Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

"Ally" depends on the country. France and Germany pretend to be 'allies' with the US, and wellllll ....

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

To give Trump a little credit, he certainly did not come up with this one his own, he just blabbed about it constantly once soneone told him.

There have to be things happening in the Arctic that we dont know about, and our military wants to get ahead of.

If we truly need Greenland to guarantee our safety, we need to make Geeenland an offer it cannot refuse. And behind closed doors, we have to convince the EU why it is necessary.

---

two dynamics are visible. One old, and one new.

The old: Denmark has given Greenland too much autonomy, given the limits of Danish military power. That creates opportunity for other powers to swoop in. Better us to do the swooping than anyone else (most especially Russia or China, each of whom have been nosing around the target).

The new: Drones and robots are (or very soon will be) Arctic-proof. That reduces natural barriers that ice and space have typically afforded us at the poles (and the North one is a LOT more important to us than the South one).

---

Interesting points.

None of which would justify invading Greenland.

Would be a public relations nightmare world wide, and the American people would overwhelmingly oppose the act as well.

In any case the next Dem president would immediately return Greenland to the Danes.......so the mess would all be for nothing.

---

Trump is responding to Danish fecklessness.....giving Greenland a pathway to independence invites "suitors." We are not going to allow it to go that far. We are going to make offers which cannot be refused...now. Because the last thing we need is to wind up in a kinetic situation with a peer power later over an independent Greenland full of meddlesome foreign influence..

Every prior president can be criticized for not having already done what Trump is doing.

The simple diplomatic solution is Barron Trump marries Princess Isabella of Denmark and Greenland is given to America as dowry payment pic.twitter.com/fhs3b6IDZG

— miss white (@cinecitta2030) January 7, 2026

Jack Bauer said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

And we HAVE an Air Force base in Greenland already

---

in an agreement with Denmark, not an independent Greenland.

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

The problem is, Denmark isn't "running" Greenland. It's letting Greenland have a pathwaty to cut deals with whomever it wishes.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

The problem is, Denmark isn't "running" Greenland. It's letting Greenland have a pathwaty to cut deals with whomever it wishes.

---

And ?

Buy it or leave it alone.

---

chaos is a ladder.

Worst case.....he'll end up getting Greenland to accelerate to independence then become a freely associated state (with us) like the Marshall Islands

It'll probably end up a better arrangement than that.

Kennedy: To invade Greenland would be weapons grade stupid. President Trump is not weapons grade stupid. pic.twitter.com/nZCRNMVU1c

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 7, 2026

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

The problem is, Denmark isn't "running" Greenland. It's letting Greenland have a pathwaty to cut deals with whomever it wishes.

---

And ?

Buy it or leave it alone.

---

Or perhaps offer a better deal. I'm not aware of any historical animus -- well, maybe there is animus now, but whatever -- that Greenlanders or Denmark have against the US. We've operated a base there for decades, used to be called Thule AB, it's a space command thing now called something else. If this is a national security thing, build on that ongoing relationship. It shouldn't require us browbeating allies into something they do not want for themselves. Just to provide us with some level of imagined security.

But of course this isn't about "national security" as it's commonly defined. It's about unfettered access to resources we want under the guise of "security."

Sound familiar? It does to the rest of the world.

fubar said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

The problem is, Denmark isn't "running" Greenland. It's letting Greenland have a pathwaty to cut deals with whomever it wishes.

---

And ?

Buy it or leave it alone.

---

Or perhaps offer a better deal. I'm not aware of any historical animus -- well, maybe there is animus now, but whatever -- that Greenlanders or Denmark have against the US. We've operated a base there for decades, used to be called Thule AB, it's a space command thing now called something else. If this is a national security thing, build on that ongoing relationship. It shouldn't require us browbeating allies into something they do not want for themselves. Just to provide us with some level of imagined security.

But of course this isn't about "national security" as it's commonly defined. It's about unfettered access to resources we want under the guise of "security."

Sound familiar? It does to the rest of the world.

---

Sure does.

The question is do we trust NATO, Canada and Denmark to protect that region? Sorry about size of post, but it we are going to discuss it. Let's get some data out there. When you look at the assets we have, the routes opening up and geography some type of arrangement has to come into play.



We are truly exposed relying heavily on joint alliances. This may give a perspective.



Arctic operations for shipping is booming. The next area of opportunity. We are covered on the Pacific entrance to the Arctic, but very exposed in the Atlantic. We also do not have the equipment to operate in that region, we have 1 operational ice breaker. We have contracts to purchase 3 more to put in perspective Russia has 40, including a nuclear powered ship.




U.S. Icebreaker Build Plan Moves Forward At Warp Speed

FLBear5630 said:

---

fubar said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

The problem is, Denmark isn't "running" Greenland. It's letting Greenland have a pathwaty to cut deals with whomever it wishes.

---

And ?

Buy it or leave it alone.

---

Or perhaps offer a better deal. I'm not aware of any historical animus -- well, maybe there is animus now, but whatever -- that Greenlanders or Denmark have against the US. We've operated a base there for decades, used to be called Thule AB, it's a space command thing now called something else. If this is a national security thing, build on that ongoing relationship. It shouldn't require us browbeating allies into something they do not want for themselves. Just to provide us with some level of imagined security.

But of course this isn't about "national security" as it's commonly defined. It's about unfettered access to resources we want under the guise of "security."

Sound familiar? It does to the rest of the world.

---

Sure does.

The question is do we trust NATO, Canada and Denmark to protect that region? Sorry about size of post, but it we are going to discuss it. Let's get some data out there. When you look at the assets we have, the routes opening up and geography some type of arrangement has to come into play.



We are truly exposed relying heavily on joint alliances. This may give a perspective.



Arctic operations for shipping is booming. The next area of opportunity. We are covered on the Pacific entrance to the Arctic, but very exposed in the Atlantic. We also do not have the equipment to operate in that region, we have 1 operational ice breaker. We have contracts to purchase 3 more to put in perspective Russia has 40, including a nuclear powered ship.




U.S. Icebreaker Build Plan Moves Forward At Warp Speed

---

Relying on alliances where our partner doesn't want to spend as necessary

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

fubar said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

The problem is, Denmark isn't "running" Greenland. It's letting Greenland have a pathwaty to cut deals with whomever it wishes.

---

And ?

Buy it or leave it alone.

---

Or perhaps offer a better deal. I'm not aware of any historical animus -- well, maybe there is animus now, but whatever -- that Greenlanders or Denmark have against the US. We've operated a base there for decades, used to be called Thule AB, it's a space command thing now called something else. If this is a national security thing, build on that ongoing relationship. It shouldn't require us browbeating allies into something they do not want for themselves. Just to provide us with some level of imagined security.

But of course this isn't about "national security" as it's commonly defined. It's about unfettered access to resources we want under the guise of "security."

Sound familiar? It does to the rest of the world.

---

Sure does.

The question is do we trust NATO, Canada and Denmark to protect that region? Sorry about size of post, but it we are going to discuss it. Let's get some data out there. When you look at the assets we have, the routes opening up and geography some type of arrangement has to come into play.



We are truly exposed relying heavily on joint alliances. This may give a perspective.



Arctic operations for shipping is booming. The next area of opportunity. We are covered on the Pacific entrance to the Arctic, but very exposed in the Atlantic. We also do not have the equipment to operate in that region, we have 1 operational ice breaker. We have contracts to purchase 3 more to put in perspective Russia has 40, including a nuclear powered ship.




U.S. Icebreaker Build Plan Moves Forward At Warp Speed

---

Relying on alliances where our partner doesn't want to spend as necessary

---

Don't disagree. We can increase our presence there anytime we want as we have a treaty, we used to have 17 bases there.

Let's do it. It is the next big confronted area that we have limited exposure. A naval/marine base there would be useful.

Negotate mining rights for providing protection. Make the place better for the Greenlanders and it gets done. Denmark and Greenland know this, which is why they are meeting with Rubio next week. Need to lower the rhetoric... Not just Trump, Miller and Vance are worse.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

The problem is, Denmark isn't "running" Greenland. It's letting Greenland have a pathwaty to cut deals with whomever it wishes.

---

Buy it or leave it alone.

---

Yes. Simple as that.

President Lizard King. You are really ignorant and stupid and are threatening NATO. He needs to be in jail and impeached.

BREAKING: The US is considering paying Greenlanders $10,000 to $100,000 each to support secession from Denmark.

We may soon witness the largest acquisition in world history.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 8, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: The US is considering paying Greenlanders $10,000 to $100,000 each to support secession from Denmark.

We may soon witness the largest acquisition in world history.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 8, 2026

---

Strongly doubt it will ever happen.

Too much attention on the deal......other vested interests will put a squash to it.

Buying it can be considered an investment. There are important natural resources there, and i believe Vance that our missile defense system is blind up there.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump's rhetoric on this is dumb.

