- 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
0
Posted on 1/7/26 at 6:14 pm to Eurocat
And that is how TRUMP will acquire Greenland....
Presidents for decades have mentioned that Greenland would be great for world security....TRUMP is the only one who has the balls to do it.
Presidents for decades have mentioned that Greenland would be great for world security....TRUMP is the only one who has the balls to do it.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 6:15 pm to SEC. 593
The media keeps asking them to rule out military because they know the administration, nor would any administration, will not do that.
It’s a cheap play that we’ve seen a thousand times before.
It’s a cheap play that we’ve seen a thousand times before.
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 6:20 pm
Posted on 1/7/26 at 6:16 pm to Eurocat
Take it like Russia took Crimea
Posted on 1/7/26 at 6:32 pm to Eurocat
Tell the Greenlanders if they vote for independence, and become a territory of the US, each one of them will be given a one time payment of $500,000. There’s only 25,000 people in Greenland. You can also negotiate that they will receive 1-3% annually from any natural resources extracted from there. 90+% of them would vote for this, and it would look like the steal of the century in no time.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 6:43 pm to Vacherie Saint
You don't think any other administration would publicly rule-out invading a NATO ally?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 6:51 pm to SEC. 593
No. Not unless they are completely full of shite and can’t negotiate. You never rule out anything.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 1:14 am to Eurocat
Posted on 1/8/26 at 1:16 am to Eurocat
In that entire HUGE island, there are only 50,000 people. Barely enough for a small city.
We wouldn't be taking it, we would be populating it.
We wouldn't be taking it, we would be populating it.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 1:20 am to jeffsdad
But let that be their decisions.
That would be like Latins taking over South Dakota and saying, eh, no big deal, just let us be, after all we are populating this desolate state.
There should be a referendum on what those people wish (which could very well be - become a part of the USA).
That would be like Latins taking over South Dakota and saying, eh, no big deal, just let us be, after all we are populating this desolate state.
There should be a referendum on what those people wish (which could very well be - become a part of the USA).
Posted on 1/8/26 at 4:34 am to Eurocat
lmao
Posted on 1/8/26 at 5:14 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Just offer each citizen $500k and social security automatically.
If the US gave every citizen of Greenland $500,000, it would likely drive up the cost of living. Here's how:
Inflation: Increased demand for goods and services could cause prices to rise, reducing the value of the windfall.
Housing Market: Home prices could skyrocket due to higher demand, especially in cities like Nuuk.
Local Businesses: There’d be a boost in spending, but since Greenland imports many goods, prices for things like food and electronics would also increase.
Wages: Businesses might raise wages to match the higher cost of living, but it may not keep up with inflation.
Government Response: The government might need to adjust taxes or social programs to handle the economic shifts.
Currency Impact: Large sums of money leaving the country could affect the value of the currency and the cost of foreign goods.
Overall, while people would have more money, the cost of living would likely rise, potentially offsetting the benefits.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 5:23 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
The media keeps asking them to rule out military because they know the administration, nor would any administration, will not do that.
It’s a cheap play that we’ve seen a thousand times before.
Framing the situation as a potential 'total loss' creates a sense of urgency. It triggers a bird-in-the-hand mentality, where the certainty of an immediate payout outweighs the uncertain future of holding onto the territory.This is a classic sales/negotiation tactic .
Posted on 1/8/26 at 5:27 am to SCLibertarian
We’d be much better off if a majority of dems were like Fetterman; I may disagree on policy with him, but he at least loves our country
Posted on 1/8/26 at 6:27 am to udtiger
Buying Greenland has always been the plan. Why the hell would we invade Greenland?
Posted on 1/8/26 at 6:35 am to Wednesday
quote:
Why the hell would we invade Greenland?
We wouldn’t, we are already there. We would just simply claim it. This whole “by force” narrative is silly. Europe is a dying old man being eaten alive by Islam.
I asked Eurocuck about the referendum that the original people that lived at his address voted for. So far…crickets.
Conquest is what it is.
Geo-politics can be messy.
Nonetheless, you do what is right for YOUR people.
Europe (Denmark) allowing China to infiltrate Greenland is a hard pass. If claiming Greenland is what needs to be done (even if simply as an administrative state under our current agreement), to check China / Russia. then you do so.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:23 am to LSU6262
Are you brain dead? Mu God that was a stupid post
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:38 pm to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Are you brain dead? Mu God that was a stupid post
I used chat gpt lol
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:48 pm to Eurocat
The only people saying we are taking it by force are the gaslight media.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 8:49 pm to udtiger
We should acquire via an involuntary acquisition.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News