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.

Trump and his BS here will have us at war with NATO, surely you didn’t vote for that MAGA. Maybe captain craps his pants or one of his handlers drags us into ww3… and groceries are still going up up up.

We know they didn't vote for it but as you can see here they're already making excuses for him handing out threats about using military action against them. Would you be surprised if they make excuses for him if he does? I wouldn't. Just look how far they've already gone.

Donald Trump has ordered his special forces commanders to draw up a plan for the invasion of Greenland - but is being resisted by senior military figures, The Mail on Sunday has learned.

Sources say that the policy 'hawks' around the US President, led by political adviser Stephen Miller, have been so emboldened by the success of the operation to capture Venezuela's leader Nicolas Maduro that they want to move quickly to seize the island before Russia or China makes a move.

British diplomats believe that Trump is also motivated by a desire to distract American voters from the performance of the US economy before the mid-term elections later this year, after which he could lose control of Congress to the Democrats.



But such a dramatic move would put him at odds with Sir Keir Starmer and would effectively lead to the collapse of Nato.

According to the sources, the President has asked the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to prepare the invasion plan, but it is being resisted by the joint chiefs of staff on the grounds that it would be illegal - and would not be supported by Congress.

One source said: 'They have tried to distract Trump by talking about less controversial measures, such as intercepting Russian 'ghost' ships - a clandestine network of hundreds of vessels operated by Moscow to evade Western sanctions - or launching a strike on Iran.'

Diplomats have war-gamed what they describe as an 'escalatory scenario' under which Trump uses force or 'political coercion' to sever Greenland's links to Denmark.

One diplomatic cable describes the 'worst-case' scenario as leading to 'the destruction of Nato from the inside'.

It adds: 'Some European officials suspect this is the real aim of the hardline MAGA faction around Trump. Since Congress would not allow Trump to exit Nato, occupying Greenland could force the Europeans to abandon Nato. If Trump wants to end Nato, this might be the most convenient way to do it.'


Trump has ordered special forces commanders to draw up a plan for the invasion of Greenland

Under the 'Compromise Scenario', Denmark would agree to give Trump full military access to Greenland and deny access to Russia and China - although America already has free access to the island, it would be put on a legal basis

Under the 'Compromise Scenario', Denmark would agree to give Trump full military access to Greenland and deny access to Russia and China - although America already has free access to the island, it would be put on a legal basis


Cruel twist in deaths of doctor wife and twins at Arkansas mansion
9.5k viewing now
Under the 'Compromise Scenario', Denmark would agree to give Trump full military access to Greenland and deny access to Russia and China.

Although America already has free access to the island, it would be put on a legal basis.

The cable says: 'For domestic political reasons, Trump can start with an escalatory scenario which shifts to a compromise scenario.

'European officials fear that, for Trump, the window of opportunity before the mid-terms is closing in the summer, therefore action is expected sooner rather than later. The Nato summit on July 7 seems like the natural timing for a compromise deal'.

It concludes: 'The current concerns [about an invasion] are driven by the most extreme views coming from Stephen Miller. The UK's positioning will be key - whether it sticks closely with European allies or breaks ranks [to sanction Trump's approach].'

A diplomatic source said: 'The generals think Trump's Greenland plan is crazy and illegal. So they are trying to deflect him with other major military operations. They say it's like dealing with a five-year-old'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...efs-plan-invade-Greenland-President.html

For those who seem to forget a lot of things, trump's ramblings about ending NATO were taken so seriously during his first term the House overwhelmingly voted to bar an exit from NATO...............

US House votes overwhelmingly to bar US exit from NATO

January 22, 2019

https://panetta.house.gov/media/in-the-news/us-house-votes-overwhelmingly-bar-us-exit-nato

It was passed on a bipartisan basis by a 357-22 vote.

I'm not saying trump will use force but by that same token he has been known to make the push to withdraw the U.S. from NATO.

A diplomatic source said: 'The generals think Trump's Greenland plan is crazy and illegal. So they are trying to deflect him with other major military operations. They say it's like dealing with a five-year-old'.


Sources became acceptable when Biden was in office ... Pretty sure MAGA Fanboys will change their tune again now it's inconvenient.

If there's any strong arming of Greenland, even with out an actual invasion,it could be the end of NATO. Europe has already realized they are compromised by relying so heavily on the USA in the past now that there is an unreliable, egotistical, petulant child in the WH who is drunk on his own power.

Maybe the EU should start sanctioning trump assets in Europe

I found this conglomerate of old articles interesting. We have had a presence in Greenland for a long time, in much greater numbers than we currently hold.