An agreement that allows Greenlanders to still elect their own politicians and run their economy would be preferable to outright buying it. And we get the right to defend it and ourselves with it, however we see fit. Seems that's all we need.

Porteroso said:

---

Buying it can be considered an investment. There are important natural resources there, and i believe Vance that our missile defense system is blind up there.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump's rhetoric on this is dumb.

An agreement that allows Greenlanders to still elect their own politicians and run their economy would be preferable to outright buying it. And we get the right to defend it and ourselves with it, however we see fit. Seems that's all we need.

---

LOL Chaos is a ladder. Trump's rhetoric is creating opportunity.

Don't be surprised if the acquisition is financed by private industry = oil companies, mining companies, tech companies, etc.... Could trade deal monies be used to make "investments?"

We wouldn't have to worry about how to cool data centers if we located them in Greenland, now, would we?

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Buying it can be considered an investment. There are important natural resources there, and i believe Vance that our missile defense system is blind up there.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump's rhetoric on this is dumb.

An agreement that allows Greenlanders to still elect their own politicians and run their economy would be preferable to outright buying it. And we get the right to defend it and ourselves with it, however we see fit. Seems that's all we need.

---

LOL Chaos is a ladder. Trump's rhetoric is creating opportunity.

Don't be surprised if the acquisition is financed by private industry = oil companies, mining companies, tech companies, etc.... Could trade deal monies be used to make "investments?"

We wouldn't have to worry about how to cool data centers if we located them in Greenland, now, would we?

---

It has to be done WITH Denmark and Greenland. Taking on NATO is a non-starter. Trump and you may have no problem with it, but it will never fly through Congress. Like it or not, Congress is a reality that has to be dealt with.

I believe a deal can be cut, but it has to be a joint venture. Not a "buy" or conquest.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Buying it can be considered an investment. There are important natural resources there, and i believe Vance that our missile defense system is blind up there.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump's rhetoric on this is dumb.

An agreement that allows Greenlanders to still elect their own politicians and run their economy would be preferable to outright buying it. And we get the right to defend it and ourselves with it, however we see fit. Seems that's all we need.

---

LOL Chaos is a ladder. Trump's rhetoric is creating opportunity.

Don't be surprised if the acquisition is financed by private industry = oil companies, mining companies, tech companies, etc.... Could trade deal monies be used to make "investments?"

We wouldn't have to worry about how to cool data centers if we located them in Greenland, now, would we?

---

It has to be done WITH Denmark and Greenland. Taking on NATO is a non-starter. Trump and you may have no problem with it, but it will never fly through Congress. Like it or not, Congress is a reality that has to be dealt with.

I believe a deal can be cut, but it has to be a joint venture. Not a "buy" or conquest.

---

Denmark opened the knife and handed it to Trump = they gave Greenland a pathway to autonomy. Trump is merely financing the transition to speed it along (and make sure Greenland ends up in our lap).

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Buying it can be considered an investment. There are important natural resources there, and i believe Vance that our missile defense system is blind up there.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump's rhetoric on this is dumb.

An agreement that allows Greenlanders to still elect their own politicians and run their economy would be preferable to outright buying it. And we get the right to defend it and ourselves with it, however we see fit. Seems that's all we need.

---

LOL Chaos is a ladder. Trump's rhetoric is creating opportunity.

Don't be surprised if the acquisition is financed by private industry = oil companies, mining companies, tech companies, etc.... Could trade deal monies be used to make "investments?"

We wouldn't have to worry about how to cool data centers if we located them in Greenland, now, would we?

---

It has to be done WITH Denmark and Greenland. Taking on NATO is a non-starter. Trump and you may have no problem with it, but it will never fly through Congress. Like it or not, Congress is a reality that has to be dealt with.

I believe a deal can be cut, but it has to be a joint venture. Not a "buy" or conquest.

---

Denmark opened the knife and handed it to Trump = they gave Greenland a pathway to autonomy. Trump is merely financing the transition to speed it along (and make sure Greenland ends up in our lap).

---

I do not disagree.

There is a time for diplomacy and Greenland requires a lighter touch than Maduro. He has to get Congress, Denmark and NATO on board. That will require a bit of nuance, not just a hammer. His opening moves were fine, but now is time to bring them into the fold. Not make them resentful future enemies, regardless if they were wrong.

That seems to be one thing this board seems to really like, playing the Blame abd Fault game. That is often counterproductive. Even if you get a short term win, it turns to a long term watching of your back.

Let the process go as it will, as long as the outcome is ours... - Ignatius Loyala

We can use a little more of that.

