Honestly amazes me that people think this sort of aggression and utter destabilising trash talking and now actions with Venezuela, is embraced and tolerated by anyone that can think for themselves.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
So ... Stephen Miller says no-one would resist if the US decided to take Greenland. After the recent events in Venezuela who wants to dismiss this as just crazy talk? In fact with all the things Trump has pushed Term 2 - who would dismiss this?
Europe responded. Leaders have come out and (diplomatically) told the USA to F Off. Denmark (and various outlets in the EU) have stated that NATO would be finished if it ever happened - I agree. I mean how does NATO survive if one member invades/annexes another member's territory?
I guess some might regurgitate the Miller/Trump word vomit trying to justify the concept of the USA taking over Greenland. I'd be interested to know NOW ahead of anything actually happening - are Peen and others all for this? We know after the events happen folks find a way to claim they are all for something ... I'd like to know ahead of time what your thoughts are.
Like Ukraine and Taiwan - a move to take over Greenland would simply enable China and Russia. And really at that point Trump and the USA would be closer aligned and partnered with Russia than Europe and 'The West'.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
It has been pretty obvious to anyone that the current President it immune to any and all "moral ground" allegations as he has never claimed such a thing.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!…. That did not age well.
The U.S. effectively made a deal with Denmark in 1917: the U.S. bought the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) for $25 million, and in return, the U.S. agreed not to object to Denmark's extension of sovereignty over Greenland, solidifying Denmark's control there and securing American Caribbean interests. This exchange was part of a broader historical interest by the U.S. in acquiring Greenland, which has been attempted multiple times, including a formal offer in 1946 and recent renewed interest. Key Aspects of the 1917 Deal:
The Purchase: The U.S. acquired the Danish West Indies (St. Croix, St. John, St. Thomas) to bolster its Caribbean presence and protect the Panama Canal.
The Greenland Clause: The treaty included a declaration where the U.S. recognized Danish sovereignty over all of Greenland.
Motivation: This was part of a long-standing U.S. strategy to gain influence in the Caribbean and strategic Arctic territory.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
There has been another treaty or agreement since then in the '40s. That agreement basically says that the USA can put as many troops into Greenland as it wishes with the consent of the Danish crown or something along those lines. The idea that the USA needs to annex Greenland for strategic defensive purposes is completely bogus as they have every opportunity to do what they want with greenland from a defensive perspective as is.
It shows you when puppets shout Monroe doctrine and regurgitate trump propaganda immediately ,just how completely brainwashed they are.
Last edited by mgh888; 01/07/2601:45 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
There has been another treaty or agreement since then in the '40s. That agreement basically says that the USA can put as many troops into Greenland as it wishes with the consent of the Danish crown or something along those lines. The idea that the USA needs to annex Greenland for strategic defensive purposes is completely bogus as they have every opportunity to do what they want with greenland from a defensive perspective as is.
It shows you when puppets shout Monroe doctrine and regurgitate trump propaganda immediately ,just how completely brainwashed they are.
Strategic purposes is more than just putting troops somewhere. Securing mineral resources is part of long-term strategic defense.
That said, I am 1000% against the use of force to acquire Greenland. I am 1000% in favor of us buying Greenland, and I do not think Denmark has to be involved in that discussion, only the people of Greenland whom the government of Denmark frequently ignores, anyway. Throw $5-$10 million per citizen at them and see if they agree.... then cut a deal with Denmark afterwards to make everyone happy.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
That IS what was being "offered and discussed". Many, many, many times actually.
All real discussion has stressed respecting Greenlanders' choice and pursuing acquisition through non-confrontational means. Trump has prioritized purchase, with Rubio briefing Congress that buying the territory is the "preferred approach".
The taking by force all hinges on three vague statements, all made nearly a year ago. But that's all YOU want to focus on because that's what sets YOUR hair on fire.
White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.
“The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.” .............................
Senior White House aide Stephen Miller doubled down on the position Monday, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper that nobody would fight the US militarily “over the future of Greenland” and questioning the right of Denmark — a fellow NATO nation — to claim the territory.
For me it's an obvious threat being held over their heads. There are more comments coming out of this administration similar to this and no, they weren't from a year ago.
It directly states they are looking at all options. It directly states that military force is still an option. It sends a pretty direct message that you can take what we are offering you or we can take it from you if and when we so choose to. Your choice.
Now I'm not trying to claim trump would use military action against Greenland. I have no way of knowing that. But the threat of that possibility being an option looms large on the people of Greenland and our NATO allies. And the reason it's looming so large right now is the threat of the U.S. using the military being brought up again at this particular time comes right on the heels of trump's military move in Venezuela. I see that as no coincidence.
I can see why such a threat could be seen and taken as a strong arm tactic.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
White House discussing ‘options’ to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.
“The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.” .............................
