Honest question: wouldn't the security interest the US has in Greenland and its strategic location be worth it if the cost is balanced or exceeded by revenue we'd get through natural resources?
I agree -- definitely don't want to force them! But if Trump and his team can convince them it's in their best interest as well as ours, I think it's a good idea.
So you suggest that we, the USA, adopt the China/Russia philosophy and take the place over before they do. And then we can rest smugly satisfied with ourselves for having stolen it fair and square.
This sort of stupidity failed woefully in South and Central America and is a dark stain on our history, nevertheless you can't resist the appeal of Greenland as the first IcePop Republic.
I bet offering them statehood isn’t on the table, I haven’t heard it discussed yet. I’m guessing the GOP wouldn’t be use fans of Greenland’s 5 municipalities, and Canada’s 10 provinces for that matter, each getting individual statehood. Though it would certainly be fun from a political science perspective to have a newly crafted Constitution to get a general legal alignment together. Otherwise, yeah, Greenland voted for self-governance from Denmark, and isn’t even in the EU. I’m guessing this will be no deal.
No, not now, but if Greenland wanted to become a US territory and we took over the expense that Denmark has been making, then we could negotiate rights to some resources. I'm not saying that we take them by force.
??? If all these "resources" are available, where/what are they and why hasn't Denmark or U.S. corporations been developing them. I would think Greenlanders--if there are only 56 thousand of them--could strike a deal to make themselves and their island wealthy. (The term "national security" makes my skin crawl.)
The years We the People spent trapped in the harmful and polarized DNC LIE only to have President Trump replace the opportunity for an even handed realignment of American government with another media circus is disappointing.
This RACKET report is exactly the contribution to the healthy American national conversation We the People need. Truth/facts free of the psyop.
The "national security" line is bullshit. It's never about national security, it's about national interests which are interests of the privileged class only and are not truly national.
It's all about grabbing other people's natural resources, isn't it. Just think of all the revenue we can get from their resources. It boggles the mind.
We don't have to buy Greenland, we just would have to:
EITHER Greenlanders to vote for independence, like Bjork has called for them to do, and then choose to either work with the USA or join it.
OR since there about 51,000 people there, we could have 52,000 Americans move there.
Honestly, we don't have to get either thing. We just should seek a large exclusive deal for access to the land and resources with favorable terms that is win-win-win. They should absolutely tap in to our incredible capital investment and human capital, we give them an outsized share of the benefit for reasonable effort, and we give Denmark a modest benefit it's not able to get otherwise on its own. Everyone can win here.
What I haven’t heard anyone mention is how Canada might react to a forcible U.S. takeover of Greenland. Canada would now be surrounded on three sides by a U.S. President that calls them the 51st state and their leader “Governor Trudeau”. Albeit a long time ago, the U.S. has attempted an invasion of Canada already. If you were Canadian and valued your independence, you might be forced into the arms of China or Russia as a hedge. How does that not unlikely scenario advance American security?
Canada wont be come the 51st state, I wish people would stop worry about that so much. Trump has put in a fraction of the level of tariffs he was threatening in January. He is the type of negotiator that says and asks for outrageous things because he knows it will move the needle farther in his direction on a final deal than if he started from a normal position. Not defending the tactic but so many people refuse to wish to understand it and just keep freaking out. A full on tariff war that he originally threatened would be devastating for the US; and he knows that. As far as Greenland, if Denmark gets a price they cant refuse and the locals vote for it, the US can do this. They are not going to occupy it militarily and do what Russia did to Crimea. Maybe people think Trump wants to, but this just will not happen.
The problem is not so much the reality as it is the perception. Trump's rhetoric is pissing off a lot of Canadians - our (formerly) best friends. Once a relationship goes sour, it's really hard to restore it - and once trust is broken, it can never be fully regained.
Individual Canadians may be fine people, but the Canadian government that rules over them has become an authoritarian horror. Remember what Trudeau did to the truckers who protested covid shot mandates?
If Trump were serious about annexing Canada, he would be talking about Alberta and a few other western provinces. Annexing Canada as a whole, however, is one of his leg pulls. Politically, it would be like adding a second California to the U.S.: the Democratic Party would dominate American politics for generations to come.
As for Greenland, it might make more sense to get rid of the Monroe Doctrine issue by joining Canada instead of the U.S. Or it might become independent, while signing a COFA — Compact of Free Association — with the U.S., like several other small island nations.
Take total control of LA from Dems, it may do better. Get rid of FEMA, NC may get better faster. If the population of Greenland is amenable, why not? National security is a valid function of federal government. About everything else it pokes its nose into is not.
There's a lot of bullshit being spread about the threats to our national security . The reality is that our national security is in much greater danger from the threat of 1) a dictatorial take over, 2) a civil war or 3) some asshole getting us into a nuclear war, than it is from any threat posed by any foreign nation.
This is a conundrum that I'm truly torn between. At a federal level the USG has an obligation to it's current states like you say. At the same time, we have self-governed states for a reason, such as this. Now, the argument could be made in both of the examples you listed that the resources needed to address the present crises exceed what the states alone can muster and therefore the USG should be more involved -- I would tend to lean this way, actually. All that being said, the USG also has an obligation to the nation as a whole, and Greenland may prove to be a tactical necessity toward that obligation; especially if the EU continues down it's quasi-autocrstic path.
You can learn (by reading) that Greenland is resource-rich, "stuff" now becoming more accessible as the ice melts. Maybe. In a few decades or more. Worth owning, I guess.
Would US companies do better in harvesting those resources (profit-wise) if the US "owned" Greenland? Would they also pollute the crap out of Greenland itself, as they are wont to do . . . in the United States and around the world?
Can't be known. You might guess!
What I've been unable to actually uncover is the simple answer to the question: How does the addition of Greenland to the United States
(a) improve the lot of the Greenlanders,
and more importantly
(b) WTF owning Greenland will have to do with better defense for the USA.
If Trump, Vance, or Truman ever outlined the specific answers to (a) or especially (b), I'd like to read about it.
Also, when Truman made his offer to buy the place, did it come with the threat that, if the offer not accepted, we'd go on in and conquer the place?
Beats me. From a national security standpoint, the US has done just fine for its entire existence without Greenland. This all reeks of greed for another country's natural resources.
It all has to do with the Arctic Passage and the pressures from Russia and China to access it there's plenty of information online if you're looking but I wouldn't recommend general Google searches as you'll just get the regurgitated Democrat talking points as they are conveniently opposed to everything that DJT does.
You're right. There certainly is a lot of information online about all the exaggerated threat assessments from the defense industrial complex.
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. Oh, no. Now it's the Chinese are coming, the Chinese are coming.
Do you not wonder why there is so much information about these threats online, in the media, everywhere you look? It's advertising for the war industry. Advertising sells. It makes MONEY, and lots of it. The scale of this bullshit makes the pharmaceutical companies and the tobacco companies look like amateurs.
PS DJT is just a puppet for the war industry, just like his predecessor, and the one before that, and the one before that,....
An enemy-controlled Greenland provides a close, highly defensible location from which mid-range missiles could be launched at the US. Again, I don't know this is worth worrying about but I think it's at least feasible to consider, I'm just trying to present another angle to the conversation. And yes, the US has done fine without Greenland until now, and very well may do just fine without it in the future. But technology keeps moving forward, weapons move forward, and the US being a physically isolated continent is not as much of a sure-bet as it was before ICBMs, etc. If military geeks want to weigh in and say this is all irrelevant, feel free!
Do you realize, we already have mid and long range missiles pointed at Russia and China, and a dozen other countries as well. If anyone was to fire one missile at the U.S. they would be greeted with about 5,000 nukes.
