The same people telling you we're going to invade greenland are the same people telling you were were going to annex Canada and possibly nuke Toronto. I wouldn't spend too much thought on it.
What’s the actual question? Will I support our defeat? No, I will never be a traitor to my country.
If it’s about the price the country must pay, there isn’t an answer to that question because I don’t believe Denmark wants to sell Greenland as of this moment.
Welp with regard to the question (and only that)
If the US did invade Greenland (not likely) the NATO consequences would be severe. However because of the US military capability I’m not sure what could be done via NATO. Based on this (and only this) I might support our defeat (and it pains me to say that).
Neither. I don’t believe there would be any NATO consequences as it is militarily irrelevant. The alternative reality comments was because we are discussing a hypothetical hot situation between the United States and Denmark which has no basis in the real world, hence an alternative reality.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
And that's supposed to be reassuring? He has done a lot of crazy stuff, just look at Venezuela. There's no logic to what he does or doesn't do. Therefore we have to assume that everything he says is a real possibility.
Us being defeated in Greenland would involve the biggest upset since baby Harry Potter defeated Voldemort. Any scenario short of magic or aliens that involves our defeat probably requires Putin and Xi on the other side pulling a Skynet out of the hat, and that's probably going to be bad for the world...
The population of Greenland is tiny and it's incredibly hard to see many of them being willing to fight to the death just to be ruled by Denmark. They are not going to 1000x more effective on a per capita basis than the war hardened Afghans in their mountains. Maybe the X-men live there, who knows.
That said, if you consider that a defeat and not just a withdrawal, we would be "defeated" the same way as the next president would leave in January 2029.
You think people would be unwilling to fight for robust social safety nets, healthcare, and strong collective bargaining amongst the working class?
That said, if you consider that a defeat and not just a withdrawal, we would be "defeated" the same way as the next president would leave in January 2029.
Our states mission for operation enduring freedom was fourfold. Eliminate Al Qaeda, depose the Taliban government, stabilize Afghanistan to prevent the land from being used as a terrorist training ground, and eliminate Bin Laden. How prongs of that mission did we accomplish?
Bin Laden and most of his associates are dead, Afghanistan is more of a menace to Pakistan and Iran (which is hilarious), and the Taliban in general is much more tame than they were before on the international stage. The side that gets a 100:1 kill ratio then gets bored and leaves is the winner.
And no, there will be no insurgents fighting for robust social safety nets. For starters, Trump would probably just bribe all the Greenlanders anyway to put a veneer of magnanimity on the venture, and beyond that the country is so vast you could virtually ignore the current population anyway.
Obviously, the whole concept is stupid, the resource wealth they supposedly have is a fantasy, and none of this will ever happen.
(and yes I know they were not defeated in battle, but it was still a defeat, just like in Vietnam and Korea)
Do I think Greenland, will 'beat' the US in a real fight, of course not, do I think they US would be 'defeated' (aka loose and not get what it wanted) if they try to invade, yes
For me I think 'defeat' in this context depends on the stated goal of the conflict,
- Vietnam it was to control which government was in power - defeat, communists won,
- for Korea it was to hold off NK, China, Russia from gaining territory - defeat, whilst they managed to prevent Korea from completely falling, they failed to stop it in over half the country, that to me is a defeat (though I would accept people seeing it as a partial victory)
- Middle east, hard to pin down a specific goal, arguably the initial goal was revenge, to take out the Taliban, Bin Laden, and Saddam, again partial defeat, partial victory (the Taliban it is hard to see as gone), of course when the US failed to leave it is hard to argue those were the goals at that point as well, and the reason changed into nation building, it lead to the creation of ISIS, and it's hard to say the middle east is friendlier than before, so again would call it (and especially the failure in Afghanistan) - as defeat (though again if someone wanted to argue different war goals, than I again could accept it as partial defeat/victory)
but the greater question isn't in when it applies to the US, there will always be bias there, but when it applies to another country, take the Russia Ukraine war, when and what is victory, and when and what is defeat, and how does this apply to occupying Greenland in the case of the US, I think if you are honest with yourself (despite it being incredibly unlikely at least militarily to happen), that any actual military attack would eventually lead to a defeat, or at best a restoring to the current status quo (unless America actually turns full authoritarian dictatorship, hostile world actor, which is seeming less and less implausible by the week to any outside observer, as you slide more and more into being Russia)
To the extent we lost in middle east, it was because we were trying to impose Western values in a populous tribal area filled with people who hated each other and us for religious reasons.
We will not invade Greenland, but if we did, there are fewer than 60,000 people there. That aspect would not be a repeat of the Middle East. But we would not get what "we wanted" because of Europe's reaction.
We are not going to militarily invade Greenland. That's a persecution fantasy that has zero chance of becoming reality. At absolute worst, Greenland may declare independence and then we would negotiate their protection and install a bigger base with missile defense systems. Most people in Greenland do want independence from Denmark. And with the renewed threat that Russia poses, it would be smart to do that.
But really, I don't think any of it is going to happen. We may negotiate placing missile defense systems there, but the odds of us annexing it are essentially nil. It's all bluster.
Most people in Greenland do want independence from Denmark.
1) this is slowly eroding due to US imperial claims. Pro independence party took a hit for the first time because of it, and it's ruled by pragmatics who are somewhere closer to the middle than outright independence.
2) while there's a sizable pro independence group, they're certainly not pro US. Large part of why they're not leaving (aside from US jingoism making them lose support for independence) is a robust welfare state and high quality universal healthcare, which the US cannot provide in either case.
That's a persecution fantasy that has zero chance of becoming reality.
Maybe don't tell people you'll take Greenland by any means necessary and people won't think you'll take it by any means necessary?
And with the renewed threat that Russia poses, it would be smart to do that.
You already have a near carte blanche in Greenland. You're not gaining anything from taking it. You get all the security benefits with none of the costs of maintaining territory. That being said, fighting an imperial power with another isn't really smart. If Denmark is smart, they'll kick the Americans out and let other NATO states take over Arctic security.
Then we should credit Trump for helping strengthen Denmark's territorial integrity, if it is his outside influence that is helping stymie the independence movement in Greenland. One more point to his campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize! ;-)
Your argument is akin to me talking to my neighbour that says "I feel safe, I don't think I need a gun",
deciding since I know they do not have a gun that I want their stuff so point my gun at them all day for months on end saying "Give all your stuff to me or I will shoot you",
they say no and decided despite not wanting a gun that they should get a gun just incase I do go through with my plan to shoot and rob them
I than am praised for making them safer... because they no longer feel safe to do what they would have done had I not threatened them... so I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize...
...man Americans are cooked, no wonder your country is the way it is
(to be fair, I was mostly aware of your stance, having assumed it, but... I have been on the internet to long of late to fully assume sense these days.)
This is 100% spot on - and a mutually agreed presence between the US and an independent Greenland is something most people, on either side, would agree on.
It all comes down to messaging, nuance, and candor… which is sorely lacking s the executive branch
I consider myself progressive on a lot of issues but that doesn’t mean I’m closed to conservative ideas, some have truly taken hold and I’ve weaved it into my progressive stances (they aren’t mutually exclusive!).
