Started By
Message

re: With 20 days to 2 months, Greenland will be ours!! It is 1.25 times bigger than Alaska!!

Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:59 pm to
Posted by nealnan8
Atlanta
Member since Oct 2016
4737 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:59 pm to
Don't be stupid. We are not "taking" Greenland by force. If Greenland becomes part of the US, it will be a financial transaction or some political agreement.
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
17244 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:02 pm to
quote:

Can you even imagine the fertile soils that will soon be exposed?


All of this can be stopped by a Green movement in the USA, left wing judges and a Democratic administration.

Not taking a stand on this, just saying the big mistake people make in politics is thinking "I am so awesome my party will be in power for the next 30 years and my policies will live forever".

What it 99 percent of Greenland is declared a "no minining, no fishing, no hunting" zone by President Newsome in two years?
Posted by Timeoday
Easter Island
Member since Aug 2020
23264 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:02 pm to
I do like our place in the Ozarks. Once we make the move, we will be setting up enclosures for the chickens and rabbits.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39820 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:02 pm to
The benefits of pursuing such a position, even in Miller's stilted realpolitik terms, is very low. The issue is that this administration doesn’t seem to like or even want to use soft power. We would sacrifice a lot of political capital for not very much in the grand scheme of things.
Posted by northshorebamaman
Mackinac Island
Member since Jul 2009
38343 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:05 pm to
quote:

The benefits of pursuing such a position, even in Miller's stilted realpolitik terms, is very low. The issue is that this administration doesn’t seem to like or even want to use soft power. We would sacrifice a lot of political capital for not very much in the grand scheme of things.
It just converts soft control into hard control. Acting as if the alliance system is about to fail only accelerates that failure. You trade informal empire for formal sovereignty, which historically is the worse bargain.
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
44313 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:07 pm to
quote:

The way out would be for there to be a referendum in Greenland simply asking the people do you want to remain part of Denmark, become a US State like Alaska or become an Independent Country?


Who “owned” the land where you reside? Did they vote to allow you to take possession of it? No?

I’m just curious how strongly that you feel about your convictions.
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 7:29 pm
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39820 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:08 pm to
The downstream effects make such postions genuinely terrible. The issue with hard power is that one, it is far more resource intensive, and two, it limits your ability to adapt to changing circumstance.
Posted by Great Plains Drifter
Flyover, U.S.A.
Member since Jul 2019
9924 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:09 pm to
Does Ilisimatusarfik University go to the B1G or SEC?
Posted by beaux duke
Member since Oct 2023
4911 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:12 pm to
quote:

If Greenland becomes part of the US, it will be a financial transaction or some political agreement.

it won't, and even if it did it wouldn't be in 20 days-2 months
this is the equivalent of arguing which unicorn would win a race
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
17244 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:16 pm to
I agree with NYPost commentator Rich Lowry about this -


The fact of the matter is, we can almost certainly get whatever we need from Greenland without violating a friendly country’s sovereignty, or straining a world-historical alliance to the breaking point.

We already have a missile-defense base there. The 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement between Denmark and the United States that allows for the Pituffik Space Base could presumably be updated and extended.

Given the national-security importance of critical minerals to both the United States and NATO, it should be possible to unlock Greenland’s resources.

Instead of clapping back at Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen should be reaching out, asking to sit down for a steak dinner at Mar-a-lago and offering a deal. While public pressure gets Trump’s back up, private persuasion — and a warm relationship — goes a long way: The Panamanians managed to get him to stop talking about taking back the Canal (for now) with prudent concessions.

For his part, Trump should realize that making everyone in a friendly nation hate him doesn’t help his cause. His loose talk of annexing Canada last year helped Justin Trudeau’s party survive a national election that it should have lost.

His Greenland saber-rattling is presumably making it harder for leaders in Denmark to work with him on sensible economic and security cooperation.

If Nicholás Maduro got what he deserved, Demark is a different matter.

Even the unsentimental, results-oriented foreign policy of Donald Trump needs to distinguish between friend and foe.
Posted by northshorebamaman
Mackinac Island
Member since Jul 2009
38343 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:17 pm to
quote:

The downstream effects make such postions genuinely terrible. The issue with hard power is that one, it is far more resource intensive, and two, it limits your ability to adapt to changing circumstance.
Agreed. Hard power is expensive and locks you into paths that are difficult to unwind when conditions change. Soft power works because it preserves optionality and lets you adapt without forcing constant escalation.

What makes this even worse is the way it’s being framed. Talking about it in real estate or transactional development terms scrambles the signal for allies and adversaries. Alliances operate on expectations and credibility.

When you recast strategic positioning as a property acquisition, it becomes harder for partners to interpret intent and stabilize around it. That confusion alone carries downstream costs, even if no action ever follows.
Posted by OchoDedos
Republic of Texas
Member since Oct 2014
39931 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:19 pm to
Why? So the next President can give it back
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
75191 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:20 pm to
quote:

Offer them US citizenship and to be an autonomous territory like Puerto Rico. We will send in our oil and mining companies to extract resources estimated in the trillions. 10% of revenue goes to the locals, divided equally. That’s 2,000 dollars per person for every billion dollars in revenue


I bet they’d take that deal

The psychology behind this whole Greenland brouhaha has been fascinating to watch unfold, and it really shows who has bothered to research the subject at all.
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 7:21 pm
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39820 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:26 pm to
What confuses me is that apparently there are people in this administration who aren't Atlanticists. You could get a whole bunch of what you want just by doing bog-standard US foreign policy since the 1880s. That position is so central to US security policy that I wonder what they actually beleive about the future of the world.
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
75191 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:26 pm to
quote:

this is the equivalent of arguing which unicorn would win a race

The black one.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
16656 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:27 pm to
quote:

Miller then asked an interesting question: by what right does Denmark have Greenland?

I think the answer is that Greenland was originally settled by Norse colonists back in the day. Norway and Denmark were once two kingdoms operating under 1 King. Norway and Denmark eventually split under the Treaty of Kiel which legally handed off Greenland to Denmark. Denmark’s legal ownership/control over Greenland was legally upheld by The Permanent Court of International Justice.

Not sure how the US can take it by any means other than consent.
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
44313 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:30 pm to
quote:

needs to distinguish between friend and foe.


Wait, do you consider Europe to be a friend of the USA?
Posted by Shamoan
Member since Feb 2019
13804 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:31 pm to
I mean, we could if we wanted to.
Posted by crazy4lsu
Member since May 2005
39820 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:32 pm to
quote:


Wait, do you consider Europe to be a friend of the USA?


Oh this should be good.
Posted by IvoryBillMatt
Member since Mar 2020
10132 posts
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:32 pm to
quote:

Here is what we do. We agree to purchase and stock both Greenland and the US with a lifetime supply of these.


Are you a diplomat? If not you've missed your calling!
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram