- 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 1/20/26 at 12:46 am to northshorebamaman
Posted on 1/20/26 at 12:46 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Which concrete action can the U.S. take as an owner that it cannot already take today as the dominant security guarantor?
Polar bear hunting.
0
Posted on 1/20/26 at 12:53 am to Twix 23
quote:You’re confusing who gets the benefits with who pays the costs. Denmark owns Greenland because ownership is how they get influence in the Arctic. But that also means Denmark pays for governance, infrastructure, courts, social services, and politics. That’s the price of sovereignty.
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.
The U.S. already gets the strategic benefits without owning it. Bases, access agreements, and alliances give us influence without responsibility. That’s the key difference. Denmark needs ownership to have leverage. They wouldn't have a presence without it. The U.S. already does.
Denmark being protective doesn’t mean ownership is efficient. It means ownership is the only way they stay relevant in the Artic.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 1:37 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:quote:
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.
It is so not fake. And here are the problems:
(1) "Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS" Norway (the country) doesn't hand out the Peace Prize.
(2) Trump did not stop 8 wars PLUS.
(3) Is the Nobel committee supposed to hand out Peace Prizes so that leaders don't get violent? Because that's basically what he's saying. This is little kid logic.
(4) He says he was focused on peace, but now can focus on the interests of the U.S. So he wasn't focused on the interests of the U.S. before?
(4a) So peace is not in the interest of the U.S.?
(5) Serious small-dick energy, as mentioned above.
(6) "Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China". Yes, they can. Neither China nor Russia has the navy to take Greenland. Russia basically doesn't have a navy, and China's navy can't get there.
(7) "why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents" Wrong. Treaty of Kiel, previously recognized by the U.S. Maybe it doesn't mean much, but get your facts straight.
(8) "it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also" This sounds like a fourth-grader. It's embarrassing.
(9) "I have done more for NATO than any person since its founding". Obvious lie. He has undermined NATO at every turn.
(10) "now, NATO should do something for the United States" Norway didn't give him the Peace Prize, so Denmark needs to give him Greenland. WTF?
(11) "The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland" This makes no sense. The world was fine without this weirdness, and it's only getting more dangerous because of it.
(12) This stupidity has a cost in the real world. The rest of world can't believe that 40-some Million Americans (estimate on how many people are left in the MAGA bubble) can't see this for what it is.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 8:43 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
The U.S. already gets the strategic benefits without owning it.
But we don't get to develop and harvest Greenland's mineral resources, do we?
The rare Earth elements there are also a significant foreign policy/security concern, so that we don't have to depend on China for them.
Greenland is thought to have one of the largest untapped mineral supplies in the world right now.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 8:52 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The rare Earth elements there are also a significant foreign policy/security concern, so that we don't have to depend on China for them. Greenland is thought to have one of the largest untapped mineral supplies in the world right now.
Are we going back to early 2000s attitudes towards wars for resources? We did a good job of temporarily convincing ourselves that WMDs were a great reason to enter Iraq, when it was really just an oil war. Is strategic military benefit (SMB?) the WMD of the mid-2020’s?
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:02 am to LightHeat
quote:
Is the Nobel committee supposed to hand out Peace Prizes so that leaders don't get violent?
They literally gave Obama the prize for being (half) black. As immature as Trump is being about this, it's not like the Nobel Committee is any better.
quote:
He says he was focused on peace, but now can focus on the interests of the U.S. So he wasn't focused on the interests of the U.S. before?
You're being pedantic here. I suspect you know that. Obviously what he meant is that he was first focused on addressing actions that didn't directly involve the US and now he is addressing actions that do, assuming the reader understands that in his estimation all of those actions were in the interest of the US.
quote:. To answer that generally, not always. To answer it in the context of the topic of this thread, see above. If all you have are pedantic semantic nits to pick, you don't have much.
So peace is not in the interest of the U.S.?
quote:
Serious small-dick energy, as mentioned above.
Seems like there's enough to go around. See above.
quote:
This sounds like a fourth-grader. It's embarrassing.
Yeah, it does. And yeah, it is. But that doesn't mean he's wrong about doing this.
quote:
and it's only getting more dangerous because of it...This stupidity has a cost in the real world.
So lay it out. What's going to be the cost? How is the world going to be more dangerous? And to whom?
quote:
The rest of world
I couldn't give a tinker's damn about what the rest of the world thinks. The rest of the world thinks the United States owes them something. They're like some woke idiot in San Francisco or somewhere who thinks that because I have more money than they do, they are entitled to mine. I owe them because I'm "more fortunate."
I'll agree all day long that Trump is embarrassing the way he handles stuff like this. He's childish, narcissistic, inarticulate, and needlessly combative. But that doesn't mean his strategy is always wrong. IMO he's right about the US being taken advantage of by NATO, he's definitely right that most of the rest of the world thinks they have a right to put their hands in our taxpayer's pockets and that we should have some kind of "white guilt" complex and give them everything they want and do whatever they think we should, and it's probably a good strategic move to acquire Greenland in some capacity.
I wish he'd do it differently. But he's not going to. So I can sky scream about that or ignore it. I can't change it, so I choose the latter.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:04 am to PepeSilvia
quote:
Are we going back to early 2000s attitudes towards wars for resources?
Which war will be fought over Greenland, exactly?
How do you see that turning into a war?
What is it you think is going to happen?
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:07 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'll agree all day long that Trump is embarrassing the way he handles stuff like this. He's childish, narcissistic, inarticulate, and needlessly combative. But that doesn't mean his strategy is always wrong. IMO he's right about the US being taken advantage of by NATO, he's definitely right that most of the rest of the world thinks they have a right to put their hands in our taxpayer's pockets and that we should have some kind of "white guilt" complex and give them everything they want and do whatever they think we should, and it's probably a good strategic move to acquire Greenland in some capacity.
I wish he'd do it differently. But he's not going to. So I can sky scream about that or ignore it. I can't change it, so I choose the latter.
Thanks for writing this. You took the time to write exactly what I think. I don't have to write about it again.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Which war will be fought over Greenland, exactly?
The one with our former NATO allies is a possibility if there is no acquiescence to Trump’s whims, and he decides to take it à la Venezuela.
quote:
What is it you think is going to happen?
Best case scenario, I think the US doesn’t end up with Greenland. Trump gets a favorably upgraded agreement regarding US military installations, and maybe some US companies get access to mineral rights they didn’t previously have.
Worst case scenario, Trump persists to the point that the EU dumps their US assets in an attempt to further reduce US economic dominance. That triggers Trump into double, and triple downs. NATO ceases to function, and Trump moves on Greenland military, encouraging China to make their move on Taiwan. I could also see India and Pakistan heating up. Pretty soon it’s global conflict, new alliances, new axes, and the majority of us the worse for it.
It obviously could end anywhere along that spectrum.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:25 am to PepeSilvia
quote:
Are we going back to early 2000s attitudes towards wars for resources? We did a good job of temporarily convincing ourselves that WMDs were a great reason to enter Iraq, when it was really just an oil war. Is strategic military benefit (SMB?) the WMD of the mid-2020’s?
I see that you downvoted my response to this without replying. EDIT. You have now replied.
I wasn't trying to turn on semantics. Those were genuine questions.
A war might cost more than Greenland is worth. That's why I asked. If you see this turning into a war, that's one thing. If you can make a case for that I might think harder before endorsing this move.
I just don't see this turning into a war.
As for, "Is SMB the WMD of the present?" I hope not. I hope we don't feel the need to put a thin veil over it like that.
I hope we're honest and just say, "The citizens of the United States elected me to look out for their interests. Not the interests of NATO, or France, or Denmark, or Zimbabwe, or Spain, or Canada, or anyplace else on the planet. We're delighted to partner with any countries whose interests align with ours according to our values. Militarily, economically, etc. We welcome any country about which that is true. But we respectfully also serve notice that we will remain steadfastly committed to advancing our country's interests—as we assume you will be also—and the United States acquiring Greenland is in our best interest. We'd like to make this a win-win for everyone involved, but we're committed to winning regardless. How can we serve as many interests as possible here?"
Foreign policy is not about being fair. There's no authority to appeal to. There are rules, but there's no one to enforce them. Foreign policy is about nothing more than balancing what you want with what the blowback might be from acquiring what you want. The only authority is force.
The US has the capacity to generate more force than anybody else in the world. We have the capacity to generate more force than all of Europe combined. We also have an economy that is a third larger than the entire EU.
That doesn't mean we can push indefinitely with no pushback ever. But as far as I can see it does mean that we can push our way into Greenland. I don't anticipate anyone caring so much about this move that they are willing to fight us for it.
They'll sit around tables sipping wine with their little finger sticking out and complain about how awful the United States is, but this is a lesson conservatives and rightists populists learned a long time ago.
They'll do that anyway.
If you're going to be called a Nazi, fascist, imperialist, dictator, etc., etc. no matter what you do, you might as well do what you want without worrying about what people say.
This post was edited on 1/20/26 at 9:26 am
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:26 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
But we don't get to develop and harvest Greenland's mineral resources, do we?
Yes, we do.
quote:
The rare Earth elements there are also a significant foreign policy/security concern, so that we don't have to depend on China for them.
Greenlanders have been trying develop US private sector interest into exploiting those resources for years now. To this point, there has been minimal interest from US companies willing to sink the tens of billions of dollars into the effort. Despite some initial talks, china hasn't even been all that gung-ho on it, either. Even if they were, Denmark has still been willing to leverage Greenland into not seriously pursuing it. That may no longer be the case if our strongarm push to acquire Greenland fails.
Even if you have Greenland it still doesn't solve the rare earth mineral issue. It isn't a supply issue for the US. It is a processing issue. We don't process those minerals, china does that nasty bit of work for us. So, you aquire Greenland, guess what? It's people aren't exactly overly enthusiastic about mining and natural resource exploitation. The majority have proven to be against it, regularly voting for ant-mining leaders who pass legislation that is unfavorable to the industry.
Now, that brings you back to pretty much having to outright own Greenland to advance that industry there. Greenlanders currently have complete control of their natural resources wholly independent of Denmark. Which means, they have control over regulations and some buffer to their land/country turning into some toxic, third world shithole if some future US politicians deem it necessary. It can be argued they'd be foolish to trade that for a deal that gives them less control.
quote:
Greenland is thought to have one of the largest untapped mineral supplies in the world right now.
Maybe, but the shite just doesn't jump out of the ground. It will take untold billions to make it viable, an investment private US industry has, to this point, proven unwilling to make. That reality isn't likely to change anytime soon because the juice just won't be worth the squeeze. So, any development will have to he heavily government-subsidized, meaning US taxpayers will foot a large portion of that bill.
So, the US taxpayer will foot the bill for the acquisition of Greenland. Then, the US taxpayer will foot the bill for the continued care a management of the Greenland population. Then, the US taxpayer will foot the bill for the eventual exploitation of its natural resources. All for something we 100% already had access to prior to the deal being made.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:27 am to PepeSilvia
quote:
Worst case scenario, Trump persists to the point that the EU dumps their US assets in an attempt to further reduce US economic dominance. That triggers Trump into double, and triple downs. NATO ceases to function, and Trump moves on Greenland military, encouraging China to make their move on Taiwan. I could also see India and Pakistan heating up. Pretty soon it’s global conflict, new alliances, new axes, and the majority of us the worse for it.
It almost like he wants to throw away 100 years of American-led international order because he has discovered a deep personal and psychological need for conquest.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:32 am to PepeSilvia
quote:
The one with our former NATO allies is a possibility
I think that possibility is very remote, because they would know that they would lose in spectacular fashion. US defense spending is significantly more than the rest of NATO combined.
quote:
I think the US doesn’t end up with Greenland. Trump gets a favorably upgraded agreement regarding US military installations, and maybe some US companies get access to mineral rights they didn’t previously have.
Why do you call that "best case scenario?" Why would that be the best outcome?
I think that could happen—Trump could be starting high with the strategy to negotiate down—but I don't think that's what's happening. I think he really wants Greenland.
quote:
encouraging China to make their move on Taiwan.
Because the US would be occupied elsewhere, you mean? And wouldn't be able to stop it?
Would you be in favor of the US defending Taiwan militarily if China decided to invade it?
quote:
Pretty soon it’s global conflict, new alliances, new axes, and the majority of us the worse for it.
I'm not sure there's any good evidence that any of that would happen or if it did, that the "majority would be worse for it." Do you have any to present?
Posted on 1/20/26 at 9:34 am to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Yes, we do.
quote:
The rare Earth elements there are also a significant foreign policy/security concern, so that we don't have to depend on China for them.
Greenlanders have been trying develop US private sector interest into exploiting those resources for years now. To this point, there has been minimal interest from US companies willing to sink the tens of billions of dollars into the effort. Despite some initial talks, china hasn't even been all that gung-ho on it, either. Even if they were, Denmark has still been willing to leverage Greenland into not seriously pursuing it. That may no longer be the case if our strongarm push to acquire Greenland fails.
Even if you have Greenland it still doesn't solve the rare earth mineral issue. It isn't a supply issue for the US. It is a processing issue. We don't process those minerals, china does that nasty bit of work for us. So, you aquire Greenland, guess what? It's people aren't exactly overly enthusiastic about mining and natural resource exploitation. The majority have proven to be against it, regularly voting for ant-mining leaders who pass legislation that is unfavorable to the industry.
