys are so hostile to alternative views, it almost like you’re in an echo chamber or something. The countries that are closest to Greenland are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, China, Canada and the US. Considering that we needed an a****** President to convince NATO to increase their defense spending i dont trust that they are up to task to field a force strong enough to defend Greenland. Also considering that said a****** president also had to play hard with Panama, i dont trust that they wont just let China buy land over time. His why makes sense if you can think past go.
-56
TongsOfDestiny1 day ago
+17
>alternative views
Fascist propaganda? The US has already been the largest guarantor of Greenland security for decades, *and* already has the prerogative to establish a greater security presence should they choose to do so.
And what shipping lanes are you even referring to? The NW passage is entirely within Canadian waters, and there is no reason for commercial shipping to transit north of Greenland, so I don't know what lanes you think the US needs control of Greenland to operate.
There is no legitimate reason for the US to annex Greenland; it already meets it's security needs with the current arrangement, anything further is just imperialist ambition
17
Oerthling1 day ago
+11
Trump has NOTHING to do with increased defense spending.
It's in reaction to actual problems with Russia.
Well, I have to row back the NOTHING a little back - the fact that Trump threatens allies like Canada and Greenland/Denmark might well affect current and future defense spending.
When the threat from the USSR receded, Europe reduced defense spending. When Russia aggression came back it got raised again. Not that hard to understand.
The only one threatening Greenland ATM is Trump.
The US had more base presence on Greenland in the past. It was the US that decided to reduce its presence. Because similar to Europe it reacted to the dissolution of the USSR with cuts. But unlike Europe the US increased its military budget, because it's not for defense, but global power projection.
11
Otherwise-Green30671 day ago
+5
ALTERNATIVE FACTS
FAKE NEWS
MUST PROTECT THE WEAK PEOPLE OF ~~ICELAND~~ I MEAN GREENLAND
American freedom!!
But in all seriousness, one small thing destroys your whole argument . You believe China would buy Greenlandic land, if they chose to do so it is there right . HOWEVER, to believe such a thing was possible shows a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding how Greenlanders operate.
All land in Greenland belongs to the people. They would not sell it to China because it’s not one singular persons to sell. Domestic policy in Greenland is closer to communal land sharing than most western nations.
Denmark, who handles Greenlands foreign policy officially, also would not risk souring their already at times tense relations with Greenland by selling land out from under them to China . The US has a right to have as many bases as they see fit at any given time on Greenlandic soil due to a 70 year old treaty. China does not have such rights
This is also ignoring that all “security” arguments you make are invalid based on said treaty. We can open as many bases as we want on Greenlandic soil at any given time for whatever reason we want . That would include increased Chinese and Russian movements up north. We have this right because we agreed to recognize Greenland/Denmark sovereignty in perpetuity . So unless you are unable to understand what all of this means, your whole “alternative viewpoint” fails
5
IAppear_Missing1 day ago
+6
You drank the Kool Aid then
6
CHINESEBOTTROLL1 day ago
+5
You are a victim of propaganda.
5
Noderly1 day ago
+14
It makes no sense lol. Are you stupid?
14
fukreddits1 day ago
-28
He’s actually correct. You should look into the northern passages opening with less ice and how much shorter trips are for supertankers.
-28
Noderly1 day ago
+19
I don't disagree with the tanker argument - I disagree with the logic that we need to "own" it to secure it.
19
ccblr061 day ago
-2
We do need a bigger presence there. Also considering that NATO members can just refuse the US from flying out of the territory much like Spain and the UK recently….. again his why makes sense
-2
jack_oatt1 day ago
+14
The difference between refusin access due to not supporting a war of aggression and refusing it for defence is amusingly huge.
14
ccblr061 day ago
Have you looked at the military presence in Greenland, the US has literally one space base which doesnt offer any real capability to defend the island. There needs to be something defending it besides just the baltic states, if you look at a map of the military presence up north it quite literally is mainland Russian and all of its territory with a sliver of norway, sweden and finland.
0
axxl751 day ago
+14
Greenland had no issue with allowing more bases. The US only having one was because the US only wanted one.
No one would reasonably argue that Greenland is strategically important. It’s been a point of emphasis across multiple US administrations in the past couple decades. There’s just a big difference between understanding it needs to be more secure and working with your allies vs threatening annexation.
