Ramdiesel said:

---

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

He's not the first President to ask for Greenland. Didn't work out for others. We don't want to be renters, and we don't want to pay for their Socialist BS, and we don't want to share mineral rights with NATO if we are the ones having to build the massive defense systems in Greenland. We don't even know if most of Europe is going to be Germanistan/ Islam Jihadist in the next 50 years.

What Trump is asking for is much different than what NATO probably would have tried to negotiate for us to have..We want control that can't be taken away...

---

As Trump backed down from his demand for ownership we're not getting outright control after all, right? What we are getting is the same renter deal that was already available without alienating our NATO allies.

4 said:

---

Krazykat said:

---

Mexico is next.

---

Honestly, I hope you're right.

They've been a legitimate clear and present danger for us for the past 50 years. They should have been dealt with a long time ago.

No free people can live with a narco State on their southern border.

---

Or democrats within their border

74OA said:

---

Ramdiesel said:

---

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

He's not the first President to ask for Greenland. Didn't work out for others. We don't want to be renters, and we don't want to pay for their Socialist BS, and we don't want to share mineral rights with NATO if we are the ones having to build the massive defense systems in Greenland. We don't even know if most of Europe is going to be Germanistan/ Islam Jihadist in the next 50 years.

What Trump is asking for is much different than what NATO probably would have tried to negotiate for us to have..We want control that can't be taken away...

---

As Trump backed down from his demand for ownership we're not getting outright control after all, right? What we are getting is the same renter deal that was already available without alienating our NATO allies.

---

Why didn't we have that "same renter deal before"? Since it was available...

Ag with kids said:

---

74OA said:

---

Ramdiesel said:

---

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

He's not the first President to ask for Greenland. Didn't work out for others. We don't want to be renters, and we don't want to pay for their Socialist BS, and we don't want to share mineral rights with NATO if we are the ones having to build the massive defense systems in Greenland. We don't even know if most of Europe is going to be Germanistan/ Islam Jihadist in the next 50 years.

What Trump is asking for is much different than what NATO probably would have tried to negotiate for us to have..We want control that can't be taken away...

---

As Trump backed down from his demand for ownership we're not getting outright control after all, right? What we are getting is the same renter deal that was already available without alienating our NATO allies.

---

Why didn't we have that "same renter deal before"? Since it was available...

---

Because we never asked for it.

"Whatever the United States seeks there--overflight rights, basing rights, intelligence access or mineral exploration--Denmark and Greenland have long been willing to provide. This cooperation is grounded in the 1951 Danish-American Defense Agreement and the 1949 NATO Treaty."

GREENLAND

Ag with kids said:

---

74OA said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

74OA said:

---

Ramdiesel said:

---

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

He's not the first President to ask for Greenland. Didn't work out for others. We don't want to be renters, and we don't want to pay for their Socialist BS, and we don't want to share mineral rights with NATO if we are the ones having to build the massive defense systems in Greenland. We don't even know if most of Europe is going to be Germanistan/ Islam Jihadist in the next 50 years.

What Trump is asking for is much different than what NATO probably would have tried to negotiate for us to have..We want control that can't be taken away...

---

As Trump backed down from his demand for ownership we're not getting outright control after all, right? What we are getting is the same renter deal that was already available without alienating our NATO allies.

---

Why didn't we have that "same renter deal before"? Since it was available...

---

Because we never asked for it.

"Whatever the United States seeks there--overflight rights, basing rights, intelligence access or mineral exploration--Denmark and Greenland have long been willing to provide. This cooperation is grounded in the 1951 Danish-American Defense Agreement and the 1949 NATO Treaty."

GREENLAND

---

I call bull*****

Trump asked about Greenland in his FIRST term and we didn't get this deal. But, you're saying it was available then.

And Trump is not even the first president that has wanted more access to Greenland and yet we didn't get this deal then, even though you say it was available....and they weren't *******s like Trump.

---

You can call it whatever you want, but Denmark has been a steadfast US ally and has bent over backwards to cooperate with us. Show me a reputable source proving first term Trump officially asked Denmark for more US access to Greenland and was denied.

The clear fact is that the Trumpster got it done when those before him didn't. So, good for him.

74OA said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

74OA said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

74OA said:

---

Ramdiesel said:

---

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

He's not the first President to ask for Greenland. Didn't work out for others. We don't want to be renters, and we don't want to pay for their Socialist BS, and we don't want to share mineral rights with NATO if we are the ones having to build the massive defense systems in Greenland. We don't even know if most of Europe is going to be Germanistan/ Islam Jihadist in the next 50 years.

