- 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 8:17 pm to northshorebamaman
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:17 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
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.
Maybe what Trump is doing is humiliating Denmark (and Canada, etc) to provide more incentive for them to step up their defense spending. If they had a military they would not be worried about this.
2
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:18 pm to deltaland
quote:
Locking down the western hemisphere to keep Chinas hands out of it. Strategic location defensively and has trillions of resources including rare earth minerals that we need
how is it you think china's gonna get up in greenland?
strategic location? eh. i guess there's an argument there but marginal at best. one, we already have a base there. do we suddenly need a couple more? to what advantage?
anytime i hear someone mention rare earth minerals i know this conversation is a waste of time
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:18 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Trump is not operating inside an ideological frame in any meaningful sense. He uses ideological language instrumentally, but there is no stable theory of power underneath it. There’s no Atlantacism, no isolationism, no coherent nationalism. There’s instinct, grievance, optics, and leverage. He treats geopolitics the same way he treats real estate or lawsuits: pressure points, dominance displays, and short-term wins.
But that begs the question, what world do they imagine? Even in some scenario where they feel changing European demographics threatens the alliance, those same pressures exist in the US as well. And it is absolutely the case that the European ruling class has not represented the demographics of their people, in a verifiable sense. European nobles were not restricted by blood or soil to specific tracts of land or something. Not only that, that still is an absence of what will take its place. The US could do a lot to shape that destiny if they chose and as they have chosen in the past. If not Atlantacism, then what is the ideology which will shape American security policy?
My view is that there is an old style thinking at play where owning the land means assured material wealth. That assumes a lot, namely that technological growth in the future won't undermine those resource extraction efforts. Given the pace of growth, it seems more like flailing in the dark rather than actually putting a plan in place for the future.
In a world where technological leverage and capital mobility matter more than raw territory, grabbing land is just nostalgia.
As for the people around him, it’s certainly possible some of them have ideological agendas. You can see fragments of nationalism, techno-libertarianism, and mercantilism floating around. But there’s no synthesis, no prioritization, no internal logic that constrains action. That’s why the outputs look incoherent. They aren’t filtered through a doctrine. They’re filtered through loyalty, attention, and perceived strength.
It’s much messier and frankly dumber than that. What we’re watching isn’t a grand theory colliding with another grand theory. It’s improvisation colliding with a system that only works when actors behave as if there might be a future after 2028.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:18 pm to Eurocat
quote:
Why must it be done, though? The argument "umm...because Trump says so" doesn't hold water to me or just about anyone else.
Do we need bases? More patrols of areas? Mineral right agreements? (and will those to the US Gvt or Trumps friends?)?
There is no need for this.
Because Trump is signing on with Putin and Xi in the abandonment of international law, leaving "spheres of influence" for whoever is the "strongest." Everything in the hemisphere belongs to the US, is under our control, or is in the hands of an approved strongman who does what he tells them. Go listen to all the stuff being said about Venezuela again carefully. "Our hemisphere..." "They must serve U.S. interests."
As part of this, the US will abandon Europe... so if Putin takes control of Europe, and Denmark still controls Greenland, then Russia gets control of Greenland. "Denmark can't protect it!" "We need it for National Security."
China is free to do whatever it wants in Asia and the Pacific... Russia is free to do whatever it wants in Europe, as long as they don't tread on the Americas, which is "our hemisphere."
A Saudi-Israeli coalition can do whatever it wants in the Middle-East...
"Deals" can still be done, of course, but no political interference.
Stephen Miller screamed all of this at Jake Tapper yesterday... go listen to that...
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:18 pm to Penrod
That is about the stupidest way of going about that.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:19 pm to Penrod
quote:maybe so
Maybe what Trump is doing is humiliating Denmark (and Canada, etc) to provide more incentive for them to step up their defense spending.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:21 pm to Penrod
quote:
No BINGO. Greenland sucks. It's like living in northern Alaska.
More room for us in the state of North Trumpiana!
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:25 pm to Lee B
quote:
Because Trump is signing on with Putin and Xi in the abandonment of international law, leaving "spheres of influence" for whoever is the "strongest." Everything in the hemisphere belongs to the US, is under our control, or is in the hands of an approved strongman who does what he tells them. Go listen to all the stuff being said about Venezuela again carefully. "Our hemisphere..." "They must serve U.S. interests."
As part of this, the US will abandon Europe... so if Putin takes control of Europe, and Denmark still controls Iceland, then Russia gets control of Iceland. "Denmark can't protect it!" "We need it for National Security."
China is free to do whatever it wants in Asia and the Pacific... Russia is free to do whatever it wants in Europe, as long as they don't tread on the Americas, which is "our hemisphere."
A Saudi-Israeli coalition can do whatever it wants in the Middle-East...
"Deals" can still be done, of course, but no political interference.
That's the plan. It was first devised by a Russian (in the 1990s?).
This post was edited on 1/6/26 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:26 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
That’s not what “stab you in the back if they could” looks like.
I said IF they could.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:28 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:Thoughts on the rest of the post?
I said IF they could.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:32 pm to northshorebamaman
That's some solid, 2017 level crazy4lsu analysis.
It's just hard for me to fathom that there is any American with any power who somehow doesn't ascribe to at least some notion of Atlantacism. It isn't like those other Atlantic states would not participate willingly in some version of a future America envisions. It boggles the mind to sacrifice the thing which allows the US to even consider the security of Greenland essential to US security. That position assumes complete Canadian and British not responding the way countries usually respond to changing environments. By pursuing that angle earnestly, we are ensuring that our security policy is worse off in the long run. As you've already basically said.
It's just hard for me to fathom that there is any American with any power who somehow doesn't ascribe to at least some notion of Atlantacism. It isn't like those other Atlantic states would not participate willingly in some version of a future America envisions. It boggles the mind to sacrifice the thing which allows the US to even consider the security of Greenland essential to US security. That position assumes complete Canadian and British not responding the way countries usually respond to changing environments. By pursuing that angle earnestly, we are ensuring that our security policy is worse off in the long run. As you've already basically said.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:34 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
I said IF they could
What about the instances when they could have and still chose to side with the US? Why is the potential for betrayal worth so much but thr realities of the alliance on the ground not?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:38 pm to Shaun176
quote:natural resources off the charts and the Arctic is going to become much more economically and strategically important in coming decades.
Why do we want Greenland? We already have a base there and full military use.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:39 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
But that would be an outcome we created, not one we revealed.
Speculation, no different than mine. They don’t have the ability to act without consequence. I don’t take that as an example of their sincerity. I don’t trust Europe at this point. You suggest that they have our back. I suggest that they simply haven’t had the opportunity to plant the knife without repercussions.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:42 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
What about the instances when they could have and still chose to side with the US?
You say side with, I say comply with expectations. I don’t believe that Europe can be trusted (at all).
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:45 pm to jimmy the leg
Yeah, instead, you get JD Vance going to Europe and blaming them for not stopping the US for going into Iraq based on faulty intelligence. Despite the fact that the French in particular telling the US that their source was retarded.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:45 pm to jimmy the leg
That's not based on anything real.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:46 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
It isn't like those other Atlantic states would not participate willingly in some version of a future America envisions.
Belt and Road suggests otherwise. I would suggest that a China is preferable to the U.S. for them in the future.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:49 pm to Lee B
quote:Iceland has not belonged to Denmark since the 1940s.
if Putin takes control of Europe, and Denmark still controls Iceland, then Russia gets control of Iceland.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:49 pm to jimmy the leg
I am genuinely curious what you are seeing that I am not.
What specific actions signal an intent to side with China against core U.S. security interests once consequences are low?
What specific actions signal an intent to side with China against core U.S. security interests once consequences are low?
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News