There’s are also US bases in most of Europe. By your logic we should be annexing them too. They’re HN/NATO owned but US occupied and are for primarily Russian deterrence.
Everything you’re saying that needs to be secured could’ve been secured with partnership just like there already is in Greenland, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Germany, Italy, Norway, etc. There was no reason to threaten annexation.
14
Oerthling1 day ago
+9
So the US gets to own everything where they have trade going or would like to fly through to conduct illegal wars?
That's imperialist thinking.
9
ccblr061 day ago
-1
If you look at ny previous comments I keep saying “here is the reason why”. I dont have to agree with annexing a country and riling up our allies to provide context for why Trump would say or believe something.
-1
ccblr061 day ago
+1
See all the downvotes, crazy
1
Sarnsereg1 day ago
+12
He wants it for the resources and clout of expanding the country, not the bases.
12
babybirdingURgrandma1 day ago
+12
The intention was always to destroy NATO and for nothing else
12
CursorX1 day ago
+2
Invasion plan was for Greenland resources, of course.
2
wiztard1 day ago
+2
Yes, but Putin promised Trump the ownership of the American continents, including Greenland, if he was a good lapdog. This is Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact all over again.
2
xX609s-hartXx1 day ago
+1
The Hitler-Stalin pact didn't involve Russia getting stuck in Ukraine for 4 years though :D
1
Old-n-Wrinkly1 day ago
+3
Mmm…kinda like his ripping up Obama’s treaty with Iran?
3
AU368321 day ago
-2
The treaty where the US gave an Islamic extremist regime billions of dollars in exchange for a pinky promise that they would stop trying to make a nuclear bomb?
Yeah, I'm good with breaking that treaty.
-2
Norseviking41 day ago
-10
That treaty with Iran helped fund Iran when they increased their presence and influence in the me.
It was awfull
If you think the old Iran deal was good, you are ignorant of the facts and the consequences.
-10
mmoore3271 day ago
+5
And yet better than any agreement Trump will end up with and without the loss of innocent lives...
5
Mjolnir361 day ago
+2
Not to mention billions wasted, lives lost and the reputation of the US.
2
Norseviking41 day ago
+1
Yeah there seem to be no plan, yet the Iranian regime has killed tens of thousands of lives, protesters in their own country pluss they spread terror in the region and fund groups that kill thousands more.
Trump is not the guy to take them out, but i 100% support military action vs regimes like that
The UN should have removed them, but its broken.
Nato could, but wont nor do they have the mandate to be world police (they are better than most. Yoguslavia was a good operation for instnace)
1
Ansiktsburk1231 day ago
+5
and now Iran has full control of the Hormuz strait and thus the global economy. Thank you Trump.
5
Norseviking41 day ago
+1
Yeah, the way Trump runs things is horrible and incompetent.
The US is so cursed
1
Ansiktsburk1231 day ago
+1
Nah its part of the plan. The Pedophile class is still making money. They just want to make everyone a slave so they can get even more money.
1
AU368321 day ago
+1
They've always had full control over it.
1
Ansiktsburk1231 day ago
+1
I don't recall the strait being closed until Bibi ordered Donald to attack Iran.
1
deejeycris1 day ago
+1
It makes sense for his personal agenda.
1
soldiernerd1 day ago
+1
100% correct, this is so frustrating to me
1
ajc36911 day ago
+1
Yeah almost like asking in a calm manner would’ve resulted in a “yeah sure sounds good”
1
SippsMccree1 day ago
-25
How do you guys still not get like his MAIN negotiation strategy of the big ask? It's like literally every time with him that he does it but you all still act like you've never seen it before
-25
RN2FL91 day ago
+12
There was nothing to negotiate because the US could already add more bases on Greenland..
12
Disastrous_Stick81481 day ago
+14
Because actions has consequences. And threatening to invade another country is an action that has big consequences.
Doesn't matter if that is just his way of negotiation.
14
mmoore3271 day ago
+7
As others have pointed out - you could always have opened up new bases - it is actually harder now, than it would have been if Americans hadn't acted so much like Americans.
The 1951 defence agreement already granted the US broad rights to establish bases there.