What Trump is asking for is much different than what NATO probably would have tried to negotiate for us to have..We want control that can't be taken away...

---

As Trump backed down from his demand for ownership we're not getting outright control after all, right? What we are getting is the same renter deal that was already available without alienating our NATO allies.

---

Why didn't we have that "same renter deal before"? Since it was available...

---

Because we never asked for it.

"Whatever the United States seeks there--overflight rights, basing rights, intelligence access or mineral exploration--Denmark and Greenland have long been willing to provide. This cooperation is grounded in the 1951 Danish-American Defense Agreement and the 1949 NATO Treaty."

GREENLAND

---

I call bull*****

Trump asked about Greenland in his FIRST term and we didn't get this deal. But, you're saying it was available then.

And Trump is not even the first president that has wanted more access to Greenland and yet we didn't get this deal then, even though you say it was available....and they weren't *******s like Trump.

---

You can call it whatever you want, but Denmark has been a steadfast US ally and has bent over backwards to cooperate with us. Show me a reputable source proving first term Trump officially asked Denmark for more US access to Greenland and was denied.

---

America has actually tried to acquire Greenland 3 other times, as early as 1867

Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland Article Talk Read

The US has tried to acquire Greenland before and failed

Quote:

---

[url=https://fortune.com/2026/01/08/secret-history-american-efforts-to-acquire-greenland-civil-war-world-war-ii/][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland][/url]Trump first publicly expressed interest in buying Greenland during his first term in 2019, likening a potential purchase to a "large real estate deal." But the idea was quickly shut down by Greenlandic and Danish authorities, who insisted the island was not for sale.

---

[url=https://fortune.com/2026/01/08/secret-history-american-efforts-to-acquire-greenland-civil-war-world-war-ii/][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland][/url][url=https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/07/politics/us-greenland-trump-denmark-history-hnk][/url]

But, you've said they've wanted all along to give us this expliciit deal...

74OA said:

---

Ramdiesel said:

---

74OA said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

This whole situation is classic Trump negotiations that the rest of the world simply can't understand. He wants something. So he says he wants the "something"x3.

---

how normal people negotiate: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway
neighbor: ok sure

how trump negotiates: hey neighbor i need to park my car in your driveway, sell me your house for $10 million or i might just take it from you
neighbor: uhh how about i just let you park there?
trump: DEAL! that's what I wanted all along, art of the deal

---

Exhibit C

---

Everything Trump suggests he's getting was already available just for the asking.

---

He's not the first President to ask for Greenland. Didn't work out for others. We don't want to be renters, and we don't want to pay for their Socialist BS, and we don't want to share mineral rights with NATO if we are the ones having to build the massive defense systems in Greenland. We don't even know if most of Europe is going to be Germanistan/ Islam Jihadist in the next 50 years.

What Trump is asking for is much different than what NATO probably would have tried to negotiate for us to have..We want control that can't be taken away...

---

As Trump backed down from his demand for ownership we're not getting outright control after all, right? What we are getting is the same renter deal that was already available without alienating our NATO allies.

---

He's asking for the pieces of land they give us to be Sovereign US territory which is different than in the past. Different than the defense agreements we had with them in the past. The one base we have there now is not considered "Sovereign US territory" it is just a part of a defense agreement..So the whole situation is different...They actually tried selling the land where that base is to China at one point before we had Denmark shut that down. They could take it away at any time...

I doubt Trump backed off his tarriff threats if he didn't have assurances they could come to this kind of agreement where our bases there are owned by us and would be Sovereign territory that could not be taken.

Quote:

---

They actually tried selling the land where that base is to China at one point before we had Denmark shut that down.

---

Source?

flown-the-coop said:

---

When someone says "we pissed off Canada", how bad is that really?

Alex Trebec is dead. Martin Short soon will be. I miss the Frank's hot sauce lady, she dead too.

But really, are there really people who worry about what Canada thinks… of anything?

Hell, South Parked trolled the **** out of their whole country in a movie and all they did was keep Tim Hortons to themselves.

****, they can't even play football properly.

---

And the Stanley Cup is an American Trophy now.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

They actually tried selling the land where that base is to China at one point before we had Denmark shut that down.

---

Source?

