halfastros81 said:

---

I'm not suggesting it's nuts. Just that we need some sort of context to evaluate if it makes good sense for America/Americans.

---

We're just gonna start claiming entire nations as part of the US at will to see if they just go with it.

We're gonna act like the Indians do when someone finds an arrowhead in the dirt. "A mcnugget was found in the ground, this land is obviously ancient American clay."

— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) January 7, 2025

McDonald's Doctrine.

If you can order a Big Mac and fries by speaking only English, your country belongs to the US.

— Nemesis 2025 (@Nemtastic1) January 7, 2025

Why do we need a reason? If the whole world's population is American then the following is also true.

pic.twitter.com/Z1unofB4ti

— Bronze Age Futurist (@kyberfaust) January 7, 2025

Anyone can claim whatever they like. It doesn't make it so nor does it make it make sense . American forces certainly could have had operational control of Afghanistan had we made it a high enough priority but at what cost and for what purpose is the much better question.

All for expansionism here. I was always stumped why we ever gave away Cuba after holding it as a protectorate.

Probably an endeavor that would take more than just the 2025-2029 term, but gotta start somewhere.

Current population of Greenland (~56,000 people) places it between the US Virgin Islands and American Samoa, so probably more of a US Territory than state. On the surface statehood would be +3 electoral college votes, +2 senators and +1 house seat.

Not sure if staying a territory would do it for the Greenlander leadership, but historically adding another state has always been talked about as ideally happening in pairs. Might take Puerto Rico getting statehood to happen, and if that happened under a 'big tent' Republican party POTUS it could make the political leanings more interesting (PR as a state would be +6 electoral college votes, +2 senators and +4 house seats).

halfastros81 said:

---

Sure , but there must be some estimate of what the various reserve bases might be , what the costs might be to extract them , what the margins and therefore value might be , and finally what the American taxpayer has to pay for it. Arm waving is one thing but at least let's see some somewhat educated arm waving .

No doubt that there's some geopolitical and strategic value to it as well. That's certainly a piece of the puzzle but somewhat harder to value . If you can make the case based solely on resources then the geopolitical /strategic value is pure lagniappe.

---

The significance of the land-mass to shipping routes is what I have read as well. DDG Assist:

Quote:

---

Greenland is significant for shipping routes as melting Arctic ice is opening new maritime pathways, such as the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage, which can reduce travel distances and shipping costs. These changes could transform international trade dynamics and lessen reliance on traditional routes like the Suez Canal.

---

Arctic defense and trade:

Quote:

---

Implications for Arctic Defense and Trade
Regardless of the feasibility of acquiring Greenland, its strategic importance in Arctic defense and trade remains undeniable. The United States, as part of its NATO commitments, is already involved in the defense of Greenland. O'Brien argues that if Denmark is unwilling to bear the cost of this defense, the U.S. could justify purchasing the island.
"They can let us buy Greenland from [Denmark], and Greenland can become part of Alaska. I mean, the native people in Greenland are very closely related to the people of Alaska, and we will make it a part of Alaska." Robert O'Brien
As the Arctic ice continues to recede, opening up new shipping routes, Greenland's position becomes increasingly pivotal in discussions about global trade and navigation. The potential for shorter, more efficient trade routes through the Arctic could have far-reaching economic implications, making control over key strategic points like Greenland more valuable than ever.
While the debate over Greenland's future status continues, its role in shaping Arctic geopolitics and trade remains undeniable. As global powers vie for influence in the region, Greenland's strategic importance is likely to grow, ensuring its continued relevance in international discussions on trade, environmental changes, and geopolitical relations within the Arctic framework.

---

Moving away from dependence on shipping via the Suez and Panama Canals would be a good thing for American trade/economic interests, and depending on an Islamicizing Denmark to defend those interests is…sketchy.

That's a good point. Had not really considered Islamization of Denmark as a factor.

Just make Greenland a part of the State of Canada.

Considering Rhode Island has been the smallest state from forever. Seems fitting that it should also be our largest state. pic.twitter.com/TofE2HX4Ig

— Rex Locum (Skeptical/Suspicious) (@LocumRex) January 7, 2025

Magadonia
East Rhode Island (bonus points for pissing off yankee Karen leftists).
Better Rico
Trumpland
Magarctica
Mar a Igloo

Lot's of pretty good ideas.

Quote:

---

Magadonia

---

Heads would literally explode

People think this is just silly campaign-style talk, but I don't think it is. He didn't have Don Jr. go there today on a feint. Notice the reference to the trade/shipping significance.

🇺🇸🇬🇱🇩🇰 LMAO: Trump announces he might tariff Denmark at a "very high level" in a potential dispute over acquiring Greenland

"We need Greenland for national security purposes. People don't even know if Denmark has any legal right to it. I'm talking about protecting the free world pic.twitter.com/AsGXvb8FsR

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) January 7, 2025

So Trump places tariffs on Denmark, an EU nation. Then the EU institutes retaliatory tariffs against the US.

Greenland and Denmark also decide to kick our military out of the leased base. All the while, "anti-war" Trump saber rattles.

Awesome.

Or maybe he will be so smart he appoints hunter biden or Kamala Harris as his trade negotiator.

Trump Force One was only there for 4.5hrs.



Maybe the told Don Jr to GTFO???

For a Charlie Kirk podcast, how long did you think they would be there?

All good, but history is important!


Red White & Blueland!

nortex97 said:

---

For a Charlie Kirk podcast, how long did you think they would be there?

---

Longer than 4.5 hrs. All I've seen on X is site seeing and a bunch of selfies w/ some local randos.

When does the "podcast" air?

Chief...

Why does he need to be there more than 4.5 hours for a podcast? Kamala wouldn't even commit to an hour with Joe Rogan, and Joe Biden has never sat down with a podcaster for anything approaching an hour.

Neither has Hunter, to my knowledge. Am I mistaken?

nortex97 said:

---

Why does he need to be there more than 4.5 hours for a podcast? Kamala wouldn't even commit to an hour with Joe Rogan, and Joe Biden has never sat down with a podcaster for anything approaching an hour.

Neither has Hunter, to my knowledge. Am I mistaken?

---

If the sole purpose of the trip was a CK podcast, then so be it.

Not unreasonable to expect Don Jr meet w/ the local dog catcher at least.

ETA Maybe w/ all Trump's rhetoric they weren't exactly welcome. When did Trump say he would use USM to take over Greenland???

Gator92 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Why does he need to be there more than 4.5 hours for a podcast? Kamala wouldn't even commit to an hour with Joe Rogan, and Joe Biden has never sat down with a podcaster for anything approaching an hour.

Neither has Hunter, to my knowledge. Am I mistaken?

---

If the sole purpose of the trip was a CK podcast, then so be it.

Not unreasonable to expect Don Jr meet w/ the local dog catcher at least.

ETA Maybe w/ all Trump's rhetoric they weren't exactly welcome. When did Trump say he would use USM to take over Greenland???

---

The local dog catcher, LOL. I dunno, Don Jr. is just a private citizen. Same as Hunter, circa 2014, right?

I'm not aware of Trump militarily threatening Greenland. Maybe you can enlighten me.

See Links from Copenhagen Post below. Looks like people are getting riled up in Denmark/Greenland.

All eyes there are on Trump.


https://cphpost.dk/2025-01-07/news/politics/and-greenlands-premier-postpones-visit-to-king-frederik-amid-growing-tensions-with-the-us/

Quote:

---

And Greenland's Premier cancel visit to King Frederik amid growing tensions with the US
Greenland's Premier, Mte Bourup Egede, has unexpectedly postponed a planned visit to Denmark's King Frederik, originally scheduled for Wednesday. This happened while Donald Trump Jr. is heading to Greenland for an unofficial visit.
Bernardo Basilici Menini Jan 7, 2025

---

https://cphpost.dk/2025-01-07/news/politics/widespread-concern-in-denmark-over-trumps-intentions-for-greenland/

Quote:

---

Widespread concern in Denmark over Trump's intentions for Greenland
Donald Trump Jr. is traveling to Greenland for a private visit as his father, President-elect Donald Trump, continues to show interest in the Danish territory. The level of concern for USAs intentions on Greenland has never been so high

Christoffer Friis Christensen Jan 7, 2025

---

https://cphpost.dk/2025-01-07/news/politics/trump-i-dont-exclude-the-use-of-military-force-to-gain-greenland/

Quote:

---

Trump: "I don't exclude" the use of military force to gain Greenland
Yesterday, U.S. president-elect Donald Trump held a press conference at his house. When asked if he excluded using military or economic coercion to gain control of Greenland, he answered, "No."

Bernardo Basilici Menini Jan 7, 2025

---

Why exclude anything? No one really thinks we're going to invade Greenland.

Quote:

---

All for expansionism here. I was always stumped why we ever gave away Cuba after holding it as a protectorate.

---

I was always stumped why we gave away Okinawa in 1971 (14,000+ Americans died there in WW II)
I was always stumped why we gave away the Panama Canal September 1977, finalized December 1999.

WolfCall said:

---

Quote:

---

All for expansionism here. I was always stumped why we ever gave away Cuba after holding it as a protectorate.

---

I was always stumped why we gave away Okinawa in 1971 (14,000+ Americans died there in WW II)
I was always stumped why we gave away the Panama Canal September 1977, finalized December 1999.

---

+1 more

We should have annexed more (arguably all) of Mexico rather than caving to a weaker negotiation made in bad faith and agreed to for political expediency. Would have been a hell of a lot less wall to build.

I know it's probably a bit of a longshot, but I really really hope this happens

REPORTER: What are you hoping to get out of your visit to Mar-a-Lago with Donald Trump?

SENATOR JOHN FETTERMAN: "I demand that I need to be made Pope of Greenland."

H/t @KellieMeyerNews pic.twitter.com/F5L7BWXxtj

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 10, 2025

The Sum of All Fears?
Could This Be Another Reason Trump Needs Greenland? pic.twitter.com/uzErh8JR8H

— Still🏝️Roaming (@roaming_rn) January 10, 2025

We have a base in Greenland now.

JD Vance addressed that point this am on Fox News Sunday too.

I think this settles it.

Magadonia, here we come! https://t.co/Ce6IRL1VuO

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) January 12, 2025

Momentum seems to be building.

I suspect a high percentage of Trump's base, who are severely overweight and diabetic, won't be too pleased when Greenland retaliates and hikes the prices on, or cuts off the supply of diabetes meds. FAFO I guess.

FlyRod said:

---

I suspect a high percentage of Trump's base, who are severely overweight and diabetic, won't be too pleased when Greenland retaliates and hikes the prices on, or cuts off the supply of diabetes meds. FAFO I guess.

---

I know you are mad he is winning, yet again, but do you have any basis to assert Trump's base is substantially severely overweight and diabetic? Thank you for the chuckles, but this one isn't about the LAFD leadership.

FlyRod said:

---

I suspect a high percentage of Trump's base, who are severely overweight and diabetic, won't be too pleased when Greenland retaliates and hikes the prices on, or cuts off the supply of diabetes meds. FAFO I guess.

---

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Trump supporters have higher rates of obesity and/or diabetes than did Kamala's?

P R O J E C T I O N !!!