- 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: 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 beaux duke
Posted on 1/6/26 at 6:59 pm to beaux duke
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:02 pm to Speckhunter2012
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:02 pm to Speckhunter2012
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:02 pm to northshorebamaman
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:05 pm to crazy4lsu
quote: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.
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:07 pm to Eurocat
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:08 pm to northshorebamaman
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:09 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
Does Ilisimatusarfik University go to the B1G or SEC?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:12 pm to nealnan8
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:16 pm to beaux duke
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.
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:17 pm to crazy4lsu
quote: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.
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.
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:19 pm to Timeoday
Why? So the next President can give it back
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:20 pm to deltaland
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:26 pm to northshorebamaman
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:26 pm to beaux duke
quote:
this is the equivalent of arguing which unicorn would win a race
The black one.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:27 pm to Timeoday
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 on 1/6/26 at 7:30 pm to Eurocat
quote:
needs to distinguish between friend and foe.
Wait, do you consider Europe to be a friend of the USA?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:31 pm to beaux duke
I mean, we could if we wanted to.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:32 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Wait, do you consider Europe to be a friend of the USA?
Oh this should be good.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:32 pm to BoomerandSooner
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!
Popular
Back to top


1