Senior White House aide Stephen Miller doubled down on the position Monday, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper that nobody would fight the US militarily “over the future of Greenland” and questioning the right of Denmark — a fellow NATO nation — to claim the territory.
For me it's an obvious threat being held over their heads. There are more comments coming out of this administration similar to this and no, they weren't from a year ago.
It directly states they are looking at all options. It directly states that military force is still an option. It sends a pretty direct message that you can take what we are offering you or we can take it from you if and when we so choose to. Your choice.
Now I'm not trying to claim trump would use military action against Greenland. I have no way of knowing that. But the threat of that possibility being an option looms large on the people of Greenland and our NATO allies. And the reason it's looming so large right now is the threat of the U.S. using the military being brought up again at this particular time comes right on the heels of trump's military move in Venezuela. I see that as no coincidence.
I can see why such a threat could be seen and taken as a strong arm tactic.
You should do yourself a favor and watch the entire interview, or at least the 3+ minutes talking about Greenland. It starts at 8:34
That statement is taken entirely out of context, especially since it ignores the very sentence directly preceding it... "There's no need to even talk or think about this in the context that you're asking, of a military operation."
That's after he (rightfully, but comedically) made fun of Tapper for headline chasing. That's after he poo-pooed the entire notion as preposterous.
Bottom line: New headlines created by regurgitating year-old b.s. so everyone can say Trump wants to take Greenland by force. Same as it ever was.
The Trump administration's approach to Greenland has been characterized by:•Questioning Legal Rights: Directly challenging Denmark's historical and legal claim to the territory.•Threats of Force: Explicitly refusing to rule out military action to "take" the island.•Economic Coercion: Threatening tariffs against a NATO ally (Denmark) to force a territorial sale.•Diplomatic Hostility: Canceling state visits and labeling foreign leaders' responses as "nasty" or "absurd" when they refuse to discuss the sale of their territory.
From AI.
Communication is a two way Street. Denmark (and Europe) is hearing the USA and Trump acting like a petulant bully. Suggesting that the administration has focused on buying Greenland and only buying Greenland would be an incorrect summary of events to date.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
There has been another treaty or agreement since then in the '40s. That agreement basically says that the USA can put as many troops into Greenland as it wishes with the consent of the Danish crown or something along those lines. The idea that the USA needs to annex Greenland for strategic defensive purposes is completely bogus as they have every opportunity to do what they want with greenland from a defensive perspective as is.
It shows you when puppets shout Monroe doctrine and regurgitate trump propaganda immediately ,just how completely brainwashed they are.
Strategic purposes is more than just putting troops somewhere. Securing mineral resources is part of long-term strategic defense.
That said, I am 1000% against the use of force to acquire Greenland. I am 1000% in favor of us buying Greenland, and I do not think Denmark has to be involved in that discussion, only the people of Greenland whom the government of Denmark frequently ignores, anyway. Throw $5-$10 million per citizen at them and see if they agree.... then cut a deal with Denmark afterwards to make everyone happy.
Thanks. You get it.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
The population of Greenland is 56,000-57,000. Call it 57,000. Current reports are that we are offering between $10,000 and $100,000 per citizen.
At $100k per person, that would be a paltry $5.7 billion to secure anywhere from $280 billion to $2.7 trillion in minerals without even factoring in the vastly unexplored oil & gas reserves there. Throw them $1 million each and it's still a rather petty sum at $57 billion for that massive return.... I mean, that's only like 3 Minneapolis Day Cares for buying all of Greenland.
This should be getting viewed as when the U.S. acquired the Alaska Territories from Russia. In fact, the deal cut should be the same as Alaskans get now where everyone living there gets some of the oil/mineral money each year.
And, again, there is no need to negotiate through Denmark, but we can be polite and offer them like 2% per year to keep them happy. If Greenland wants to be free of Denmark and join the U.S., that is a choice of the citizens of Greenland to make.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
But.... None of that has been offered. What has been said is they won't rule out force and the reaction from Denmark and Europe should tell you something. Germany and France only today Slamming the US.... And Indo mean slamming, because coming out and dealing what they said in political terms with a petulant child like T at the helm is a strong as it gets.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
And while I except there are costs to the extraction of the minerals and oil... Offering 5 billion for something you just said might be worth 2.7 trillion.... Seems like some fairly fuzzy math
The more things change the more they stay the same.
And, again, there is no need to negotiate through Denmark, but we can be polite and offer them like 2% per year to keep them happy. If Greenland wants to be free of Denmark and join the U.S., that is a choice of the citizens of Greenland to make.
So - just to be clear - it would be cool with you if China - for example - offered to buy out Hawaii by offering each of the citizens there $100k (would cost them about $110 billion, which they certainly have). Then if the citizens agree, it just becomes part of China (including US military bases in Hawaii, and all government infrastructure in Hawaii) -- because of course the US has no say, it's just up to the people of Hawaii.
Or like, maybe China can buy Lewes, Delaware --- population 3000, accessible from the ocean. It can offer then $10M per person, which I'm sure people would accept -- then they set up a military base on the site with missiles that are 60 miles from Washington DC. It also gives China claims to all the water out to 12 nautical miles into Delaware Bay, allowing them to legally stop shipping into Philadelphia.
Sure - that's a better example (and China could again do it for about the same amount of money as buying Hawaii) - but I don't think it matters which one you use - Prpl is arguing that you can buy any location you want, so long as the local population agrees.
I'm not sure that's the case, but I am far from a whatever flavor of law we are talking about.
While it's probably true that everything has a price, Hawaii is a state under the USA federal government. Our federal government would have something to say about China moving in. Greenland, on the other hand is an autonomous territory tied to Denmark. It has its own government, but its residents are citizens of Denmark.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's different from Hawaii, but maybe not all that different.
"I'll take your word at face value. I have never met you but I assume you have a face..lol"
I'm not sure that's the case, but I am far from a whatever flavor of law we are talking about.
While it's probably true that everything has a price, Hawaii is a state under the USA federal government. Our federal government would have something to say about China moving in. Greenland, on the other hand is an autonomous territory tied to Denmark. It has its own government, but its residents are citizens of Denmark.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's different from Hawaii, but maybe not all that different.
Under international law "autonomous territories" are an internal classification, and give the region some specific self-governence, the degree of which is dependent on the state that governs them.
However, Denmark has full "external sovereignty" over Greenland, because it is the state actor. Greenland cannot (under international law) enter into an agreement with another sovereign country (for example, they cannot make a deal with the United States that would be valid under international law) - only Denmark can create an agreement with the United States, because those are the two sovereign countries.
An example of this is the Åland Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land) which is an autonomous region under Finnish sovereignty -- however the laws that guarantee its autonomy are governed by a treaty between Finland and Sweden (rather than being purely an internal arrangement within Finland). Another example, already cited above, is the joint defense of Greenland agreement, which is an agreement between Denmark and the United States, which allows the US military presence in Greenland. Note, it is not an agreement between Greenland and the United States.
This, can, of course, get complicated when an autonomous region declares that they are their own country (for example Kosovo) and then that sovereignty claim isn't directly militarily challenged by the sovereign country -- but the law is clear that any deal regarding Greenland would have to be between the United States and Denmark.
Trump has talked about buying Greenland - this is true.
Trump and his administration have also tried to bully and coerce Denmark - during conversations and press conferences, refusing to rule out taking the territory by force... including Stephen Miller stating "We're going to take Greenland because we can. Who is going to stop us?"
Some want to suggest the only talking point is that Trump has offered to buy Greenland - even though this notion has been repeatedly resolutely dismissed and rejected by the Danes - and that is the only talking point. Ignoring the fact that there are implied threats and implications that force could be used against a NATO ally.
I heard that apparently Fox news promoting the idea there is no such thing as International Law .... A quick search revels:
Will Cain: "There's no such thing as international law. There is only such thing as conquest. And if it serves Americans, then so be it. We rule the jungle. We are the lion." A dangerous idiot. Clearly. Maybe he's applying for a role in the cabinet like Hegseth. Another unqualified idiot.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I'm not sure that's the case, but I am far from a whatever flavor of law we are talking about.
While it's probably true that everything has a price, Hawaii is a state under the USA federal government. Our federal government would have something to say about China moving in. Greenland, on the other hand is an autonomous territory tied to Denmark. It has its own government, but its residents are citizens of Denmark.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's different from Hawaii, but maybe not all that different.
It is completely different from going after an actual U.S. state. The best analog would be Guam in that it is entirely autonomous, has no real say in U.S. politics, and is just a territory but it does have self-determination the same as Greenland - and that self determination is recognized for both under international law. Furthermore, Greenland has the 2009 Self-Government Act which is Danish law that allows it to simply declare full independence, though that would require a referendum and approval from Danish parliament.
And, no, I would not be Ok with China doing that but it also would be Guam's choice whether I like it or not, and there is also the not-so-small difference in strategic security: we are not a threat to Denmark, but China IS a strategic threat to the U.S. Of course, I prefer a solution that works for everyone and where Denmark comes away being ok with things.
I view the situation much like an NFL team negotiating a contract with a player they intend to trade for who has formally requested a trade. We need to work out those terms, then see if we can meet somewhere with the team we're trading with.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Let's be honest here. They always claim they were taken out of context when they get caught stating things they weren't supposed to say out loud. They use that as often as claiming trump was joking every time he says something they can't come up with an excuse for.
And as for the statement Karoline Leavitt made, who is the actual spokesperson for trump, what she said could not have been more clear.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Let's be honest here. They always claim they were taken out of context when they get caught stating things they weren't supposed to say out loud. They use that as often as claiming trump was joking every time he says something they can't come up with an excuse for.
And as for the statement Karoline Leavitt made, who is the actual spokesperson for trump, what she said could not have been more clear.
I missed it. I usually avoid caring about anything centered on faux outrage and fairy-tale arguments. We all know Trump isn't invading Greenland or using the military, blah, blah, blah... All of us. The media is screaming that he won't rule out military action as if that means he'll rule it in. They all know that's b.s. as well.
The quicker the world admits that they understand Trump's negotiating tactics, and quit running around like Chicken-Little, the better.
This is a quote from Karoline Leavitt who is trump's chief spokesperson......................
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.
“The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”
I usually avoid caring about anything centered on faux outrage and fairy-tale arguments.
Is that the finger you're going to point towards people who use actual quotes from the trump administration now?
Quote
The quicker the world admits that they understand Trump's negotiating tactics, and quit running around like Chicken-Little, the better.
That sounds very similar to what many people said about Venezuela. Maybe it's time some people not dismiss or try to flip the script on what's being said coming out of The White House.
For a couple of days now we have been having good back and forth discussions. Now it seems to be devolving back to what it was before. I thought we had moved past that but it appears I may have been a little premature in thinking that.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I usually avoid caring about anything centered on faux outrage and fairy-tale arguments. We all know Trump isn't invading Greenland or using the military, blah, blah, blah... All of us.
Yep.
And we all know Trump wouldn't use the justice Dept. to make up contrived reasons to persecute political opponents. He wouldn't instigate a military operation against a Nation State to create regime change, brazenly make his corporate donors wealthy and ignore international law. He wouldn't deploy the National Guard to Democrat runs cities on a pretense of law and order while ignoring the many Republican cities with far worse crime statistics. He wouldn't meet with Putin and regurgitate Russian propaganda (endlessly) while ambushing and belittling the President of Ukraine in a staged event at the Whitehouse. He wouldn't grab girls vaginas without their consent. He wouldn't pay off a porn star with campaign funds. He wouldn't write a sleazy message to Epstein for his 50th talking about the secrets they share. He wouldn't commit to releasing all of the Epstein files during his run for President and then essentially do everything in his power to block their release once in power. He wouldn't put up new plaques with the most childish, petulant gibberish about former presidents in the White House. He wouldn't rename the Golf of Mexico. He wouldn't bulldoze the rose garden overnight.
And on and on and on.
Sure ....
Last edited by mgh888; 01/09/2612:24 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I usually avoid caring about anything centered on faux outrage and fairy-tale arguments.
Is that the finger you're going to point towards people who use actual quotes from the trump administration now?
Quote
The quicker the world admits that they understand Trump's negotiating tactics, and quit running around like Chicken-Little, the better.
That sounds very similar to what many people said about Venezuela. Maybe it's time some people not dismiss or try to flip the script on what's being said coming out of The White House.
For a couple of days now we have been having good back and forth discussions. Now it seems to be devolving back to what it was before. I thought we had moved past that but it appears I may have been a little premature in thinking that.
Premature about what? I have to change the way I feel so we can have "good back and forth"?
I think it's fairy-tale faux outrage because there is no way in hell Trump is going to use the military to take Greenland. Full stop.
There is also no way in hell he's going to say "I'm taking military action off the table" to appease the media or those that want to talk fairy tales every day.
Pretty simple to me. If that means we can't converse, I don't know what to tell you.
I usually avoid caring about anything centered on faux outrage and fairy-tale arguments. We all know Trump isn't invading Greenland or using the military, blah, blah, blah... All of us.
Yep.
And we all know Trump wouldn't use the justice Dept. to make up contrived reasons to persecute political opponents. He wouldn't instigate a military operation against a Nation State to create regime change, brazenly make his corporate donors wealthy and ignore international law. He wouldn't deploy the National Guard to Democrat runs cities on a pretense of law and order while ignoring the many Republican cities with far worse crime statistics. He wouldn't meet with Putin and regurgitate Russian propaganda (endlessly) while ambushing and belittling the President of Ukraine in a staged event at the Whitehouse. He wouldn't grab girls vaginas without their consent. He wouldn't pay off a porn star with campaign funds. He wouldn't write a sleazy message to Epstein for his 50th talking about the secrets they share. He wouldn't commit to releasing all of the Epstein files during his run for President and then essentially do everything in his power to block their release once in power. He wouldn't put up new plaques with the most childish, petulant gibberish about former presidents in the White House. He wouldn't rename the Golf of Mexico. He wouldn't bulldoze the rose garden overnight.
And on and on and on.
Sure ....
Can you just tell us all where he touched you so we can feel sorry for you and get this mess over with?
Maybe then, collectively, we can point you in the direction of proper care.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
