International Trump: US control of Greenland is absolute nescessity

[Islam Imamate]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. You sound like me.

What else is there to say? Its a silly scheme that shows how little you understand of foreign policy that you think just buying Greenland is a good idea when they're part of Denmark which is already in NATO and when we already have a base there. Just because Trump says something doesn't mean you have to defend it, its okay to disagree at times with your party's leader.

 

[Cole train]

I went to rabbit hole that is greenland and how i undestood they have right to declare independence when they want.Not to mention independence moment is fairly popular from what i understood on their reddit

CIA must be rubbing hands, get greenland to declare then join usa.

 

[Rob Battisti]

What else is there to say? It’s a silly scheme that shows how little you understand of foreign policy that you think just buying Greenland is a good idea when they're already in NATO and we already have a base there. Just because Trump says something doesn't mean you have to defend it, it’s okay to disagree at times with your party's leader.

A. Not my party.
B. I’ve already said that if we can’t buy it
— which we can’t — it would be fruitful to purchase as much land there as possible.
C. You’ve consistently ignored the strategic importance of Greenland.

It’s like if Trump says anything that has a kernel of truth you simply throw it all out.

Let’s restart. I don’t think purchasing it is feasible. I propose a trilateral investment into Greenland between the USA, Greenland and Denmark. In exchange for the infrastructure to mine resources, we receive mineral rights for a period of time and certain considerations in perpetuity. We also get land and the ability to install future military operations in Greenland.

This would boost all three partners.

Throw out the purchase.

Is that not a good idea?

 

[Andy Capp]

- I dont like to break the gimmick of a fellow wrestler. But he is trolling the right. Dude breaks kayfabe quite frequently. Sometimes i think you guys know that, and only play with it!

Tell you what. Just because it's Christmas, I'm going to make like a right-winger and choose to believe something whether it's true or not, so I'll ignore him because he's trolling instead of ignoring him because he's really stupid.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

The rants of an old ass, ego driven turd. The US should not be trying to acquire countries? Why? Fix yours first mofos.

 

[Islam Imamate]

A. Not my party.
B. I’ve already said that if we can’t buy it
— which we can’t — it would be fruitful to purchase as much land there as possible.
C. You’ve consistently ignored the strategic importance of Greenland.

It’s like if Trump says anything that has a kernel of truth you simply throw it all out.

Let’s restart. I don’t think purchasing it is feasible. I propose a trilateral investment into Greenland between the USA, Greenland and Denmark. In exchange for the infrastructure to mine resources, we receive mineral rights for a period of time and certain considerations in perpetuity. We also get land and the ability to install future military operations in Greenland.

This would boost all three partners.

Throw out the purchase.

Is that not a good idea?

Like I said in the other thread if you want security cooperation Denmark is in NATO so that can be negotiated within that framework. If you want to benefit from its resources then you'd want a free trade agreement so American firms can more easily set up shop there. Both of those kinds of agreements are things Donald Trump is deeply skeptical of so I don't trust him to make the right moves on this issue. I understand you feel compelled to run this playbook in Trump's defense but sometimes you should pick your battles better instead of trying to find a silver lining to every half baked idea that pops out of Trump's mouth.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

we can buy it after we forcibly take canada.

 

[PhitePhan]

It’s like if Trump says anything that has a kernel of truth you simply throw it all out.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Like I said in the other thread if you want security cooperation Denmark is in NATO so that can be negotiated within that framework. If you want to benefit from its resources then you'd want a free trade agreement so American firms can more easily set up shop there. Both of those kinds of agreements are things Donald Trump is deeply skeptical of so I don't trust him to make the right moves on this issue. I understand you feel compelled to run this playbook in Trump's defense but sometimes you should pick your battles better instead of trying to find a silver lining to every half baked idea that pops out of Trump's mouth.

Or you could say “yeah what you proposed is good. I don’t think that’s what Trump wants though and I think he’s going to screw it up” to which I’ll say “yeah 100% agree”.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Of course they would.

It’s a very strategic area of the world.

What options would they have other than a nuclear response? An army that was supposed to collapse within a couple of weeks is giving them hell with just our weapons. It seems suicidal for them to confront our military directly.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Or you could say “yeah what you proposed is good. I don’t think that’s what Trump wants though and I think he’s going to screw it up” to which I’ll say “yeah 100% agree”.

I don't agree that there's a kernel of truth to what Trump said though.

If you've walked back your position to the point that you think what Trump said was wrong and that instead we should approach the issue in the standard globalist manner of integrating markets and cooperating on shared security interests I don't necessarily disagree but idk that I'm going to give you credit for "what you proposed" when you had to be argued into that position after spending time arguing in favor of the dumb idea and when its basically the default position of the political establishment.

So yeah if you agree that globalism is good and Trump's foreign policy rhetoric is bad and counter-productive then sure we're in agreement.

 

[Rob Battisti]

If you've walked back your position to the point that you think what Trump said was wrong and that instead we should approach the issue in the standard globalist manner of integrating markets and cooperating on shared security interests I don't necessarily disagree but idk that I'm going to give you credit for "what you proposed" when you had to be argued into that position after spending time arguing in favor of the dumb idea and when its basically the default position of the political establishment.

I literally changed to “we shouldn’t buy it” on the first page.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I literally changed to “we shouldn’t buy it” on the first page.

Right, you've seemed to have walked back your position to the point you've defaulted to the standard globalist position of integrating markets and establishing security ties.

If so I agree but that's not something you just came up with, that's something you had to be convinced of after reflexively agreeing with Trump's initial take right?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Right, you've seemed to have walked back your position to the point you've defaulted to the standard globalist position of integrating markets and establishing security ties.

If so I agree but that's not something you just came up with, that's something you had to be convinced of after reflexively agreeing with Trump's initial take right?

I thought about it more and realized that it’s unlikely for us to be able to purchase it outright, despite it being appealing.

 

[Boxiana]

A naval base with rights to minerals around it is all Trump wants, and you can see why. But apparently he is a Putin puppet.

Allowing this area to go uncheck is actually being a Putin puppet and a threat to the libtards love to cry about

Isn’t Russia literally supposed to be the biggest threat ever? And China subsidizes them. Yet when Trump wants to do stuff like this, he is considered a puppet of both? As BRICs spreads, one belt one road spreads.

Uh, hello?

That first map is really good

 

[Soggust]

[hits blunt]

what about buying Australia while we at it?

 

[jefferz]

Oil and mineral deposits that Greenland does not extract (it is currently banned) due to environmental consequences -especially to the marine environment and the fact that fishing is the most important industry in Greenland and the estimated chances that oil exploration and extraction would devastate it.

Your problem here is that you think Republicans give a shit about wildlife and the environment.

 

[jefferz]

[hits blunt]

what about buying Australia while we at it?

We've already got a Mississippi, we don't need another one.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

That first map is really good

If you look at the map, between Greenland and Alaska, you’d completely box in the Russian navy. Set up missile defense to try and thwart hypersonic missiles. Yet the usually pro Ukraine crowd that is all about Russia being the biggest threat to democracy and the west, etc, is completely against this?

They want China and by proxy Russia to just casually gain influence?

can’t think for themselves one bit

 

[Rob Battisti]

If you look at the map, between Greenland and Alaska, you’d completely box in the Russian navy. Set up missile defense to try and thwart hypersonic missiles. Yet the usually pro Ukraine crowd that is all about Russia being the biggest threat to democracy and the west, etc, is completely against this?

They want China and by proxy Russia to just casually gain influence?

can’t think for themselves one bit

I don’t get it