- 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: Trump floats tariffs to acquire Greenland
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:28 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:28 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:Indeed. Because there’s absolutely no way we’d ever have any ability protect another foreign country invading unless it’s a US state.
Trump more than anyone in DC understands that a future democrat administration can’t be relied on to prevent a China or Russia from moving into the region..
0
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:30 pm to Decatur
quote:
Make
America
Russia
This doesnt even make sense. You voted for Tampon Tim so no one takes you serious
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:30 pm to wackatimesthree
You should have a good cry about it.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:35 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
You would have been an idiot who would have said taking Alasaka was dumb
Alaska was for sale. If Greenland is and the price makes sense, sure. But Greenland is going to have to consent to that and there are no indications that they would do so.
Chinese investment there can easily be blocked by Denmark as things stand, and I assume that is at the heart of current discussions. Because this is clearly about resource exploitation and not military presence, considering we already have effective full access for the latter excluding nuclear weapon deployment.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:37 pm to SpecialK_88
I wasn’t referring to occupying the land by Russia and China. I understand their limitations there.
I also wasn’t talking specifically about attacking it.
I was referring to there now being US land there now instead of land we simply babysit and what this means for our navy and what waters we control.
If I’m off base, so be it, but I believe us having the land designated as US land as opposed to land we defend is a big difference.
I also wasn’t talking specifically about attacking it.
I was referring to there now being US land there now instead of land we simply babysit and what this means for our navy and what waters we control.
If I’m off base, so be it, but I believe us having the land designated as US land as opposed to land we defend is a big difference.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:37 pm to bigjoe1
There’s no way to spin this as a good idea. We already can do what we want security wise. We can’t just take it. That’s rogue AF, diplomatic suicide, and sets a horrible precedent. The best thing we can hope is some kind of future agreement to the minerals in exchange for providing security. No one wants this except those who have rationalized in their mind that this would be a good idea.
This post was edited on 1/16/26 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:38 pm to Laugh More
quote:
It would also make it sovereign US land.
The US heartland is also sovereign US territory and Chinese interest have been gobbling it up for years near Malmstrom and the other ICBM fields/other bases.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:41 pm to Laugh More
quote:
what this means for our navy and what waters we control.
Greenland’s EEZ (Denmark’s) is pretty limited on the western side due to proximity to Canada but the other areas are already our playground due to Denmark’s NATO membership.
Unless we were going to base a few subs up there, there’s not really a need for navy presence beyond refueling and maintenance facilities. We don’t even have icebreakers to base there. The two we have are old and don’t do anything.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 12:41 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Europe is not our allies. This is very simple to understand
Whether that is true or not we need cooperation with European countries in order for us to maintain our current level of force projection capability.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 1:36 pm to Laugh More
quote:
I was referring to there now being US land there now instead of land we simply babysit and what this means for our navy and what waters we control.
We can essentially control as much of the waters around Greenland as we want. The US could build a massive naval base if we wanted to.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 3:04 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
But Greenland is going to have to consent to that and there are no indications that they would do so.
Yeah its gonna be the ole offer they cant refuse deal
Posted on 1/19/26 at 2:10 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Unless we were going to base a few subs up there, there’s not really a need for navy presence beyond refueling and maintenance facilities. We don’t even have icebreakers to base there. The two we have are old and don’t do anything.
True. The ones commissioned to Finland aren't going to be ready until 2028.
Posted on 1/19/26 at 2:23 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Whether that is true or not we need cooperation with European countries in order for us to maintain our current level of force projection capability.
Not necessary in 2026, but if you insist on continuing with this model, Poland and Hungary more closely align with our interests in the region and would happily welcome our presence.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 10:14 am to lurking
quote:
Not necessary in 2026, Poland and Hungary more closely align with our interests in the region and would happily welcome our presence.
So far example.... is the US 6th fleet is no longer necessary? We dont need the any of the bases in Italy that we use to re-arm our navy in the region? It could just be replaced by a land locked country and another with no access to the Mediterranean? It sure was necessary in 2025 to protect Israel.
Posted on 1/20/26 at 10:20 am to ThuperThumpin
I was more specifically talking about England and Germany who have been approaching our relations with hostility for quite some time.
Italy under Giorgia Meloni is proving to be a strong ally.
Italy under Giorgia Meloni is proving to be a strong ally.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News