But a lot of pragmatic and forward-thinking answers to problems gets lost in terrible messaging, horrible delivery, and a bulldozer method to get points across.
This happens with liberals as much as conservatives and its frustrating beyond belief.
Hasn’t Denmark and by extension Greenland told America to politely back the fuck off. Yet they are still continuing this ridiculous notion that they will make this work
You mentioned above that Greenland would be smart to go Independent because of the threat Russia poses. Denmark is in NATO, a founding
member actually. It seems that Greenland is much safer with Denmark than being independent if Russia starts poking around.
If we did, we'd definitely win. Europe can't compete with our navy, so they wouldn't be able to adaquetly defend greenland or have any real possibility of retaking it.
Meanwhile, we'd bomb the shit out of Europe's military and military industrial infrastructure.
It would be an imoral and stupid war in which we'd lose men and ships, but we would absolutely win.
If the US went to war with Europe over Greenland, China would absolutely be the winner in that scenario. We'd waste men, material, economic strength, and completely destroy all our alliances. In addition China would likely push for Europe to fall under their umbrella which Europe under the strain of a war with the United States might view as a lesser evil.
Even with all that sarcasm, I can't imagine a world with China in charge. As bad as America is in your eyes, i highly doubt as many people would have worked their way out of poverty with China as the superpower.
Genuinely no sarcasm. I personally despise chinese agenda and globalization.
I think American foreign policy and imperialism is failing in a lot of aspects currently (this shit and trade war) but also remarkably aware of reality protecting its southern border (south american drug trade).
And if we are speaking from the 1950s on; then you are absolutely right that the Marshall plan is the greatest foreign policy decision in hundreds of years, maybe ever. And America single handedly created the foundation of our current economic stability.
But I do think the biggest winner in all of this is the chinese economy and foreign influence.
Those taking Chinese support because America is sick of funding the world for 80 years with hate for gratitude will find out how good they had it.
I mean, people honestly can't think asking for western democracies to fund their own defense and uphold western values is a bad thing, can they? We are $38T in debt and Europe wants us to fund social programs, unchecked immigration and an enemy at their door for what in return?
This is not to be a downer, but I never understood the focus on the national debt. Every country is in debt. China has 20 trillion usd debt and growing for example. It's not a good phenomenon but it's not like the debtors are gonna come knocking.
And it does have an effect on effective development capabilities etc. So I am not saying it's not valid, just that it seems like a number that gets thrown around, as if you haven't paid off your credit cards.
But I strongly agree on domestic spending. Focus on infrastructure and the citizens.
The US starting a war with Europe would not be a direct conflict- it would be pushing Europe (and Canada) straight into China's arms. In the long term that would severely harm the US economically.
And honestly there's a significant chance it couldn't be carried out as the military would refuse to invade an allied country for territorial gains. At least with Iraq there was plausible deniability, even with Venezuela there's toppling Maduro. Greenland has none of that.
I don't care at all about Greenland. But if Trump did try to take it by force, there's no way Europe is going to do anything about it. They can't even put together a force to fight Russia or deploy within Europe without our logistics, how are they going to fight us?
Has it not occurred the moment the US started a war for Greenland and subsequently fighting Europe , China and Iran and even Russia would make moves?
That would open the door for every country with a axe to grind to start attacking supply lines and just overall running interference, Win or Lose you then alienated a major ally, you think even Japan would trust the US after such a incident?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
The decision to start the war in the first place is what takes military members lives, funny how you blame me for wanting a war to end but not leaders for starting them in the first place.
Well in my opinion, that mindset is immature. I pay my taxes and comply with the law, that is my relation with the government. Im am not in any way obligated to morrally support or campaign for my country, if I dont choose too, thats one of the core ideas that this country was founded on in the first place. Blind compliance is the opposite of democracy.
Then don’t make a peep when the right accuses the left of hating America and wanting to see her fail. And not supporting the military, since a “losing war” would result in a whole lot of dead military members.
This post has been extremely enlightening and not in a good way.
What even is your point here? That we should be blindly supportive of whatever actions our nation takes? Is there nothing the US military could do to lose your support?
The accusations of many on the left being anti-American are accurate.
I can be against a war and still not be a traitor actively rooting against my country.
I actively don’t want us to invade Venezuela. I would oppose that war happening. But if we do, I’ll be rooting for the U.S. to win as quickly as possible with minimal loss of life on both sides. There’s no universe I’d be rooting against my own country and hoping we lose / military members die.
Despite what the left thinks, and this is important, Trump isn’t Palpatine, the U.S. isn’t the evil Empire and the left isn’t the Rebel Alliance.
Blind loyalty is not something to be celebrated nor rooted for. If our country is doing something wrong, yes, they should lose, I’m not going to root for the “bad guy” in the situation to win just because it’s my guy.
Uh... no? What kind of question is that? 😄 I would support buying it from Denmark, or an independence movement that wanted to join the U.S. or just be a trade partner. Not that we're going to invade a NATO ally anyway.
or an independence movement that wanted to join the U.S.
What about an independence movement that’s manufactured by US agents?
I have a feeling that if you found out China was bankrolling independence campaigns in Hawaii that would be a very big deal and those involved would be treated as spies, right?
or just be a trade partner.
This is why the rest of the western world is so repulsed by Trump’s comments/attitude on this. Denmark and Greenland are already deeply allied with the US and have been for close to a century. If the US wants more than the existing military base there, the Danish PM already said that wouldn’t be a problem (there used to be 6 US bases). And the only barrier to trade in recent history would be Trump’s own tariffs.
But importantly the Danes will obviously want to know what military assets the US is putting there. And the people of Greenland have made it clear that they don’t want their land to be strip mined for minerals. That is the real reason.
If by “support our defeat” you really mean “oppose an illegal war of aggression against another country that poses no risk to us,* then my answer is yes.
Now I’ve answered your question, here’s my question for you:
Do you support a war of aggression against another country that poses no risk to the US?
They don't have weapons. Denmark's progressives have disarmed their population. Guns are useless for the protection of the individual person and a free state, remember their line?
That's not true. Plenty of Greenlanders own guns, and so do many Danes. It's of course not on the same level as the US, but nobody is. Perhaps check out gun laws in other countries. It might surprise you how much is perfectly legal to own. Most people just chose not to because they see no reason for it.
Not any more. Denmark does not have the time to arm and train its citizenry in sufficient numbers to make a potential US invasion so prohibitively expensive as to give Trump any pause.
Our Founding Fathers recognized the imporance of a well-regulated militia.
Yes I'm sure if there was a concerted effort to invade the US, that all those trained militias would do wonders against an air strike, or a nuke, I'm sure any invading force is shaking in their boots at the idea of facing a few militia hiding in the hills, and have no idea how to deal with them, since every country on earth only faces 1820 field tactics, only the US has faced militas and rebel groups around the world in armed conflict... nobody else, it certainly isn't basically every countries main form of military combat training
Well realistically thats not how things work. They'd get some kind of "welcome to the union" state building bill and have billions of dollars pumped into them from congress.
(Basically a bribe)
And then the locals would probabbly reluctantly go along with it.
Per my understanding, They are not a fan of Denmark ruling them. And are open to the idea of either independence or American territory status.
But like assuming your premise for a moment that they actually mount a resistance. It really would not matter. It wpuld be put down immediately.
Per my understanding, They are not a fan of Denmark ruling them.
They want independence. Being an American territory would be a step backwards.
It really would not matter.
If American troops gun down Greenlanders/Danish citizens that would ruin any international credibility the US has left. Could have disastrous effects wrt potential sanctions, and there's a strong likelihood the US military would refuse the orders resulting in a constitutional crisis. I don't know how this is supposedly a net benefit for the US here...
So like thats the thing right, is thats not how it would go down.
Firstly like Greenland is pushing for political independence yes. But realistically they dont have the economic capability to be independent. The country is basically subsidized as a colony of the Danish government.
Greenland doesnt function without those subsidies
If Greenland goes independent then their economy and standard of living will collapse, or at least drop significantly.
That immediatly opens the door to oppertunities.
You absolutely will not see us forces gunning down greenlander resistance cells.
You'll see high level US representatives start making state visits and offering territory status, in exchange for similar or better deals with our congress.
(Frankly I suspect this is happening right now)
Next you'll potentially see a wave of Greenland political campaigns and buisneses pushing pro American association positions, which conveniently can be funded by our inteligence services...
You absolutely will not see us forces gunning down greenlander resistance cells
I wouldn't write any possibility off with this administration
You'll see high level US representatives start making state visits and offering territory status, in exchange for similar or better deals with our congress.
Again, this is a step backwards... Greenlanders have voted for parties that want to slow-roll political independence once they can achieve economic independence. Moving from economic dependence on the Danish government to economic dependence on the US government is not an upgrade; in fact in many ways being an American territory would be significantly worse, since the legal path to independence from that point is significantly more difficult than their current situation and American territories are in a worse political position than Greenland is in now with Denmark.
American business/trade deals would certainly be welcome in Greenland, but honestly, territory status is a complete non-starter and the Greenlanders have already said as much.
Im skeptical they could be economically independent to be hoenst with you, per Wikipedia the subsidies Greenland receives constitute a quarter of their annual government revenues.
They would need to increase tax receipts quite a bit to square that circle. Which in all likelihood will mean foriegn investment... which is kind of the reason we are having this conversation...becuase we dont want Russia to be economically and politically tied to Greenland
They could negotiate mineral/oil extraction leases which would be enough to sustain their government. The continent has significant economic mineral and O&G potential which they should be able to leverage into economic independence in the future.
becuase we dont want Russia to be economically and politically tied to Greenland
Kindof ironic that this is the concern, since there is no sign of that being an issue. The US directly threatening Greenland's independence is basically the fastest way to get that result, though.
They are not open to being an American territory before Trump started threatening them they seemed happy with status quo either under Denmark or independent that gave America most of what we want so it's hard to figure out why Trump would talk about conquering it
Im not abfan of seizing peoples lands and ruling over them by fiat. But there are times when it legitimately becomes nessacary and in the best interest of our union to do so.
Like for instance during wwii we took over Iceland, becuase Denmark had collapsed to german occupation, as iceland wasnt capable of autonomous self rule, and we didnt want to see them under German control.
Not the same situation I grant. But there is talk of a new geopolitical struggle over the artic now.
Sir … I said y’all meaning the OP and anyone commenting on original post acting like this is worth even discussing. I didn’t accuse you of doing anything other than being a part of the discussion.
Aka, there is money to be made, Russia, China and the EU want that money
The US want that money to go into US donors pockets in return for donations, and shares, so it is of key national 'strategic' interests, that the US uses it's military might to get that money
(and if Greenland is not a country, than Denmark or the EU can't have the money that the US wants, so they need to be taken out of the equation)
Just like how Venezuela is suddenly a matter of "national security", you have to attack the weak rather than facing the actual threats head on like China or Russia, you could deal Russia a major blow by helping Ukraine fight Russia for you, you could hurt China by actively helping out more in the region, however under Trump it has been "how can we make more money" rather than actually do anything to actively hurt them (see "US Halts Defensive Cyber Activities Against Russia" "Imports from Russia to the US on the raise "US agrees to sell chips to china", and perhaps worst of all his handling of the Asia pacific region, where increasingly Trump is ruining mutually beneficial alliances, to make them increasingly one sided, to the point many are asking if it is not just better to give China what it wants, since it asks a lot less than the US which has undermined key Indo-Pacific alliances with Japan and South Korea and Australia by treating them as transactional burdens, using the threat of punitive tariffs and troop withdrawals to extort massive defense payments and one-sided economic concessions (I can tell you as an Australian, nobody sees America as an Ally any longer, and the question is asked a lot, if the US is basically a worse bully than China, and China is our largest trade partner in the region... why are we partners with the US?
The situation will likely be closer to Puerto Rico than Hawaii given how averse some of the US is to adding a state (2 new senators). PR is not a great advertisement for becoming a US territory.
The US isn’t going to ‘try to forcefully take Greenland.’ That’s just saber rattling. Greenland is of strategic importance for many reasons and it would be great to have as a territory. That would happen via diplomacy.
What is the point of the saber rattling? Who does that benefit? We can be just as well off via diplomacy with protecting our interest AND not having it as an (invaded, unwanted) territory. The saber rattling does a lot more harm than good.
Getting Greenland was legitimately one of the best ideas of the Trump admin. Donald Trump just took the opening shot of the idea by threatening military action and that immediately killed any chance.
I think he could have peacefully had Greenland as a territory best case scenario by the end of T2. Or at least have deals that nullify the need for a territory due to resource extraction and military presence.
I'm interpreting your statement that "anything short of getting Greenland is a 'defeat'" and that seems like a pretty pointless distinction.
Is it really a pointless distinction? Even if its status quo at the end of Trump T2, it would essentially mean the gauntlet was thrown down for no good reason. The US already had plenty of military bases on Greenland and they were open to more bases before the talk of annexation. If military defense was the sole aim, then floating the idea of annexation is immediately counterproductive - they would beg the US to occupy them Iceland-style if there was an actual possibility of Russia invading them.
Let's admit it already, the idea of annexation was floated primarily to exploit their natural resources. Militarily not much will change either way.
Trump brought it up in 2019, but prior to that acquiring Greenland wasn't a topic anyone of significance brought up since 1955. Military force was never teased back then either. That is a Trump specific idea, and bringing up buying Greenland, with a valuation between 500bn and 1.1 trillion, while talking about cutting spending is a joke.
So no, it’s not Trump specific, yes we’ve tried to buy it many times, both for security and resources, and anyone that thinks we’re literally going to invade Greenland is wildly off base.
Did you have a question or is this just “Orange man bad” statements?
Nowhere did I say "Orange man bad." All I mentioned was that the Greenland topic was not brought up by anyone of significance for over 60 years. Do not put words in my mouth.
In the 50s, it was for security purposes against the USSR. While Russia is still a global threat, it is not the same scenario. The US has a military presence in Greenland for purposes of national security, and Russia isn't the same expansionist nation threat as they once were due to growing might within both Europe and domestically in the US.
Trump himself has said we'd use the military if needed. So is he wildly off base for those statements, or is he just "trolling the left"?