To make a long story short, we need to work with the Danes on lease agreements giving us exclusive rights to military and mineral rights in a way that will be best for Denmark, Greenland and the USA. Denmark needs to play ball because if we don't secure the island, some other nation will. When I say secure it, I don't mean own it

Face it, globalism is dead. We are turning in to a centralized world. Europe is more or less a centralized country. We are seeking to dominate the western hemisphere.

Anyway, it is a good read, giving some background.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/brief-history-of-us-military-bases-in-greenland

Well that is mostly sensible and correct.

The issue is that what you have suggested isn't the path Trump has gone down and our Nato allies are pretty pissed off about it. You might say "who cares" - but on the back of other Trump/USA issues including the shutting down of shared military intelligence in Ukraine for a short period because Trump had a petulant little hissy fit and stamped his feet like a 5 year old .... it's politically serious.

And no - no-one else is going to take Greenland. It is covered by NATO alliance and agreement. The US can ALREADY put as much military support/protection into Greenland as they want. Or they could before all this kicked off - if I was Denmark I would think twice before letting Trump escalate and raise troop levels significantly.

As for mineral rights - I am sure that is much more at the heart of this - and Greenland and Denmark should do what's best for them, not what's best for the USA. Deal with it.

If I understand things correctly, the EU has threatened to kick all US Military installations out of their countries. So I guess that's kinda the same thing.... Next, get his golf courses out of the EU....

It's all kinda crazy. We have had a wonderful relationship with Greenland... Why does he need to do this. They don't want Russia in there or China either. And as a friend, the US would defend them....So, his argument that we need it for our security doesn't really hold any water.

My guess is he just don't want to be in NATO anymore. I bet he would if they'd kneel down and kiss his ring....That seems to work very well.

Why should Denmark agree to work out a mineral deal with us? We already have a very open agreement on expanding our military there.

The U.S. was granted extensive rights to military bases in Greenland through the 1951 Defense Treaty with Denmark, allowing it to operate its current
Pituffik Space Base and build more if needed, under a NATO framework, with ongoing discussions focused on potential expansions rather than acquisition. This Cold War agreement gives the U.S. broad operational access, though recent political talk of buying Greenland is separate and not required for military access, according to officials.

The U.S. abandoned numerous military bases in Greenland after World War II and the Cold War, most notably Camp Century, a secret under-ice base from the 1960s, but also dozens of WWII sites like Bluie East Two.

The U.S. has one main military installation in Greenland today, the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in the northwest, down significantly from dozens during the Cold War, though a defense agreement allows extensive access for missile defense and space surveillance, notes The New York Times, AP News, and Unric, according to recent reports from early 2026.

This isn't about national defense. That option is already in place. This is about taking it over and Greenland belonging to the U.S.

Just as Venezuela was never about drugs-it was about the oil.

and we have been able to expand the military in Greenland-this is not about.

It is about the minerals-hundreds of billions to a few trillion worth

Greenland is rich in natural resources – a geologist explains why
Published: January 8, 2026 7:54am EST
Author
Jonathan Paul
Associate Professor in Earth Science, Royal Holloway, University of London

Disclosure statement
Jonathan Paul does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.


Print article

Greenland, the largest island on Earth, possesses some of the richest stores of natural resources anywhere in the world.

These include critical raw materials – resources such as lithium and rare earth elements (REEs) that are essential for green technologies, but whose production and sustainability are highly sensitive – plus other valuable minerals and metals, and a huge volume of hydrocarbons including oil and gas.

Three of Greenland’s REE-bearing deposits, deep under the ice, may be among the world’s largest by volume, holding great potential for the manufacture of batteries and electrical components essential to the global energy transition.

The scale of Greenland’s hydrocarbon potential and mineral wealth has stimulated extensive research by Denmark and the US into the commercial and environmental viability of new activities like mining. The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons – similar to the US’s entire volume of proven crude oil reserves.

But Greenland’s ice-free area, which is nearly double the size of the UK, forms less than a fifth of the island’s total surface area – raising the possibility that huge stores of unexplored natural resources are present beneath the ice.

Greenland’s concentration of natural resource wealth is tied to its hugely varied geological history over the past 4 billion years. Some of the oldest rocks on Earth can be found here, as well as truck-sized lumps of native (not meteorite-derived) iron. Diamond-bearing kimberlite “pipes” were discovered in the 1970s but have yet to be exploited, largely due to the logistical challenges of mining them.

How The Conversation is different: All our authors are experts.
Learn more
Geologically speaking, it is highly unusual (and exciting for geologists like me) for one area to have experienced all three key ways that natural resources – from oil and gas to REEs and gems – are generated. These processes relate to episodes of mountain building, rifting (crustal relaxation and extension), and volcanic activity.

