whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

Stupid rational.

The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.

---

Greenland is only a distraction if Russia invades it, in which case we will be fighting there to kick them out.

Why not just be there in the first place?
What's the distraction in exploiting mineral wealth?
(Greenland has 10% of the word's fresh water.)

Greenland exists.
Someone is going to control it.
Denmark is a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as they can defend it.

your mind is preternaturally narrow on foreign policy. Yabbering about buying Greenland is a great way to incentivize Denmark to either manage it better or monetize it by letting someone else with bigger britches manage it.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
So do authoritarian regimes.....

---

Imperialism has brought nothing but trouble for the United Stares.

Yet some folks never learn.

Especially those who remain insulated from the risk of getting shot.

---

except that we've never engaged in imperialism. The only colonies we had we got in a war Spain started that hand nothing to do with territorial footprint. And 50 years later, we were out of the colony business. We either make 'em a state or cut 'em loose.

---

Puerto Rico....Guam....Northern mariana islands

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

Stupid rational.

The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.

---

Greenland is only a distraction if Russia invades it, in which case we will be fighting there to kick them out.

Why not just be there in the first place?
What's the distraction in exploiting mineral wealth?
(Greenland has 10% of the word's fresh water.)

Greenland exists.
Someone is going to control it.
Denmark is a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as they can defend it.

your mind is preternaturally narrow on foreign policy. Yabbering about buying Greenland is a great way to incentivize Denmark to either manage it better or monetize it by letting someone else with bigger britches manage it.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
So do authoritarian regimes.....

---

Imperialism has brought nothing but trouble for the United Stares.

Yet some folks never learn.

Especially those who remain insulated from the risk of getting shot.

---

except that we've never engaged in imperialism.

---

Ridiculous , what planet do you live on ?



Panama, Cuba , Columbia , Philippines, Iceland, Laos, China, Nicaragua , Dominican Republic, Haiti, Hawaii, and other countries been impacted at one time or another by US imperialism.

Guys like you get other people killed.

Time after time.

But the really sickening part is you somehow 'justify' it and keep your conscience 'clean' while thousands of corpses rot in the ground..

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Kilmeade: Why is he interested in Greenland?

Whatley: From a national security perspective as he said, certainly a place that is very rich in minerals and is geopolitically important for him. 

Kilmeade: It's going to cost about 1.5 trillion but it probably will pay off. pic.twitter.com/f1rNTBC9bM

— Acyn (@Acyn) December 24, 2024

---

Denmark can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can't defend Greenland.
Greenland can only be defended by the USA.

So why shouldn't we own it?


That's the rationale......

---

Stupid rational.

The US doesn't need more imperialistic distractions.

---

Greenland is only a distraction if Russia invades it, in which case we will be fighting there to kick them out.

Why not just be there in the first place?
What's the distraction in exploiting mineral wealth?
(Greenland has 10% of the word's fresh water.)

Greenland exists.
Someone is going to control it.
Denmark is a perfectly acceptable choice, as long as they can defend it.

your mind is preternaturally narrow on foreign policy. Yabbering about buying Greenland is a great way to incentivize Denmark to either manage it better or monetize it by letting someone else with bigger britches manage it.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
So do authoritarian regimes.....

---

Imperialism has brought nothing but trouble for the United Stares.

Yet some folks never learn.

Especially those who remain insulated from the risk of getting shot.

---

except that we've never engaged in imperialism. The only colonies we had we got in a war Spain started that hand nothing to do with territorial footprint.

---

Immerwahr at Northwestern claims we do….its just hidden


[Since the mid-twentieth century, the name of the game has been "domination without annexation." America has aspired toward a global hegemony built on technological prowess, linguistic supremacy, and increased military presence. In Immerwahr's telling, the military has been particularly crucial to the enterprise. The US strategy of establishing foreign military bases (at least eight hundred by 2019) has replaced the necessity and expense of building actual colonies.]

How do so many of these "scholars" get away with such monumental stupidity epitomizing the roadmap to fantasy under the guise of reality, reinforced by academia, often paid for by hard-working taxpayers? It's abominable.

Malbec said:

---

How do so many of these "scholars" get away with such monumental stupidity epitomizing the roadmap to fantasy under the guise of reality, reinforced by academia, often paid for by hard-working taxpayers? It's abominable.

---

Much of academia is paid for by the government

And I don't just mean by Federal backed student loans

Literally dig through the Federal Funding each year and there are grants to study "racism" and the like

The people who benefit the most from the current American system are the ones who most want to tear it down

I have no explanation for the phenomena

Since we are talking canals....

Redbrickbear said:

---

Malbec said:

---

How do so many of these "scholars" get away with such monumental stupidity epitomizing the roadmap to fantasy under the guise of reality, reinforced by academia, often paid for by hard-working taxpayers? It's abominable.

---

Much of academia is paid for by the government

And I don't just mean by Federal backed student loans

Literally dig through the Federal Funding each year and there are grants to study "racism" and the like

The people who benefit the most from the current American system are the ones who most want to tear it down

I have no explanation for the phenomena

---

We've had this bi-weekly coffee group of 6 BU guys for more than 7 years now. Three of the group are professors; two at public universities and one at a private institution. The guys at the state university system schools have spoken repeatedly about the startling number of professors on staff earning near mid-six figure salaries who don't teach a single class, and the equal number who teach two or less classes per term. They refer to them as "deadbeat fellows" and "professorial pilferers."

I'm amused at the usual suspects that get their panties in a wad every time trump says something.

We have been down this road before.

Everything for him in foreign policy is a negotiation. His starting point is usually something outrageous that he trumpets loudly and is amplified by an unhinged media.

In the end he winds up with a better deal for the country.

He is not going to invade Panama or Greenland.

When did the idea of Canada becoming a state become part of the agenda?

They’re literally a sovereign nation.

— Reef Insights (@ReefInsights) December 26, 2024

He's trolling Trudeau.

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.
We did in WWII = basing rights from a Danish govt. in exile. (to prevent the Nazis from doing so).

You are, not atypically, poorly informed on current events. Greenland is an semi-autonomous region of Denmark, with an independence movement which has (depending on dates & wording of the questions) plus/minus 2/3rd support. If public statements are any indication, Denmark appears to have an agnostic position on the matter. They'd prefer to keep Greenland but are not going to fight the Greenlanders over the question. Public discourse on the topic includes proposed timelines & target dates for independence.

An independent Greenland would do what any state would do - seek to "secure a better peace," which for Greenland would mean a better subsidy from a mother country, or better overall prospects for development from one or more countries. Who might provide that? We know YOU will throw the proverbial hissy fit if we extend a single stinkin' dollar of aid to them, while China and Russia will not hesitate to spend bigly.

So, what will you do when Russia signs a military basing agreement with a fledgling Greenland government? Greenland is a dagger pointed at the lines of commo/supply between North America and Europe, WITHIN Nato.
What's it worth to you to own Greenland rather than have to go to war over it, or let Russia dictate terms to us and/or our trading partners.? (the analogue here would be Nato carving out an alliance with Kazakhstan, putting military bases on the lines of commo between Russia's key allies - China & Iran.) Do you think those states would take preventative action to forestall future crises? Wouldn't buying Greenland put an end to the question of whether or not we have to spend billions a year just to keep the Russians & Chinese out?

There is a reason Trump has spoken out on this........

Is this playing in your head as you read this thread?

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Russia isn't going to invade Greenland.

Wake up.

---

Russia would most certainly do so if it could.

---

Yet it can't....that is the whole point

You are fighting a paper tiger

Russia can't beat a local neigbbor....one that its armies can easily drive on paved highways to....much less invade an island 2,000 miles away over the harsh ice filled North Atlantic sea

Its had to basically give up de-facto rule of breakaway provinces like Chechnya and Dagestan to local Muslim warlords/strongmen to keep them inside the official Russian Federation.

Its economy is lack luster and depended on exports of natural resources. (now mostly to China)

Its highly corrupt and has a declining birth rate and high rate of early deaths

Its not the great world power and big threat that you make it out to be