ron.reagan said:
I see the Nazi party reforming in real time.
There is no scenario where expansion of our borders is a lawful act. Military or financial pressure for a country to surrender it's sovereignty is an act of evil.
Thankfully I have not met a single conservative outside the internet that doesn't think Trump is going off the rails with this bull*****
Quote:
More than two-thirds of Republican voters support President-elect Donald Trump's suggestion the U.S. acquire Greenland and/or the Panama Canal, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey.
When asked whether they support or oppose the U.S. taking back the Panama Canal, 73% of GOP voters say they support the move. That includes 51% who say they strongly support the action, Rasmussen Reports poll results show.
When asked whether they support or oppose the U.S. purchasing Greenland, 70% of GOP voters say they support the move. That includes 45% who say they strongly support it.
Among Democrat voters, only 23% say they support buying Greenland, and 22% say they support reclaiming the Panama Canal.
FLBear5630 said:Yet under Trump he didn't. Under Obama - Crimea. Under Biden - Full Invasion.Redbrickbear said:And Russia was always going to invade if we tired to tear Ukraine out from its orbitFLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
(just like the US would invade Canada or Mexico if the roles were reversed)
That is why it was always a stupid idea.....it guaranteed violence and conflict
A decade of conflict and Ukraine is still not in NATO/EU and Moscow still has ships at its Crimea naval base
Its been a blood bath with no end in sight
Give credit where it is due, it is not an accident or Russia wasn't prepared. They were prepared enough to invade Crimea earlier.
whiterock said:Porteroso said:FLBear5630 said:Who said anything about invading? Any of these? Trump will make a deal, that is what he does. He will try to negotiate a deal with Panama. He is not sending the Marines into the Canal... The military and the Canada stuff is posturing.KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:Same with the Canada.KaiBear said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
The arctic is heating up. Russia and China have partnered and are expanding their activities there. While clearly the stated focus is "resources", the truth is that we know that they will also build up infrastructure that could be used for military purposes.
Short sighted mind virus TDSers, please stop embarrassing yourself. The world is a dangerous place, and Russia and China becoming besties isn't going to make it any safer.
So now global warming is real ?
Who knew ?
Of course Greenland is warming up a little.
But the Danes do NOT want to sell it.
Trump will NOT invade Greenland to possess it.
This is all some kind of political distraction. Silly pulp for the legacy media to chew on.
Much like the ' alien ' drones in New Jersey that the media got all worked up about only a few weeks ago.
I think he is going to make a move on the Panama Canal...
LOL
Trump is not invading Panama.
Good grief.
Now, he may blow the hell out of some Hamas or Iranian bases to make his point. But, no one said a thing about invading.
What kind of military action is he not ruling out?
I think he's full of bs, but just pretend he isnt... what kind of military action do you guys think he would take in Greenland or Canada?
He's not ruling out anything, nor should he. And that's important for Russia and China to hear = USA is not going to tolerate Greenland leaving the Western Order, so keepa yer hands off.
That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
GREENLANDERS TO TRUMP: "Buy Greenland! We don't like Danish people!" 😂🇺🇸pic.twitter.com/qkAIXkD4HS
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 13, 2025
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Yet under Trump he didn't. Under Obama - Crimea. Under Biden - Full Invasion.Redbrickbear said:And Russia was always going to invade if we tired to tear Ukraine out from its orbitFLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
(just like the US would invade Canada or Mexico if the roles were reversed)
That is why it was always a stupid idea.....it guaranteed violence and conflict
A decade of conflict and Ukraine is still not in NATO/EU and Moscow still has ships at its Crimea naval base
Its been a blood bath with no end in sight
Give credit where it is due, it is not an accident or Russia wasn't prepared. They were prepared enough to invade Crimea earlier.
Considering their failure to take Kyiv and their dreadful mismanagement of the war…at this point I am surprised in hindsight that Russia could even pull off a Crimea invasion
Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
No, you got it right the first time.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
It is about moving another economy to the West and their people having the right to choose
There is 35% of the world that lives in complete la la land and an alternative reality where MSNBC and The View provide "news."Redbrickbear said:
"Congress hereby authorizes the President, beginning at 12:01 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2025, to seek to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark to secure the acquisition of Greenland by the United States."
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) January 14, 2025
Read more: https://t.co/YVjI9rw9zW
Sam Lowry said:No, you got it right the first time.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
It is about moving another economy to the West and their people having the right to choose
Correct. By design, covert non-lethal stuff does not make the news very often. How silly it would be to think the West took no effort to generate and/or assist the various periods of unrest in East Europe. Ya really think Solidarnosc did its thing without any help at all?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:No, you got it right the first time.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
It is about moving another economy to the West and their people having the right to choose
You know NOT every reason has to be a dark, sinister reason. It can be a combination.
Has the US tried to move Nations West since 1945? Yes, no doubt. Argue whether that is right or wrong all you want.
But, the US has also been a representative of supporting people's rights and right to choose their path since it's inception, especially since WW2. You may not like the people the US support, but the bottom line is the US has supported peoples right more than almost any Nation in history. The US has consistently been on the side of those wanting opportunities and the ability to choose against invasions. You may not like the methods, but life in the West is more free than life in the East with more opportunities. There can be sound motives mixed with F-ed up execution.
Exactly. Well, Foreign relations we agree.whiterock said:Correct. By design, covert non-lethal stuff does not make the news very often. How silly it would be to think the West took no effort to generate and/or assist the various periods of unrest in East Europe. Ya really think Solidarnosc did its thing without any help at all?FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:No, you got it right the first time.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
It is about moving another economy to the West and their people having the right to choose
You know NOT every reason has to be a dark, sinister reason. It can be a combination.
Has the US tried to move Nations West since 1945? Yes, no doubt. Argue whether that is right or wrong all you want.
But, the US has also been a representative of supporting people's rights and right to choose their path since it's inception, especially since WW2. You may not like the people the US support, but the bottom line is the US has supported peoples right more than almost any Nation in history. The US has consistently been on the side of those wanting opportunities and the ability to choose against invasions. You may not like the methods, but life in the West is more free than life in the East with more opportunities. There can be sound motives mixed with F-ed up execution.
Did you think it was sinister when you said "the next step for the US is expansion; with this debt load, it's the only logical move to increase revenue?"FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:No, you got it right the first time.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
It is about moving another economy to the West and their people having the right to choose
You know NOT every reason has to be a dark, sinister reason. It can be a combination.
Has the US tried to move Nations West since 1945? Yes, no doubt. Argue whether that is right or wrong all you want.
But, the US has also been a representative of supporting people's rights and right to choose their path since its inception, especially since WW2. You may not like the people the US support, but the bottom line is the US has supported peoples right more than almost any Nation in history. The US has consistently been on the side of those wanting opportunities and the ability to choose against invasions. You may not like the methods, but life in the West is more free than life in the East with more opportunities. There can be sound motives mixed with F-ed up execution.
Not at all sinister. Why? Because it is voluntary and the deal creates win-win for both sides. The US is not invading Greenland and taking it. Even Iraq, which was the worst US act I have seen, we did not take it. That seems to be the biggest difference and the one that matters the most, the US gives a choice. See Venezula and Cuba, no way China or Russia let's them exist like they are so close.Sam Lowry said:Did you think it was sinister when you said "the next step for the US is expansion; with this debt load, it's the only logical move to increase revenue?"FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:No, you got it right the first time.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
It is about moving another economy to the West and their people having the right to choose
You know NOT every reason has to be a dark, sinister reason. It can be a combination.
Has the US tried to move Nations West since 1945? Yes, no doubt. Argue whether that is right or wrong all you want.
But, the US has also been a representative of supporting people's rights and right to choose their path since its inception, especially since WW2. You may not like the people the US support, but the bottom line is the US has supported peoples right more than almost any Nation in history. The US has consistently been on the side of those wanting opportunities and the ability to choose against invasions. You may not like the methods, but life in the West is more free than life in the East with more opportunities. There can be sound motives mixed with F-ed up execution.
It's quite rare that Americans are honest with themselves about foreign policy. You had it there for a minute. Why the furious back-pedaling?
whiterock said:
LOL the neverTrumpers are so reflexively verkrampteANOTHER STAR ON OLD GLORY? New Poll Shows That the Majority in Greenland Supports Becoming Part of the United States | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran https://t.co/FXvmDQkkdJ
— DeltaGun *ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ* (@KJV66) January 13, 2025
- Mineral extraction is severely limited by EU regulations which make it almost impossible.
— Kaiser Bill (@WaivedSAP) January 11, 2025
-The United States does not have unilateral permission from the Danes to set up military bases.
