DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Denmark tells Trump to stop threatening to seize Greenland

Lol.
Those are are all real things. And you're clearly kosher with them. That's ok. You do you. And I suppose you've moved on from homo slurs and tampon jibes... Now it's just sexual abuse goads. Stay classy.

You can "feel" any way you want to "feel" but nothing about anything I posted is anything that resembles "Chicken Little". So no, having your own feelings about any topic isn't the issue here. I was taught that it's not so much what you say as how you say it. And if you wish to conduct our discussions the same way we have over the last couple of days I'm all for that. If not we can travel back down that path as well. I'm game either way.

Here is the confusing part of your post. I never said he would use military action against Greenland anywhere. As a matter of fact my insinuation pretty much mirrors yours in one respect. We phrase what we call it a little differently but in the ends it's the same thing.

Let's look at the timeline. You are certainly correct that the trump administration hadn't really made any comment about using the military in Greenland for about a year. But just after using our military to oust Maduro from power, it was brought up again. I don't see that as coincidental. It's a clear message to both Greenland and Denmark.

The message being sent they have choices to make. That they can take and accept a deal trump places on the table or the alternative has been presented that if not military action is an option. That much is clear. You refer to that as a negotiating tactic. I refer to it as a strong arm tactic much like was used by the mafia. "Do what i tell you or you're going to pay the price." I don't see leaving a military action as an option against one of your own allies as a "negotiating tactic".

That doesn't mean, nor did I state that I believe trump is going to take military action in Greenland. I'm not in the No way in hell camp but I certainly find it highly unlikely.

So your reply was in no way representative to addressing my post and made assertions I never even so much as implied.

Edit to add............


How in the world did you get that out of sending the message to Greenland, Denmark and the rest of our NATO allies that the U.S. would not entertain in any possible way use our military in Greenland?

Wow.

See this is how an honest discussion gets driven off the rails.

No, tampon "jibes" are never off the table as long as Timmy is still in office.

Homo slurs? I made homo slurs?? Go ahead and quote that for me, Nancy.

I'll stay classy as long as you stay twisted. And remember -- every time you say "MAGA Fanboy", another Karen gets her wings.

Trump says US will do something on Greenland 'whether they like it or not'
ALEXANDRA HUTZLER
Fri, January 9, 2026 at 6:28 PM EST
3 min read


Trump still wants US to take over GreenlandScroll back up to restore default view.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to press for U.S. control of Greenland, telling reporters: "We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not."

"Because if we don't do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we're not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor," Trump said as he hosted oil executives at the White House to discuss investments in Venezuela.

The president has repeatedly said he wants to take over Greenland either by buying the autonomous island territory or by using military force, calling it a matter of national security despite fierce pushback from Greenland, Denmark and European allies.

US military is 'always an option' for Trump to acquire Greenland, White House official says

"Greenland is not for sale. I think our Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and our Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt has made it very, very clear. Our country belongs to the Greenlandic people," Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s head of representation to the United States, said to journalists on Thursday after a closed-door meeting with members of Congress.

When asked on Friday for how much money he believed it would take to get Greenland on board with his proposal, Trump said, "I'm not talking about money for Greenland yet. I might talk about that."

"I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way," Trump said.

High-profile Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have also poured cold water on Trump's aim to acquire Greenland.

"I think it's been made clear from our Danish friends and from our friends in Greenland that that future does not include a negotiation. There's no willingness on their part to negotiate for the purchase or the change in title to their land, which they've had for so long," Sen. Roger Wicker, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after meeting with Isbosethsen and Denmark's Ambassador to the United States Jesper Møller Sørensen on Thursday.

"There is no reason for a negotiation around who controls Greenland because Greenland and the United States and Denmark have been allies. We share the same values, we have worked cooperatively together," Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after the meeting.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, one of Trump's top allies, notably dismissed any assertion that the U.S. would use military action to acquire Greenland.

"I don't think anybody's seriously considering that. And in the Congress, we're certainly not," Johnson said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Rubio says Trump wants to buy Greenland while White House dangles military option

ice President JD Vance on Thursday said to take Trump at his word on the issue and defended the administration's interest in the island territory.

"I guess my advice to European leaders and anybody else would be to take the president of the United States seriously," Vance told reporters at a press briefing with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

"No. 1, Greenland is really important, not just to America's missile defense, but to the world's missile defense. No. 2, we know that there are hostile adversaries that have shown a lot of interest in that particular territory, that particular slice of the world," Vance said.

Next week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to meet with his counterparts from Denmark and Greenland after they requested an urgent meeting with him.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-says-us-something-greenland-232840265.html

All Greenland Political Parties Issue Joint Statement: "We stand united in ensuring that Greenland, now and in the future, remains inhabited by the Inuit of Greenland and governed by their own decisions."


https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/

Translated:

Didn't you know that means "there is no way in hell Trump is going to use the military to take Greenland. Full stop."

And that this is just a negotiating tactic? I'm pretty sure that our NATO allies, Denmark and Greenland don't see it that way.

And the beat goes on.....

If he had just said, Listen Vinny" at the beginning of that statement it would sound exactly like something a mafia "Don" would have said.

Distraction accomplished. Pfffft MAGAts.

Epstein files coming out on Netflix soon.

He's not.

Wanna place a wager?

My $500 to your $100, we'll put it in another poster's paypal account till (a) we have Greenland without force (b) we use military force (c) Trump leaves office.

You game? Or you just want to continue the never-ending cycle of demeaning other's opinions by predicting a future that NEVER comes to pass?

I've already stated that I find it highly unlikely he would ever use the military in Greenland. Did you miss that part?

How is it demeaning to point out that you consider issuing the use of military force as an option is merely a negotiating tactic? That is your assertion is it not?

And of course when you pull one line out of a post it loses a little context. So I'll help you out with that...........................


I'm sure our NATO allies including Denmark and Greenland don't see that comment as innocuous and I'm pretty sure you understand that too.

I keep forgetting that you're the only one allowed to "pull one line out of a post" and change the course of conversation. My bad.

So, in the first post, your usual passive-aggressive-taunting-mockery; in the second, you agree with me?

That's just weird.

I think you fully understand what I was saying. But since it seems there is a need for it to be repeated again..... He is holding this threat over the heads of a NATO ally. They are taking it seriously. They have justification to take it seriously. I don't agree that "there is no way in hell Trump is going to use the military to take Greenland." I do find that scenario highly unlikely. There is a difference.

The fact you keep ignoring what I'm saying here is just weird.

Let me remind you this is the message he sent to Maduro...... "You can “do things the easy way … or the hard way”

So yes, our allies have every reason to consider trump using the military in Greenland a strong possibility.

Cool story. Thanks.

At least your response aligns with exactly what I expected.

European Allies Working On Plan Should U.S. Move On Greenland

Allies including France and Germany are working closely on a plan on how to respond should the United States act on its threat to take over Greenland.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/europe-allies-plan-us-greenland-takeover_n_695e6a43e4b05bed6f971e0f

Here's another part of that "cool story".

Yes, our NATO allies are taking this seriously.

Using the threat of force against a NATO ally and causing European leaders to react and make statements defending Greenland's and Denmark's rights and potentially drawing up contingency plans ..... That's the issue today. It's real. That's a problem. It makes the world less stable and makes Putin happy. Apparently it makes MAGA fan boys happy too, makes them forgot where they put their money to buy sanitary towels.