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

Can you not see what is happening to European nations? Those countries are looking less and less like our allies of yesterday. And it's not due to Trump exactly, Trump just made it so it's clear as day. Liberty in the West is moving towards becoming a scarce commodity. Not hard to imagine a NATO where quite frankly we're on very different pages, or not even in the same book. Could even imagine a future where a NATO country or ten happily sell us out. Heck today, it's not hard to imagine a Canada run by foreigners with very different allegiances within a decade. Sure NATO members need us right now, but what if their population continues to shift, who will they cozy up to?

So sure, "good enough" works right now, but long term I'd rather have it under our direct ownership or control.

As little credit as some here give Trump, the truth is he's thinking ahead. His administration is looking a decade out doing what must be done. Many naysayers would just be happy to just take the path of no resistance and let Venezuela become a proxy for China. Greenland is different of course, but long term, who knows, so I'm glad securing it is being seriously advanced.

At some point, we will be out of NATO and it will dissolve . We aren't at that point yet nor should we speed it along. We should however plan for it with ALL treaties and alliances going forward including the purchase and/or treaty with Greenland.

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Buying it can be considered an investment. There are important natural resources there, and i believe Vance that our missile defense system is blind up there.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump's rhetoric on this is dumb.

An agreement that allows Greenlanders to still elect their own politicians and run their economy would be preferable to outright buying it. And we get the right to defend it and ourselves with it, however we see fit. Seems that's all we need.

---

LOL Chaos is a ladder. Trump's rhetoric is creating opportunity.

Don't be surprised if the acquisition is financed by private industry = oil companies, mining companies, tech companies, etc.... Could trade deal monies be used to make "investments?"

We wouldn't have to worry about how to cool data centers if we located them in Greenland, now, would we?

---

But we dont need chaos or want it, except in the right places. We want to maintain our place in the world order, which is in charge of it, allied with everyone who matters. Superior to the 1 or 2 true competitors largely because of our allies.

Throwing allies or strategic alliances like NATO into chaos is no ladder at all, at least not upwards. It's falling off the ladder.

Just 3 more years of you praising the rhetoric of the insane. Goodness.

Barron is going to wed the heiress to Greenland.

All been pre-arraigned.

Clay Travis best man.

DEVELOPING!

- UF

Details to follow.....

Melania approves.

DD!!

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Can you not see what is happening to European nations? Those countries are looking less and less like our allies of yesterday. And it's not due to Trump exactly, Trump just made it so it's clear as day. Liberty in the West is moving towards becoming a scarce commodity. Not hard to imagine a NATO where quite frankly we're on very different pages, or not even in the same book. Could even imagine a future where a NATO country or ten happily sell us out. Heck today, it's not hard to imagine a Canada run by foreigners with very different allegiances within a decade. Sure NATO members need us right now, but what if their population continues to shift, who will they cozy up to?

---

I see this clearly. That's one of the reasons I strongly advocate for exiting NATO and other Western European alliances. The population shift there has gotten to the point that I might even support the end of visa free travel for EU passport holders. However important Greenland is, we're rapidly accelerating to a 39 trillion dollar national debt leaving each of our taxpayers stuck with a 355k per capita debt liability.

We shouldn't be invading or buying Greenland.

I agree that we cannot allow countries like Venezuela become a threat to us any more than the Russians can allow a hostile Ukraine on their border. But better not look too closely at Mexico and who is running that narco state.

william said:

---

Barron is going to wed the heiress to Greenland.

All been pre-arraigned.

Clay Travis best man.

DEVELOPING!

- UF

Details to follow.....

Melania approves.

DD!!

---

Trump voice "I'm so proud of Barron. Great genes. Maybe the best. He'll be a great king.

Monarchies are wonderful things. I'd be a great monarch. I think we'll look into it.

Imagine King Trump. TWO king Trumps. And we wouldn't mooch of the people like the House of Windsor.

House. Have you seen the House of Windsor. Everything is falling apart. Leaks , Mildew. Horrible stuff."

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

At some point, we will be out of NATO and it will dissolve . We aren't at that point yet nor should we speed it along. We should however plan for it with ALL treaties and alliances going forward including the purchase and/or treaty with Greenland.

---

It is being dissolved. The Europeans have made their beds and they are against the US. They won't come out and say it like that, but they will say it in other ways. They are for the US when we pay them, they are against us when we stand up and say no more.