7
ccblr061 day ago
-21
Because they hate him so much that they aren’t trying to understand him. To them he’s just an idiot and they are better than all conservatives because they smart
-21
Thedarkhunt1 day ago
+18
Trump hasn’t achieved anything with his ‘big ask’ except alienate former allies. Maybe if you stopped suckling on his tiny mushroom for one second you’d realize that
18
Another-attempt421 day ago
+9
Yes.
What's your point?
9
Thedarkhunt1 day ago
+43
No, get these fucks out of Europe’s business. Unreliable and untrustworthy
43
hal60mi1 day ago
+23
Could have done that last January, but noooo.
23
isd31 day ago
+88
They've been operating (varying numbers of) bases there since WW2.
88
postduif-71 day ago
+9
Even did some nuclear testing in underground bases. Real interesting stuff.
For those who wonder -> experiment was not a big success en the army left nuclear waste under the ice hoping it would go away. This nuclear waste is currently on the way to reach the surface and thats how Greenland found out about.
9
BritishAnimator1 day ago
+33
Now it feels like a Trojan Horse situation.
33
Expert_Put_74921 day ago
+171
You'd have to be a complete fool to let U.S. troops in your country after what Trump's been saying.
171
DFWPunk1 day ago
+100
The US already has bases in Greenland with agreements that allow for expansion and additional installations.
100
dinggusss1 day ago
+11
Still stupid
11
Mindless-Peak-16871 day ago
+2
is now, wasn't before trump came along.
2
whatproblems1 day ago
+20
is he going to try that stunt he did on the border? claim half of greenland is base land?
20
Astrosaurus421 day ago
+4
Just tell Trump whatever it takes to make him believe, without actually doing anything.
4
Expert_Put_749216 hr ago
+1
Classic old person strat.
1
collergic1 day ago
+7
Honestly that was just a loophole to give troops the power of border enforcement. Crazy, but actually a smart play if you're attempting to do crazy bullshit
7
nicuramar1 day ago
+2
> The US already has bases in Greenland
Currently one :)
2
Fresh_Boysenberry5761 day ago
+1
Too bad agreements between the EU-US aren't constantly being broken by one side already otherwise we could tell the US to piss off
1
PeachVelvet_1 day ago
+19
Everytime Greenland is in the news, I just think about that failed attempt to buy the whole island
19
TrumpsATraitorSoAreU1 day ago
+9
Well, it is the current timeline so, I’m just gonna assume it’s complete fools all the way down
9
0202_tihssitidder1 day ago
+20
This will be true forever. US is always just a few years away from going batshit crazy.
The USA cannot be trusted on any matter. No one should ever trust the USA again.
20
slavelabor521 day ago
+29
I still remember 10 years ago in 2016 when I kept telling people that this is what Trump was going to lead to. A complete dissolution of US trust and hegemony internationally. That the world would wake up to the fact that US policy is only good for 4 years at a time and no long term agreement made with America was 100% safe. Trump ended the longstanding tradition of honoring agreements made by former Presidents and the government.
29
Mindless-Peak-16871 day ago
+4
Felt like being a conspiracy idiot talking about it. I feel very much vindicated, but would prefer to be wrong on this.
4
Expert_Put_74921 day ago
+4
I think that's a bit overstating it honestly, In many respects the Pax Americana was good for the world. There have been big wars, for example in Congo, but they're outliers.
4
bloop76761 day ago
+11
Yeah, it's good until it's not. Willingly letting one nation have that much of a power difference with its allies was always a huge liability, but until something bad happens you can keep saying everything seems fine even though you know about the problems. It worked reasonably well for a while but there's obviously a need for finding a better solution after what's happened now.
11
Expert_Put_749216 hr ago
+1
Democracy is going to make mistakes sometimes, doesn't mean it needs reworked, We just got a bum deal this time. It's bound to happen. I'm not saying the system is perfect by any means, but it's not bad. We as a country have done exceptionally well.
1
CRUSTBUSTICUS1 day ago
-6
Well it worked out a hell of a lot better than the European powers era of ruling the world. How many tens of millions died in Europe, Africa, India, Central America, South America, the North America (before independence), Southeast Asia… list goes on but if you’re going by deaths and direct subjugation through occupation it’s not comparable.
Hell, the British starvation of millions of Bengali people is barely a footnote in their history. That would be easily the worst thing America has ever done if it were them. For reference, the trail of tears which was insanely awful was around 5,000 native Americans.
Edit: Euros hate when you point out the scale of their atrocities lol.