---

The link contains contradictions. China's intent is clear. No need to trust them or the Danes.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/china-threat-greenland-donald-trump-nato-ally-denmark-arctic-5852946

Quote:

---

Beijing launched the Polar Silk Road project in 2018 the Arctic arm of its transnational Belt and Road infrastructure initiative and aims to become a "polar great power" by 2030.

It has established scientific research stations in Iceland and Norway, while Chinese firms have invested in projects such as Russian liquefied natural gas and a Swedish railway line.

Competition with China for resources and access to trade routes in the Arctic could threaten European interests, Legarda said.

Recently, however, China has faced pushback. Proposals to buy an abandoned naval station in Greenland and an airport in Finland have failed.

The US reportedly pressured nations to reject Chinese companies. In 2019, Greenland opted against using China's Huawei for its 5G networks.

Russia remains the exception, with China investing heavily in resources and ports along Russia's northern coast.

---

She makes some points that I haven't heard before on why Greenland is a vital security asset that the USA needs to secure:

https://www.youtube.com/live/Gu5Pe1vkU1o?si=zQgciI9BfrPrKPCs

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

They actually tried selling the land where that base is to China at one point before we had Denmark shut that down.

---

Source?

---

Nobody in the military is aware of these problems????

https://www.arctictoday.com/denmark-spurned-chinese-offer-for-greenland-base-over-security-sources/

Quote:

---

While the canceled sale highlights western concerns over Chinese presence in the Arctic region, Greenland still hopes to attract foreign investment from China and other nations to bolster its economy with projects such as in gold, rare earths, iron ore and oil.

---

Thanks. He said "they tried selling the land where the base is" and that said they wanted to buy a former base. Still not good, but not the same thing as implying we almost had our sole base in Greenland sold to China.

GAC06 said:

---

Thanks. He said "they tried selling the land where the base is" and that said they wanted to buy a former base. Still not good, but not the same thing as implying we almost had our sole base in Greenland sold to China.

---

It's a difference without distinction and you know that. China having any territory on the island is the problem, not whether they take ours in the process.

Splitting of hairs, extreme edition.

Yeah, there's a huge difference between "they tried to sell our only military base in Greenland to China" and "China wanted to buy a former naval base" presumably as a port but was rejected.

GAC06 said:

---

Yeah, there's a huge difference between "they tried to sell our only military base in Greenland to China" and "China wanted to buy a former naval base" presumably as a port but was rejected.

---

Yes. Bury that head. The former naval base that was put for sale was at the southern tip of Greenland.

Ignore all other evidence...

Quote:

---

The link contains contradictions. China's intent is clear. No need to trust them or the Danes.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/china-threat-greenland-donald-trump-nato-ally-denmark-arctic-5852946

Quote:

---

Beijing launched the Polar Silk Road project in 2018 the Arctic arm of its transnational Belt and Road infrastructure initiative and aims to become a "polar great power" by 2030.

It has established scientific research stations in Iceland and Norway, while Chinese firms have invested in projects such as Russian liquefied natural gas and a Swedish railway line.

Competition with China for resources and access to trade routes in the Arctic could threaten European interests, Legarda said.

Recently, however, China has faced pushback. Proposals to buy an abandoned naval station in Greenland and an airport in Finland have failed.

The US reportedly pressured nations to reject Chinese companies. In 2019, Greenland opted against using China's Huawei for its 5G networks.

Russia remains the exception, with China investing heavily in resources and ports along Russia's northern coast.

---

---

Sometimes when folks feel they have made a distinction and it needs to be adhered to, they can become quite grounded in that position.

China would have Hong Kong'ed Greenland and turned it into a shipping hub, not unlike they did with Panama Canal. Wants you see it through those lenses it becomes much more obvious.

And it's part of the strategy. They don't need to invade other parts of the world to "conquer". They flood countries with their cheap goods and then make infrastructure improvements that they bill the locals for who then buy more cheap goods. In the meantime, they crater any industry the locals had and make the citizens subservient in some sort of slave labor like cobalt mining or setting up some cheap local manufacturing.

Like communism in the 1960s and 1970s, we are behind the 8 ball in challenging their progress. Trump is fixing it, and fixing it with more permanent solutions than just some BS the limp waisted want "yes Massa Dane, we sure would like permission to use our base in your country to protect ours, pretty pleases, hugs and kisses".

GAC06 said:

---

Yeah, there's a huge difference between "they tried to sell our only military base in Greenland to China" and "China wanted to buy a former naval base" presumably as a port but was rejected.

---

I agree there is a real distinction between those two.

However, China owning that base (and then presumably building up a military presence) on the same island as ours presents a LOT of problems.