So many moderate "Republicans" don't actually get what's going on. They think we somehow need to keep things as they were, be nice, play nice. They can't see more than 3 feet in front of themselves. Our country is so messed up today because it's been following the European culture shift. To fight that is to be their enemy. We can't keep pretending that they are for liberty while they kill their own cultures. They aren't our enemies, but they will sell us out in two seconds if they somehow feel that they can survive without us. Just wait, it's coming, Europe will start wanting to kick us out or to create a new Nato without the US. It'll be mostly bluster, because their military is so weak right now without the US, but it's setting the stage for down the road, driving the wedge further.

Realitybites said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Can you not see what is happening to European nations? Those countries are looking less and less like our allies of yesterday. And it's not due to Trump exactly, Trump just made it so it's clear as day. Liberty in the West is moving towards becoming a scarce commodity. Not hard to imagine a NATO where quite frankly we're on very different pages, or not even in the same book. Could even imagine a future where a NATO country or ten happily sell us out. Heck today, it's not hard to imagine a Canada run by foreigners with very different allegiances within a decade. Sure NATO members need us right now, but what if their population continues to shift, who will they cozy up to?

---

I see this clearly. That's one of the reasons I strongly advocate for exiting NATO and other Western European alliances. The population shift there has gotten to the point that I might even support the end of visa free travel for EU passport holders. However important Greenland is, we're rapidly accelerating to a 39 trillion dollar national debt leaving each of our taxpayers stuck with a 355k per capita debt liability.

We shouldn't be invading or buying Greenland.

I agree that we cannot allow countries like Venezuela become a threat to us any more than the Russians can allow a hostile Ukraine on their border. But better not look too closely at Mexico and who is running that narco state.

---

Mexico is on the agenda, you know that.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

william said:

---

Barron is going to wed the heiress to Greenland.

All been pre-arraigned.

Clay Travis best man.

DEVELOPING!

- UF

Details to follow.....

Melania approves.

DD!!

---

Trump voice "I'm so proud of Barron. Great genes. Maybe the best. He'll be a great king.

Monarchies are wonderful things. I'd be a great monarch. I think we'll look into it.

Imagine King Trump. TWO king Trumps. And we wouldn't mooch of the people like the House of Windsor.

House. Have you seen the House of Windsor. Everything is falling apart. Leaks , Mildew. Horrible stuff."

---

...... en vino veritas.

- UF

Free The Whale!

TRUMP: "If we don't do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we're not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor. Okay?"

"I would like to make a deal the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way."

"I'm a fan of Denmark...but,… pic.twitter.com/xDuqtD4yKT

— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 9, 2026

Not sure how to feel about this pic.twitter.com/qkasvd0HuU

— Terrible Maps (@TerribleMaps) January 9, 2026

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Buying it can be considered an investment. There are important natural resources there, and i believe Vance that our missile defense system is blind up there.

Doesn't change the fact that Trump's rhetoric on this is dumb.

An agreement that allows Greenlanders to still elect their own politicians and run their economy would be preferable to outright buying it. And we get the right to defend it and ourselves with it, however we see fit. Seems that's all we need.

---

LOL Chaos is a ladder. Trump's rhetoric is creating opportunity.

Don't be surprised if the acquisition is financed by private industry = oil companies, mining companies, tech companies, etc.... Could trade deal monies be used to make "investments?"

We wouldn't have to worry about how to cool data centers if we located them in Greenland, now, would we?

---

You have a lot more data center issues in Greenland than exhaust cooling.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Realitybites 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.

---

Even given this, isn't a Greenland run by a NATO ally good enough?

---

Can you not see what is happening to European nations? Those countries are looking less and less like our allies of yesterday. And it's not due to Trump exactly, Trump just made it so it's clear as day. Liberty in the West is moving towards becoming a scarce commodity. Not hard to imagine a NATO where quite frankly we're on very different pages, or not even in the same book. Could even imagine a future where a NATO country or ten happily sell us out. Heck today, it's not hard to imagine a Canada run by foreigners with very different allegiances within a decade. Sure NATO members need us right now, but what if their population continues to shift, who will they cozy up to?

So sure, "good enough" works right now, but long term I'd rather have it under our direct ownership or control.

As little credit as some here give Trump, the truth is he's thinking ahead. His administration is looking a decade out doing what must be done. Many naysayers would just be happy to just take the path of no resistance and let Venezuela become a proxy for China. Greenland is different of course, but long term, who knows, so I'm glad securing it is being seriously advanced.

---

While we're chastising Europe, Can you lay out the policies of Trump that have championed the cause of liberty?