Reply With Quote
we're already the main military presence there, all we'd have to do is land more soldiers and materiel there and declare Greenland under US control, tbh
If you tried to make a movie about this, everyone would say you're stupid..... no way anyone would let a rogue president attempt to take over Greenland. Too much red tape and too many people would stop it from happening.
we're already the main military presence there, all we'd have to do is land more soldiers and materiel there and declare Greenland under US control, tbh
Wouldn't even have to make it a state. Just them over with a "territory" designation like Puerto Rico, etc
THUNE: NOT SURE I HAVE VOTES TO STOP WAR POWERS ACT VOTE TODAY
Oh yeah? 50% tariff increase in Swedish imports like meatballs if they try to resist!
Brave ST Trump s making the case for acquiring Greenland ITT.
Danish Parliament Member: People in Greenland are very nervous, as I think any people would be if threatened with invasion. They don't deserve this. They've been very loyal to the Americans. There is no illegitimate government. There's no drug trafficking. There is nothing that can justify this.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans defeat Venezuela war powers resolution, bowing to Trump’s pressure as Vance casts tie-breaking vote.
Hypothesis: if Trump invades Greenland, he's starting WWIII
(France has nukes too)
No no, Greenland has to be trafficking fentanyl through Canada so we must arrest their evil prime minister and control their oil.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/0...blems-00729246Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s desire to control the Arctic territory, Denmark’s foreign minister said Wednesday.
Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, finally had their chance to try to turn down the temperature at the White House after more than a year of aggressive internet trolling, statements and demands from the U.S. Their conversation did little to dissuade Trump and his team from their hold on Greenland.
“We didn’t manage to change the American position,” Rasmussen told reporters after the meeting. “It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland. We made it very, very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom.”
Rasmussen and Motzfeldt took pains to describe the session as respectful, frank and constructive but their frustration that their longtime ally would not cooperate was clear.
“It is of course very emotional for all of us,” Rasmussen said.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-trump/685612/Boysen struck a similar note in our conversation. He has been head of the army since 2024, helping lead a military buildup that stretches eastward to the Baltic Sea island of Bornholm and westward to Greenland. Historically, Denmark’s military hasn’t had a large permanent presence on Greenland, though its Joint Arctic Command is headquartered in the capital, Nuuk, and there are additional personnel at Station Nord, the northernmost military base in the world, as well as several other outposts. Despite Trump’s claims that adversaries are bearing down on the island, Boysen said Denmark’s foreign-intelligence service hasn’t identified an imminent threat—“from Russia or China or anybody else.” Current and former U.S. officials told me the same.
Boysen said Denmark deployed units totaling about 600 soldiers to the Arctic last year. With new conscription rules adding to the ranks of the Danish army, as well as joint NATO priorities in the polar region, he said the country’s “ability to operate up there will increase.” Danish authorities expect allies to step up their footprint on Greenland as well, Boysen told me, pointing to a Denmark-led exercise on the island in 2025, which included France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway. “So again,” he said, “I think some of our key allies would want to join us, including the Americans, on Greenland.”
But Trump seems intent on a different path. He has ridiculed existing efforts to defend Greenland, and insisted that the United States must own the island, which has enjoyed home rule within the Kingdom of Denmark since 1979. A Cold War–era agreement signed by Denmark and the United States gave Washington broad la ude to conduct military operations on the territory, and the U.S. Space Force currently has a base on the island’s northwest coast. Rasmus Jarlov, a Danish lawmaker, told me that the Trump administration has yet to articulate a single objective on Greenland, aside from acquiring it. “That’s the challenge we have,” Jarlov said. “And, of course, since they already have full access, it’s a little hard to improve.”
“But,” the lawmaker added with a laugh, “we’re willing to try.”
What would be a big problem, for everyone, is a U.S. military incursion in Greenland. For one thing, Article 5 of NATO’s charter compels members of the alliance to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. (It doesn’t contemplate what happens if NATO members attack one another.) There’s also a royal decree from 1952, issued in response to Denmark’s humiliating rout by Nazi forces in the Second World War, that compels the country’s soldiers to fight back if their territory is invaded. Boysen was unequivocal in describing the decree as a fact of military service. “You have to,” he said. “It’s an obligation.”
When I asked whether Danish forces would really fight back against Americans, he demurred. “This is highly political,” he said. “And I’m just a soldier.”
the UK is sending just one guy
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/healey-uk-...175832915.html'UK Defence Secretary John Healey says a British military officer is supporting a Danish "reconnaissance group" in Greenland ... to bolster security in the region against Russian "aggression" & "any Chinese activity"
NATO tripwire against US attack
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/15/gree...tic-trump.htmlDenmark, which is responsible for Greenland’s defense, Germany, France, Sweden and Norway have all confirmed plans to send military personnel to the sparsely populated island this week.