Do they teach basic research in J school these days?
Realitybites said:whiterock said:
LOL the neverTrumpers are so reflexively verkrampteANOTHER STAR ON OLD GLORY? New Poll Shows That the Majority in Greenland Supports Becoming Part of the United States | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran https://t.co/FXvmDQkkdJ
— DeltaGun *ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ* (@KJV66) January 13, 2025
I'm not reflexively anything. I'm no more against Greenlanders wanting become the 51st state and incorporating them than I was with the people of Eastern Ukraine deciding they wanted to be Russian or Eastern Oregonians wanting to become Idahoans. You either believe in the right of self determination or you don't. I do.
"Verkrampte" is an Afrikaaner word meaning "rigid, narrow-minded...."
What I am against is allowing economic and geopolitical considerations to drive the discussion at the expense of what effect such additions have on our domestic politics, culture, and civilization...and really that goes for all our policies.
There's not a lot to discuss that isn't known. Greenland is fantastically well endowed with oil/gas and strategic rare earth minerals. It is also strategically positioned along the trade routes between Europe and North America (which are also the resupply routes for Nato). Loss of Greenland to a hostile power would be a proverbial trench knife pressed against the jugular of Nato.
Considering that most of what we know about Greenland before this month was it's up north, it's cold, it has stuff perhaps thinking through this a bit is in order...and that might be assuming a bit much. For most the knowledge of Greenland might not extend past "Iceland is warmer despite its name, Greenland is colder despite its name."
That's because most people don't pay attention to important developments in foreign affairs, to include very important ones. Like the fate of Greenland. Greenland is North America, dude.
whiterock said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
LOL the neverTrumpers are so reflexively verkrampteANOTHER STAR ON OLD GLORY? New Poll Shows That the Majority in Greenland Supports Becoming Part of the United States | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran https://t.co/FXvmDQkkdJ
— DeltaGun *ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ* (@KJV66) January 13, 2025
I'm not reflexively anything. I'm no more against Greenlanders wanting become the 51st state and incorporating them than I was with the people of Eastern Ukraine deciding they wanted to be Russian or Eastern Oregonians wanting to become Idahoans. You either believe in the right of self determination or you don't. I do.
"Verkrampte" is an Afrikaaner word meaning "rigid, narrow-minded...."
What I am against is allowing economic and geopolitical considerations to drive the discussion at the expense of what effect such additions have on our domestic politics, culture, and civilization...and really that goes for all our policies.
There's not a lot to discuss that isn't known. Greenland is fantastically well endowed with oil/gas and strategic rare earth minerals. It is also strategically positioned along the trade routes between Europe and North America (which are also the resupply routes for Nato). Loss of Greenland to a hostile power would be a proverbial trench knife pressed against the jugular of Nato.
Considering that most of what we know about Greenland before this month was it's up north, it's cold, it has stuff perhaps thinking through this a bit is in order...and that might be assuming a bit much. For most the knowledge of Greenland might not extend past "Iceland is warmer despite its name, Greenland is colder despite its name."
That's because most people don't pay attention to important developments in foreign affairs, to include very important ones. Like the fate of Greenland. Greenland is North America, dude.
Denmark never did anything with Greenland and was prepared to let it become an independent country, despite knowing that Greenland is not a viable economic unit which would be forced to cut security and commercia deals with greater powers. Greenland has had a well-developed independence movement gaining steam over the last few decades.
whiterock said:Porteroso said:FLBear5630 said:Who said anything about invading? Any of these? Trump will make a deal, that is what he does. He will try to negotiate a deal with Panama. He is not sending the Marines into the Canal... The military and the Canada stuff is posturing.KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:Same with the Canada.KaiBear said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
The arctic is heating up. Russia and China have partnered and are expanding their activities there. While clearly the stated focus is "resources", the truth is that we know that they will also build up infrastructure that could be used for military purposes.
Short sighted mind virus TDSers, please stop embarrassing yourself. The world is a dangerous place, and Russia and China becoming besties isn't going to make it any safer.
So now global warming is real ?
Who knew ?
Of course Greenland is warming up a little.
But the Danes do NOT want to sell it.
Trump will NOT invade Greenland to possess it.
This is all some kind of political distraction. Silly pulp for the legacy media to chew on.
Much like the ' alien ' drones in New Jersey that the media got all worked up about only a few weeks ago.