Yes, you did not say those exact words, but that seems to be the issue on the left.
“Military”
Yes and with climate change opening up sea routes, it’s actually even more militarily relevant now than the last time we tried to buy it. China wants those resources also.
“Military”
Yes, the left has, for 10 years now, been unable to figure out how Trump speaks.
Yes, he says stupid shit all the time.
No, we’re not going to literally invade Greenland and I’d bet my retirement fund on that.
However, if we did, I’d be rooting for us to win as quickly as possible with minimal life lost on both sides. In no world would I root against the US, like the prompt asks.
Look I'm all for American imperialism, I just can't stand the pretense after running on an 'anti-war' platform (not a 'pro-war-but-barely-a-war-because-we-would-win-wink-wink' platform). If he can just flip on something that major, what else is up for change? Trump is a little more honest about Venezuela atleast.
You "quoted" my resources argument back at me but didn't actually respond beyond referencing history. Perhaps you agree that the resources are the main driver and militarily it won't make much difference either way as I said. Lets not be shy about it. This admin is all about saying the quiet part out loud.
No? It’s literally both and has been for decades? This isn’t a new idea and we’re not invading Greenland. We’re trying to BUY it, same as past Presidents, with security concerns being a very real thing.
I think we're talking past each other and its not productive. Lets end it here unless you want to get the last word in. I'm out after this comment.
You're acting as if I dismissed your 'security concerns'. What I actually wrote is that the US was always allowed to build military bases and docks either way. Now at the altar of owning Greenland outright, much of the ease of building military installations has been sacrificed. Since Greenland and Denmark are both pissed off at the manner of approach, lets call it.
So if security concerns actually outweigh economic bragging rights for you, you should be pissed off at how this has been handled.
Yeah it'd mostly be a 'defeat' of US soft power, not a material 'loss of lives' defeat. The US has already exchanged much of its soft power for hard power anyway ever since the tariffs, so not much lost here specifically. Time will tell if that gamble pays off.
Do you really think Europe could defeat us? They use so much of our own equipment and most depend on us for military defense. This is even considering if all European countries would actually want to fight a war for Greenland, which I have high doubts for.
Will you support the defeat of Europe? What price must they pay for their security?
I find it hard to engage with not only the questions I posed but also yours. It super clear to me that you just want to push sn agenda rather than engage in discussion.
Tell me what position would be even considered by op other than total capitulation. The entire post is more about how much they hate America and trying to find people who agree than looking for information.
Because I see the push to expand and build something bigger as a healthy instinct. Roman Empire would have never become so great if it just stayed as one small town. I do consider empire-building as a good thing, as a push for greatness and glory is what drives civilizational progress. I also do think of "struggle" as a part of life and driving improvement. I see expansion as the positive affirmation of the willpower. Vilification of all of these has contributed to society in the West becoming more sissified.
And what would an expansionist America look like? What would be the targets?
Well, annexing Greenland and Canada for the start should be the goals. Establishing a natural sphere of influence over American continents too.
The Roman Empire is one rather positive example of imperialism (depending on who you ask), but what about the others which are viewed less favorable like the Mongols, the Huns or the Nazis? Are you sure the US wouldn't become one of them?
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
The same people telling you we're going to invade greenland are the same people telling you were were going to annex Canada and possibly nuke Toronto. I wouldn't spend too much thought on it.
What do you think Trump means when he says we "need" Greenland for national security?
The missile defense system we want to put there. As stated. It's a direct line between the US and Russia.
The Trump administration? Trump himself?
You believe Trump was going to nuke canada?
Oh I didnt see the nuke part of the comment. No, not that part. But annexing and buying Canada and Greenland talk came straight from the horse’s mouth
He threatened to nuke a hurricane during his first administration. So let’s not rule this out too quickly.
But the whole Venezuela thing sounded equally insane, and now we're blowing up boats there.
Our defeat? Lmao.
There isn’t going to be military action to take Greenland.
this is how it starts. "It won't happen." - it happens. "He was perfectly within his legal authority to do it." "Glad he did it, we needed it!" lol
While you may or may not be correct how about answering the actual question?
What’s the actual question? Will I support our defeat? No, I will never be a traitor to my country.
If it’s about the price the country must pay, there isn’t an answer to that question because I don’t believe Denmark wants to sell Greenland as of this moment.
Welp with regard to the question (and only that) If the US did invade Greenland (not likely) the NATO consequences would be severe. However because of the US military capability I’m not sure what could be done via NATO. Based on this (and only this) I might support our defeat (and it pains me to say that).
NATO consequences? In an alternative reality where military action is used NATO won’t do anything because they couldn’t do anything.
Did you miss my sentence about NATO V US military?
Nope.
So you didn’t understand the sentence or ignored it? Either way why the alternative reality comment?
Neither. I don’t believe there would be any NATO consequences as it is militarily irrelevant. The alternative reality comments was because we are discussing a hypothetical hot situation between the United States and Denmark which has no basis in the real world, hence an alternative reality.
From the gitgo the question is/was irrelevant. But it was the question. Hence my answers.
Speak for yourself! Angreb! Angreb! No hygge for the wascally Suaasat eaters.
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Our defeat, yeah this is totally in good faith.
Trump wants to annex Greenland for a price. Not invade with ground troops.
And if Greenland doesn't want to be annexed regardless of price?
Then it won’t be.
That's not consistent with what Trump has said
Okay and?
Most of what he says doesn’t happen.
And that's supposed to be reassuring? He has done a lot of crazy stuff, just look at Venezuela. There's no logic to what he does or doesn't do. Therefore we have to assume that everything he says is a real possibility.
Trump is not the first president to attempt to acquire Greenland. It’s been going on since the beginning of the USA.
Us being defeated in Greenland would involve the biggest upset since baby Harry Potter defeated Voldemort. Any scenario short of magic or aliens that involves our defeat probably requires Putin and Xi on the other side pulling a Skynet out of the hat, and that's probably going to be bad for the world...
Should we have a free hand to do whatever we want with impunity?
No, but the question is just absurd. We cannot lose that fight. I'm more likely to be defeated invading a carton of milk.
The U.S. lost to afghanistan. Why do you think we would fare better in Greenland?
The population of Greenland is tiny and it's incredibly hard to see many of them being willing to fight to the death just to be ruled by Denmark. They are not going to 1000x more effective on a per capita basis than the war hardened Afghans in their mountains. Maybe the X-men live there, who knows.
That said, if you consider that a defeat and not just a withdrawal, we would be "defeated" the same way as the next president would leave in January 2029.
You think people would be unwilling to fight for robust social safety nets, healthcare, and strong collective bargaining amongst the working class?
Our states mission for operation enduring freedom was fourfold. Eliminate Al Qaeda, depose the Taliban government, stabilize Afghanistan to prevent the land from being used as a terrorist training ground, and eliminate Bin Laden. How prongs of that mission did we accomplish?
Bin Laden and most of his associates are dead, Afghanistan is more of a menace to Pakistan and Iran (which is hilarious), and the Taliban in general is much more tame than they were before on the international stage. The side that gets a 100:1 kill ratio then gets bored and leaves is the winner.
