- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Trump CONFIRMS the US will have TOTAL ACCESS to Greenland & construct the Golden Dome
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:20 am to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:20 am to IvoryBillMatt
0
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:25 am to td01241
quote:
This was all changed from when we did have that access in the original treaty we signed with them by way of them amending it (unilaterally because there hypocrisy knows no bounds) sometime in like the 60s
I'm all for it, but is there something in this new version to stop them from jus amending it later?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:28 am to Ailsa
I am concerned about the millions of CCP shipping containers around the country and businesses.
How many prepositioned nukes, chemical and bioweapons have been put around sensitive locations around the country?
How many prepositioned nukes, chemical and bioweapons have been put around sensitive locations around the country?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:32 am to td01241
Go frick yourself eurocrats!
You misspelled Democraps
You misspelled Democraps
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:33 am to Ailsa
So nothing we couldn't have already done
Awesome
Awesome
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:33 am to Ailsa
quote:
NO COST
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:34 am to GhostOfFreedom
quote:When is the last time the big 3 nuclear powers have started a hot war with any of the others? If they haven’t, why have they not? If any of them did, who would win?
How many prepositioned nukes, chemical and bioweapons have been put around sensitive locations around the country?
The answers are intertwined.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:37 am to Ailsa
Unless you’re anti America I have no idea on what grounds you can oppose this?
No foreign nation is conquered.
Not foreign nation loses self determination.
America improves its missile defense.
American creates an island buffer towards Europe improving hemispheric defense.
We prevent China and Russia from consolidating control there (China was heavily involved behind the scenes).
America gains rights to partner in mineral rights exploration.
NATO remains in the hopes of a better future US-postglobalist European relationship
How is that not a massive positive achievement for the United States and Greenland?
No foreign nation is conquered.
Not foreign nation loses self determination.
America improves its missile defense.
American creates an island buffer towards Europe improving hemispheric defense.
We prevent China and Russia from consolidating control there (China was heavily involved behind the scenes).
America gains rights to partner in mineral rights exploration.
NATO remains in the hopes of a better future US-postglobalist European relationship
How is that not a massive positive achievement for the United States and Greenland?
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:37 am to GumboPot
quote:
Israel has the Iron Dome. Trump has to one up them and brands his dome as the Golden Dome.
The iron dome is ours FWIW
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:40 am to stout
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 8:40 am
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:49 am to TBoy
I like the idea of mining rare Earths so we can decouple from China.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 8:54 am to Chazreinhold
quote:
I like the idea of mining rare Earths so we can decouple from China.
Sure. But no such deal has been made.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:23 am to Timeoday
quote:
We need to own it.
Why? Then the Greenlanders become our problem. If we have unfettered access, what's the upside to ownership? If the Danes get uppity in the future, we can always take it.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:35 am to Chazreinhold
quote:
I like the idea of mining rare Earths so we can decouple from China.
The mining of them isn't the issue, and Greenland won't really be in play for that for a long time. We could be mining there right now, but no one has any real interest in spending the billions of dollars it will take just to get started. That is, unless we get our government involved and get some sweet subsidies rolling.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:38 am to td01241
TOTAL ACCESS from social media comments is not defined. We haven’t seen a new agreement in place yet to know what, if anything, has changed.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 9:43 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Have we had full access to their resources this entire time or just miltary bases
Whats your chatgpt say?
As a practical matter, Trump said this came out of his discussions with the Dutch Secretary General of NATO. What authority would Mark Rutte have to negotiate Denmark or Greenland’s rights? [I know, dumb of me to pretend that you cared about facts, but I was curious how anybody could think the access was anything beyond military rights...you know, NATO being exclusively a military body and all.]
Answering your question. ..ChatGPT concluded what any objective person would have concluded in listening to the President's remarks.
######
No — saying the U.S. “has full access to Greenland” does not automatically mean full access to all of Greenland’s natural resources or sovereignty. Here’s why:
1. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, which retains control over foreign affairs and defense, while Greenland controls most of its domestic policies.
Any statement about “access” is not a legal transfer of sovereignty or an automatic claim to resources.
2. What “access” might mean in practice
Often, political statements like that refer to strategic cooperation, military presence, or economic partnerships — for example:
Permission to use certain military facilities
Participation in infrastructure projects
Access to joint scientific or mineral exploration programs
It does not legally grant ownership of land, minerals, or other resources unless a formal treaty or agreement is signed with Greenland and Denmark.
3. International law constraints
Under international law, any extraction of natural resources requires Greenlandic and Danish approval.
Greenland has been cautious historically about foreign exploitation of resources like oil, gas, or rare earth minerals.
? Bottom line
“Full access” in a political statement is ambiguous and does not equate to having the right to all Greenlandic resources. Any real access would require formal agreements and legal permissions from both Greenland’s government and Denmark.
If you want, I can break down exactly which parts of Greenland the U.S. has agreements or cooperation with, based on current treaties and military arrangements.
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 9:45 am
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:40 am to Chazreinhold
quote:
I like the idea of mining rare Earths so we can decouple from China.
There are no pure rare earths "mines". Rare earths are just trace elements. You have to take tons and tons of rock and dirt from other mining operations and refine grams of the trace materials out. The reason that we get ours from China isn't because rare earths are only located in China. It's because the processing is so energy intensive and environmentally damaging that we'd rather not do it ourselves.
This post was edited on 1/22/26 at 10:49 am
Posted on 1/22/26 at 10:44 am to td01241
quote:Yep. We should have let Germany have them.
Bunch of hypocrites, leeches, and ungrateful homosexuals
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:19 am to Tantal
quote:It's less environmentally damaging when it's done in china?
environmentally damaging that we'd rather not do it ourselves.
Posted on 1/22/26 at 11:21 am to Ailsa
And the panicans are again left with egg on their faces.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News