I think he is going to make a move on the Panama Canal...
LOL
Trump is not invading Panama.
Good grief.
Now, he may blow the hell out of some Hamas or Iranian bases to make his point. But, no one said a thing about invading.
What kind of military action is he not ruling out?
I think he's full of bs, but just pretend he isnt... what kind of military action do you guys think he would take in Greenland or Canada?
He's not ruling out anything, nor should he. And that's important for Russia and China to hear = USA is not going to tolerate Greenland leaving the Western Order, so keepa yer hands off.
You do realize China has already attempted to sign commercial development deals, loans, etc with Greenland, right?
Sam Lowry said:No, you got it right the first time.FLBear5630 said:Sam Lowry said:That would be an example of the same old stuff, as Sombear calls it. We've invaded many countries over the years. Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, and we barely batted an eye. What we don't do is attack each other's homelands.FLBear5630 said:You keep leaving out the little fact that Russia invaded... I think that qualifies as an escalation that Russia can control.Sam Lowry said:Russia spent the better part of a decade preparing for the war and sanctions. They knew it could take some time, though I suspect they underestimated the West's cynicism in prolonging the slaughter well beyond its natural course. That's beside the point, though. We aren't just supplying weapons but also the personnel to operate them. The Russians in turn are actively hunting them down and destroying them. That's just one of many unprecedented factors with the potential for escalation.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Profoundly and dangerously wrong. We used to have understandings about what we did and did not do. Messing around with each other's colonies in the four corners of the globe is not the same as firing missiles on each other's homeland or killing each other's people.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Not remotely like we have in the last three years.sombear said:I am not at all concerned about poking the Russian bear. We've been provoking each other for decades, and that will never stop.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's you guys who've been griping for several years about focusing inward and not spending gobs of money on foreign interests. Yet here we are with Trump wanting to literally expand our territorial and/or hegemonic footprint in Canada, Greenland, and Panama,Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:It's more like you're allergic to logic and self awareness. I'm not arguing against the Greenland move (except taking it by force). I only pointed out the strange twist in position relative to overt imperialism when suggested by Trump..Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:The same way Blackrock and the defense contractors you gripe about? It isn't the U.S. government that would be mining for minerals, or running a canal.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
And some of you thought the Ukraine war support was expensive. Just wait until you see the price tag on these moves.
Greenland and the Panama Canal would provide actual revenue to the treasury….Ukraine provides nothing but a economic drain
Not to mention the whole endless proxy war with a nuclear power thing as DC spends billions trying to tear it out of the Russian orbit
Would those defense contractors be getting us into a costly proxy war over Greenland like in Ukraine against a nuclear armed power?
Amazing…its like your allergic to anything that would help the American people…and addicted to anything harms regular Americans
Calling a simple business deal "imperialism" is where your logic goes wrong from the start.
There is nothing imperialist about the USA offering to buy a underpopulated and under used territory from Denmark
Made even worse because you tried to tie it to your pathetic and clownish Ukraine war mongering
Again your logic is very flawed
You are 100% ok with gross imperialism (coups in eastern Europe to install new governments loyal to DC....that then spark off massive proxy wars against a regional power)
You just don't like voluntary expansion in our own sphere of influence (North America) that could help average Americans via economic and geo-strategic means
Buying Greenland, buying back the Panama Canal, potentially letting oil rich Alberta possibly join the USA would all be very very beneficial to us with low cost.
Your dump neo-liberal wars in frozen lands east of the Bug river give the average American nothing....and could end up being a civilizational disaster of epic portions if things go nuclear
Putin: "We're watching U.S. Greenland actions very closely."
He is scared of the USA dominating the arctic and having access to the vast resources of Greenland
I thought you guys hated russia and loved anything they disliked?
(ps putin does not need excuses to invade the ethnic russian parts of ukraine....he has already been doing that for years)This map of Russian military bases in the Arctic and of potential shipping lanes through the Arctic Ocean makes it really clear why Greenland is essential to America’s national security pic.twitter.com/CqaEIEif3I
— Ethan Isaacson (@ethan1saacson) January 8, 2025
Having Greenland also puts most of Russia under threat from U.S. air power & Missiles and gives us radar warning stations in the event of a future conflict.
Same old stuff
We supplied weapons to Ukraine long before Russia invaded. And Russia sold weapons to Iraq and others. Russia knew the west would support Ukraine, but he didn't care. He thought he'd win over the weekend.