I worry much more about a hostile takeover of our government by a wannabe dictator than any threat from a foreign nation.
PS Neither Russia nor China are our natural enemies. We just made them our enemies. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".
PPS On top of that we have enough weaponry to destroy all civilization and perhaps all the cockroaches as well. In addition, we have more than enough Dr. Strangeloves, General Turgidsons and General Jack Rippers in our war rooms to set the spark off and blow the crap out of all life on earth. Believe me, there's much more to fear right here in our own country than such picayune enemies as Russians and Chinese.
Whether or not you believe that Putin is a true expansionist -- and there are solid arguments to be made on either side -- there's no question that Xi is on a world conquest. If not via overt military force, as they are exhibiting in the South China Sea, then through the parasitical "Belt and Road" initiative.
What might happen if, say, next week or next month, Greenland were to announce a new international pact with Beijing? One they've been covertly working on for months or years? Where might that leave the U.S. strategically? It's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Just food for thought. The world is growing more dangerous day by day.
LA — go for it. Don’t ask me to pay for it. I actually expect the fire hydrant to work when my local volunteer fire dept shows up to put out the fire. So do they.
Re. NC and the rest of us. As Obama said, “You (we) didn’t build that.”
This is how many real estate entrepreneurs think and function. The Art of wheeling and dealing are a series of offers, counteroffers, veiled threats, walks away from the table, stalling for time, and other methods of making something happen. Since Trump is doing this in public, he has a reason to do so. He certainly isn't Joe Biden. Thank Gooddness!
There's a deal to be made without Denmark having to give up sovereignty. I suspect the US and Denmark will end up jointly underwriting the security and development of the island.
well, I think the native people and the animals there would beg to differ- But if the only way you’re using land is to drain it of all its natural resources I suppose you’re right-
well, that’s what Trump wanted for Ukraine so—-he also wants us not to be beholden to oil reserves around the world to drill enough of our own— I follow the money. You can follow whatever logic you want.
I'm not gonna lead with actually paying for this service, even though I do, but as a citizen of Greenland I was kinda hoping for better than this.
Living here in Greenland for close to a decade now, I obviously take more note of the prospects of being invaded militarily by a superpower than most people living in the US. And what pleases me is to see the President of the United States of America never making any active remark whatsoever about 'annexing' or 'invading' Greenland militarily. It's always purchasing, making a deal, respecting and convincing.
Now, who does go on and on about annexation and military invasion, is the Corporate Media. Imagine that. The same Corporate Media that's been hating on Donald J Trump for over a decade now, 'suddenly' also misrepresenting his interest in Greenland. Oh my, to think there might be a connection here?!
But would they actually do that, though? Would the Corporate Media of the USA actually ever exaggerate Trump's interest in Greenland, and paint it instead as a military invasion plan? And thereby risking to alienate and scaremonger Greenlanders, by making them believe an invasion is incoming?
I dunno, guys? What do you think? Oh, and the so-called phone interview with NBC: Did it actually happen? We've had no transcript and no video or sound bite from the alleged interview now in 4 days. Is it possible this is just next-level dishonesty from the Corporate Media? A non-event where they just claim an interview happened, over phone, but where in reality NBC staff just made up the words and narratives from a complete non-interview?
"what pleases me is to see the President of the United States of America never making any active remark whatsoever about 'annexing' or 'invading' Greenland militarily." -- You're joking, right? Did you read the same article I did? He absolutely threatened those things.
Having Greenlanders in this thread about Greenland USA is awesome!
I support Trump's plan to make Greenland USA a reality, but with the following provisos:
1) USA must respect the Greenlandic social structure and culture and take care to avoid social disruptions. The preexisting local governing institutions should carry over after union. Local control should not be diminished as a result of union.
2) Denmark should retain some responsibility for social services for some length of time after union. Special face-saving carveouts for Denmark and its citizen should be part of the final settlement. There is no need to humiliate Denmark or try to reduce the Danish aspects of the local culture. Danes should be able to visit Greenland visa free by treaty in perpetuity. USA could provide direct subsidies to Denmark for continuing to provide social services. Greenlanders should be able to retain Danish and US citizenship.
Greenlandic, English, and Danish should have official status. Trilingualism should be constitutionally protected.
USA should be clear that Greenland won't be treated as a colonial possession, but more like a Commonwealth like Porto RIco.
It's important that we respect all the rights of the Greenlanders as we welcome them in as new Americans!
Or with Puerto Rico--to whom Trump tossed a roll of --what was it-paper towels? as a typically Trumpian gesture of aid after a hurricane hit it hard. And Greenland is far more exploitable.
Just one of the thousands of moments taken wildly out of context that would have never been reported on if anyone but DJT had done it. The MSM rule: he never does anything good - everything he does is bad.
True. But to be fair, he actually DOES things. Unlike Biden.
And please recall the past 9 years of a massive dogpile on Trump by the MSM (minus Fox) DNC, the late-night talk shows, SNL, movies, national acts like Taylor Swift, Howard Stern, the 51 intelligence agents, etc etc - the list goes on and on. Nothing like this has happened to a President/former President since before all of us were born.
The best deal would be along the lines of increased economic activity (ie mining, but with democratic sanctions in the case of highly toxic or polluting endeavors) + defence activity, while retaining full democratic autonomy, in principle including going full commie domestically (not very likely).
Can you imagine the royalty checks you and your family would receive being a "native" when the annexation actually occurs. I imagine for the 60k or so Greenlanders it will be generational wealth.
That doesn't include the possibility of Musk kicking in a few million bucks (cash payment) per resident just to get the proposal on the ballot.
The part you don't seem to be getting is that it's not a choice. Greenlanders don't get to decide whether the empire trashes the place or not. It has clearly already been decided.
Re: Gaza-
Looking at things in such a binary way is silly. Trump making a typical trump comment about the "gazan Rivera" was only to appeal to the hard right in Israel's current coalition govt and to keep Netanyahoos fragile coalition together in the face of a serious ultra Orthodox threat to his regime. Trump hates BN, but realizes if he loses power and ultra nationalist right takes over in Israel then there will never be peace and more than likely armegedeon by way of nuclear war.
CM- you don't think that the Trump administration is going to begin the annexation of Greenland?
You think 60k people on a land mass that size with its economic and strategic importance will stand in the empires way?
You don't think Trump administration officials going there before inauguration, or the vice president going there recently and calling out Denmark, or Trump's own stated intentions of "we will get it" represent real goals of the empire?
The thing about Trump is that you don't need to get inside his head, just listen to his words and look at his actions.
Transparency is difficult for some people.
Re: Gaza- what did the last administration do to help them, what peace did they institute, Trump forced through a ceasefire as president elect. Is it in the best interest of the Gazan 's? Probably not, but less of them are dying today then during the Biden administration.
Israel is our ally, unlike Ukraine, unfortunately the empire has never (and probably won't ever) truly stand in the way of Israel's subjugation of the eastern Mediterranean and the Levant.
Can’t believe most of the crap on corporate media, and can’t believe everything you see on sites like this either. So very hard to reach any conclusion, since it’s just speculation on faulty information.
I figure Trump thinks he’s the second coming of James K Polk.
I hate to correct a man saying he is a Greenlander; but all Greenland citizens are considered citizens of Denmark even if you haven't bothered to get a passport saying as such.
What is it you don't understand? You asked how your idea sounds and I replied that it's the typically Ugly American stupidity all over again.
How is that not clear? You suggested we buy the Greenlanders off by paying for their votes. The utter depravity of the idea is only surpassed by the question of who the fuck are we to put the matter to a vote in their country.