"Russian" aggression?
however
if the US kills that one British officer when attacking Greenland, we'd be technically at war with the UK
very limited solidarity with Europe's defense
UK is hedging its bet for/against demented US leadership
https://canadiangeographic.ca/articl...-on-greenland/Manitok Thompson, Nunavut’s first female cabinet minister, agrees. “What are we … to be bought by anyone like slaves in (the) 1800s? We are so upset with that idea. It’s a paternalistic at ude.”
Inuit in Canada are standing with Greenland, she says. “Buying countries is Stone Age mentality.”
For Nivi Rosing, who studied in Ottawa before becoming Greenland’s current youngest member of parliament, the idea that colonial powers are still trying to gain control over her country is unfathomable.
“We are in 2026,” she says. “We’re so past colonial times. We’re a recognized people. We have our own government, we have our own prime minister, and we are getting ready for our independence.”
Since 2018, during Trump’s first term, Greenland has been vocal about rejecting American influence, she says. “We’re open for cooperation, but on respectful terms. But they don’t seem to respect that.”
sadly, becoming a US territory is far from the worst available fate for Greenland
the Insular Cases are still good US law
https://boltsmag.org/prosecuted-for-...amoans-alaska/Unlike people born in the other U.S. territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoans are classified simply as “U.S. nationals”—a sort of limbo state that acknowledges they are American by birth, but still denied the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
Even though they pay taxes, owe “allegiance” by law to the United States, and can join or be drafted into the military—American Samoans have long served in and died for the U.S. military at exceptionally high rates—non-citizen American Samoan nationals cannot register to vote, run for office, serve on juries, or hold any job requiring citizenship.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-16-2026 at 04:50 PM.
https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/up...2011-pdf-1.pdfThe ratio decidendi for the novel judicial territorial policy of the Insular Cases was laid forth in the Court’s 1901 decision in Downes v. Bidwell: “It is obvious that in the annexation of outlying and distant possessions grave questions will arise from the differences of race, habits, laws and customs of the people, and from the differences of soil, climate and production, which may require action on the part of Congress that would be quite unnecessary in the annexation of contiguous territory inhabited only by people of the same race or by scattered bodies of native Indians.”
By virtue of this judicial cons utional fiat, the U.S. territories and their inhabitants have now for over a century been treated in an anomalously separate and unequal manner. For example, in 1901, the Court held that the Uniformity Clause of the Cons ution, which provides that “all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” did not apply to unincorporated territories. After that, in 1903 and 1922, the Court held that citizens of the unincorporated territories of Hawai‘i and Puerto Rico were not en led to indictment by grand jury nor trial by jury, as these were not fundamental rights. Following in these footsteps, in 1924, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, whose members themselves were presidential appointees at that time, went so far as to hold that the Nineteenth Amendment, which grants suffrage rights to women, was not a fundamental right. Hence, women in Puerto Rico were not en led to vote at the time. In 1978 and 1980, the Insular Cases were again relied upon by the Supreme Court when it dismissed cons utional challenges against significant discrimination in Social Security and federal welfare programs to U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico.7
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of its own concocted doctrine has been fraught with irreconcilable inconsistencies. In the early Insular Cases, the Court held that Hawai‘i, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines were unincorporated territories when they were acquired in 1898. However, in Hawai‘i v. Mankichi, the Court concluded that, by virtue of the Hawai‘i Organic Act of 1990, which conferred U.S. citizenship to native Hawaiians, the territory became incorporated. The inhabitants of Puerto Rico, by virtue of their 1917 Organic Act, likewise became U.S. citizens.
Rep. Thomas Spight of Mississippi, for example, commented that the Filipinos, who “[are] Asiatics, Malays, negroes and of mixed blood have nothing in common with us and centuries cannot assimilate them. … They can never be clothed with the rights of American citizenship nor their territory be admitted as a State of the American Union.” His colleague, Rep. Champ Clark of Missouri, spoke of Hawai‘ians in a similar demeaning tone: “How can we endure our shame, when a Chinese Senator from Hawai‘i, with his pig-tail hanging down his back, with his pagan joss in his hand, shall rise from his curule chair and in pidgin English proceed to chop logic with George Frisbie Hoar or Henry Cabot Lodge.”2
Matters fared no better in the U.S. Senate, as Sen. William Bate of Tennessee remarked: “[B]eware of these mongrels of the East, with breath of pestilence and touch of leprosy. Do not let them become part of us with their idolatry, poly- gamous creeds and harem habits.” And Sen. Albert Beveridge of Indiana sounded just like the leader of the future Third Reich: “God has not been preparing the Englishspeaking and Teutonic peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle self-contemplation and selfadmiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish a system where chaos reigns. He has made us adept in government that we may administer government among the savage and servile peoples.”3
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