You're absolutely right that buying Greenland is a better model than proxy war. You're also right that it's about gaining resources and postponing our debt crisis. That's a key point. What you need to understand is that Ukraine is all about the same thing. It's got nothing to do with defending freedom or helping a so-called friend.
It is about moving another economy to the West and their people having the right to choose
The 50,000 people could all become millionaires in short order if the country leadership plays its cards right. The US would be happy to ensure that if it meant getting control and access. Easy to structure a deal that gets them serious money over a short time period, and some rights to minerals/land.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Realitybites said:whiterock said:
LOL the neverTrumpers are so reflexively verkrampteANOTHER STAR ON OLD GLORY? New Poll Shows That the Majority in Greenland Supports Becoming Part of the United States | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran https://t.co/FXvmDQkkdJ
— DeltaGun *ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ* (@KJV66) January 13, 2025
I'm not reflexively anything. I'm no more against Greenlanders wanting become the 51st state and incorporating them than I was with the people of Eastern Ukraine deciding they wanted to be Russian or Eastern Oregonians wanting to become Idahoans. You either believe in the right of self determination or you don't. I do.
"Verkrampte" is an Afrikaaner word meaning "rigid, narrow-minded...."
What I am against is allowing economic and geopolitical considerations to drive the discussion at the expense of what effect such additions have on our domestic politics, culture, and civilization...and really that goes for all our policies.
There's not a lot to discuss that isn't known. Greenland is fantastically well endowed with oil/gas and strategic rare earth minerals. It is also strategically positioned along the trade routes between Europe and North America (which are also the resupply routes for Nato). Loss of Greenland to a hostile power would be a proverbial trench knife pressed against the jugular of Nato.
Considering that most of what we know about Greenland before this month was it's up north, it's cold, it has stuff perhaps thinking through this a bit is in order...and that might be assuming a bit much. For most the knowledge of Greenland might not extend past "Iceland is warmer despite its name, Greenland is colder despite its name."
That's because most people don't pay attention to important developments in foreign affairs, to include very important ones. Like the fate of Greenland. Greenland is North America, dude.
Denmark never did anything with Greenland and was prepared to let it become an independent country, despite knowing that Greenland is not a viable economic unit which would be forced to cut security and commercia deals with greater powers. Greenland has had a well-developed independence movement gaining steam over the last few decades.
Exactly
And with US economic and military and scientific investment..... the 50,000 people of Greenland would see far more jobs and economic growth under US administration than under Denmark or being independent
ATL Bear said:
We don't do heavy mining domestically. I'm curious why it is believed we will do it in Greenland? Acquiring a resource is great. What we can and will do with it is another. With 60,000 inhabitants, Greenlanders aren't going to be the labor or technical force to exploit this. It will be farmed out. I'd like to say to US firms, but we don't have much of it. Furthermore, we have many of the same regulatory restrictions as the EU, which is why we stopped/slowed down doing these types of operations.
I have high confidence Trump can negotiate an opportunity with Greenland. I'm not as confident he can negotiate the harder part with America. Are we ready for what it takes to actually compete with China and the world in the areas of steel, mining, and heavy industries? Do Americans even know what that means and the sacrifices necessary? I would love it if we can pivot, but thus far we've regulated and entitled our way from it over many decades.
You are probably right. The blocking move is a strategy.LIB,MR BEARS said:ATL Bear said:
We don't do heavy mining domestically. I'm curious why it is believed we will do it in Greenland? Acquiring a resource is great. What we can and will do with it is another. With 60,000 inhabitants, Greenlanders aren't going to be the labor or technical force to exploit this. It will be farmed out. I'd like to say to US firms, but we don't have much of it. Furthermore, we have many of the same regulatory restrictions as the EU, which is why we stopped/slowed down doing these types of operations.
I have high confidence Trump can negotiate an opportunity with Greenland. I'm not as confident he can negotiate the harder part with America. Are we ready for what it takes to actually compete with China and the world in the areas of steel, mining, and heavy industries? Do Americans even know what that means and the sacrifices necessary? I would love it if we can pivot, but thus far we've regulated and entitled our way from it over many decades.
Back in the day of unlimited football scholarships UT would give scholarships to bluechip recruits for the sole purpose of keeping them out of the hands of opposing teams. Right now, Greenland is a bluechip land that may never play a down while riding a US scholarship for all its worth.
Since Trump annexing Canada is in the news, did you know that Newfoundland could have become part of the U.S. in the 1940s?
— Matt Forney (@realmattforney) January 16, 2025
Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, nearly a century after Canada was formed. This was despite many Newfoundlanders desiring to become the 49th state. pic.twitter.com/DauaNII3Es
we aren't going to invade with troops. we'll do it with money, and Greenland will be happy about it.Porteroso said:whiterock said:Porteroso said:FLBear5630 said:Who said anything about invading? Any of these? Trump will make a deal, that is what he does. He will try to negotiate a deal with Panama. He is not sending the Marines into the Canal... The military and the Canada stuff is posturing.KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:Same with the Canada.KaiBear said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
The arctic is heating up. Russia and China have partnered and are expanding their activities there. While clearly the stated focus is "resources", the truth is that we know that they will also build up infrastructure that could be used for military purposes.
Short sighted mind virus TDSers, please stop embarrassing yourself. The world is a dangerous place, and Russia and China becoming besties isn't going to make it any safer.
So now global warming is real ?
Who knew ?
Of course Greenland is warming up a little.
But the Danes do NOT want to sell it.
Trump will NOT invade Greenland to possess it.
This is all some kind of political distraction. Silly pulp for the legacy media to chew on.
Much like the ' alien ' drones in New Jersey that the media got all worked up about only a few weeks ago.
I think he is going to make a move on the Panama Canal...
LOL
Trump is not invading Panama.
Good grief.
Now, he may blow the hell out of some Hamas or Iranian bases to make his point. But, no one said a thing about invading.
What kind of military action is he not ruling out?
I think he's full of bs, but just pretend he isnt... what kind of military action do you guys think he would take in Greenland or Canada?
He's not ruling out anything, nor should he. And that's important for Russia and China to hear = USA is not going to tolerate Greenland leaving the Western Order, so keepa yer hands off.
You do realize China has already attempted to sign commercial development deals, loans, etc with Greenland, right?
China is spending money everywhere. They are the world's leading rare earth super and spending big to stay that way. We actually used to be, and decided we didn't want the mess that comes with it.
So far we haven't invaded for rare earths in the modern era. Do you think it is about time to start? Taking over Greenland and Africa would give us a lot of independence from China. You up for it?
whiterock said:we aren't going to invade with troops. we'll do it with money, and Greenland will be happy about it.Porteroso said:whiterock said:Porteroso said:FLBear5630 said:Who said anything about invading? Any of these? Trump will make a deal, that is what he does. He will try to negotiate a deal with Panama. He is not sending the Marines into the Canal... The military and the Canada stuff is posturing.KaiBear said:FLBear5630 said:Same with the Canada.KaiBear said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:
The arctic is heating up. Russia and China have partnered and are expanding their activities there. While clearly the stated focus is "resources", the truth is that we know that they will also build up infrastructure that could be used for military purposes.
Short sighted mind virus TDSers, please stop embarrassing yourself. The world is a dangerous place, and Russia and China becoming besties isn't going to make it any safer.
So now global warming is real ?
Who knew ?
Of course Greenland is warming up a little.
But the Danes do NOT want to sell it.
Trump will NOT invade Greenland to possess it.
This is all some kind of political distraction. Silly pulp for the legacy media to chew on.
Much like the ' alien ' drones in New Jersey that the media got all worked up about only a few weeks ago.
I think he is going to make a move on the Panama Canal...
LOL
Trump is not invading Panama.
Good grief.
Now, he may blow the hell out of some Hamas or Iranian bases to make his point. But, no one said a thing about invading.
What kind of military action is he not ruling out?
I think he's full of bs, but just pretend he isnt... what kind of military action do you guys think he would take in Greenland or Canada?
He's not ruling out anything, nor should he. And that's important for Russia and China to hear = USA is not going to tolerate Greenland leaving the Western Order, so keepa yer hands off.
You do realize China has already attempted to sign commercial development deals, loans, etc with Greenland, right?
China is spending money everywhere. They are the world's leading rare earth super and spending big to stay that way. We actually used to be, and decided we didn't want the mess that comes with it.
So far we haven't invaded for rare earths in the modern era. Do you think it is about time to start? Taking over Greenland and Africa would give us a lot of independence from China. You up for it?
