International Trump: US control of Greenland is absolute nescessity

[Rob Battisti]

But you're implying it's misguided and that there's a kernel of truth to what Trump is getting at while I think it's completely retarded.

I’ve laid out the advantages. What do you think is “retarded”(you love this word) about wanting to ensure military dominance in the artic and mineral access to catch up with China?

We already have a base there which the Danes have mixed feelings about, talking about making sovereign claims on the territory while trying to purchase land there sends the wrong message.

I don't think we need to buy land there if we can just reduce trade barriers but Trump is not the guy to do that, quite the opposite he ran on erecting more trade barriers.

Denmark is also part of NATO though they have a special arrangement to limit peace time bases in their territory. Should Russia become a threat in the region renegotiating that arrangement would make sense but alienating the Danes and Greenlanders with Trumps rhetoric makes that harder. Not to mention Trump in general seems to have disdain for NATO so the existing framework for security cooperation is not even something he has faith in.

You’ve routinely exclaimed that the efforts in Ukraine are vital to national security. Is it not prudent to ensure that the artic doesn’t fall into Russian and Chinese dominance? Why would we wait for this to happen? Greenland is literally 530 million acres of untouched land. A few more bases in exchange and mineral rights for better mineral mining and cash makes everyone in the world safer and greatly benefits all parties.

As it has been pointed out, the tiny population there is already doing pretty poorly by global standards. This could help them.

I’ve already agreed over a dozen times that trumps approach is wrong and hurtful to this plan.

 

[Jack V Savage]

While the United States doesn’t have an extraction based economy, an obvious statement, they are in the top 3 countries when it comes to natural resource extraction and lead in many areas technologically.

So? This reads like a bot post.

The benefit of more involvement in Greenland is for the rare earth material there to offset Chinas big advantage in that space. Additionally, there are numerous advantages militarily to expanding in Greenland.

I agree that it's good to have assets (an even-more-obvious statement). Is it good for the U.S. gov't to buy land because it has natural resources? I think it's really hard to deny the benefits of a market economy, but a lot of people still don't get it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I’ve laid out the advantages. What do you think is “retarded”(you love this word) about wanting to ensure military dominance in the artic and mineral access to catch up with China?

I think its silly to alienate our allies by trying to make claims on their sovereign territory and that if we want to enhance our security cooperation we already have a framework to do that, NATO, which populists have disdain for. I do agree its important for the US to enhance our existing alliance structure to counter Russia and China which is why I voted for Harris and not Trump. You disagree which is in part why you were anti-Harris and pro-Trump.

You’ve routinely exclaimed that the efforts in Ukraine are vital to national security. Is it not prudent to ensure that the artic doesn’t fall into Russian and Chinese dominance? Why would we wait for this to happen? Greenland is literally 530 million acres of untouched land. A few more bases in exchange and mineral rights for better mineral mining and cash makes everyone in the world safer and greatly benefits all parties.

The difference is Ukraine is begging for our help and asking for last gen military tech which we would eventually scrap anyway while you're advocating for huge land purchases despite the fact that the Danes and Greenlanders say they're not for sale.

And anyway you don't agree that our efforts in Ukraine are vital to national security so it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. For example just last month you posted this.

This still feels like an “Eastern European” problem.

Can you summarize why exactly it’s in our strategic national interest to be aggressively opposed to Russia? I still have a very hard time understanding why it’s so important.

And you've even said that Putin won't attack a NATO country which Greenland is a part of via Denmark.

There is no scenario in which Putin attacks a NATO country.

There is no strategic advantage for Putin to attack NATO.

So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't think you're really concerned about this "Eastern European problem" or worried about a Russian attack on Greenland.

As it has been pointed out, the tiny population there is already doing pretty poorly by global standards. This could help them.

Greenlanders want foreign investment, not a new overlord.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I think its silly to alienate our allies by trying to make claims on their sovereign territory and that if we want to enhance our security cooperation we already have a framework to do that, NATO, which populists have disdain for. I do agree its important for the US to enhance our existing alliance structure to counter Russia and China which is why I voted for Harris and not Trump. You disagree which is in part why you were anti-Harris and pro-Trump.

The difference is Ukraine is begging for our help and asking for last gen military tech which we would eventually scrap anyway while you're advocating for huge land purchases despite the fact that the Danes and Greenlanders say they're not for sale.

And anyway you don't agree that our efforts in Ukraine are vital to national security so it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. For example just last month you posted this.


And you've even said that Putin won't attack a NATO country which Greenland is a part of via Denmark.


So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't think you're really concerned about this "Eastern European problem" or worried about a Russian attack on Greenland.

Greenlanders want foreign investment, not a new overlord.

Gosh, that's really inconsistent. That gets back to the point that it's partisanship over ideology with these people, which is the essence of hackery (and it's funny because they're always the first to accuse others of hackery for no real reason--and one gets the sense that it just means "bad" to them).

 

[Islam Imamate]

Gosh, that's really inconsistent. That gets back to the point that it's partisanship over ideology with these people, which is the essence of hackery (and it's funny because they're always the first to accuse others of hackery for no real reason--and one gets the sense that it just means "bad" to them).

Didn't have to dig very deep to find the NATO skepticism in his post history. There's other such posts there dating back to Russia's 2022 invasion but that just last month he made these kinds of posts only to now talk about how important Greenland is to containing Russia really shows how sleazy the guy is.

 

[Rob Battisti]

So? This reads like a bot post.

I’m working hard to not be a shitposter in 2025 with more thoughtful posts.

I agree that it's good to have assets (an even-more-obvious statement). Is it good for the U.S. gov't to buy land because it has natural resources? I think it's really hard to deny the benefits of a market economy, but a lot of people still don't get it.

Yes. It is good to buy land which has natural resources. If a country doesn’t have the infrastructure to extract them, it would make sense to either partner with or sell to an entity that does.

I think its silly to alienate our allies by trying to make claims on their sovereign territory and that if we want to enhance our security cooperation we already have a framework to do that, NATO, which populists have disdain for. I do agree it’s important for the US to enhance our existing alliance structure to counter Russia and China which is why I voted for Harris and not Trump. You disagree which is in part why you were anti-Harris and pro-Trump.

I agree it is wrong to alienate allies. I’ve said as much ITT re: foreign aide. I do not disdain NATO. I would like all countries to meet the agreed upon 2% of GDP spending. I agree with Trump when he shined light on this. Do you think that was a bad thing? I was never pro-Trump and didn’t vote for him.

You may continue to claim otherwise, but it’s not the truth.

The difference is Ukraine is begging for our help and asking for last gen military tech which we would eventually scrap anyway while you're advocating for huge land purchases despite the fact that the Danes and Greenlanders say they're not for sale.

And anyway you don't agree that our efforts in Ukraine are vital to national security so it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. For example just last month you posted this.

Ukraine begging has nothing to do with our national security. I don’t support them and don’t think we should be in a perpetual arrangement for their defense.

I don’t think Russia or China would attack a NATO country but I don’t believe ceding artic defense to the Danes is a prudent strategy for the United States.

And you've even said that Putin won't attack a NATO country which Greenland is a part of via Denmark.

I never said he would.

So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't think you're really concerned about this "Eastern European problem" or worried about a Russian attack on Greenland.

I’m not.

Greenlanders want foreign investment, not a new overlord.

And this is what I’m arguing for.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Didn't have to dig very deep to find the NATO skepticism in his post history. There's other such posts there dating back to Russia's 2022 invasion but that just last month he made these kinds of posts only to now talk about how important Greenland is to containing Russia really shows how sleazy the guy is.

You didn’t even link to a post of mine. I don’t care about Russia invading Ukraine. Russia and China owning the artic is a direct threat to the US. Do you agree?

 

[Limbo Pete]

I think its silly to alienate our allies by trying to make claims on their sovereign territory and that if we want to enhance our security cooperation we already have a framework to do that, NATO, which populists have disdain for. I do agree its important for the US to enhance our existing alliance structure to counter Russia and China which is why I voted for Harris and not Trump. You disagree which is in part why you were anti-Harris and pro-Trump.

The difference is Ukraine is begging for our help and asking for last gen military tech which we would eventually scrap anyway while you're advocating for huge land purchases despite the fact that the Danes and Greenlanders say they're not for sale.

And anyway you don't agree that our efforts in Ukraine are vital to national security so it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. For example just last month you posted this.


And you've even said that Putin won't attack a NATO country which Greenland is a part of via Denmark.


So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't think you're really concerned about this "Eastern European problem" or worried about a Russian attack on Greenland.

Greenlanders want foreign investment, not a new overlord.

Oof lol

 

[Islam Imamate]

I agree it is wrong to alienate allies. I’ve said as much ITT re: foreign aide. I do not disdain NATO. I would like all countries to meet the agreed upon 2% of GDP spending. I agree with Trump when he shined light on this. Do you think that was a bad thing?

The way that Trump did it was a bad thing, he threatened not to uphold article 5 which is the core foundation of NATO. That reduces confidence in the US from our allies, not to mention the 2% figure is fairly arbitrary as its possible for a country to meet that figure have have inadequate military readiness and vice versa. And anyway after the Russian invasion the relevant countries got their spending up to where it needed to be so idk that I'd be quick to credit Trump here.

Ukraine begging has nothing to do with our national security. I don’t support them and don’t think we should be in a perpetual arrangement for their defense.

So again I hope you'll forgive me when I dismiss your concerns about Russia here as not entirely sincere.

I don’t think Russia or China would attack a NATO country but I don’t believe ceding artic defense to the Danes is a prudent strategy for the United States.

Its a good thing Denmark is part of NATO so we can coordinate security as needed.

And this is what I’m arguing for.

You want the US government to buy land there to expand our territorial holdings, I'm talking about foreign investment from private US firms.

You didn’t even link to a post of mine.

I did, to post #64 in that thread.

I don’t care about Russia invading Ukraine. Russia and China owning the artic is a direct threat to the US. Do you agree?

Its a good thing Denmark owns Greenland and not Russia or China.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Wait I'm confused
If we don't need to aggressively oppose Russia, then why would we need to buy Greenland lol

 

[Deleted member 267581]

I’m working hard to not be a shitposter in 2025 with more thoughtful posts.


Yes. It is good to buy land which has natural resources. If a country doesn’t have the infrastructure to extract them, it would make sense to either partner with or sell to an entity that does.

I agree it is wrong to alienate allies. I’ve said as much ITT re: foreign aide. I do not disdain NATO. I would like all countries to meet the agreed upon 2% of GDP spending. I agree with Trump when he shined light on this. Do you think that was a bad thing? I was never pro-Trump and didn’t vote for him.

You may continue to claim otherwise, but it’s not the truth.

Ukraine begging has nothing to do with our national security. I don’t support them and don’t think we should be in a perpetual arrangement for their defense.

I don’t think Russia or China would attack a NATO country but I don’t believe ceding artic defense to the Danes is a prudent strategy for the United States.



I never said he would.

I’m not.

And this is what I’m arguing for.

lol just stop. It’s embarrassing now

 

[Jack V Savage]

I’m working hard to not be a shitposter in 2025 with more thoughtful posts.

Well, that is genuinely good.

I said "so" because there is no logical connection between the U.S. having a lot of natural resources and it being a good use of public money to buy land with natural resources in other countries. We can trade with those countries. Market economies work better than gov't control 99% of the time.

Yes. It is good to buy land which has natural resources. If a country doesn’t have the infrastructure to extract them, it would make sense to either partner with or sell to an entity that does.

You don't think Denmark has the capacity to get stuff out of the ground? We trade with them. If there's a market, it can happen without using public funds. That is very normal. It's a bizarre action for a developed country to consider in the 21st century, and literally no policy people have recommended it. Just a dumb thing Trump came up with that Republicans now feel compelled to defend, and if we're being honest, it's probably just a result of him looking at a map and thinking Greenland is much bigger than it is and that it would be glorious to control all that territory. He's a moron.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wait I'm confused
If we don't need to aggressively oppose Russia, then why would we need to buy Greenland lol

Also, if not wanting to invade Panama to steal the canal means you want to cede control to China, what is wanting Russia to take over Ukraine? Russia and China are allies. Republican thinking about this is really incoherent. You can't support Russia and oppose China, but Trump hates international trade but is subservient to Putin. Something has to give here, and I think it's going to be the opposition to China, which could end up being the worst aspect of Trump being president.

 

[Rod1]

Wait I'm confused
If we don't need to aggressively oppose Russia, then why would we need to buy Greenland lol

 

[AWilder]

I think its silly to alienate our allies by trying to make claims on their sovereign territory and that if we want to enhance our security cooperation we already have a framework to do that, NATO, which populists have disdain for. I do agree its important for the US to enhance our existing alliance structure to counter Russia and China which is why I voted for Harris and not Trump. You disagree which is in part why you were anti-Harris and pro-Trump.

The difference is Ukraine is begging for our help and asking for last gen military tech which we would eventually scrap anyway while you're advocating for huge land purchases despite the fact that the Danes and Greenlanders say they're not for sale.

And anyway you don't agree that our efforts in Ukraine are vital to national security so it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here. For example just last month you posted this.


And you've even said that Putin won't attack a NATO country which Greenland is a part of via Denmark.


So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't think you're really concerned about this "Eastern European problem" or worried about a Russian attack on Greenland.

Greenlanders want foreign investment, not a new overlord.

 

[AWilder]

Rob too stupid to know he's cooked himself lmao

 

[Rob Battisti]

The way that Trump did it was a bad thing, he threatened not to uphold article 5 which is the core foundation of NATO. That reduces confidence in the US from our allies, not to mention the 2% figure is fairly arbitrary as its possible for a country to meet that figure have have inadequate military readiness and vice versa. And anyway after the Russian invasion the relevant countries got their spending up to where it needed to be so idk that I'd be quick to credit Trump here.

As with nearly everything, Trumps approach is wrong. He is a bully and unintelligent. I disagree that the 2% isn’t meaningful. I’m not crediting anyone. I’m saying it is a goal that NATO should adhere to that Trump shined light on.

So again I hope you'll forgive me when I dismiss your concerns about Russia here as not entirely sincere.

Defending a corrupt country like Ukraine is not the same as wanting to defend your own national territory. Surely you see this?

It’s a good thing Denmark is part of NATO so we can coordinate security as needed.

Which is what I said. We should invest in Greenland with our infrastructure in exchange for either land or mineral rights alongside greater defensive capabilities.

You want the US government to buy land there to expand our territorial holdings, I'm talking about foreign investment from private US firms.

That’s fair. I would argue that it would be more beneficial for us to purchase the land but would settle for better trade agreements in exchange for considerations.

It’s a good thing Denmark owns Greenland and not Russia or China.

Yes. It would be better if the US was more heavily involved there militarily on par with Russia and Chinat.

If we don't need to aggressively oppose Russia, then why would we need to buy Greenland lol

Opposing spending in Ukraine doesn’t equal wanting to defend the US mainland.

I said "so" because there is no logical connection between the U.S. having a lot of natural resources and it being a good use of public money to buy land with natural resources in other countries. We can trade with those countries. Market economies work better than gov't control 99% of the time.

I can agree to that but would still argue it would be in our national interest to expand militarily there. Whether with land owned or leased.

You don't think Denmark has the capacity to get stuff out of the ground? We trade with them. If there's a market, it can happen without using public funds. That is very normal. It's a bizarre action for a developed country to consider in the 21st century, and literally no policy people have recommended it. Just a dumb thing Trump came up with that Republicans now feel compelled to defend, and if we're being honest, it's probably just a result of him looking at a map and thinking Greenland is much bigger than it is and that it would be glorious to control all that territory. He's a moron.

Not on the level of the US. Trade agreements may solve this.

Also, if not wanting to invade Panama to steal the canal means you want to cede control to China, what is wanting Russia to take over Ukraine? Russia and China are allies. Republican thinking about this is really incoherent. You can't support Russia and oppose China, but Trump hates international trade but is subservient to Putin. Something has to give here, and I think it's going to be the opposition to China, which could end up being the worst aspect of Trump being president.

I don’t think we should support Ukraine and I think Russia is a far lesser threat than China overall. I don’t think we should take over the canal and this was the shitposting I mentioned I’m trying to avoid.

Not wanting to support Ukraine is not the same as wanting to cede a strategic location that endangers the US mainland.

 

[Rod1]

Not wanting to support Ukraine is not the same as wanting to cede a strategic location that endangers the US mainland.

But you didn't said you wanted to "support Ukraine"

You claimed that the US shouldn't oppose Russia and that Russia would never do anything against a NATO country of which Greenland is part of

Its a direct contradiction

 

[Rob Battisti]

But you didn't said you wanted to "support Ukraine"

You claimed that the US shouldn't oppose Russia and that Russia would never do anything against a NATO country of which Greenland is part of

Its a direct contradiction

I don’t want to support Ukraine. We should we actively ending the war in Ukraine. We should be actively securing the Arctic. These opinions are not contradictory.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Defending a corrupt country like Ukraine is not the same as wanting to defend your own national territory. Surely you see this?

Greenland is not US territory though.

Which is what I said.

Denmark joining NATO was your idea now? That's rich.

That’s fair. I would argue that it would be more beneficial for us to purchase the land but would settle for better trade agreements in exchange for considerations.

Purchasing the land is a silly idea, big use of public funds for dubious benefit. Lowering trade barriers would make far more sense but populists hate that idea.

Yes. It would be better if the US was more heavily involved there militarily on par with Russia and Chinat.

I thought you said Russia was not a concern though? They're not going to attack a NATO country right? And since Greenland is part of NATO via Denmark there's nothing to worry about. Are you worried about China attacking Greenland?