The Greenland Foreign Minister told us exactly what this is about: rare earth minerals. If we don't have more supplies of minerals such as uranium, we can't be the crypto capital of the world. Data centers are increasingly being projected to run on nuclear power plants which need uranium to operate, and crypto mining similarly requires insane amounts of energy. This is all about energy, which obliquely you could say is about security, but energy. It's all about energy. It's the new Drill, baby, drill.
That is sort of true but not really at this point because accessing those is impossible in a land as inhospitable as Greenland. it has far more to do with security in the Arctic Passage although as time goes on and the Earth warms and Ice recedes and technology improves I am sure that mining is something they thought of. Russia has also made moves of late to have a bigger presence in Greenland and succeeded in some of it.
Sorry Mark I do not recall where I read it, it was about two and a half maybe three months ago and it was about Russia having to unhappily give China access to the northern routes and they had been showing interest in some kind of military presence. I've read so many hundreds of articles in the last several months but I have seen it appear here and there in general terms as well in lots of pundits talk of Trump's expansion plans.
I save almost every article I read, including the link to it for reference purposes - I like to be able to cite sources when people challenge my assertions. It comes in very handy in political and scientific discussons to be able to do this. It"‘s probable that the sources you read were just trying to fabricate hostility between Russia and China because as the northern sea routes open up to navigation year-round (irrefutable proof of global warming, by the way), international law requires that they be open to traffic from *all” countries; thus there’s no reason why Russia should be upset that China - a major Russian ally and trading partner- is seeking access to something that China and every other nation on Earth has the right to access.
I can't believe I was an old man before looking at a North Pole-centric map view and seeing that the bulk of Greenland is closer to North America than it is to Europe.
Heh. Being a geologist before joining the keyboard rodeo, I was aware of Greenland's location and value. I am surprised it took so long for the US to realize its virtues and situation. However, as an oldtimer, I learn something every day from my adult children that suprises the heck out of me. What an interesting world.
I used to look at the map in grade 5 and wonder about Greenland. It was so overlooked. But if the US was keen on Alaska, why would they not be even more keen on Greenland?
And then the Canadian military and the ice-breaking fleet slowly turned to mush after the Troodos sadly gained influence in Canada, which meant the far north became an open gate. I further wondered when the Americans would notice that.....because it was the portal to the whole continent, from the north rather than from the south.
And heck...I wasn't even political in my youth. I simply used common sense.
Feels like pre-Trump talk of America obtaining Greenland is relevant. Otherwise you perpetuate the notion that Trump is the only one to ever promote the idea.
Me too. But since the media goes bat shit over everything Trump says, I can understand why president and governments choose to do things in secret. At least you know where he stands whether you agree, think he’s nuts or….
It doesn't make a fucking bit of difference who thought of it first. It's ugly and unbecoming to threaten people. We have a 1951 treaty with Greenland and we can have more bases if we like, per that treaty. As for Greenland itself, IT IS NOT OURS.
Have you ever looked at a map of the globe from a polar projection? Discounting the mineral deposits, you do realize that Greenland sits right in the middle of the shortest path between North America and Russia/China?
So what? The only expansionist country in the world today is the US. No one even talks about the environmental harm that would ensue if the US under Tyrantosaurus rump acquired Greenland and started mining there, etc.
You left out the most important issue. When Greenland asked Denmark to rehabilitate their dilapidated airports, Denmark said they didn't have the money to fix them up. Who then offers to fix them? CHINA
Then Denmark found the money. After that the Trumpian discussion began. There are more people in Bayonne, New Jersey than in Greenland. Distressed property - let us take it off your hands…
CCP China wants both Greenland and Canada. They have already made inroads in Canada. Apart from all the other goodies, they want to be sitting on that long northern American border. I think you can see why.
This stuff happens by stealth, and before you know it....
I recall several years ago that globalist PM of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, took out a loan for NZ from China (whether NZ actually needed it or not). She put the best NZ port up for collateral. Or was going to. Can you guess the rest? "Dang! Had to default! (says Jacinda)." This of course was a supposedly valid excuse for handing the NZ port to CCP China; or it was being made to look that way. And then they would control those adjacent trade routes too.
Something stopped the loan and port takeover. It is the Trojan Horse approach. And before you know it.....
But do you see how it works when all goes smoothly?
Speaking of Communist China making inroads in Canada, this week a Liberal Party Chinese-Canadian candidate for the upcoming federal election April 28 was found to have attempted to get others in his riding to kidnap his opponent in order to turn him over to the Chinese Embassy and collect a bounty on his head, because this fellow had spoken against the Communist state.
Mark Carnage, unelected Liberal PM right after Troodo, simply called the uproar unnecessary, saying it was a "teachable moment" . Astute Canadians think Carnage answers to Beijing anyway.
As of today, the kidnapping Liberal candidate resigned amidst the hue and cry.
According to non-MSM media (far more trustworthy), he did indeed strongly suggest a political opponent be handed over to the Chinese Communist Party via hustling him (against his will) to the Chinese Embassy. Where they could collect the bounty. What do you call that?
CCP China recently executed Canadians in their country, on various charges.
Paul Chiang was an MP when he made these suggestions. Even the Toronto Star was on record saying it was a deplorable thing to do, and Chiang should resign. Someone who sits in our House of Commons suggesting Canadians should be kidnapped to be sent to a Communist state for punishment because that person criticized that state? Appalling!
So why does Denmark think it has a claim to Greenland? Playing the devil's advocate here.
I suppose that over the history of mankind, lands have changed hands mostly due to force. That was the standard, apart from discovering new lands and staking a claim by the authority which funded your voyage. Then you had to get your people populating the place asap to hold it. Or royal marriage dowries sometimes caused the change of lands from one hand to another.
I know that Denmark took over Norway for a long period called the "400 years of darkness". Greenland had been considered to be in the Norwegian bundle of lands/possessions.
But then so did one or more of the islands in the Hebrides of Scotland; some of these changed hands as a marriage dowry from Norway to a match with a Scottish chief. In fact, Trump is descended from the MacLeod clan, whose lands changed from Norway to Scotland in this way.
And you could say that the Vikings themselves (from what is now Norway, Sweden, Denmark) simply plundered and took whatever they wanted.
Therefore...who really owns Greenland? The native Greenlanders are Inuit descendants from the Siberians who crossed the Bering Strait 15,000 or so years ago. Much the same as the Inuit of northern Canada. Some of them are thought to have been in Canada first.
I suppose the argument might be that if Denmark took it once from Norway, and Norway took it once from Greenland.....why would it be any different for the U.S. now to buy it from Denmark/Greenland (not certain who gets the purchase price)? Denmark did not exactly acquire Greenland in a noble fashion.
And the U.S. is willing to pay a fair price for it. As far as I know, this is more than Denmark ever did.
Global geopolitics are changing. Aligning in new ways. Historically, this is when sovereignty shifts often happen. Some people are going to be happy with it, some people are not. If there is supposed "international law" governing this (how well did "international law" work in the COVID years...hm-m-m?), is it retroactive to Norway taking Greenland many centuries ago, when Norwegian Vikings first found it?
As far as I can see, there is no one principle governing the ownership of lands like this. It has been a patchwork approach throughout history, depending on circumstances, financial backing, and power.
In a nutshell, after the viking/danish/norweigian settlements left for a couple hundred years, Denmark came and colonized it like other European powers did to the Americas. They just came, and decided it was theirs. That is the beginning of their modern claim and here we are. Much more has happened since then, but that is where it started being associated with the modern Kingdom of Denmark. It would be very legal for them to sell it subject to a high level of vote support by the inhabitants. It should have been sold to Canada or the US a long time ago as Denmark doesnt have the ability to fully support it or to grow it. They just really, at the heart, dont want to give up land that is "theirs". The case for Greenland to be sold is a rather strong one to be frank.
Seems like he’s pissing away a lot of political capital on something stupid. The erratic nature of his tariff strategy is hard to fathom as well. His mandate was to fix our country and all these sideshows are not working out well. Isn’t there someone among his cabinet or advisors that can make the man focus? As a supporter of the man’s agenda this is demoralizing. Maybe Elon can spike his water with adderall.
The tariffs make complete sense. I commend Tucker's conversation with Robert Lighthizer for a very cogent defense of them and the associated economic strategy.
I’ll check it out. I definitely support reshoring industry to the U.S. with tariffs as one tool. But I used to own a small manufacturing business and you can’t find US subcontractors for materials or components, and they shipped nearly all of the existing stock of machines and equipment overseas when this offshoring began decades ago. The whole supply chain of equipment makers and materials suppliers is nonexistent domestically. You can’t make anything without the tools. It’s really horrifying.
It will take decades to rebuild our manufacturing capacity. High tariffs going into immediate effect will create shortages of everything and the price spikes will be stunning. There will certainly be a domestic backlash and it won’t bode well for Vance’s election. We’re in a really big hole and restoring our manufacturing infrastructure needs to be done thoughtfully and with a long term plan.
Once again, I LOVE these timelines. Completely on-point and gives a terrific refresher of the history. I didn't know (or remember) that Truman tried to get Greenland; I did know about our air force base there.
Personally, I believe Greenland is important to the security of the US. Whether that means as a territory or with additional security promises, I don't know ... but geographically, it's strategic. I also think that whatever we pay to support Greenland will be made up for in the abundance of natural resources that would be available to us.
I'm with the Danes on this one. Setting aside Trump's boorish comments, however, history tells us that such a huge land mass - really the last great wilderness on Earth - is not going to remain in its present quasi-independent state with fewer than a mere 60,000 inhabitants indefinitely. At some point some larger power will seek to control Greenland. Having a military base there already gives us veto power over any such incursion for the time being, unless of course it's us.
And here I voted for the son of a bitch to reduce the number of military bases in the world. Let's acquire a whole country and turn it into one huge US military base. Hubris!!!
It's pretty clear that the rare earth minerals thought to be there in abundance is the primary reason. The one base already there should be plenty, so I agree with you on that.
It's a good possibility. But there's a better, more eco-friendly alternative. I've heard crypto miners discuss the idea (and I think some are already doing this) of building the data centers next to energy production sources like fossil fuel refineries in order to capture the natural gas flares off well stacks and convert it into the energy needed to run the data centers. Win-win for everyone.
You have not heard of CCP China and Russia being in an expansionist mood? China, at least, covets both Greenland and Canada.
There is nothing ludicrous about the Arctic maritime area surrounding northern Canada and Greenland. Ports, shipping lanes, and a portal to the whole North American continent.
The Nazi u-boats in WWII were right outside the port of Halifax, in Canada. Menacingly. What stops an adversarial power from using the sea routes of the Arctic in the same way?
China and Russia being in an expansionist mood? But not the US. The US only wants Greenland, Canada and Panama (and God knows what else). That's not expansionist. That's self defense.
It's simply amazing how much J.D. is willing to make himself Trump's little bitch lapdog. Dude has no principles. Even as much as Rubio sells himself, it's not as pathetic as Vance.
I root for this administration in some aspects, but man, do they make it hard.
And they seem to have no clue that the absolute uniformity of messaging makes them sound like robots. Today's example is Martin Makary introducing himself to FDA doing the
"Make America Healthy Again" song and dance. Way to sound like a pawn, dude. More lapdogginess.
Again, I'm open to changes. I just think these guys are sinking their own ship They are going to blow it and it pisses me off. Nobody that gets into office can seem to be able to get out of their own way anymore.
It's called being stuck in the duopoly/deep state/status quo/establishment/centralized control matrix. Left wing, right wing, same vulture. Time to vote in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th parties.
That Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs appears to be the adult in the room. He looks to be completely resistant to Trump's trolling in the media. I'm not worred about this at all. Still this timeline was informative of facts, many of which I hadn't known. I appreciate these more and more.
I dunno, seems like we should deal with the stuff that's already our land before we try to get more of it. How's LA doing these days? NC?
Honest question: wouldn't the security interest the US has in Greenland and its strategic location be worth it if the cost is balanced or exceeded by revenue we'd get through natural resources?
If Greenland wants to join, sure.
We're pretty big on consent around here, though.
Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan beg to differ
My bad -- "around here" being my house, not the USA.
SC - funny.
Along with about 20 other countries.
I agree -- definitely don't want to force them! But if Trump and his team can convince them it's in their best interest as well as ours, I think it's a good idea.
I think it sucks! Why the hell can't we just mind our own business and let other people live their lives as they want to.
Maybe because China and Russia don’t share the same”live and let live” philosophy?
So you suggest that we, the USA, adopt the China/Russia philosophy and take the place over before they do. And then we can rest smugly satisfied with ourselves for having stolen it fair and square.
This sort of stupidity failed woefully in South and Central America and is a dark stain on our history, nevertheless you can't resist the appeal of Greenland as the first IcePop Republic.
I bet offering them statehood isn’t on the table, I haven’t heard it discussed yet. I’m guessing the GOP wouldn’t be use fans of Greenland’s 5 municipalities, and Canada’s 10 provinces for that matter, each getting individual statehood. Though it would certainly be fun from a political science perspective to have a newly crafted Constitution to get a general legal alignment together. Otherwise, yeah, Greenland voted for self-governance from Denmark, and isn’t even in the EU. I’m guessing this will be no deal.
How would it be in Greenland's interest to join a rapidly decaying empire--especially one currently headed by Trump?
not really. whens the last time a state was allowed to leave?
And look what happened the last time a state did try to leave.
Are we, though?
Those resources belong to Greenland (and Denmark). The US has NO right to them.
No, not now, but if Greenland wanted to become a US territory and we took over the expense that Denmark has been making, then we could negotiate rights to some resources. I'm not saying that we take them by force.
??? If all these "resources" are available, where/what are they and why hasn't Denmark or U.S. corporations been developing them. I would think Greenlanders--if there are only 56 thousand of them--could strike a deal to make themselves and their island wealthy. (The term "national security" makes my skin crawl.)
The years We the People spent trapped in the harmful and polarized DNC LIE only to have President Trump replace the opportunity for an even handed realignment of American government with another media circus is disappointing.
This RACKET report is exactly the contribution to the healthy American national conversation We the People need. Truth/facts free of the psyop.
The "national security" line is bullshit. It's never about national security, it's about national interests which are interests of the privileged class only and are not truly national.
It's all about grabbing other people's natural resources, isn't it. Just think of all the revenue we can get from their resources. It boggles the mind.
The overwhelming avarice is nauseating.
Yep, the Greed Bragade totally agrees with you.
We don't have to buy Greenland, we just would have to:
EITHER Greenlanders to vote for independence, like Bjork has called for them to do, and then choose to either work with the USA or join it.
OR since there about 51,000 people there, we could have 52,000 Americans move there.
Honestly, we don't have to get either thing. We just should seek a large exclusive deal for access to the land and resources with favorable terms that is win-win-win. They should absolutely tap in to our incredible capital investment and human capital, we give them an outsized share of the benefit for reasonable effort, and we give Denmark a modest benefit it's not able to get otherwise on its own. Everyone can win here.
