1moretimeagain
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,492
Going after Greenland
- Thread starter dukeman92
- Start date
- Replies: 444
- Views: 16K
- Politics
- Messages
- 4,571
gift link
www.nytimes.com
Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
- Messages
- 35,306
Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
“… Under a little-known Cold War agreement, the United States already enjoys sweeping military access in Greenland. Right now, the United States has one base in a very remote corner of the island. But the agreement allows it to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland, “house personnel” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.”
… But buying Greenland — something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers on Tuesday was Mr. Trump’s latest plan — is a different question.
Greenland does not want to be bought by anyone — especially not the United States. And Denmark does not have the authority to sell it, Dr. Olesen said.
“It is impossible,” he said.
In the past, Denmark would have been the decider. In 1946, it refused the Truman administration’s offer of $100 million in gold.…”
Callatoroy
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,652
If you hate trump, and most on this board do (I understand why), it’s easy to dismiss his assertion that the US must have Greenland because it’s vital to our national security as bombastic rants and bullying. His (and more so his bitch miller’s chest puffing bully talk) inability to articulate his points and policy in an unoffensive manner obscures any chance of consideration from most who oppose him because he revels in being an asshole and seems to take it to new heights over every issue. That’s trump. But that doesn’t make his claim about Greenland being vital to our national security wrong. To disagree out of hate is naive and juvenile. This is a pretty good article and does a good job of laying out the issues in play and the obstacles that must be overcome in some manner to secure a part of our national security. I don’t expect some posters to have any meaningful comments or good faith dialogue but I’m hopeful some will offer their views outside of their personal dislike for trump. Do you view it as vital for national security? Do you see china’s inroads as a concern? Etc.
- Messages
- 35,306
“…Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
“… Under a little-known Cold War agreement, the United States already enjoys sweeping military access in Greenland. Right now, the United States has one base in a very remote corner of the island. But the agreement allows it to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland, “house personnel” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.”
… But buying Greenland — something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers on Tuesday was Mr. Trump’s latest plan — is a different question.
Greenland does not want to be bought by anyone — especially not the United States. And Denmark does not have the authority to sell it, Dr. Olesen said.
“It is impossible,” he said.
In the past, Denmark would have been the decider. In 1946, it refused the Truman administration’s offer of $100 million in gold.…”
According to the 2004 amendment, the United States is supposed to consult with Denmark and Greenland before it makes “any significant changes” in its military operations on the island. The 2004 amendment, which was signed by Gen. Colin L. Powell, who was then the secretary of state, explicitly recognizes Greenland as “an equal part of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Peter Ernstved Rasmussen, a Danish defense analyst, said that in practice, if American forces made reasonable requests, “the U.S. would always get a yes.”
“It is a courtesy formula,” he said. “If the U.S. wanted to act without asking, it could simply inform Denmark that it is building a base, an airfield or a port.”…”
There is nothing in that article that demands we take it. There are multiple ways to achieve what we need without promoting a doctrine that "Might makes right." It's a heinous and totally unamerican idea to anyone but a Manifest Destiny ( a failed and hypocritical doctrine) revanchist.
p5mmr9
Distinguished Member
- Messages
- 412
No one is claiming Greenland is not of strategic importance to the United States.
MOUNTAINH33L
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,000
Paine
Active Member
- Messages
- 27
I think that Calla’s argument here isn’t really about Trump’s tone. Strip that away and the claim is pretty straightforward: if Greenland is vital to U.S. national security, then the U.S. should have it, one way or another.
I don’t accept that premise. No country gets to decide that another people’s land is too strategically important for them to control themselves. Once you grant that, the logic shifts from security to entitlement. If that logic applies to us, it applies to everyone else too, which most people only realize once it’s flipped around.
Pointing to China or Russia in the Arctic doesn’t resolve that. Rival presence ≠ imminent threat. Just because there is competition, that doesn’t justify imperial possession. Redefining “national security” to mean exclusive control, or preventing others from having influence anywhere we care about, turns it into a blank check. We’ve seen that movie before.
Moreover, the term “national security” has really just become a catch-all that no longer explains much. It’s been invoked for decades to justify coups, occupations, sanctions, and proxy wars. None of that has made Americans meaningfully safer. What it has reliably produced is instability abroad and blowback at home.
Greenland being strategically useful doesn’t mean the U.S. is entitled to it. National security can’t function as a permission slip to override sovereignty.
I don’t accept that premise. No country gets to decide that another people’s land is too strategically important for them to control themselves. Once you grant that, the logic shifts from security to entitlement. If that logic applies to us, it applies to everyone else too, which most people only realize once it’s flipped around.
Pointing to China or Russia in the Arctic doesn’t resolve that. Rival presence ≠ imminent threat. Just because there is competition, that doesn’t justify imperial possession. Redefining “national security” to mean exclusive control, or preventing others from having influence anywhere we care about, turns it into a blank check. We’ve seen that movie before.
Moreover, the term “national security” has really just become a catch-all that no longer explains much. It’s been invoked for decades to justify coups, occupations, sanctions, and proxy wars. None of that has made Americans meaningfully safer. What it has reliably produced is instability abroad and blowback at home.
Greenland being strategically useful doesn’t mean the U.S. is entitled to it. National security can’t function as a permission slip to override sovereignty.
Last edited:
whatntarnation
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 182
"We are the dominant predator" What a tool.
Reminds me of the words of Heller in Catch-22
"it was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth,
impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility,
plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor,
blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice.
Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all.
It merely required no character."
Reminds me of the words of Heller in Catch-22
"it was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth,
impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility,
plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor,
blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice.
Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all.
It merely required no character."
4thgenheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,924
sringwal
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,027
Here's my answer. NATO, for better and for worse, is more vital for American security than anything else. No matter what route we take to obtain Greenland, getting it would damage our relationship with both NATO specifically, and Western Europe in general, significantly. If NATO falls, then the odds of another world war rise exponentially. Nothing we gain from Greenland being "ours" rather than Denmark's makes that worthwhile.
The fact of the matter is that our allies are important. It's not just about building a global infrastructure that allows us to trade goods, but it is also about avoiding the cost of large-scale war by any means necessary. Every international move our presidents make either moves us further from risking that kind of war, or moves us closer to experiencing it. We have, by and large, forgotten the "cost" of real war in the United States. My hope, up until recently, was that our taste for it was lessening. The world can work together to make life better for everyone, or we can fight and claw over resources. One of those options, I believe, is better for everyone's long term health, as well as for the planet itself. It seems, though, that each generation may have to figure out the lessons of history for themselves, though.
Duke Mu
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,826
Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
“… Under a little-known Cold War agreement, the United States already enjoys sweeping military access in Greenland. Right now, the United States has one base in a very remote corner of the island. But the agreement allows it to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland, “house personnel” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.”
… But buying Greenland — something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers on Tuesday was Mr. Trump’s latest plan — is a different question.
Greenland does not want to be bought by anyone — especially not the United States. And Denmark does not have the authority to sell it, Dr. Olesen said.
“It is impossible,” he said.
In the past, Denmark would have been the decider. In 1946, it refused the Truman administration’s offer of $100 million in gold.…”
Yes.
Trump's idiotic rhetoric re: Greenland needlessly continues to undermine NATO.
We already have a military base tin Greenland. A business deal is possible, but the purpose undermines the post-WWII world order we created and American interests. US + EU have a GDP of about $50T. Why would we cede a 1984 sphere of influence to Russia, which invaded Ukraine and has a GDP of less than $2T?
Trump and Putin's current path is closer to a 19th Century view and would possibly lead to Germany and Japan rebuilding their military. Been there and done that - not a good idea.
I think it's deflection and "look over there" instead of the Epstein files, Jan 6, etc.
Trump and Rubio's next target is likely to be Cuba.
Duke Mu
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,826
On a true global view, the (surprisingly) large areas are Africa and Brazil.For the sake of comparison:
