
- 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
What if Greenland Isn’t Denmark’s to Sell?
Posted on 9/21/26 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 9/21/26 at 2:10 pm
Wording found in the 1916 Treaty of the Danish West Indies could help justify an American claim to Greenland.
full report:
https://spectator.org/what-if-greenland-isnt-denmarks-to-sell/

quote:
It turns out that, in order to establish sovereignty over the world’s largest island, President Trump may not have to purchase Greenland after all. The American explorer Charles Francis Hall claimed this vast land mass (or at least the northern third) for the United States on September 5, 1871.
In the summer of 1916, the U.S. signed an agreement to purchase the Danish West Indies, now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands, for $25 million ($595 million in current dollars). The primary ratification condition for this treaty, a major American concession, read: “that the government of the United States would not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests over the whole of Greenland.”
Note the liminal phrasing: If a nation exercises sovereignty over a given territory, how can it “extend” such control? Can you imagine a similar diplomatic stipulation appearing in a treaty involving Puerto Rico or Guam or any other U.S. territory? The obvious objection is that, when it comes to territories, actual sovereignty is not potential sovereignty.
full report:
https://spectator.org/what-if-greenland-isnt-denmarks-to-sell/

Posted on 9/21/26 at 2:12 pm to Ailsa
Hes already on record as making a deal. I guess he cannot go back.
But yes, I would rather Greenland be free to choose.
With their green name, red flag and white snow.
But yes, I would rather Greenland be free to choose.
With their green name, red flag and white snow.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 2:14 pm to Ailsa
Although I'm glad there is tremendous progress from the President, personally I would've preferred Greenland hold a referendum vote on who controls them and where their support could/would come from.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 2:31 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Although I'm glad there is tremendous progress from the President, personally I would've preferred Greenland hold a referendum vote on who controls them and where their support could/would come from.
It's for national security.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:44 pm to dstone12
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:46 pm to Ailsa
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
Kingdom of Denmark Carla Sands called it a three-way win
Posted on 9/21/26 at 6:24 pm to dstone12
quote:
But yes, I would rather Greenland be free to choose.
I think they are free to choose. But they can't choose to let the Chinese and Russians in.We will protect the Arctic in part, from Greenland. And maybe the Danish will be friends with us. Let's see if Trump and the Danes talk at the UN summit. If so, no US news outlet of note will cover it.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 6:34 pm to Ailsa
If GREENLAND is for sale, then they played us....

Popular
Back to top

3