And no, there will be no insurgents fighting for robust social safety nets. For starters, Trump would probably just bribe all the Greenlanders anyway to put a veneer of magnanimity on the venture, and beyond that the country is so vast you could virtually ignore the current population anyway.
Obviously, the whole concept is stupid, the resource wealth they supposedly have is a fantasy, and none of this will ever happen.
...didn't the US loose in the middle east
(and yes I know they were not defeated in battle, but it was still a defeat, just like in Vietnam and Korea)
Do I think Greenland, will 'beat' the US in a real fight, of course not, do I think they US would be 'defeated' (aka loose and not get what it wanted) if they try to invade, yes
For me I think 'defeat' in this context depends on the stated goal of the conflict,
- Vietnam it was to control which government was in power - defeat, communists won,
- for Korea it was to hold off NK, China, Russia from gaining territory - defeat, whilst they managed to prevent Korea from completely falling, they failed to stop it in over half the country, that to me is a defeat (though I would accept people seeing it as a partial victory)
- Middle east, hard to pin down a specific goal, arguably the initial goal was revenge, to take out the Taliban, Bin Laden, and Saddam, again partial defeat, partial victory (the Taliban it is hard to see as gone), of course when the US failed to leave it is hard to argue those were the goals at that point as well, and the reason changed into nation building, it lead to the creation of ISIS, and it's hard to say the middle east is friendlier than before, so again would call it (and especially the failure in Afghanistan) - as defeat (though again if someone wanted to argue different war goals, than I again could accept it as partial defeat/victory)
but the greater question isn't in when it applies to the US, there will always be bias there, but when it applies to another country, take the Russia Ukraine war, when and what is victory, and when and what is defeat, and how does this apply to occupying Greenland in the case of the US, I think if you are honest with yourself (despite it being incredibly unlikely at least militarily to happen), that any actual military attack would eventually lead to a defeat, or at best a restoring to the current status quo (unless America actually turns full authoritarian dictatorship, hostile world actor, which is seeming less and less implausible by the week to any outside observer, as you slide more and more into being Russia)
To the extent we lost in middle east, it was because we were trying to impose Western values in a populous tribal area filled with people who hated each other and us for religious reasons.
We will not invade Greenland, but if we did, there are fewer than 60,000 people there. That aspect would not be a repeat of the Middle East. But we would not get what "we wanted" because of Europe's reaction.
Trump is looking at BUYing Greenland, something that’s been brought up multiple times before.
“Will you support our defeat”
No, I’m not going to root against my own country.
When we talk about how the left doesn’t love America, this attitude is part of it.
When has buying Greenland been brought up "multiple times before*? And by whom?
Throughout the last hundred+ years? Hell, we basically occupied it for several years after WWII, against the wishes of Denmark.
Last President to formally offer to buy it was Truman. It’s so common it’s got its own wiki page.
This isn’t a new idea and it’s wild how people think this is just Trump being crazy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland
https://history.stanford.edu/news/buying-greenland-isnt-new-idea
Interesting, thank you
We are not going to militarily invade Greenland. That's a persecution fantasy that has zero chance of becoming reality. At absolute worst, Greenland may declare independence and then we would negotiate their protection and install a bigger base with missile defense systems. Most people in Greenland do want independence from Denmark. And with the renewed threat that Russia poses, it would be smart to do that.
But really, I don't think any of it is going to happen. We may negotiate placing missile defense systems there, but the odds of us annexing it are essentially nil. It's all bluster.
1) this is slowly eroding due to US imperial claims. Pro independence party took a hit for the first time because of it, and it's ruled by pragmatics who are somewhere closer to the middle than outright independence. 2) while there's a sizable pro independence group, they're certainly not pro US. Large part of why they're not leaving (aside from US jingoism making them lose support for independence) is a robust welfare state and high quality universal healthcare, which the US cannot provide in either case.
Maybe don't tell people you'll take Greenland by any means necessary and people won't think you'll take it by any means necessary?
You already have a near carte blanche in Greenland. You're not gaining anything from taking it. You get all the security benefits with none of the costs of maintaining territory. That being said, fighting an imperial power with another isn't really smart. If Denmark is smart, they'll kick the Americans out and let other NATO states take over Arctic security.
Since Americas involvement, Greenland has started to overwhelmingly push against independence due to outside influence.
Then we should credit Trump for helping strengthen Denmark's territorial integrity, if it is his outside influence that is helping stymie the independence movement in Greenland. One more point to his campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize! ;-)
Your argument is akin to me talking to my neighbour that says "I feel safe, I don't think I need a gun",
deciding since I know they do not have a gun that I want their stuff so point my gun at them all day for months on end saying "Give all your stuff to me or I will shoot you",
they say no and decided despite not wanting a gun that they should get a gun just incase I do go through with my plan to shoot and rob them
I than am praised for making them safer... because they no longer feel safe to do what they would have done had I not threatened them... so I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize...
...man Americans are cooked, no wonder your country is the way it is
Dude, you are valiantly trying to break through an open door. Check out the smiley at the end of my message.
(to be fair, I was mostly aware of your stance, having assumed it, but... I have been on the internet to long of late to fully assume sense these days.)
Genuine question: Are you serious?
Genuine answer: ;-P
I take it that the answer then is "No"?
\o/
Stands for "cheering / applauding"
This is 100% spot on - and a mutually agreed presence between the US and an independent Greenland is something most people, on either side, would agree on.
It all comes down to messaging, nuance, and candor… which is sorely lacking s the executive branch
Absolutely
I consider myself progressive on a lot of issues but that doesn’t mean I’m closed to conservative ideas, some have truly taken hold and I’ve weaved it into my progressive stances (they aren’t mutually exclusive!).
But a lot of pragmatic and forward-thinking answers to problems gets lost in terrible messaging, horrible delivery, and a bulldozer method to get points across.
This happens with liberals as much as conservatives and its frustrating beyond belief.
Hasn’t Denmark and by extension Greenland told America to politely back the fuck off. Yet they are still continuing this ridiculous notion that they will make this work
Where did you see that "most people in Greenland want independence from Denmark"?
There have been numerous surveys done. Practically every article on this topic mentions them.
Gotcha.
You mentioned above that Greenland would be smart to go Independent because of the threat Russia poses. Denmark is in NATO, a founding member actually. It seems that Greenland is much safer with Denmark than being independent if Russia starts poking around.
Unless I misunderstood your comment.
I meant that the US putting missile defense systems there would be smart.
Why do we automatically go to defeat when talking about anything Trump does as the leader of our nation?
The amount of traction Trump gets any time he says anything about literally anything.
It isn't healthy.
I think China would win.
Hahaha
If the US went to war with Europe over Greenland, China would absolutely be the winner in that scenario. We'd waste men, material, economic strength, and completely destroy all our alliances. In addition China would likely push for Europe to fall under their umbrella which Europe under the strain of a war with the United States might view as a lesser evil.
Would you cheer that as well?
Not in a million years. American leadership has been the gold standard for long term diplomatic decision making since WW2 with the Marshall plan.
I would hate for China go keep winning by doing nothing. While we fight amongst ourselves and tear up 100+ year old alliances.
Somehow that seems like a bad faith post.
Even with all that sarcasm, I can't imagine a world with China in charge. As bad as America is in your eyes, i highly doubt as many people would have worked their way out of poverty with China as the superpower.
BTW China isn't winning much.
But you do you...
Genuinely no sarcasm. I personally despise chinese agenda and globalization.
I think American foreign policy and imperialism is failing in a lot of aspects currently (this shit and trade war) but also remarkably aware of reality protecting its southern border (south american drug trade).
And if we are speaking from the 1950s on; then you are absolutely right that the Marshall plan is the greatest foreign policy decision in hundreds of years, maybe ever. And America single handedly created the foundation of our current economic stability.
But I do think the biggest winner in all of this is the chinese economy and foreign influence.
Up until the last paragraph, I agree fully.
Those taking Chinese support because America is sick of funding the world for 80 years with hate for gratitude will find out how good they had it.
I mean, people honestly can't think asking for western democracies to fund their own defense and uphold western values is a bad thing, can they? We are $38T in debt and Europe wants us to fund social programs, unchecked immigration and an enemy at their door for what in return?
This is not to be a downer, but I never understood the focus on the national debt. Every country is in debt. China has 20 trillion usd debt and growing for example. It's not a good phenomenon but it's not like the debtors are gonna come knocking.
And it does have an effect on effective development capabilities etc. So I am not saying it's not valid, just that it seems like a number that gets thrown around, as if you haven't paid off your credit cards.
But I strongly agree on domestic spending. Focus on infrastructure and the citizens.
The US starting a war with Europe would not be a direct conflict- it would be pushing Europe (and Canada) straight into China's arms. In the long term that would severely harm the US economically.
And honestly there's a significant chance it couldn't be carried out as the military would refuse to invade an allied country for territorial gains. At least with Iraq there was plausible deniability, even with Venezuela there's toppling Maduro. Greenland has none of that.
The question wouldn’t be whether we will win or lose, it’s whether you would want us to win or lose
I don't care at all about Greenland. But if Trump did try to take it by force, there's no way Europe is going to do anything about it. They can't even put together a force to fight Russia or deploy within Europe without our logistics, how are they going to fight us?
Has it not occurred the moment the US started a war for Greenland and subsequently fighting Europe , China and Iran and even Russia would make moves?
That would open the door for every country with a axe to grind to start attacking supply lines and just overall running interference, Win or Lose you then alienated a major ally, you think even Japan would trust the US after such a incident?
I just know that lefists would be desperate for America to lose
Do you want the US to win unjust wars?
I absolutely don’t want to see the U.S. lose a war and our military members die.
The left legitimately will root against their own country.
Do you want Greenland to be annexed by Russia?
No, I also don't want it annexed by us. It's not a binary choice.
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
This is BS
[removed]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
No one is trying to forcefully take Greenland!
Amazing how liberals fantasize about losing everytime
We wouldent want an objectively pointless war caused by us for no real reason to be won. I dont see how thats crazy
“To be won”
So rooting against your own country.
Wanting military members to die.
Wanting the U.S. to lose.
Yep, that tracks.
The decision to start the war in the first place is what takes military members lives, funny how you blame me for wanting a war to end but not leaders for starting them in the first place.
Some individuals view it as crazy that you would want your nation to lose.
Well in my opinion, that mindset is immature. I pay my taxes and comply with the law, that is my relation with the government. Im am not in any way obligated to morrally support or campaign for my country, if I dont choose too, thats one of the core ideas that this country was founded on in the first place. Blind compliance is the opposite of democracy.
Depending on what we do: absolutely yes.
“Absolutely yes”
Then don’t make a peep when the right accuses the left of hating America and wanting to see her fail. And not supporting the military, since a “losing war” would result in a whole lot of dead military members.
This post has been extremely enlightening and not in a good way.
Hey umm idk if you need to hear this, but unprovoked wars of conquest are bad, full stop. You should be opposed to them regardless of who’s doing it.
Do i think it’s likely the US literally invades Greenland? No.
But if we did? You’re damn right I’d oppose it, and i would hope any rational, moral person would.
“Oppose it”
Right, so the left will actively root against the U.S. in a war and will hope US military members die in said war.
That absolutely tracks.
What even is your point here? That we should be blindly supportive of whatever actions our nation takes? Is there nothing the US military could do to lose your support?
My point is:
The accusations of many on the left being anti-American are accurate.
I can be against a war and still not be a traitor actively rooting against my country.
I actively don’t want us to invade Venezuela. I would oppose that war happening. But if we do, I’ll be rooting for the U.S. to win as quickly as possible with minimal loss of life on both sides. There’s no universe I’d be rooting against my own country and hoping we lose / military members die.
Despite what the left thinks, and this is important, Trump isn’t Palpatine, the U.S. isn’t the evil Empire and the left isn’t the Rebel Alliance.
Blind loyalty is not something to be celebrated nor rooted for. If our country is doing something wrong, yes, they should lose, I’m not going to root for the “bad guy” in the situation to win just because it’s my guy.
“They should lose”
Would you take actions to help ensure we lose?
Yes, I’d vote the republicans out of power, thus ending their war on Greenland.
So nothing except what you’re literally already doing.
Must not be that upset by the war.
Correct.
I would be upset, but I would not break any laws to ensure we lose. I’d be down to go to some protests, etc.
I think the legal options are limited to what we could do, I think the best path would be to simply remove the war aggressors democratically.
So yes, this is all just “Trump bad, vote D” but otherwise not any sort of big deal in the slightest.
It’s up to you to decide if you find it to be a big deal or not.
I made my argument for why I don’t think it’s inherently crazy for wanting your nation to lose in certain circumstances.
You asked me if I would do anything to ensure that we lose, I told you what I would do. Have a great day.
I thought the left were the warmongers.
I thought the accusations that the left would actively root against their own country was just a “rightwing talking point”.
What is this based on, exactly?
The OP
"Will you support our defeat?"
Uh... no? What kind of question is that? 😄 I would support buying it from Denmark, or an independence movement that wanted to join the U.S. or just be a trade partner. Not that we're going to invade a NATO ally anyway.
What about an independence movement that’s manufactured by US agents?
I have a feeling that if you found out China was bankrolling independence campaigns in Hawaii that would be a very big deal and those involved would be treated as spies, right?
This is why the rest of the western world is so repulsed by Trump’s comments/attitude on this. Denmark and Greenland are already deeply allied with the US and have been for close to a century. If the US wants more than the existing military base there, the Danish PM already said that wouldn’t be a problem (there used to be 6 US bases). And the only barrier to trade in recent history would be Trump’s own tariffs.
But importantly the Danes will obviously want to know what military assets the US is putting there. And the people of Greenland have made it clear that they don’t want their land to be strip mined for minerals. That is the real reason.
If by “support our defeat” you really mean “oppose an illegal war of aggression against another country that poses no risk to us,* then my answer is yes.
Now I’ve answered your question, here’s my question for you:
Do you support a war of aggression against another country that poses no risk to the US?
No one is forcefully taking Greenland
If we take Greenland, it won't involve a war any shooting or any campaigning.
Its going to be done by treaty.
Best case they refferendum to join us as a territory.
