Congress Needs To Pass a Law Barring Trump from Attacking Greenland etc. Without an Act of Congress, Anything Is Possible..

It is true that Greenland sits in a highly desirable geopolitical location. It is true that both Russia and China would love to take advantage of that location.

It is also true that, for much less cost (financial and global standing) than 'acquiring' Greenland, the US could greatly increase our military presence in Greenland...basically as much expansion as the US wants.

The only glitch is that NATO must give a thumbs up to the increased presence. Had the US been 'friendly' to NATO the last year rather than 'hostile', that thumbs up would be a given.

Underneath Trump's rants are the 'strategic minerals' in Greenland. OTOH, to mine those minerals would require gigantic costs just to build an infrastructure, never mind the actual mining costs.

It is true that Greenland sits in a highly desirable geopolitical location. It is true that both Russia and China would love to take advantage of that location.

It is also true that, for much less cost (financial and global standing) than 'acquiring' Greenland, the US could greatly increase our military presence in Greenland...basically as much expansion as the US wants.

The only glitch is that NATO must give a thumbs up to the increased presence. Had the US been 'friendly' to NATO the last year rather than 'hostile', that thumbs up would be a given.

Underneath Trump's rants are the 'strategic minerals' in Greenland. OTOH, to mine those minerals would require gigantic costs just to build an infrastructure, never mind the actual mining costs. Originally Posted by RX792P

nonsense. NATO can't dictate individual member's sovereign actions. during Trump's first term Poland contracted to the US money for additional US troops in Poland. they are paying us for our troops protecting Poland.



NATO had nothing to do with it and has no power to block it.

Explain why paying “zillions of Trumps greenbacks” would benefit the USA, when we can have any and all bases in Greenland without the expense of buying the country, and paying annually to support the infrastructure and citizens.

elg… Originally Posted by elghund

and if Denmark refuses new US military presence what then? we buy it and do it anyway.

Uh...WWII...1941-1945.
1945 to 2026....81-85 years.

I stated over 100 years.

Stop trying to misdirect. Denmark was gracious to let us use the place. You know, that territory that we traded the soverignty (sp) of another territory OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

Your orange baby is pouting and wants to treat Denmark like one of his contractors and sucker out of the deal. Originally Posted by Precious_b

once again your history is faulty interest in Greenland goes back much farther to Andrew Jackson in 1832. it was over 100 years later Truman offered 100 million for Greenland


Early U.S. Interest in Greenland:[COLOR=var(--jINu6c)][/COLOR]

• Jackson's Proposal (1832): Jackson's administration floated the idea of acquiring Greenland, part of a broader push for U.S. expansion.
• Seward's Vision (1867): Secretary of State William Seward, after acquiring Alaska, saw Greenland as strategically important, aiming to pressure Canada and control North Atlantic routes.
• Truman's Offer (1946): After occupying Greenland during World War II, President Harry Truman offered $100 million to buy it, which Denmark refused.

and if Denmark refuses new US military presence what then? we buy it and do it anyway.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Two things, I disagree with your premise that we “buy it and do it anyway….”

First that leaves unanswered by you my original question……we can’t afford taking care of our own infrastructure, somwherecarectyevfunds coming from to buy a fucking country and take on converting it to a state, that end up subsidizing like so other states.

Second…..the Danes and Greenlanders have already said they would not oppose new bases.

elg….

nonsense. NATO can't dictate individual member's sovereign actions. during Trump's first term Poland contracted to the US money for additional US troops in Poland. they are paying us for our troops protecting Poland.

You really need to do better research.

The 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement allowed the United States to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or "defense areas" if deemed necessary by NATO.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

Trump isn’t willing to take yes for an answer.

We, as Americans, can’t allow him to play these potentially catastrophic games with world security. He doesn’t read the laws. He doesn’t give a shit about the laws and rules agreed upon by all of our allied nations.

He’s a dead man walking and should be removed.

Trying to decipher this Trump statement regarding Greenland PM Jens-Frederik Nielsen's comment "If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark".

TRUMP
"I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. I don’t know anything about him. But, that’s going to be a big problem for him".