-6
mantidmarvel1 day ago
Yeah, no. Pax Americana *only* applies to the West. By design. Just because we didn't have WW3, doesn't mean the world was with less conflict - just that instead of directly beefing, major powers fought by funding the wars of smaller powers thousands of kilometres away, outside of their North American or European homelands. Your governments decided they were better off exporting war to the global south, and that doesn't mean the world is any more peaceful. Pax Americana was not good for the Middle East, nor Latin America, nor Africa. Pax Americana is just an idea, and frankly, a great way to propagandise a habit of aggressive foreign military involvement that is basically imperialism in a shiny hat, something easy to sell to the masses.
Do you know how many countries have been completely up-ended and set back decades because the US doesn't like socialism or communism and refuses to let any state try either out, even if their people want it? Do you know how many terrorist organisations have come directly or indirectly from US meddling? Or dictators? Pinochet had US backing at one point - a man that saw people kidnapped and thrown out of helicopters. Peace my ass. Guetamala was chucked into a civil war for almost 40 years.
FWIW, [here's a list of all the wars going on in the world](https://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp) in recent decades. The reality is that there are very few years without any - widespread peace has not been the reality for much of the world. "Pax Americana" has outright contributed to many of these.
0
WealthyMarmot1 day ago
+2
This is classic Listnook framing of the Cold War proxy wars, completely omitting the Soviets’ (and the Chinese, to a much smaller extent) role and painting the US as the only country with agency. But you’re correct that the global south has not exactly been peaceful, though it has become massively wealthier as a result of Western-led post-war globalization, the greatest reduction of severe poverty in human history by a mile.
And finally, let’s be real - the end of colonialism was always going to leave half the world mired in civil war. The Cold War just stoked the flames.
2
SeaworthinessSome4541 day ago
-8
I hope you actually believe that and advocate for your county’s government to finally take defense seriously (unless you’re from Poland or Estonia).
-8
Notgreygoddess1 day ago
+1
True, but the longer you can keep them talking, the better EU & allies can prepare should US invade.
1
zaevilbunny381 day ago
-9
Yep the 1 month old posting anti-western statements. Totally not a troll account.
-9
morbie51 day ago
-15
It is either eat US ___ or take on Russia all on your own (which Europe might have to do anyway as long as Trump is in power). Bad or very very bad options, no good options
-15
CyanConatus1 day ago
+6
The thing about America is their citizens don't realize how much their Government brainwashes them
6
morbie51 day ago
-1
Bro, no one is more brainwashed than you.
-1
CyanConatus16 hr ago
+1
Lol no you eh.
Cute. Not that I expected much tbh
I noticed you historically point out positive karma as a means to support your claims or negative karma to disprove other claims.
So maybe you should.... "Read the room bro" as you say LOL
Anyways I'm not reading any further. "bro"
1
rubbarz1 day ago
+13
"OK! You were always able to do that!"
-Greenland
13
kuemmel2341 day ago
+8
On the other hand...you don't want soldiers of a belligerent nation that has threatened to invade. So, that ok is going to be a bit nervous.
8
tecdaz1 day ago
+14
Dump could have got this with a letter a year ago
14
Oerthling1 day ago
+1
The US had that before they closed bases down after the dissolution of the USSR.
Just like Europe the US lowered defense spending when it wasn't needed anymore.
1
Tim-in-CA1 day ago
+5
Like they already had an agreement that the US could before all of the Greenland invasion nonsense?
5
sirhackenslash1 day ago
+16
That should make the inevitable invasion a lot easier.
16
devi831 day ago
-61
And make the invasion from China and Russia harder. Give and take.
-61
Describing_Donkeys1 day ago
+26
China is not about to invade Greenland. Russia can't take over Ukraine, and Europe is committing much more to their defense. The US is the only country Greenland needs to worry about right now.
26
devi831 day ago
-33
Not if they make a deal, then its a moot point.
-33
Describing_Donkeys1 day ago
+21
Yeah, the US has been such a reliable partner recently. They haven't torn up the JCPOA, trade deals, then the new trade deals that replaced them, invaded countries in the middle of negotiating with them, or done anything to hurt their credibility. /s
The US can't be trusted anymore. Their deals aren't worth the paper they are written on.
21
devi831 day ago
-30
Yes, we did make a mess, but in the long run that shits gonna pay off.