Worst case we just declares them ours and take custodianship of them like Hawaii.
There really is no foreseeable way it ends with "defeat"
They tell us to piss off and we respect their sovereignty and not be the world police perhaps?
world police
It's a little late to put that genie back in the bottle
So we might as well take Greenland? Is that what you're saying?
Is that what you think I wrote?
It is certainly how it could be read, but I don't know... That's why I asked.
Should one not ask for clarification in this sub? I thought it was about trying to understand one another.
You can certainly ask for clarification.
My single sentence was in reference to "world Police" that was quoted from the comment above mine.
Your response would need to add several words to mine for it to be relevant, which is why I asked you.
Should one not ask for clarification in this sub?
Could totally happen. But doesnt mean we will. Like Hawaii we just kinda ate them and said "your mine now"
Realistically. If we decide to take Greenland. It will just be walking into town and putting up a new flag.
Like the population od Greenland makes Wyoming look like a metropolitan state.
And when they exercise their right of self defense with weapons?
They don't have weapons. Denmark's progressives have disarmed their population. Guns are useless for the protection of the individual person and a free state, remember their line?
That's not true. Plenty of Greenlanders own guns, and so do many Danes. It's of course not on the same level as the US, but nobody is. Perhaps check out gun laws in other countries. It might surprise you how much is perfectly legal to own. Most people just chose not to because they see no reason for it.
Self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to obtain a firearm licence in Denmark
Do you think that matters if the US invades Greenland?
Not any more. Denmark does not have the time to arm and train its citizenry in sufficient numbers to make a potential US invasion so prohibitively expensive as to give Trump any pause.
Our Founding Fathers recognized the imporance of a well-regulated militia.
Yes I'm sure if there was a concerted effort to invade the US, that all those trained militias would do wonders against an air strike, or a nuke, I'm sure any invading force is shaking in their boots at the idea of facing a few militia hiding in the hills, and have no idea how to deal with them, since every country on earth only faces 1820 field tactics, only the US has faced militas and rebel groups around the world in armed conflict... nobody else, it certainly isn't basically every countries main form of military combat training
Well realistically thats not how things work. They'd get some kind of "welcome to the union" state building bill and have billions of dollars pumped into them from congress. (Basically a bribe)
And then the locals would probabbly reluctantly go along with it.
Per my understanding, They are not a fan of Denmark ruling them. And are open to the idea of either independence or American territory status.
But like assuming your premise for a moment that they actually mount a resistance. It really would not matter. It wpuld be put down immediately.
Independence, yes. But when polled earlier this year, 85% of Greenlanders opposed joining the US. src
85%? So you’re telling me there’s a chance!
They want independence. Being an American territory would be a step backwards.
If American troops gun down Greenlanders/Danish citizens that would ruin any international credibility the US has left. Could have disastrous effects wrt potential sanctions, and there's a strong likelihood the US military would refuse the orders resulting in a constitutional crisis. I don't know how this is supposedly a net benefit for the US here...
So like thats the thing right, is thats not how it would go down.
Firstly like Greenland is pushing for political independence yes. But realistically they dont have the economic capability to be independent. The country is basically subsidized as a colony of the Danish government.
Greenland doesnt function without those subsidies If Greenland goes independent then their economy and standard of living will collapse, or at least drop significantly.
That immediatly opens the door to oppertunities.
You absolutely will not see us forces gunning down greenlander resistance cells.
You'll see high level US representatives start making state visits and offering territory status, in exchange for similar or better deals with our congress. (Frankly I suspect this is happening right now)
Next you'll potentially see a wave of Greenland political campaigns and buisneses pushing pro American association positions, which conveniently can be funded by our inteligence services...
I wouldn't write any possibility off with this administration
Again, this is a step backwards... Greenlanders have voted for parties that want to slow-roll political independence once they can achieve economic independence. Moving from economic dependence on the Danish government to economic dependence on the US government is not an upgrade; in fact in many ways being an American territory would be significantly worse, since the legal path to independence from that point is significantly more difficult than their current situation and American territories are in a worse political position than Greenland is in now with Denmark.
American business/trade deals would certainly be welcome in Greenland, but honestly, territory status is a complete non-starter and the Greenlanders have already said as much.
Im skeptical they could be economically independent to be hoenst with you, per Wikipedia the subsidies Greenland receives constitute a quarter of their annual government revenues.
They would need to increase tax receipts quite a bit to square that circle. Which in all likelihood will mean foriegn investment... which is kind of the reason we are having this conversation...becuase we dont want Russia to be economically and politically tied to Greenland
They could negotiate mineral/oil extraction leases which would be enough to sustain their government. The continent has significant economic mineral and O&G potential which they should be able to leverage into economic independence in the future.
Kindof ironic that this is the concern, since there is no sign of that being an issue. The US directly threatening Greenland's independence is basically the fastest way to get that result, though.
https://www.reddit.com/r/greenland/s/EI1EQOGglP
Here is what Greenland has polled during their most positive American poll.
You are really speaking with a lot of confidence about something you know very little about.
They are not open to being an American territory before Trump started threatening them they seemed happy with status quo either under Denmark or independent that gave America most of what we want so it's hard to figure out why Trump would talk about conquering it
Ah so colonialism it is then.
Im not abfan of seizing peoples lands and ruling over them by fiat. But there are times when it legitimately becomes nessacary and in the best interest of our union to do so.
Like for instance during wwii we took over Iceland, becuase Denmark had collapsed to german occupation, as iceland wasnt capable of autonomous self rule, and we didnt want to see them under German control.
Not the same situation I grant. But there is talk of a new geopolitical struggle over the artic now.
It seems like you're a fan of seizing peoples land.
Nah seems like he’s logically weighing the options of a hypothetical scenario y’all brought up.
I didn't do anything. I wish this subject died in the 1950s where it belongs.
Sir … I said y’all meaning the OP and anyone commenting on original post acting like this is worth even discussing. I didn’t accuse you of doing anything other than being a part of the discussion.
Doesn't the sentence "ya'll brought up" refer to a person who brought up a question ie the OP?
But it seems like you were personally offended, so I won't question your semantics.
Aka, there is money to be made, Russia, China and the EU want that money
The US want that money to go into US donors pockets in return for donations, and shares, so it is of key national 'strategic' interests, that the US uses it's military might to get that money
(and if Greenland is not a country, than Denmark or the EU can't have the money that the US wants, so they need to be taken out of the equation)
Just like how Venezuela is suddenly a matter of "national security", you have to attack the weak rather than facing the actual threats head on like China or Russia, you could deal Russia a major blow by helping Ukraine fight Russia for you, you could hurt China by actively helping out more in the region, however under Trump it has been "how can we make more money" rather than actually do anything to actively hurt them (see "US Halts Defensive Cyber Activities Against Russia" "Imports from Russia to the US on the raise "US agrees to sell chips to china", and perhaps worst of all his handling of the Asia pacific region, where increasingly Trump is ruining mutually beneficial alliances, to make them increasingly one sided, to the point many are asking if it is not just better to give China what it wants, since it asks a lot less than the US which has undermined key Indo-Pacific alliances with Japan and South Korea and Australia by treating them as transactional burdens, using the threat of punitive tariffs and troop withdrawals to extort massive defense payments and one-sided economic concessions (I can tell you as an Australian, nobody sees America as an Ally any longer, and the question is asked a lot, if the US is basically a worse bully than China, and China is our largest trade partner in the region... why are we partners with the US?
