- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If this is real, does it concern you?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:03 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:03 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
You seem to assume ownership is inherently stronger than influence in geopolitics. What mechanisms make that true, in your opinion?
Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems obvious. If the US owns Greenland we, don't need anyone's permission as to what we do with our land.
Of course, we already have great latitude to do what we want militarily in Greenland based on previous treaties (1951 and 2004 I think).
1
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:03 pm to Huskertiger2
quote:
What’s the problem here?
I think it’s clear this is fake. But admitting your foreign policy strategy was affected by not winning the Nobel Peace Prize is definitely small dick energy.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:11 pm to KCT
quote:
I'm not sure who has more the issues. You are Donnie Lemon.
Don’t forget Donnie Trump whining about his lack of a Nobel peace prize.
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:14 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Don’t forget Donnie Trump whining about his lack of a Nobel peace prize.
I'll let you and Kama-lama-ding-dong qorry about that, troll.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:15 pm to KCT
quote:
I'll let you and Kama-lama-ding-dong qorry about that, troll.
You drunk, my dude?
MLK day got you all worked up on the sauce?
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:15 pm to rltiger
quote:
It reads like it was written by a low IQ leftist. Pretty sad.
It was definitely written by someone with a low IQ. In that, we are in agreement.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:16 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
MLK day got you all worked up on the sauce?
Definitely his least favorite holiday
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:17 pm to boosiebadazz
You posted something from Maine on X?
I thought you were straight. Albeit a little soft, but straight nonetheless.
I thought you were straight. Albeit a little soft, but straight nonetheless.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:18 pm to Rebel
I don’t know who that guy is. That letter was being cited all over.
You good with it?
You good with it?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You drunk, my dude?
No. Typing isn't my strong suit. God gave me a skillset for the big stuff.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 5:37 pm to KCT
quote:
God gave me a skillset for the big stuff.
blueballing yourself on haiku and numerology LARPs. To each their own Posted on 1/19/26 at 6:00 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
you already get the strategic benefits without owning the territory, formal ownership is almost always a downgrade. Soft power lets you project force, base assets, and shape outcomes while offloading costs and liabilities. Once you “own” a place, you also own its politics, courts, infrastructure, social spending, and international headaches. That is not free power, it is a permanent bill. From a cost perspective, soft control is far cheaper. Bases and defense guarantees cost money, but annexation multiplies that cost indefinitely. You move from paying for a base to paying for roads, healthcare, pensions, disaster response, and governance. Greenland stops being a strategic asset and becomes a budget line item with voters attached. Flexibility is the biggest advantage. Soft power is adjustable. You can expand, contract, renegotiate, or exit as conditions change. Territory acquisition is rigid. Treaties can be rewritten. Borders cannot without drama. Soft power lets you adapt without being trapped by sunk cost fallacy. If you already have access, leverage, and strategic control, ownership adds cost, reduces flexibility, damages alliances, and creates liabilities you do not need. Power you can adjust beats power you have to maintain forever.
If it’s all such a hassle then why is Denmark and the rest of the EU all up in arms about it? You’d think they’d be happy to offload the dead wait.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 7:41 pm to boosiebadazz
So.. did the white house think Norway runs Greenland?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:47 pm to Decatur
quote:
Could you address how this will tank NATO and not actually do the things you’re implying above?
I could give you an answer, but I'm genuinely not sure I understand your question.
Could you ask it again in a different way? There's at least two different ways one could interpret what you wrote here.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 10:58 pm to PepeSilvia
quote:
No real principles whatsoever.
Au contraire mon frere.
There is one (and only one) unshakable, incontrovertible, unassailable, carved in stone principe of populism and it is...
US VS THEM
It is the only moral or philosophical principle that never changes. Anything else can change on a whim.
If someone is considered "Us' then anything and everything they say or do is Jake. If they are considered "Them, " then nothing they say or do is o.k.
This applies even if an Us and a Them say the same things. Otherwise, what someone said last week doesn't matter if they say the opposite this week.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:04 pm to boosiebadazz
It appears to be real and yes it’s concerning.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:06 pm to Skee
quote:
It appears to be real and yes it’s concerning.
What makes you think it's real, and what concerns you about it?
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:15 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
What makes you think it's real, and what concerns you about it?
Because it was turned over to NATO and it legitimately makes him look unhinged. Do you not see any problem with it?
LINK
Posted on 1/19/26 at 11:47 pm to Skee
quote:
Because it was turned over to NATO and it legitimately makes him look unhinged. Do you not see any problem with it?
As I posted upthread, I don't care for the style of the message. It comes across as immature, narcissistic, and classless.
But Trump usually comes across as immature, narcissistic, and classless, so I'm not particularly scandalized by the style of it. Do I wish he would do things like that differently? Of course. He shouldn't be sending a message like that at all, and of course he shouldn't be acting butthurt about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. He should be meeting in person with these people and exercising some decorum and class. But he never has conducted himself that way and there is no reason to believe he ever will do things that way.
As for the substance of the message, no, I don't see a problem with it. The job of the POTUS is to look out for the best interest of the citizens of the US.
Not NATO.
I think Trump is right about NATO. It's another example of so much of the rest of the world expecting the US to subsidize them so that they can afford to have such huge welfare states.
Our defense spending is significantly more than all other NATO members' combined. And I might be missing one or two smaller countries, but I think we are the only NATO country without universal healthcare of some sort.
If we're talking about defense, NATO needs us a hell of a lot more than we need them.
If we're talking about economics, the US economy is still what? a third bigger than the combined 27 countries in the EU?
I don't like the tariffs and I especially don't like using them as threats. However, the vibe I get from Europe is that they are not just jealous of the US. I think they feel entitled to have the US subsidize them in various ways—like a wokester in Oregon or Portland or somewhere who thinks that because you have more money than him it means you are "more fortunate" and you owe him—and I think they have for some time. And I think for decades we've had "US Guilt" (like "white guilt") and we've acted accordingly. And I think it's time for both of those to stop.
Sure, I wish we had someone in office who was tough enough to recognize that and also refined enough to get it done without basically making Tony Soprano-level threats to get it, but we've got who we've got.
And I don't think they have much leverage to stop us.
From your link:
quote:
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it would be "very unwise" for European governments to retaliate.
"I think it’s a complete canard that the president will be doing this because of the Nobel prize. The president is looking at Greenland as a strategic asset for the United States," he told reporters in Davos.
This post was edited on 1/19/26 at 11:51 pm
Posted on 1/20/26 at 12:41 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:If you already have access, leverage, and deterrence, ownership doesn’t add new strategic capabilities; it converts optional, revocable arrangements into permanent legal, financial, and political obligations that must be defended regardless of changing strategic value.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems obvious. If the US owns Greenland we, don't need anyone's permission as to what we do with our land.
What specific military capability does ownership provide that current basing rights and treaties do not already allow?
Which concrete action can the U.S. take as an owner that it cannot already take today as the dominant security guarantor?
How does ownership reduce cost rather than multiply it once civil governance, infrastructure, courts, pensions, healthcare, and disaster response are included?
What is the exit strategy if Greenland’s strategic value declines, and how is that cleaner or cheaper under ownership?
What is a modern example of this tradeoff clearly paying off?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News