Now, that brings you back to pretty much having to outright own Greenland to advance that industry there. Greenlanders currently have complete control of their natural resources wholly independent of Denmark. Which means, they have control over regulations and some buffer to their land/country turning into some toxic, third world shithole if some future US politicians deem it necessary. It can be argued they'd be foolish to trade that for a deal that gives them less control.
quote:
Greenland is thought to have one of the largest untapped mineral supplies in the world right now.
Maybe, but the shite just doesn't jump out of the ground. It will take untold billions to make it viable, an investment private US industry has, to this point, proven unwilling to make. That reality isn't likely to change anytime soon because the juice just won't be worth the squeeze. So, any development will have to he heavily government-subsidized, meaning US taxpayers will foot a large portion of that bill.
So, the US taxpayer will foot the bill for the acquisition of Greenland. Then, the US taxpayer will foot the bill for the continued care a management of the Greenland population. Then, the US taxpayer will foot the bill for the eventual exploitation of its natural resources. All for something we 100% already had access to prior to the deal being made.
Thanks for that information.
I will attempt to confirm or deny it, and if it holds up it may indeed influence my opinion on Greenland.
I'm for whatever benefits the US. If all we would get out of this deal is a bigger tax bill without any additional strategic benefits, then I agree. What's the point?
This post was edited on 1/20/26 at 9:36 am
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:07 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
and it's only getting more dangerous because of it...This stupidity has a cost in the real world.
So lay it out. What's going to be the cost? How is the world going to be more dangerous? And to whom?
Sure: it's getting more dangerous for us. There are millions of decisions made every day outside the borders of the US that affect us. Those decisions will turn, in part, on how the world views us. You don't give a crap about that, as you say, but you should. The US is 3-4% of the world's population. If you are the biggest, strongest, richest SOB on the block, and you flex on all thirty of your neighbors, you're going to find that they start resisting you. For God's sake, kids in Greenland can't sleep because the Americans might be coming. Multiply that across every country we needlessly frick with, and it's not going to be great.
If that's a bit abstract, here are some concrete consequences: Canada is seeking closer relations with China and calling for a mid-major bloc. NATO is now nearly busted. I agree with you that we our military strength allowed the Europeans to spend money on other stuff, and to that extent they were free riders (this was by design, by the way). But NATO does help us, too. Once it is gone, we will go from a global military power to a semi-global military power overnight. We rely on the cooperation of allies to extend our reach. Remember how all the wounded from Iraq get flown back to Rammstein? Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and subs don't need to re-fuel, but they do need to re-stock, and that is often done at allied ports. That can be shut down immediately. Our influence goes down accordingly. And I don't see how Europeans aren't looking at this and seeing the need to bring their nuclear capabilities up to levels where they can deter the United States. Sweden, Poland, and Germany and probably others can basically go nuclear in a few weeks.
It would be one thing if all of this were necessary, but it's not. Trump has now backed down on Greenland, and announced a framework of a deal that #shocker is likely going to look exactly like the deal we had before with one or two tweaks. So we pissed everyone off for what exactly?
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:11 pm to boosiebadazz
There aren’t enough ways for me to tell you to frick right off after you sat there and denied potato, Joe’s mental state, despite proof clearly on video time and time again. Now you’re presenting us with this dubious fanfic letter?
Why are the left like the way you are? Inventing fantasies and daydreaming about “what if this were true! “ stores while watching blindly in real time far worse things, to only ignore them?
Why are the left like the way you are? Inventing fantasies and daydreaming about “what if this were true! “ stores while watching blindly in real time far worse things, to only ignore them?
Posted on 1/25/26 at 3:26 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
There aren’t enough ways for me to tell you to frick right off after you sat there and denied potato, Joe’s mental state, despite proof clearly on video time and time again. Now you’re presenting us with this dubious fanfic letter?
Why are the left like the way you are? Inventing fantasies and daydreaming about “what if this were true! “ stores while watching blindly in real time far worse things, to only ignore them?
My brother, the letter is real. Joe Biden was a potato and Donald Trump is a raging narcissist. Two things can be true at once
Posted on 1/25/26 at 3:32 pm to boosiebadazz
What Trump is saying isn't wrong, is it?
Joe's claim that Trump called Nazis "very fine people" was never real, everyone DOES know it, and yet Joe to this very day still claims that's why he chose to run for office in 2020.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News