The situation will likely be closer to Puerto Rico than Hawaii given how averse some of the US is to adding a state (2 new senators). PR is not a great advertisement for becoming a US territory.
Sounds like what Putin has done with Crimea. Ain't that a "great" role model for the leader of the free world.
The US isn’t going to ‘try to forcefully take Greenland.’ That’s just saber rattling. Greenland is of strategic importance for many reasons and it would be great to have as a territory. That would happen via diplomacy.
What is the point of the saber rattling? Who does that benefit? We can be just as well off via diplomacy with protecting our interest AND not having it as an (invaded, unwanted) territory. The saber rattling does a lot more harm than good.
Getting Greenland was legitimately one of the best ideas of the Trump admin. Donald Trump just took the opening shot of the idea by threatening military action and that immediately killed any chance.
I think he could have peacefully had Greenland as a territory best case scenario by the end of T2. Or at least have deals that nullify the need for a territory due to resource extraction and military presence.
I'm interpreting your statement that "anything short of getting Greenland is a 'defeat'" and that seems like a pretty pointless distinction.
Is it really a pointless distinction? Even if its status quo at the end of Trump T2, it would essentially mean the gauntlet was thrown down for no good reason. The US already had plenty of military bases on Greenland and they were open to more bases before the talk of annexation. If military defense was the sole aim, then floating the idea of annexation is immediately counterproductive - they would beg the US to occupy them Iceland-style if there was an actual possibility of Russia invading them.
Let's admit it already, the idea of annexation was floated primarily to exploit their natural resources. Militarily not much will change either way.
“Exploit resources”
Yes, that’s part of it but military security is a big one as well. It can be both.
This isn’t the first time the idea of acquiring Greenland has come up, for good reason. This isn’t some Trump-specific idea.
Trump brought it up in 2019, but prior to that acquiring Greenland wasn't a topic anyone of significance brought up since 1955. Military force was never teased back then either. That is a Trump specific idea, and bringing up buying Greenland, with a valuation between 500bn and 1.1 trillion, while talking about cutting spending is a joke.
So no, it’s not Trump specific, yes we’ve tried to buy it many times, both for security and resources, and anyone that thinks we’re literally going to invade Greenland is wildly off base.
Did you have a question or is this just “Orange man bad” statements?
Nowhere did I say "Orange man bad." All I mentioned was that the Greenland topic was not brought up by anyone of significance for over 60 years. Do not put words in my mouth.
In the 50s, it was for security purposes against the USSR. While Russia is still a global threat, it is not the same scenario. The US has a military presence in Greenland for purposes of national security, and Russia isn't the same expansionist nation threat as they once were due to growing might within both Europe and domestically in the US.
Trump himself has said we'd use the military if needed. So is he wildly off base for those statements, or is he just "trolling the left"?
“Orange man bad”
Yes, you did not say those exact words, but that seems to be the issue on the left.
“Military”
Yes and with climate change opening up sea routes, it’s actually even more militarily relevant now than the last time we tried to buy it. China wants those resources also.
“Military”
Yes, the left has, for 10 years now, been unable to figure out how Trump speaks.
Yes, he says stupid shit all the time.
No, we’re not going to literally invade Greenland and I’d bet my retirement fund on that.
However, if we did, I’d be rooting for us to win as quickly as possible with minimal life lost on both sides. In no world would I root against the US, like the prompt asks.
Look I'm all for American imperialism, I just can't stand the pretense after running on an 'anti-war' platform (not a 'pro-war-but-barely-a-war-because-we-would-win-wink-wink' platform). If he can just flip on something that major, what else is up for change? Trump is a little more honest about Venezuela atleast.
You "quoted" my resources argument back at me but didn't actually respond beyond referencing history. Perhaps you agree that the resources are the main driver and militarily it won't make much difference either way as I said. Lets not be shy about it. This admin is all about saying the quiet part out loud.
No? It’s literally both and has been for decades? This isn’t a new idea and we’re not invading Greenland. We’re trying to BUY it, same as past Presidents, with security concerns being a very real thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland
I think we're talking past each other and its not productive. Lets end it here unless you want to get the last word in. I'm out after this comment.
You're acting as if I dismissed your 'security concerns'. What I actually wrote is that the US was always allowed to build military bases and docks either way. Now at the altar of owning Greenland outright, much of the ease of building military installations has been sacrificed. Since Greenland and Denmark are both pissed off at the manner of approach, lets call it.
So if security concerns actually outweigh economic bragging rights for you, you should be pissed off at how this has been handled.
Nope, not pissed off in the slightest. We’re allowed to offer to buy Greenland and they’re allowed to say no.
This is a nothingburger.
I'm alluding to OP's specific wording of "defeat" being a pointless component of the discussion.
Yeah it'd mostly be a 'defeat' of US soft power, not a material 'loss of lives' defeat. The US has already exchanged much of its soft power for hard power anyway ever since the tariffs, so not much lost here specifically. Time will tell if that gamble pays off.
Do you really think Europe could defeat us? They use so much of our own equipment and most depend on us for military defense. This is even considering if all European countries would actually want to fight a war for Greenland, which I have high doubts for.
Could? Perhaps.
Isn’t the more important question, should they?
If we do objectively bad things, should we suffer a price, like we expect others to suffer for doing bad?
No military in the world could win against the U.S lmao
Should we do whatever we want because we can?
If it strengthens the nation and the American people then yes.
Would it be okay for you to cause suffering to other innocent people as long as it strengthens your nation? Sounds pretty concerning imho.
Will you support the defeat of Europe? What price must they pay for their security?
I find it hard to engage with not only the questions I posed but also yours. It super clear to me that you just want to push sn agenda rather than engage in discussion.
How have we gotten to the point that the basic principles of national sovereignty are an "agenda"?
Tell me what position would be even considered by op other than total capitulation. The entire post is more about how much they hate America and trying to find people who agree than looking for information.
Not denying another nation's right to self-determination?
Defeat? Are you kidding? Who exactly is going to defeat USA, Denmark or EU?
Moreover, being a realist in international relations, I think it is very good that Trump is normalizing rhetoric on territorial expansion.
Why would that be a good thing for the world?
And what would an expansionist America look like? What would be the targets?
Because I see the push to expand and build something bigger as a healthy instinct. Roman Empire would have never become so great if it just stayed as one small town. I do consider empire-building as a good thing, as a push for greatness and glory is what drives civilizational progress. I also do think of "struggle" as a part of life and driving improvement. I see expansion as the positive affirmation of the willpower. Vilification of all of these has contributed to society in the West becoming more sissified.
Well, annexing Greenland and Canada for the start should be the goals. Establishing a natural sphere of influence over American continents too.
The Roman Empire is one rather positive example of imperialism (depending on who you ask), but what about the others which are viewed less favorable like the Mongols, the Huns or the Nazis? Are you sure the US wouldn't become one of them?
Peace president btw