-30
Describing_Donkeys1 day ago
+14
What incredible unjustified hopium. You are watching the end of us as the world leader. That's what America first is. Europe is cutting us out. China is filling in the vacuum we are leaving. We've eroded decades of trust we worked to build. Accelerating the end of the petro dollar and US dollar dominance. Creating an open path for China to dominate green technology. Canada is looking at Chinese EVs. We lost the war to Iran, and the middle east is going to turn to China as a result. Iran is going to emerge as a stronger country and a local power.
The damage that is being done is not going to pay off. I don't know how anyone can look at what is happening and think this is going to benefit the US.
14
devi831 day ago
-5
well thats doomium you are snorting, I think the world leaders see trump as a threat, but they also have hope for midterms and next election. Things are not beyond repair my dude
-5
Describing_Donkeys1 day ago
+13
We elected him twice. American voters are not reliable. The first time was seen as an aberration. This time we've shown we aren't the stable country we were perceived to be. Things would take over a decade to repair in regards to trust, and in that time all of our advantage will be gone. Our time as world leader is over, and it is not coming back.
13
devi831 day ago
+1
> We elected him twice.
I honestly doubt this. I think there is a chance we did once, and even that is questionable, but the other time was definitely hacked with the help of certain very rich people and adversarial nations. It was a multi-factor thing, them all working toward the same common goals, and Trump was the result. We didn't elect him, it was stolen.
1
Software_Dependent1 day ago
+10
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
10
devi831 day ago
-28
How is it not technically true? If they wanted to invade, and no US bases were there, it would be a cake walk. That's just physics.
-28
Superb_Club_58821 day ago
+22
Why the hell would either of those countries want to invade Greenland?
22
devi831 day ago
-8
IDK, but the guy I was posting to lives in the reality where nations invade Greenland, so from that perspective all cards are on the table, which is the reality I am writing my reply about.
Technically any nation that wants to invade Greenland will have a much more difficult time if US bases exist there. Yes or no? Stay on subject.
-8
Expert_Put_74921 day ago
+26
I'm trying to remember which nations have threatened Greenland with invasion recently.
26
devi831 day ago
+1
You mean dumbass Trump. So technically that means Putin threatened invading Greenland if we trace the masters of Trump.
1
hoishinsauce1 day ago
+13
Yea but Putin doesn't want to invade Greenland, he wants the US to be at war with EU, so he could invade Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Poland, and so on. Your framework is weird and illogical.
13
devi831 day ago
+1
Oh sorry, you know the mind of Putin, he definitely wouldn't want to have a nice joint drone base or several with China/Iran/NK, there during WWIII, when undefended lines are crossed. My bad for doubting you.
1
tweakwerker1 day ago
+3
Trump isn't a nation. The US is.
3
Superb_Club_58821 day ago
+11
Yeah if the US wasn't the one invading and someone else was to try then US bases make it much more difficult.
Problem is the only country that has announced they may do it is the US.
11
devi831 day ago
+2
Good thing we are making a deal then. And then once that deal is in place, any other nation will have no chance to invade it.
2
Particular-Cow62471 day ago
+8
there have been several deals with greenland/denmark already
the us just proofs time and time again that their signature isn't worth the ink
8
devi831 day ago
+1
>there have been several deals with greenland/denmark already
the us just proofs time and time again that their signature isn't worth the ink
Like what were those deals, and did they expire or what? Can you educate me on what we had already and what this new deal will possibly do?
1
Strank1 day ago
+6
Deals with trump are best printed on soft paper
6
devi831 day ago
+2
Agreed.
2
Lucius_Sulla-4201 day ago
+8
This is the most late stage case of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen. Reread your posts, the mental gymnastics are astounding.
8
RN2FL91 day ago
+3
Except anyone attacking Greenland would trigger article 5 and would be at war with NATO. Even if the US stays out of it, it would still trigger the EU defense pact. Why would China or Russia want to go to war with NATO or the EU over Greenland of all places. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
3
devi831 day ago
+1
I think there is a future where the other team does try to take on nato, hence attacking greenland for strategic locations.
1
RN2FL91 day ago
+2
It would be suicide with nukes. But other than that there's nothing really strategic about it for China or Russia, they'd be surrounded by enemies. Look at a world map.
2
devi831 day ago
+1
Nothing strategic in a melting arctic?
Nothing strategic about having a forward early warning base to help protect said melting arctic? Oh okay sorry mister tactician.
1
RN2FL91 day ago
+1
It is strategic, just not for Russia or China. It is an island in between literally all of the NATO countries. Again, look at a map.
1
devi831 day ago
+1
So it's strategic and worth defending.
1
White_M991 day ago
+8
Ah yes, going to war against the whole of NATO, a cake walk indeed!
8
devi831 day ago
-4
Why would they go to war with NATO if they were granted permission to have bases there? That's the reality we are talking about, where the talks end with a US base deal.
-4
Sphism1 day ago
+1
In a world where europe doesn't exist maybe. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense.
Even if america were invading greenland then america vs nato minus america would be a very even fight. No way US would just walk in and take it.
And that was before the US incompetence was on full display in iran so actually I'd favour nato minus US
1
Top_Chef1 day ago
+3
I’m going to proactively steal your car so nobody else steals it first. I’m doing you a favor, bro.
3
devi831 day ago
+1
If you make a deal with me, I will let you drive it. That's what this article is about bro. It's not about a hypothetical invasion, which is the very first post I replied to.
1
Top_Chef1 day ago
+1
Nah bro. I want the whole thing, haven’t you seen this really big gun I’m holding?
1
RadiantTurtle1 day ago
+2
Parrotting phaux news talking points to the letter. The boot must take like candy!
2
devi831 day ago
+2
Never watched them, and I despise trump anyways, so never will.
Here let me ask you this: Is China probably going to invade Taiwan?
(the question is relevant to my next questions about Greenland)
2
tweakwerker1 day ago
+2
Let's say China reunifies with Taiwan, you really think China is going after Greenland next? Lol
You despise Trump yet you parrot his talking points? lol
2
devi831 day ago
+1
I'm sure you've heard the phrase a broken clock....
1
tweakwerker11 hr ago
+1
Is the clock broken if you keep repeating his talking points?
1
LSF6041 day ago
+2
Neither could do it in the first place.
2
devi831 day ago
-1
They could if no US bases were there and NATO was busy elsewhere.
-1
traveltimecar1 day ago
+7
This is only an issue cause of the selfish baboon who is currently in the US white house
7
devi831 day ago
+2
Well, China is always going to attack Taiwan, and they aren't doing it in a vacuum, between them and NK and Iran and Russia, if recent history didn't involve Venezuela and Iran attacks, China would be in a much stronger position to have allies in-case of a WWIII breakout during a Taiwan invasion. I can completely imagine a WWIII scenario where strategic places change hands, unwillingly. I think Greenland would be one of those places, and that could happen when all out war is occurring around the world.
2
traveltimecar1 day ago
+6
Trump could not just be an a****** and treat our allies with respect and not try to take them over to pillage their natural resources.
There's a reason most of the world now considers US one of the biggest threats to world peace.
6
devi831 day ago
+2
Tbf I consider us that too, with a madmen at the wheel. I do hope he gets voted out.
2
LSF6041 day ago
+1
He is not capable of that
1
LSF6041 day ago
+2
No they couldn't. Neither can project force
2
devi831 day ago
+1
you think that is always going to be the case? what even is china making nuclear carriers for then? to set next to their beach?
1
LSF6041 day ago
+2
I'm talking about what's possible right now.
And right now China can't even take taiwan
2
devi831 day ago
+1
Isn't the point of setting up bases now to be ready for when those things are possible? One day it will be possible, and that day would be sooner if there was no bases to resist.
1
LSF6041 day ago
+3
if thats possible then invading anywhere is possible. But bases aren't being set up \*everywhere\*.
looking at recent history, the most likely country to invade greenland is.. the USA!
3
devi831 day ago
And if the USA is already there with bases because of a deal, then the most likely country to invade greenland during WWIII is? (answer its someone on the other team)
0
HockeyPhoenician1 day ago
China and Russia have no capacity to invade anything. Russia going on 5 years to invade and conquer a 'weak' neighbor that was only going to take 2 - 3 days. China blustering about Tawaian and still doing f*** all about it after all these years.
Yall are soft as baby shit and more scared than a startled turtle.
0
devi831 day ago
+1
oh okay, good argument, thanks
1
Bayarea01 day ago
+5
This could have happened normally without the insult to all our allies. Denmark never denied us access to Greenland, just asked for basic respect.
