Going after Greenland

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 649
  • Views: 20K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:


IMG_3772.jpeg
Click to expand...

This is my concern. We will just increase troop presence and when we reach a critical mass just declare Greenland ours.

That would then require Denmark to take the first shot if they want to counter that. When that happens the right will just present it as the US being attacked by Denmark. They would probably even go to NATO to ask to have article 5 invoked against Denmark. (The point would be for show and entirely to sway domestic opinion in their favor.)

MAGA loves playing the victim and this would play right into their hands.

Denmark and the rest of Europe better move troops into Greenland ASAP and match any US troop surges.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
This is my concern. We will just increase troop presence and when we reach a critical mass just declare Greenland ours.

That would then require Denmark to take the first shot if they want to counter that. When that happens the right will just present it as the US being attacked by Denmark. They would probably even go to NATO to ask to have article 5 invoked against Denmark. (The point would be for show and entirely to sway domestic opinion in their favor.)

MAGA loves playing the victim and this would play right into their hands.

Denmark and the rest of Europe better move troops into Greenland ASAP and match any US troop surges.
Click to expand...
Even though Greenland is huge geographically, it only has a few populated areas.

If we are putting troops on our remote bases or in non-populated areas, who the heck cares.

If, on the other hand, we intend to do an ICE-like occupation of the populated areas of Greenland, that is an altogether different situation. What would the troops be doing in the populated areas? Handing out herring dishes to the locals? There is not going to be any shots fired, so what would the occupation actually entail?
 
Calheel said:
Even though Greenland is huge geographically, it only has a few populated areas.

If we are putting troops on our remote bases or in non-populated areas, who the heck cares.

If, on the other hand, we intend to do an ICE-like occupation of the populated areas of Greenland, that is an altogether different situation. What would the troops be doing in the populated areas? Handing out herring dishes to the locals? There is not going to be any shots fired, so what would the occupation actually entail?
Click to expand...
At some point the locals have to be governed. If we declare Greenland to be a part of the US, we would have to place them under US law.

But does it matter what changes? In this scenario we've declared Greenland to be a part of US territory against the will of Greenlanders and Denmark. Even if purely symbolic, it means something.

Are you claiming the Denmark and other European countries would just let it slide if we do it without firing a shot?
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
At some point the locals have to be governed. If we declare Greenland to be a part of the US, we would have to place them under US law.

But does it matter what changes? In this scenario we've declared Greenland to be a part of US territory against the will of Greenlanders and Denmark. Even if purely symbolic, it means something.

Are you claiming the Denmark and other European countries would just let it slide if we do it without firing a shot?
Click to expand...
US law can be imposed only if there is someone willing to enforce it. So, are you suggesting that the US troops will somehow enforce income tax requirements? Because I think that is unlikely.

Moreover, there is the issue of Congress and the Courts. A president cannot create new territory for the US, that requires an act of Congress under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution. I seriously doubt Congress would approve that.

So, again, what would the troops actually being doing? Are they simply going to act as an occupying force for three years? And what would actually be happening during the three years?
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Why in the heck would Trump want mexico? He's trying to get rid of as many of them as he can. I can't imagine he would fight a war to get 130 million more Mexicans into the United States.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding ?

big producer of silver
oil reserves
natural gas
copper
gold
timber

Plus, think of all the condos that Trump and his crime family could build along the Gulf of America and the Pacific...

For Trump this would be manna from heaven !
 
heelinhell said:
Are you kidding ?

big producer of silver
oil reserves
natural gas
copper
gold
timber

Plus, think of all the condos that Trump and his crime family could build along the Gulf of America and the Pacific...

For Trump this would be manna from heaven !
Click to expand...

The Gulf of what?
 
Calheel said:
So, again, what would the troops actually being doing? Are they simply going to act as an occupying force for three years? And what would actually be happening during the three years?
Click to expand...
The project at Kvanefjeld would be greenlighted, and there would be security provided for the mining. Whether that's US troops or private contractors, that would happen in short order, I think. And it would poison the human habitat there, to say nothing of the marine life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top