Greenland was shaped by many prolonged periods of mountain building. These compressive forces broke up its crust, allowing gold, gems such as rubies, and graphite to be deposited in the faults and fractures. Graphite is crucial for the production of lithium batteries but remains “underexplored”, according to the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, relative to major producers such as China and South Korea.

But the greatest proportion of Greenland’s natural resources originates from its periods of rifting – including, most recently, the formation of the Atlantic Ocean from the beginning of the Jurassic Period just over 200 million years ago.

Map of Greenland's major geologic provinces with their rock types.
Greenland’s major geologic provinces with rock types and ages. Geophysical Research Letters, CC BY-NC-SA
Greenland’s onshore sedimentary basins such as the Jameson Land Basin appear to hold the greatest potential of oil and gas reserves, analogous to Norway’s hydrocarbon-rich continental shelf. However, prohibitively high costs have limited commercial exploration. There is also a growing body of research suggesting potentially extensive petroleum systems ringing the entirety of offshore Greenland.

Metals such as lead, copper, iron and zinc are also present in the onshore (mostly ice-free) sedimentary basins, and have been worked locally, on a small scale, since 1780.

Difficult-to-source rare earth elements
While not as intimately related to volcanic activity as nearby Iceland – which, uniquely, sits at the intersection of a mid-ocean ridge and a mantle plume – many of Greenland’s critical raw materials owe their existence to its volcanic history.

REEs such as niobium, tantalum and ytterbium have been discovered in igneous rock layers – similar to the discovery (and subsequent mining) of silver and zinc reserves in south-west England, which were deposited by warm hydrothermal waters circulating at the tip of large volcanic intrusions.

Critically among REEs, Greenland is also predicted to hold sufficient sub-ice reserves of dysprosium and neodymium to satisfy more than a quarter of predicted future global demand – a combined total of nearly 40 million tonnes.

These elements are increasingly seen as the most economically important yet difficult to source REEs because of their indispensable role in wind power, electric motors for clean road transport, and magnets in high-temperature settings like nuclear reactors.

The development of known deposits such as Kvanefield in southern Greenland – not to mention those not yet discovered in the island’s central rocky core – could easily affect the global REE market, owing to their relative global scarcity.

An unfortunate dilemma
The global energy transition came about due to increasing public recognition of the manifold threats of burning fossil fuels. But climate change has major implications for the availability of many of Greenland’s natural resources that are currently blanketed by kilometres of ice – and which are a key part of that energy transition.

An area the size of Albania has melted since 1995, and this trend is likely to accelerate unless global carbon emissions fall sharply in the near future.

Recent advances in survey techniques, such as the use of ground-penetrating radar, allow us to peer with increasing certainty beneath the ice. We are now able to obtain an accurate picture of bedrock topography below up to 2 km of ice cover, providing clues as to the potential mineral resources in Greenland’s subsurface.

However, progress is slow in prospecting under the ice – and sustainable extraction is likely to prove even harder.

Soon, an unfortunate dilemma may need to be addressed. Should Greenland’s increasingly available resource wealth be extracted with gusto, in order to sustain and enhance the energy transition? But doing so will add to the effects of climate change on Greenland and beyond, including despoiling much of its pristine landscape and contributing to rising sea levels that could swamp its coastal settlements.

Currently, all mining and resource extraction activities are heavily regulated by the government of Greenland through comprehensive legal frameworks dating from the 1970s. However, pressures to loosen these controls, and to grant new licences for exploration and exploitation, may increase amid the US’s strong interest in Greenland’s future.

The biggest strategic thing folks need to realize about those mineral reserves is that many of the REE's needed for many modern technologies have to be obtained through China. The United States acquiring these - and ensuring that neither Russia nor China gain control in any form - secures our future strategic needs.

That is as big and as important as any other thing that might get floated about. The future of war and defense is High Technology, and you simply cannot sustain yourself in that arena without you own access to many of these minerals.... and the nations that control access to them get to be self-determinant and all others must come to them. Once you understand that, you will then understand that the United States CANNOT allow itself to be sidelined into a position where it is not in control. This isn't just monitoring waters or even the dollar value of those minerals (make no mistake, people will get rich), but it is quite literally the thing that secures our ability to be able to tell China to go screw itself. Securing these minerals, securing (or releasing from Chinese control) Venezuelan and Iranian oil reserves, potentially getting Alberta to join us as a state, building chip fabs in the U.S. (in case we can't keep the Chinese out of Taiwan), etc, etc... All of these things are about the long-term strategic survivability of the United States without becoming a vassal of China.

Some folks will want to poo poo things like this, but this is what global survivability looks like when preparing for the next 50 years.

They are a sovereign nation. You appear to be advocating the USA start empire building because someone else has what we want. Sorry. That's the way ww3 will start .
.. it matters not how badly we need the minerals... China and Russia aren't getting them either. That's a complete nonsense.

I'm currently watching this, and merely 7 minutes into the 20 minute video it is already a pretty solid explanation of just why this *is* going to be happening, eventually:

Now, the GIUK Gap they talk about probably isn't the issue they make it out to be. I don't know if we still have the bases in Reykyavik, but back in the 60s-90s, we had bases in Iceland, Azores, Bermuda, Bahamas, etc... that all had massive sonar arrays stretching out dozens of miles from each island into the ocean along the ocean floor. Quite literally, these passive listening arrays were good enough that a whale couldn't fart without us knowing it. We actively tracked EVERY Soviet movement in the Atlantic this way. I personally saw and handled submarine position reports that came through daily. Now, that was a LONG time ago, and at the very least the Bermuda base I was at is long gone. I don't know the status of the others.. a lot of things got caught up in Clinton's post-Cold War drawdowns and base closures, but even if the bases closed, I'd bet money the sonar arrays didn't get pulled up and could be reactivated.

I'm just curious. First it is support for the takeover of Venezuelan oil. Now it's the takeover of Greenland for rare earth minerals being supported. Where does stealing the resources of other lands and nations end by using "But we need it" as a reasonable excuse? Because we can use that as the reason to takeover a lot of countries.

Why would it not make much more sense trying to exhaust every option to negotiate purchasing those minerals first before playing the strong man and threaten them over it?

I mean I get that securing those minerals would be very beneficial to the U.S. But the option of using a military action to secure them before using every attempt at negotiating their purchase seems not to be a reasonable approach. I'm all for using our military as a last resort for the needed defense of our nation. But as a last resort. Not using them as a threat in the opening salvo over negotiating a deal for rare earth minerals.

Venezuela was enough to give China and Russia justification for expansion... Greenland would be a green light.

You can try to justify a US takeover of Greenland but it's a nonsense. It would be the end of NATO... Or the beginning of the end. Thinking of trying to suggest the resources in Greenland are under threat from Russia or China is simply manufactured lie. It is protected by NATO.

None of that was an option with Venezuela because it was in 1000% China's & Russia's pocket, same as Iran. Us finally getting rid of Venezuela's illegitimate president and flipping them to us not only bolsters us, but diminishes Russia-China ... and Iran.
A Greenland that isn't ours can be bought or influenced... or outright taken .. by someone else. If it's ours, it cannot be. It's just a matter of coming up with a deal that Denmark and the people of Greenland accept. We talk force, they talk "we can't be bought", but in the end, people will accept deals that are too good to pass up like the one mentioned in that video. Us basically absorbing Denmark's debt while protecting the Arctic for them while also paying them a ton of money and then paying the people of Greenland would make a LOT of sense. We have the resources to develop Greenland infrastructure in ways they simply cannot, but why would we do that if we're not reaping all the rewards? It's business on a governmental scale.

This then takes us to the next two items that are reshaping the world over the next few months for the next half century: both the fall of the Islamic Republic in Iran and possibly WEXIT in Canada where definitely two, and as many as six, provinces have expressed interest or passed referendums to look at becoming independent of Canada and who would be immediately welcomed as new states. Alberta's oil and Yukon's minerals with BC's pacific ports and contiguous access through Yukon to Alaska would be HUGE (YUGE?).

Note: I'm not necessarily arguing for or against anything - I'm just pointing out the very clear signs in the tea leaves. I see all of these moves as a more global overall strategy where each integrates and overlaps with the other. Each one on their own stands on its own, but together this absolutely reshapes the world in favor of the United States. Venezuela gives us an option for Heavy Crude other than Alberta, but that also might make it more favorable for Albertans to come to us. Greenland's minerals and location cannot be ignored, but then Yukon is similar and boxes out the other coast with Alaska and connects Alaska to the Continental 48. Iran takes away MASSIVE amounts of cheap energy that China has enjoyed for a long, long time and puts it all back in the global market instead of being sold on the black market to avoid sanctions. At the same time, it removes the single largest source of state-sponsored terrorism of the last half century and puts a MASSIVE dent is funding for global Islamism which is one of the largest threats to the western world today. Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS/Al-Q militias in Iraq/Syria, the Houthis... their funding largely dries up as most of it flowed from China to Iran for their oil at cut-rate prices.