5
Capital_Resident_8721 day ago
+6
The US had every right to do this before the threats of invasion too.
The threats of invasion should have been the end of this right.
It's public knowledge that the US president still wants to "own" Greenland (as confirmed by the Danish PM), that they're still running a (failing) soft power campaign and that American millionaires/billionaires are trying to buy the votes of Greenlanders.
These negotiations now are humiliating.
6
manfr571 day ago
+2
J'espère qu'il refuseront plus de base américaine en Europe je vois pas pourquoi ils n'y a pas de base de l'OTAN aux usa
2
Numerous-Bowler-86771 day ago
+7
lmao, I am astonish at the fact that Greenland and Denmark hasn't kicked us out yet, much less allowing the US to add more bases....
7
Mogwai_Man1 day ago
+2
Too important for defense.
2
dude00011 day ago
+3
I love when we all get along.
3
Ok-Spirit-40741 day ago
+4
It's... in the treaty already. The US can just do this as long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of Greenlanders. They can just land a boat there tomorrow and start building a base.
Edit: No I'm wrong. Apparently we still need to ask permission. I was told by the news that we just had the right to build and that's what I was working off of.
4
oeboer1 day ago
+4
No, they would need the approval of the Kingdom of Denmark as per the 2004 amendment to the 1951 base agreement.
4
Ok-Spirit-40741 day ago
Thank you for sharing that. I thought it was just a right we had through the treaty.
0
AsparagusFern3191 day ago
+2
Did... something new happen? It seems like these the same talks that have been going on for a few months, and the BBC is just rereporting on them.
2
Blunt_Hadder15 hr ago
+1
No more money for Federal Government unless we receive free proper healthcare and food as human right.
1
Amijiw1 day ago
+1
This is a mistake.
1
EditorRedditer1 day ago
+1
Not closely-guarded enough, if the BBC have got hold of it.
Another security victory for the current administration…🤦🏻
1
benrinnes1 day ago
+1
That's a big no-no!
1
charcoalist1 day ago
Call trump's bluff. If building new US bases on Greenland is about security against Russia and China, then why isn't NATO part of the conversation? You know, the security organization designed around such things.
Building new US bases that are sovereign US territory in Greenland is an invasion in all but name. Just look at trump's rhetoric over the past year as a clue to his intentions.
0
Brodimere1 day ago
While the US, cannot be trusted. This would atleast for a short while, shut up their demand for control over the country. Then just delay with burecracy.
But personally think we should rather give that permission to actual allies instead of Fanta Führer and his cronies.
0
WiredEarp1 day ago
They shouldn't allow jack without a clear agreement that if the US ever question their ownership of Greenland that all bases immediately revert to their ownership legally.
0
MourningRIF1 day ago
Ahh smart... Give us a staging ground. 🤦
0
Thagyr1 day ago
>The US has been holding regular negotiations with Denmark to expand its military presence in Greenland.
Is that what they call that whole mess of a month from Trump?
0
ElTejon_TheDestroyer1 day ago
I’m so tired of this dumb f****** shit, from a dumb f****** man - this is what the US has representing it to the world???
Come the hell on and remove him
0
Zerosumendgame20221 day ago
Frump wants everything for the grift, its that simple.
0
Interesting-Type-9081 day ago
Honestly, I hope NATO gives the current US administration, the finger.
0
Notgreygoddess1 day ago
I hope they don’t give the US a centimeter of “sovereign territory” on the bases. Really, what does Greenland gain from US bases? NATO only, as US has proven untrustworthy.
0
Twistedsmock1 day ago
Has Camp Century been cleaned up yet?
0
polygonalopportunist1 day ago
Surely drones wont be able to bombs these ones when needed for defense. Iran “excursion” pretty much showed a multi million dollar base has become fairly useless in war given $30k drones can make render it unusable. These serve interests other than USA safety.
0
[deleted]1 day ago
-5
[deleted]
-5
M3G4MIND1 day ago
+6
Because the Dutch and the Danish aren't the same...
6
CockchopsMcGraw1 day ago
+2
Because the Dutch are a separate country
2
Patrickme1 day ago
-1
Perfectly fine the moment that orange embarrasment leaves the white UFC cage.
Or for an absolute boatload of money.
186 Comments