I'm glad we were able to convince the Danes to stop that.

Quote:

---

and then presumably building up a military presence

---

Haven't seen anything presented showing that was ever even a possibility. Chinese own ports all over the world without any military presence. Still, obviously we're all in agreement that it was good it didn't happen.

I'm just saying "they wanted to sell our base to China" so we needed to get this new deal is laughable.

China shouldn't own any ports in the American hemisphere. Maybe that is what this big military meeting is going to discuss (not sure if Canada will be invited).

In the wake of the U.S. commando raid to seize Venezuela's Maduro and Trump's demands over Greenland, the Joint Chiefs chairman plans to convene a rare meeting of senior military leaders from across the Western Hemisphere https://t.co/jXmXhXGn0n

— Eric Schmitt (@EricSchmittNYT) January 24, 2026

People discounting Chinas intentions even just a bit seem to ignore the real possibility they try and act on Tawaiian.

Much of what Trump has done will have the Chicomms strongly reconsidering.

Regardless it weakens Xi and causes instability internally in the party leadership.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

and then presumably building up a military presence

---

Haven't seen anything presented showing that was ever even a possibility. Chinese own ports all over the world without any military presence. Still, obviously we're all in agreement that it was good it didn't happen.

I'm just saying "they wanted to sell our base to China" so we needed to get this new deal is laughable.

---

Let the Chinese succeed while we sit around on our thumbs. LOL. Weak sauce.

Try responding to things I've actually said

Soy? Or peanut sauce?

And yes, be strong now. There is momentum and there are multiple things not going optimally for China arsehole these days.

Now is not the time to fear the… wait for it… not the time to fear… the DANES and CANADIANS!

A lot of good information & insights in this Substack article.


Canada
If what we are witnessing is a Yalta-style agreement being forged by the superpowers, then it would be smart to remember that the US and Russia were once core Allied powers the "Big Three" Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin). They once fought together. Russia once saved our bacon. They coordinated strategy at Tehran in 1943 and Yalta in 1945 and over the massive US Lend-Lease program for the Red Army. The Soviets bore the brunt of ground fighting against Germany, while the US/UK focused on the West and Pacific. Are the Europeans and Canadians considering the possibility that they are pushing these superpowers back together again? Probably not. Yet, the unthinkable keeps happening. Our imagination is frozen by past assumptions. But, the Arctic shows us that ice breaks and cracks all the time, opening up possibilities we had not considered before.

https://open.substack.com/pub/drpippa/p/a-crack-in-the-ice-of-geopolitics?r=tfmfm&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay

I am old enough to remember when Russia was an ALLY in the GWOT. Whether it was supportive rhetoric, diplomatic efforts, and critical intelligence and non-military asset support.

And WWII is getting long enough in history where many generalize the "who was on what side" argument. The Nazis were really on their own. The Italians were reluctant partners in their efforts but their strategic goals were different, same with Japan. But people tend to think of all those bad guys as ideologically the same. I know many here understand that but there are many who do not.

Now what a majority are guilty of is assuming an ideological unity amongst the Allies. I think many can see Russia, who was a very, very, very reluctant associate of Churchill and FDR, was ideologically different than the western powers but again they then overlook that we are not ideologically aligned with the western powers we are so closely aligned with.

American exceptionalism is a whole different thing. Our Founding Fathers and early leaders had a quest for an improved, more equal but also hopeful society where people could build great things and fortunes. Manifest Destiny and such.

It's time to embrace our future and pursue things like the Monroe Doctrine, nationalism as a good thing, Christian values as a good thing, uniqueness as something actually celebrated and not demanded, and an ability to make some gotdern decisions for ourselves.

We do not need anyone's permission, agreement, support or whatever if we determine that an action is in furtherance of our values as a Nation, the Greatest Nation.

Great piece from what I could see. Makes sense;

Quote:

---

So, it's a property swap. If Europe wants Ukraine, the US wants Greenland. But the US already has the freedom to do what it likes in Greenland. Yes, but Denmark and the other NATO members are present on Greenland, so the US cannot really do anything in secret there. Why would the US need to act in secret? Well, it would become necessary if America's NATO partners started to align with America's most significant strategic security opponent, namely China. That is exactly what seems to be happening.
China

Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has just announced that Canada and China are now aligning. Carney reversed his 2025 statement "Our biggest security threat is China" to "Our partnership with China sets us up well for the New World Order". For Trump and many Americans, this is an astonishing flip. Carney's speech perfectly captured the immense gap in the framing of the problem. Carney said the "rules-based order" was nothing but a useful fiction. But, he said, "You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination." Trump would say "exactly". The US has paid for everybody else, much to the detriment of the American worker and American economy. Worse, nobody knows whether the US can count on NATO to help them now, especially if they are all lining up with China and calling the US a security threat. Greenland thus becomes even more important for American defence. Reports have surfaced that Canada is apparently already simulating a US invasion of Canada. The US-Canada relationship is on very thin ice right now. No doubt, Trump now views Greenland as important for managing a potentially unruly Canada and for addressing Russian threats.

