- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 5 minutes to watch European perspective on Greenland
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:06 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:06 pm to Big Scrub TX
I can see why we would want Greenland. I don’t understand Trump saying he will take it by force from a NATO ally.
2
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:08 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Trump has had 5 years as POTUS. Enough with the excuses.
So you are good with the US military greatly expanding our presence in Greenland?
Cool.
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:12 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Thanks...and to Big Scrub. That was great.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 9:17 pm to Decatur
quote:
Because it voids Trump’s public rationale for this stupidity.
Are you paid to humiliate yourself?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 10:18 pm to Big Scrub TX
Of these three, the American (Pippa?) raised perhaps the most-sensible explanation for acquisition of Greenland ... that being the need for land (actual dirt) for receiving stations within the arctic circle, for geo-synchronous communications purposes.
She mentioned Svalbard (Norwegian Island archipeligo) as the current Western hub, but it is vulnerable due to the need for undersea cable to transmit the data down here on Earth to Europe and North America. By contrast, cables from Greenland to the US mainland would be much easier to keep secure.
All in all, that was 45 minutes well-spent.
She mentioned Svalbard (Norwegian Island archipeligo) as the current Western hub, but it is vulnerable due to the need for undersea cable to transmit the data down here on Earth to Europe and North America. By contrast, cables from Greenland to the US mainland would be much easier to keep secure.
All in all, that was 45 minutes well-spent.
This post was edited on 1/14/26 at 10:22 pm
Posted on 1/14/26 at 10:21 pm to Decatur
quote:Well, ONE of them anyway.
The PM raises a good question: if the US is so concerned about security, why have they not massively built up militarily in the past decades, as is its right under the current agreement.quote:
Because it voids Trump’s public rationale for this stupidity.
If we want to militarize Greenland tomorrow, we can do it under existing treaties, and realpolitik says that no one is going to stop us or dislodge us, if we do so.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 10:34 pm to IvoryBillMatt
That was terrible. Oh greenlands been for sale for so long and nobody wanted it. Now all the sudden Trump comes along and…he is bad and only wants it because ummm it’s not for sale…or his ego…orange man bad
Posted on 1/14/26 at 11:52 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Yes, of course. Are you not?
So you are good with the US military greatly expanding our presence in Greenland?
Posted on 1/15/26 at 12:47 am to Auburn80
There's no legitimate excuse. Trump and MAGA are simply salivating at the thought of annexing territory by conquest. The defense argument holds no water since the existing agreement gives the US freedom to build pretty much whatever defensive structures it wants there.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 3:34 am to Big Scrub TX
No one asks for Tully 
Posted on 1/15/26 at 4:52 am to OceanMan
quote:
That was terrible.
I said it was the European perspective...what did you expect?
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:08 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Trump has had 5 years as POTUS. Enough with the excuses.
And now he is moving in on Greenland.
What - because he didn’t do this earlier - he can’t now do it?
That’s not going to hold water, nor will it stop him.
The geopolitical world order is changing, and we need to be about locking up as many resources for us and ours as we possibly can.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 5:10 am
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:24 am to Warfox
quote:
The geopolitical world order is changing, and we need to be about locking up as many resources for us and ours as we possibly can.
I agree with this completely. I don't know if we have to OWN Greenland for American companies to have access to its resources, but I am not well educated on the subject.
I trust that Trump thinks it would be in our best interest to own Greenland. I just find the "exaggerations" to justify ownership annoying and unnecessary. For instance, the "security concerns" seem contradicted by the fact that we have---completely of our own volition----reduced American bases in Greenland from 17 to 1 and reduced our troop presence from about 10,000 to about 200.
My interpretation of the Trump/Miller Doctrine: "We act solely in the interests of the United States. We will take whatever we can which is consistent with those interests. It's better to be our friend than our enemy."
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 5:44 am
Posted on 1/15/26 at 5:59 am to IvoryBillMatt
Danish foreign minister with a succinct explanation of the Danish position and summation of the meeting with Vance and Rubio.
Video is one-minute.
Video is one-minute.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:15 am to Auburn80
We could just simply ask for access. Danes would probably say yes. They"ve not said no to us .....ever. Even in the War on Terror.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:20 am to Decatur
quote:It's all a function of time and distance. Not Trump.
Because it voids Trump’s public rationale for this stupidity.
For the Golden Dome to work we need warning time.
With Greenland secured combined with Alaska and Canada, neither Russia or China could bypass our sensors and warning system.
Without Greenland there is a huge gap.
Without absolute control and guarantees for Greenland then the Golden Dome is not worth the investment but is sorely needed.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:26 am to I20goon
How is Greenland any less secured to us than Canada?
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:27 am to I20goon
Does NORAD secure Canada for us in a way that our treaty with Denmark does not?
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:46 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:We can 'more easily' send troops on established roads (and railways) that can handle tracked vehicles, without naval assets, to those northernmost sites.
How is Greenland any less secured to us than Canada?
More time and distance calculations.
It is the never ending conundrum of war, no matter the technological level.
ETA: and the 'Greenland Gap' protects the E Coast. NYC with it's port being the first to be reached. That ratchets up the primacy.
This post was edited on 1/15/26 at 6:48 am
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:10 am to kilo
quote:
What?
We’ve done nothing but shrink our presence in Greenland for a half century.
There’s nothing militarily that we would want to do with Greenland that we don’t already have the ability to do, outside of basing nuclear weapons there. We are just choosing not to.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News