That we "need it" is pure bullshit. Some people want it, but we don't "need it".
Crass!
Crass dismissed
What I haven’t heard anyone mention is how Canada might react to a forcible U.S. takeover of Greenland. Canada would now be surrounded on three sides by a U.S. President that calls them the 51st state and their leader “Governor Trudeau”. Albeit a long time ago, the U.S. has attempted an invasion of Canada already. If you were Canadian and valued your independence, you might be forced into the arms of China or Russia as a hedge. How does that not unlikely scenario advance American security?
Canada wont be come the 51st state, I wish people would stop worry about that so much. Trump has put in a fraction of the level of tariffs he was threatening in January. He is the type of negotiator that says and asks for outrageous things because he knows it will move the needle farther in his direction on a final deal than if he started from a normal position. Not defending the tactic but so many people refuse to wish to understand it and just keep freaking out. A full on tariff war that he originally threatened would be devastating for the US; and he knows that. As far as Greenland, if Denmark gets a price they cant refuse and the locals vote for it, the US can do this. They are not going to occupy it militarily and do what Russia did to Crimea. Maybe people think Trump wants to, but this just will not happen.
The problem is not so much the reality as it is the perception. Trump's rhetoric is pissing off a lot of Canadians - our (formerly) best friends. Once a relationship goes sour, it's really hard to restore it - and once trust is broken, it can never be fully regained.
Individual Canadians may be fine people, but the Canadian government that rules over them has become an authoritarian horror. Remember what Trudeau did to the truckers who protested covid shot mandates?
If Trump were serious about annexing Canada, he would be talking about Alberta and a few other western provinces. Annexing Canada as a whole, however, is one of his leg pulls. Politically, it would be like adding a second California to the U.S.: the Democratic Party would dominate American politics for generations to come.
As for Greenland, it might make more sense to get rid of the Monroe Doctrine issue by joining Canada instead of the U.S. Or it might become independent, while signing a COFA — Compact of Free Association — with the U.S., like several other small island nations.
Good potential scenario not many people are considering. Canada would have to ally with China as Russia is our bestie.
The taking over Canada talk is stupid, too.
But I just read they agreed to drop all tariffs if we do.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/02/world-news/canadian-leader-doug-ford-proposes-eliminating-tariffs-if-president-trump-does-the-same/
Edit: My bad that's just Doug Ford saying it, who has no authority in the Canadian federal government.
Ha your ambiguous phrasing made me read that as saying Canada would drop all tariffs if we take them over. Yep!
Take total control of LA from Dems, it may do better. Get rid of FEMA, NC may get better faster. If the population of Greenland is amenable, why not? National security is a valid function of federal government. About everything else it pokes its nose into is not.
There's a lot of bullshit being spread about the threats to our national security . The reality is that our national security is in much greater danger from the threat of 1) a dictatorial take over, 2) a civil war or 3) some asshole getting us into a nuclear war, than it is from any threat posed by any foreign nation.
Don't worry the asshole that was inching us closer to nuclear war is no longer in power.
Don't be complacent. There are plenty more where he came from.
This is a conundrum that I'm truly torn between. At a federal level the USG has an obligation to it's current states like you say. At the same time, we have self-governed states for a reason, such as this. Now, the argument could be made in both of the examples you listed that the resources needed to address the present crises exceed what the states alone can muster and therefore the USG should be more involved -- I would tend to lean this way, actually. All that being said, the USG also has an obligation to the nation as a whole, and Greenland may prove to be a tactical necessity toward that obligation; especially if the EU continues down it's quasi-autocrstic path.
You can learn (by reading) that Greenland is resource-rich, "stuff" now becoming more accessible as the ice melts. Maybe. In a few decades or more. Worth owning, I guess.
Would US companies do better in harvesting those resources (profit-wise) if the US "owned" Greenland? Would they also pollute the crap out of Greenland itself, as they are wont to do . . . in the United States and around the world?
Can't be known. You might guess!
What I've been unable to actually uncover is the simple answer to the question: How does the addition of Greenland to the United States
(a) improve the lot of the Greenlanders,
and more importantly
(b) WTF owning Greenland will have to do with better defense for the USA.
If Trump, Vance, or Truman ever outlined the specific answers to (a) or especially (b), I'd like to read about it.
Also, when Truman made his offer to buy the place, did it come with the threat that, if the offer not accepted, we'd go on in and conquer the place?
Beats me. From a national security standpoint, the US has done just fine for its entire existence without Greenland. This all reeks of greed for another country's natural resources.
It all has to do with the Arctic Passage and the pressures from Russia and China to access it there's plenty of information online if you're looking but I wouldn't recommend general Google searches as you'll just get the regurgitated Democrat talking points as they are conveniently opposed to everything that DJT does.
You're right. There certainly is a lot of information online about all the exaggerated threat assessments from the defense industrial complex.
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. Oh, no. Now it's the Chinese are coming, the Chinese are coming.
Do you not wonder why there is so much information about these threats online, in the media, everywhere you look? It's advertising for the war industry. Advertising sells. It makes MONEY, and lots of it. The scale of this bullshit makes the pharmaceutical companies and the tobacco companies look like amateurs.
PS DJT is just a puppet for the war industry, just like his predecessor, and the one before that, and the one before that,....
An enemy-controlled Greenland provides a close, highly defensible location from which mid-range missiles could be launched at the US. Again, I don't know this is worth worrying about but I think it's at least feasible to consider, I'm just trying to present another angle to the conversation. And yes, the US has done fine without Greenland until now, and very well may do just fine without it in the future. But technology keeps moving forward, weapons move forward, and the US being a physically isolated continent is not as much of a sure-bet as it was before ICBMs, etc. If military geeks want to weigh in and say this is all irrelevant, feel free!
Do you realize, we already have mid and long range missiles pointed at Russia and China, and a dozen other countries as well. If anyone was to fire one missile at the U.S. they would be greeted with about 5,000 nukes.
I worry much more about a hostile takeover of our government by a wannabe dictator than any threat from a foreign nation.
PS Neither Russia nor China are our natural enemies. We just made them our enemies. As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy and he is us".
PPS On top of that we have enough weaponry to destroy all civilization and perhaps all the cockroaches as well. In addition, we have more than enough Dr. Strangeloves, General Turgidsons and General Jack Rippers in our war rooms to set the spark off and blow the crap out of all life on earth. Believe me, there's much more to fear right here in our own country than such picayune enemies as Russians and Chinese.
Whether or not you believe that Putin is a true expansionist -- and there are solid arguments to be made on either side -- there's no question that Xi is on a world conquest. If not via overt military force, as they are exhibiting in the South China Sea, then through the parasitical "Belt and Road" initiative.
What might happen if, say, next week or next month, Greenland were to announce a new international pact with Beijing? One they've been covertly working on for months or years? Where might that leave the U.S. strategically? It's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Just food for thought. The world is growing more dangerous day by day.
The only "threat" China poses to the US is economic. And that's what this is all about. Always follow the money. Always.
I can only imagine that both LA and NC have voted for what they have. Since they keep voting for it, they must like it.
LA — go for it. Don’t ask me to pay for it. I actually expect the fire hydrant to work when my local volunteer fire dept shows up to put out the fire. So do they.
Re. NC and the rest of us. As Obama said, “You (we) didn’t build that.”
Federal bureaucracy. We did build that. Sadly.
Buying Greenland from the Danes; fine if everyone is onboard.
I don't like the "bully" talk of taking over the island by force-we gain nothing by acting as aggressors.
This is how many real estate entrepreneurs think and function. The Art of wheeling and dealing are a series of offers, counteroffers, veiled threats, walks away from the table, stalling for time, and other methods of making something happen. Since Trump is doing this in public, he has a reason to do so. He certainly isn't Joe Biden. Thank Gooddness!
It’s consistent with what he wrote in “Art of the Deal.” I guess if he really gets out of hand, Congress can get rid of him.
There's a deal to be made without Denmark having to give up sovereignty. I suspect the US and Denmark will end up jointly underwriting the security and development of the island.
"we gain nothing by acting as aggressors."
Except a big island that nobody is using
well, I think the native people and the animals there would beg to differ- But if the only way you’re using land is to drain it of all its natural resources I suppose you’re right-
Anyone who has been following this story knows that getting natural resources is not the only (nor most important) use being discussed for this land.
They also know that "national security" and "international security" justifications are BS.
well, that’s what Trump wanted for Ukraine so—-he also wants us not to be beholden to oil reserves around the world to drill enough of our own— I follow the money. You can follow whatever logic you want.
Shell (Netherlands) was drilling on the north coast of Greenland many years ago, but I don’t know what they found.
Greenland has some of the oldest surface rock in the world at Isuan, 3.8 billion years, if I remember right.
I'm not gonna lead with actually paying for this service, even though I do, but as a citizen of Greenland I was kinda hoping for better than this.
Living here in Greenland for close to a decade now, I obviously take more note of the prospects of being invaded militarily by a superpower than most people living in the US. And what pleases me is to see the President of the United States of America never making any active remark whatsoever about 'annexing' or 'invading' Greenland militarily. It's always purchasing, making a deal, respecting and convincing.
Now, who does go on and on about annexation and military invasion, is the Corporate Media. Imagine that. The same Corporate Media that's been hating on Donald J Trump for over a decade now, 'suddenly' also misrepresenting his interest in Greenland. Oh my, to think there might be a connection here?!
But would they actually do that, though? Would the Corporate Media of the USA actually ever exaggerate Trump's interest in Greenland, and paint it instead as a military invasion plan? And thereby risking to alienate and scaremonger Greenlanders, by making them believe an invasion is incoming?
I dunno, guys? What do you think? Oh, and the so-called phone interview with NBC: Did it actually happen? We've had no transcript and no video or sound bite from the alleged interview now in 4 days. Is it possible this is just next-level dishonesty from the Corporate Media? A non-event where they just claim an interview happened, over phone, but where in reality NBC staff just made up the words and narratives from a complete non-interview?
"what pleases me is to see the President of the United States of America never making any active remark whatsoever about 'annexing' or 'invading' Greenland militarily." -- You're joking, right? Did you read the same article I did? He absolutely threatened those things.
Nah. Others did
Having Greenlanders in this thread about Greenland USA is awesome!
I support Trump's plan to make Greenland USA a reality, but with the following provisos:
1) USA must respect the Greenlandic social structure and culture and take care to avoid social disruptions. The preexisting local governing institutions should carry over after union. Local control should not be diminished as a result of union.
2) Denmark should retain some responsibility for social services for some length of time after union. Special face-saving carveouts for Denmark and its citizen should be part of the final settlement. There is no need to humiliate Denmark or try to reduce the Danish aspects of the local culture. Danes should be able to visit Greenland visa free by treaty in perpetuity. USA could provide direct subsidies to Denmark for continuing to provide social services. Greenlanders should be able to retain Danish and US citizenship.
Greenlandic, English, and Danish should have official status. Trilingualism should be constitutionally protected.
USA should be clear that Greenland won't be treated as a colonial possession, but more like a Commonwealth like Porto RIco.
It's important that we respect all the rights of the Greenlanders as we welcome them in as new Americans!
Our track record on such agreements with native Americans is not compelling.
Yes and we also used to have slavery back in the day. Maybe things have changed a bit over the past 1.5 centuries?
They were conquered militarily. Look to the agreements with the Republic of Texas.
Or with Puerto Rico--to whom Trump tossed a roll of --what was it-paper towels? as a typically Trumpian gesture of aid after a hurricane hit it hard. And Greenland is far more exploitable.
Just one of the thousands of moments taken wildly out of context that would have never been reported on if anyone but DJT had done it. The MSM rule: he never does anything good - everything he does is bad.
Agree re MSM. OTOH for many he can do no wrong. Just like Biden...
True. But to be fair, he actually DOES things. Unlike Biden.
And please recall the past 9 years of a massive dogpile on Trump by the MSM (minus Fox) DNC, the late-night talk shows, SNL, movies, national acts like Taylor Swift, Howard Stern, the 51 intelligence agents, etc etc - the list goes on and on. Nothing like this has happened to a President/former President since before all of us were born.
Agree.
The best deal would be along the lines of increased economic activity (ie mining, but with democratic sanctions in the case of highly toxic or polluting endeavors) + defence activity, while retaining full democratic autonomy, in principle including going full commie domestically (not very likely).
You make me puke!
Just like "Porto Rico" eh? High crime rate, bad spelling, and lots of dissenting Greenlanders in jails or graves.
Can you imagine the royalty checks you and your family would receive being a "native" when the annexation actually occurs. I imagine for the 60k or so Greenlanders it will be generational wealth.
That doesn't include the possibility of Musk kicking in a few million bucks (cash payment) per resident just to get the proposal on the ballot.
Generational wealth for all Greenlanders would be great. For three days until inflation at 1923 Weimar proportions kicks in.
I guess if you pay people enough they will let you trash the place--especially if it's enough to leave. Maybe go live in Trumps' paradise in Gaza.
The part you don't seem to be getting is that it's not a choice. Greenlanders don't get to decide whether the empire trashes the place or not. It has clearly already been decided.
Re: Gaza-
Looking at things in such a binary way is silly. Trump making a typical trump comment about the "gazan Rivera" was only to appeal to the hard right in Israel's current coalition govt and to keep Netanyahoos fragile coalition together in the face of a serious ultra Orthodox threat to his regime. Trump hates BN, but realizes if he loses power and ultra nationalist right takes over in Israel then there will never be peace and more than likely armegedeon by way of nuclear war.
Wow, dude. You are totally hooked. You're not in Trump's head. You're in your own Star Wars fantasy.
CM- you don't think that the Trump administration is going to begin the annexation of Greenland?
You think 60k people on a land mass that size with its economic and strategic importance will stand in the empires way?
You don't think Trump administration officials going there before inauguration, or the vice president going there recently and calling out Denmark, or Trump's own stated intentions of "we will get it" represent real goals of the empire?
The thing about Trump is that you don't need to get inside his head, just listen to his words and look at his actions.
Transparency is difficult for some people.
Re: Gaza- what did the last administration do to help them, what peace did they institute, Trump forced through a ceasefire as president elect. Is it in the best interest of the Gazan 's? Probably not, but less of them are dying today then during the Biden administration.
Israel is our ally, unlike Ukraine, unfortunately the empire has never (and probably won't ever) truly stand in the way of Israel's subjugation of the eastern Mediterranean and the Levant.
Can’t believe most of the crap on corporate media, and can’t believe everything you see on sites like this either. So very hard to reach any conclusion, since it’s just speculation on faulty information.
I figure Trump thinks he’s the second coming of James K Polk.
Or maybe Harry Truman.
you got a point.
Are there citizens of Greenland? I would think you are citizens of Denmark who inhabit one of its properties
Yes, and I voted yesterday in our local election. I’ve never been a citizen of Denmark or any EU nation, bar Sweden (briefly).
I hate to correct a man saying he is a Greenlander; but all Greenland citizens are considered citizens of Denmark even if you haven't bothered to get a passport saying as such.
