Can Anyone Explain Why, After 249 Years, We "Need" Greenland

There’s already a thread on this.

 

The world is a different place then even 10 years ago

 

Sounds like you don’t if you asked the question

 

Well, since the territory of which you likely speak is Danish, not Dutch, there is no reason whatsoever. But as the consensus seemed to agree (saw no dissent from anyone, regardless of political tendencies), it does not matter even if there was a great “need.” All that matters is both parties desiring to tie their blood to each other. Presently, Greenland has no desire to enter into union with us. As far as I’m concerned, that settles the matter.

 

It’s because it has untapped resources and Demark has banned exploration due to environmental concerns… it has Zero to do with “needed for national security”… that is fake news.

And just to be clear, I’m not agreeing that we needed it, I’m explaining why greedy morons say we “need” it.

 

Trump is actually looking out for American and global -not Russian- interests for the first time in his life, and this has coincided with him having an idea that contains legitimate strategic value. Again for the first time in his life.

Specifically, Trump thought that it would be of tremendous strategic importance for the USA to establish a military base on Greenland.

 

Norway has been a strategic ally since the conception of NATO in 1940s. To think we need to take over Greenland and alienate one of our longest stand allies is something only an ignorant Trump fanboy would say

We could have worked with Norway to created a military base or established any military goals we wanted.

The reason he is doing this is to drive a wedge between us and our longest standing allies within the EU.

He is a puppet of a master; and his followers are sheep of an imbecile.

 

I thought global warming was “a hoax”

 

To be devils advocate why not? We are entering a partnership with them not “taking over”. There is real military strategic value plus likely mineral value. You know everything doesn’t have to be a fight.

 

this is the best argument IMO, although I don’t think we need Greenland so much as we need them to give us access. With Arctic Ice melting and shipping lanes opening up, we shouldn’t allow Russia to dominate the area. However, this is best achieved with our traditional allies who have far north territory, not by pissing them off, even if we were to acquire Greenland. This is the kind of thing NATO was built for.

 

I believe that Greenland would be a great annexation for the US due to its strategic location and its mineral riches. I also believe that Greenlanders should have the final say in their future.

If the Orange Ass was smart (lol) he should promise to give the Greenlanders a PFD (Permanent Fund Dividend) annually like we give to every citizen of Alaska every year.

When I was working in Alaska, the PFD was averaging $2K/y based on the oil production during that year. Greenland's population is about 57K people, so this would be chump change relative to the potential benefits for the US.

 

What I find perplexing about all this shit is that the Trump ideology is clashing against reality in real time.

Climate change is a “hoax,” but the dramatic decrease in artic ice and permafrost is allowing for access to artic resources.

Climate change is the reason why Greenland is now valuable real estate.

Red states are anti-EV and electronic cars, but their boy Elon is an idiot and self-sabotaging so they're willing to buy EVs to oWn tHe LiBz.

Environmentalists and the tree huggers win ultimately if MAGA buys more EVs.

just been amazing to witness that MAGA has no ideology and their hypocrisy is being shown in real time.

 

We have a base there now. Lease more land and build more bases. Explore buying mineral rights for future mining. I see no need to forcibly take Greenland against the will of the resident Greenlanders.

 

Who hacked jo account?