Britain, too, has increasingly been leaning towards greater ties with China. The new Chinese Super Embassy in London is not actually in London. It is in The City of London, at Royal Mint Court near the Tower of London, which is a first. Embassies are normally not in The City. It will also sit within a few feet of the main data cables that contain all the information about the global financial transactions that run through The City. Remember that the UK stopped, or slowed, intelligence sharing with the USin response to the American aggression towards ships off the coast of Venezuela. The ODNI, Tulsi Gabbard, announced that the US stopped intelligence sharing with the European Five Eyes partners over Ukraine months ago. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Starmer heads to Beijing for a State visit next week.

---

Thx for sharing.

I just found her from the trigonometry guys show and she made several good points. Now I have subscribed to her Substack and need to look up her dad too.

nortex97 said:

---

Great piece from what I could see. Makes sense;

Quote:

---

So, it's a property swap. If Europe wants Ukraine, the US wants Greenland. But the US already has the freedom to do what it likes in Greenland. Yes, but Denmark and the other NATO members are present on Greenland, so the US cannot really do anything in secret there. Why would the US need to act in secret? Well, it would become necessary if America's NATO partners started to align with America's most significant strategic security opponent, namely China. That is exactly what seems to be happening.
China

Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has just announced that Canada and China are now aligning. Carney reversed his 2025 statement "Our biggest security threat is China" to "Our partnership with China sets us up well for the New World Order". For Trump and many Americans, this is an astonishing flip. Carney's speech perfectly captured the immense gap in the framing of the problem. Carney said the "rules-based order" was nothing but a useful fiction. But, he said, "You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, when integration becomes the source of your subordination." Trump would say "exactly". The US has paid for everybody else, much to the detriment of the American worker and American economy. Worse, nobody knows whether the US can count on NATO to help them now, especially if they are all lining up with China and calling the US a security threat. Greenland thus becomes even more important for American defence. Reports have surfaced that Canada is apparently already simulating a US invasion of Canada. The US-Canada relationship is on very thin ice right now. No doubt, Trump now views Greenland as important for managing a potentially unruly Canada and for addressing Russian threats.

Britain, too, has increasingly been leaning towards greater ties with China. The new Chinese Super Embassy in London is not actually in London. It is in The City of London, at Royal Mint Court near the Tower of London, which is a first. Embassies are normally not in The City. It will also sit within a few feet of the main data cables that contain all the information about the global financial transactions that run through The City. Remember that the UK stopped, or slowed, intelligence sharing with the USin response to the American aggression towards ships off the coast of Venezuela. The ODNI, Tulsi Gabbard, announced that the US stopped intelligence sharing with the European Five Eyes partners over Ukraine months ago. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Starmer heads to Beijing for a State visit next week.

---

Thx for sharing.

---

https://spectator.com/article/greenland-new-space-race/?edition=us

Another piece. Greenland is vital for the controller of space. And who owns space, will own future wars

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

and then presumably building up a military presence

---

Haven't seen anything presented showing that was ever even a possibility. Chinese own ports all over the world without any military presence. Still, obviously we're all in agreement that it was good it didn't happen.

I'm just saying "they wanted to sell our base to China" so we needed to get this new deal is laughable.

---

a) Yet

b) If you don't think all those ports aren't huge intelligence gathering bases, I don't know what to tell you.

c) The Panama Canal was controlled by them. Again, intelligence gathering.

d) Greenland would have been another one doing the same thing.

What intelligence do you think China was getting from Panama before that they can't now?

What intelligence do you think they'd get from a tiny port in Greenland? Greenland has less than 100 miles of paved roads and no railroads. Not exactly a recipe for a bustling shipping hub. Now maybe down the line if more commercially viable mineral deposits come around that could change somewhat.

In any case what are we even arguing about? I was simply refuting the claim that we needed a new deal because they wanted to sell our base to China, which was false.