Let the Greenlanders vote.
Vote for US, every citizen gets 2 million bucks. Pay Demark for any infrastructure they own.
How does that sound ?
You folks must pay reparations to me and every other Greenlander, for melting much of our ice. Shall we say a dollar per liter?
40 acres and a mule, we promise to pay on Tuesday
Hey! It's only about 3-400 trillion USD pro annum. And we'll let bygones be bygones, starting from scratch in 2025.
Can we just give them a breeding pair and let them grow their own mules?
Bwahahahahaha!
That’s $4 per gallon for you metrically challenged negotiators
Like a typically repulsive American: STUPID.
Can you explain ?
What is it you don't understand? You asked how your idea sounds and I replied that it's the typically Ugly American stupidity all over again.
How is that not clear? You suggested we buy the Greenlanders off by paying for their votes. The utter depravity of the idea is only surpassed by the question of who the fuck are we to put the matter to a vote in their country.
Is it sad that all I can think is: what is this Greenland bullshit meant to distract us from this time?
The Greenland Foreign Minister told us exactly what this is about: rare earth minerals. If we don't have more supplies of minerals such as uranium, we can't be the crypto capital of the world. Data centers are increasingly being projected to run on nuclear power plants which need uranium to operate, and crypto mining similarly requires insane amounts of energy. This is all about energy, which obliquely you could say is about security, but energy. It's all about energy. It's the new Drill, baby, drill.
That is sort of true but not really at this point because accessing those is impossible in a land as inhospitable as Greenland. it has far more to do with security in the Arctic Passage although as time goes on and the Earth warms and Ice recedes and technology improves I am sure that mining is something they thought of. Russia has also made moves of late to have a bigger presence in Greenland and succeeded in some of it.
Heidi: What are your sources on Russian "moves" re: Greenland?
Sorry Mark I do not recall where I read it, it was about two and a half maybe three months ago and it was about Russia having to unhappily give China access to the northern routes and they had been showing interest in some kind of military presence. I've read so many hundreds of articles in the last several months but I have seen it appear here and there in general terms as well in lots of pundits talk of Trump's expansion plans.
I save almost every article I read, including the link to it for reference purposes - I like to be able to cite sources when people challenge my assertions. It comes in very handy in political and scientific discussons to be able to do this. It"‘s probable that the sources you read were just trying to fabricate hostility between Russia and China because as the northern sea routes open up to navigation year-round (irrefutable proof of global warming, by the way), international law requires that they be open to traffic from *all” countries; thus there’s no reason why Russia should be upset that China - a major Russian ally and trading partner- is seeking access to something that China and every other nation on Earth has the right to access.
Nothing. I think it is a great idea. Look at a map.
I can't believe I was an old man before looking at a North Pole-centric map view and seeing that the bulk of Greenland is closer to North America than it is to Europe.
Heh. Being a geologist before joining the keyboard rodeo, I was aware of Greenland's location and value. I am surprised it took so long for the US to realize its virtues and situation. However, as an oldtimer, I learn something every day from my adult children that suprises the heck out of me. What an interesting world.
I used to look at the map in grade 5 and wonder about Greenland. It was so overlooked. But if the US was keen on Alaska, why would they not be even more keen on Greenland?
And then the Canadian military and the ice-breaking fleet slowly turned to mush after the Troodos sadly gained influence in Canada, which meant the far north became an open gate. I further wondered when the Americans would notice that.....because it was the portal to the whole continent, from the north rather than from the south.
And heck...I wasn't even political in my youth. I simply used common sense.
Look at our Universal Healthcare.
Oh wait, you can’t.
It's getting to be a pretty long list. Even the distractions have distractions.
I know!
I'm so cynical now!
I'm always looking for who might really be behind something, or what we're all missing, or who stands to gain, or who who is hiding what. . .?
Feels like pre-Trump talk of America obtaining Greenland is relevant. Otherwise you perpetuate the notion that Trump is the only one to ever promote the idea.
I was completely unaware that Truman floated the idea
Me too. But since the media goes bat shit over everything Trump says, I can understand why president and governments choose to do things in secret. At least you know where he stands whether you agree, think he’s nuts or….
He tried it the other way and the MSM/swamp just shit all over him. This time, he won't sit and let them shit on him.
It doesn't make a fucking bit of difference who thought of it first. It's ugly and unbecoming to threaten people. We have a 1951 treaty with Greenland and we can have more bases if we like, per that treaty. As for Greenland itself, IT IS NOT OURS.
The Trump administration has not made a good enough case as to why Greenland as US territory is necessary.
Denmark and Greenland are not on board, let's move on to something else.
Have you ever looked at a map of the globe from a polar projection? Discounting the mineral deposits, you do realize that Greenland sits right in the middle of the shortest path between North America and Russia/China?
So what? The only expansionist country in the world today is the US. No one even talks about the environmental harm that would ensue if the US under Tyrantosaurus rump acquired Greenland and started mining there, etc.
It's only been 2 months for catssakes.
You left out the most important issue. When Greenland asked Denmark to rehabilitate their dilapidated airports, Denmark said they didn't have the money to fix them up. Who then offers to fix them? CHINA
Then Denmark found the money. After that the Trumpian discussion began. There are more people in Bayonne, New Jersey than in Greenland. Distressed property - let us take it off your hands…
And not let the CCP have a base in Greenland.
CCP China wants both Greenland and Canada. They have already made inroads in Canada. Apart from all the other goodies, they want to be sitting on that long northern American border. I think you can see why.
This stuff happens by stealth, and before you know it....
I recall several years ago that globalist PM of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, took out a loan for NZ from China (whether NZ actually needed it or not). She put the best NZ port up for collateral. Or was going to. Can you guess the rest? "Dang! Had to default! (says Jacinda)." This of course was a supposedly valid excuse for handing the NZ port to CCP China; or it was being made to look that way. And then they would control those adjacent trade routes too.
Something stopped the loan and port takeover. It is the Trojan Horse approach. And before you know it.....
But do you see how it works when all goes smoothly?
Speaking of Communist China making inroads in Canada, this week a Liberal Party Chinese-Canadian candidate for the upcoming federal election April 28 was found to have attempted to get others in his riding to kidnap his opponent in order to turn him over to the Chinese Embassy and collect a bounty on his head, because this fellow had spoken against the Communist state.
Mark Carnage, unelected Liberal PM right after Troodo, simply called the uproar unnecessary, saying it was a "teachable moment" . Astute Canadians think Carnage answers to Beijing anyway.
As of today, the kidnapping Liberal candidate resigned amidst the hue and cry.
He actually made a stupid joke. A bad one and he should resign. But he did not organize a group of people to physically kidnap the guy. Come on.
According to non-MSM media (far more trustworthy), he did indeed strongly suggest a political opponent be handed over to the Chinese Communist Party via hustling him (against his will) to the Chinese Embassy. Where they could collect the bounty. What do you call that?
CCP China recently executed Canadians in their country, on various charges.
Paul Chiang was an MP when he made these suggestions. Even the Toronto Star was on record saying it was a deplorable thing to do, and Chiang should resign. Someone who sits in our House of Commons suggesting Canadians should be kidnapped to be sent to a Communist state for punishment because that person criticized that state? Appalling!
Do you support CCP China, Davey?
Or, maybe BlackRock could take over Greenland. (Note to self: BlackRock, China. The difference is . . .?)
Dear Greenlanders, We Americans may not be much, but please choose us. Sincerely,
Isn't Blackrock supposed to operate the Panama Canal now? Not much better than China operating it.
So why does Denmark think it has a claim to Greenland? Playing the devil's advocate here.
I suppose that over the history of mankind, lands have changed hands mostly due to force. That was the standard, apart from discovering new lands and staking a claim by the authority which funded your voyage. Then you had to get your people populating the place asap to hold it. Or royal marriage dowries sometimes caused the change of lands from one hand to another.
I know that Denmark took over Norway for a long period called the "400 years of darkness". Greenland had been considered to be in the Norwegian bundle of lands/possessions.
But then so did one or more of the islands in the Hebrides of Scotland; some of these changed hands as a marriage dowry from Norway to a match with a Scottish chief. In fact, Trump is descended from the MacLeod clan, whose lands changed from Norway to Scotland in this way.
And you could say that the Vikings themselves (from what is now Norway, Sweden, Denmark) simply plundered and took whatever they wanted.
Therefore...who really owns Greenland? The native Greenlanders are Inuit descendants from the Siberians who crossed the Bering Strait 15,000 or so years ago. Much the same as the Inuit of northern Canada. Some of them are thought to have been in Canada first.
I suppose the argument might be that if Denmark took it once from Norway, and Norway took it once from Greenland.....why would it be any different for the U.S. now to buy it from Denmark/Greenland (not certain who gets the purchase price)? Denmark did not exactly acquire Greenland in a noble fashion.
And the U.S. is willing to pay a fair price for it. As far as I know, this is more than Denmark ever did.
Global geopolitics are changing. Aligning in new ways. Historically, this is when sovereignty shifts often happen. Some people are going to be happy with it, some people are not. If there is supposed "international law" governing this (how well did "international law" work in the COVID years...hm-m-m?), is it retroactive to Norway taking Greenland many centuries ago, when Norwegian Vikings first found it?
As far as I can see, there is no one principle governing the ownership of lands like this. It has been a patchwork approach throughout history, depending on circumstances, financial backing, and power.
In a nutshell, after the viking/danish/norweigian settlements left for a couple hundred years, Denmark came and colonized it like other European powers did to the Americas. They just came, and decided it was theirs. That is the beginning of their modern claim and here we are. Much more has happened since then, but that is where it started being associated with the modern Kingdom of Denmark. It would be very legal for them to sell it subject to a high level of vote support by the inhabitants. It should have been sold to Canada or the US a long time ago as Denmark doesnt have the ability to fully support it or to grow it. They just really, at the heart, dont want to give up land that is "theirs". The case for Greenland to be sold is a rather strong one to be frank.
Who the hell knows what Trump is up to.. He could be serious or just playing. In any event, he certainly is irritating the Danes.
Look at a map of the world. The Arctic is in play.
Seems like he’s pissing away a lot of political capital on something stupid. The erratic nature of his tariff strategy is hard to fathom as well. His mandate was to fix our country and all these sideshows are not working out well. Isn’t there someone among his cabinet or advisors that can make the man focus? As a supporter of the man’s agenda this is demoralizing. Maybe Elon can spike his water with adderall.
The tariffs make complete sense. I commend Tucker's conversation with Robert Lighthizer for a very cogent defense of them and the associated economic strategy.
I’ll check it out. I definitely support reshoring industry to the U.S. with tariffs as one tool. But I used to own a small manufacturing business and you can’t find US subcontractors for materials or components, and they shipped nearly all of the existing stock of machines and equipment overseas when this offshoring began decades ago. The whole supply chain of equipment makers and materials suppliers is nonexistent domestically. You can’t make anything without the tools. It’s really horrifying.
It will take decades to rebuild our manufacturing capacity. High tariffs going into immediate effect will create shortages of everything and the price spikes will be stunning. There will certainly be a domestic backlash and it won’t bode well for Vance’s election. We’re in a really big hole and restoring our manufacturing infrastructure needs to be done thoughtfully and with a long term plan.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Remember that Trump is the one trying to fix the mess. Democrats want to perpetuate and worsen it.
I like the tariffs, now that I understand more about them.
I see nothing wrong with reciprocal tariffs.
Once again, I LOVE these timelines. Completely on-point and gives a terrific refresher of the history. I didn't know (or remember) that Truman tried to get Greenland; I did know about our air force base there.
Personally, I believe Greenland is important to the security of the US. Whether that means as a territory or with additional security promises, I don't know ... but geographically, it's strategic. I also think that whatever we pay to support Greenland will be made up for in the abundance of natural resources that would be available to us.
I'm with the Danes on this one. Setting aside Trump's boorish comments, however, history tells us that such a huge land mass - really the last great wilderness on Earth - is not going to remain in its present quasi-independent state with fewer than a mere 60,000 inhabitants indefinitely. At some point some larger power will seek to control Greenland. Having a military base there already gives us veto power over any such incursion for the time being, unless of course it's us.
We would treat it better than Russia or China would.
When have China or Russia ever mentioned wanting Greenland?
Look around this thread a little.
That doesn't answer my question.
And here I voted for the son of a bitch to reduce the number of military bases in the world. Let's acquire a whole country and turn it into one huge US military base. Hubris!!!
It's pretty clear that the rare earth minerals thought to be there in abundance is the primary reason. The one base already there should be plenty, so I agree with you on that.
Are the rare earth minerals meant to support the data centers for AI that use more energy than anything on earth? Or have I got that wrong?
It's a good possibility. But there's a better, more eco-friendly alternative. I've heard crypto miners discuss the idea (and I think some are already doing this) of building the data centers next to energy production sources like fossil fuel refineries in order to capture the natural gas flares off well stacks and convert it into the energy needed to run the data centers. Win-win for everyone.
Trump claims that the U.S. taking over another country's territory protects the world's security.
That's as ludicrous the maritime threats to U.S. security from the Grand Duchy of Fenwick.
You have not heard of CCP China and Russia being in an expansionist mood? China, at least, covets both Greenland and Canada.
There is nothing ludicrous about the Arctic maritime area surrounding northern Canada and Greenland. Ports, shipping lanes, and a portal to the whole North American continent.
The Nazi u-boats in WWII were right outside the port of Halifax, in Canada. Menacingly. What stops an adversarial power from using the sea routes of the Arctic in the same way?
I find your comment odd.
China and Russia being in an expansionist mood? But not the US. The US only wants Greenland, Canada and Panama (and God knows what else). That's not expansionist. That's self defense.
Controlling the whole world is only self defense.
I don't think you understand the situation. Or the present state of geopolitics.
You seem to be stuck in "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing"....that 1970s catchy propaganda ditty.
Sounds like you're more concerned with Canada's security. So let Canada buy it. We in the U.S. have more important things to spend our money on.
It's simply amazing how much J.D. is willing to make himself Trump's little bitch lapdog. Dude has no principles. Even as much as Rubio sells himself, it's not as pathetic as Vance.
I root for this administration in some aspects, but man, do they make it hard.
And they seem to have no clue that the absolute uniformity of messaging makes them sound like robots. Today's example is Martin Makary introducing himself to FDA doing the
"Make America Healthy Again" song and dance. Way to sound like a pawn, dude. More lapdogginess.
Again, I'm open to changes. I just think these guys are sinking their own ship They are going to blow it and it pisses me off. Nobody that gets into office can seem to be able to get out of their own way anymore.
It's called being stuck in the duopoly/deep state/status quo/establishment/centralized control matrix. Left wing, right wing, same vulture. Time to vote in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th parties.
That Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs appears to be the adult in the room. He looks to be completely resistant to Trump's trolling in the media. I'm not worred about this at all. Still this timeline was informative of facts, many of which I hadn't known. I appreciate these more and more.
What a farce this is! It's like a plot from Veep, or "Wag the Dog."