You're making massive attempts to take over a country but you 'don't know' who the elected leader of that country is or 'anything about him'?
SSSSSUUUUURRRRRE

Germany has joined other NATO allies like Sweden, Canada, and the Netherlands to send troops to Greenland as President Donald Trump intensifies his threats to take over the country.

Troops will be deployed to the northern territory this week, according to reports.

...
once again your history is faulty interest in Greenland goes back much farther to Andrew Jackson in 1832. it was over 100 years later Truman offered 100 million for Greenland
...Proposal...Vision...Offer
...
After occupying Greenland during World War II, President Harry Truman offered $100 million to buy it, which Denmark refused. [/LIST] Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Your better than this. You maggies are better than this. But you consciously choose not to be. And this is your failing. Because you can't counter what someone post, you have to start calling into question facts with suppositions.
The fact: there is a signed agreement between USA and Denmark over 100 years old.

The counter counter: Proposal. Was this Proposal. a signed agreement? Is there any documentation that moved this Proposal. to a fully expanded document with signatures of delegates/officials from both sides.

I got $$$$$$$ there isn't

Next: Vision. Everyone has a vision. This ain't a document. This is not a signed agreement. This is *I have concepts of a plan* This is a limp wrist response from a person who has nothing but has to do something in the hopes that no one will see they offering 'nuttin burgers.

Finally: Offer. There are offers everyday. They are even drawn up. But can you produce the document that moved forward from the offer to a signed agreement?

No.

This is why the lot of y'all maggies are gonna look back and see what a complete lot of ass jockeys that went bankrupt following a delusional hypocrite who is in the throws of succumbing to the same illness that took his daddy.

Y'all need to wake up.

Come back with at least a pithy comment AND fact that can disprove that the USA let Denmark have Greenland in trade for the Virgin Islands. Don't pretend that it was taken from us.

Don't let your maggie breathren take us back to the days of Imperialism and Nation building. It had repugnant aftershocks.

You really need to do better research.

The 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement allowed the United States to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or "defense areas" if deemed necessary by NATO.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp Originally Posted by RX792P

^^^^^^ THIS !!!!! ^^^^^^^

An intelligent response.

A thought out reply stating the facts clearly, concisely, precisely without hint of condescending tone.
And *drumroll* a link supporting said statement.

Take notes, maggies. If you want to be taken seriously, stop thinking that screaming a lie loudly, repeatedly, and ignoring any sentient replies to it will make it true.

Your better than this. You maggies are better than this. But you consciously choose not to be. And this is your failing. Because you can't counter what someone post, you have to start calling into question facts with suppositions.
The fact: there is a signed agreement between USA and Denmark over 100 years old.

The counter counter: Proposal. Was this Proposal. a signed agreement? Is there any documentation that moved this Proposal. to a fully expanded document with signatures of delegates/officials from both sides.

I got $$$$$$$ there isn't

Next: Vision. Everyone has a vision. This ain't a document. This is not a signed agreement. This is *I have concepts of a plan* This is a limp wrist response from a person who has nothing but has to do something in the hopes that no one will see they offering 'nuttin burgers.

Finally: Offer. There are offers everyday. They are even drawn up. But can you produce the document that moved forward from the offer to a signed agreement?

No.

This is why the lot of y'all maggies are gonna look back and see what a complete lot of ass jockeys that went bankrupt following a delusional hypocrite who is in the throws of succumbing to the same illness that took his daddy.

Y'all need to wake up.

Come back with at least a pithy comment AND fact that can disprove that the USA let Denmark have Greenland in trade for the Virgin Islands. Don't pretend that it was taken from us.

Don't let your maggie breathren take us back to the days of Imperialism and Nation building. It had repugnant aftershocks.



^^^^^^ THIS !!!!! ^^^^^^^

An intelligent response.

A thought out reply stating the facts clearly, concisely, precisely without hint of condescending tone.
And *drumroll* a link supporting said statement.

Take notes, maggies. If you want to be taken seriously, stop thinking that screaming a lie loudly, repeatedly, and ignoring any sentient replies to it will make it true. Originally Posted by Precious_b

what's the bet again?


oh look! here's that SIGNED Agreement you think doesn't exist!


What was the 1951 agreement between the US and Greenland?


It has had bases there since the Second World War. The 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement allowed the United States to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or "defense areas" if deemed necessary by NATO.


Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, April 27, 1951


https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp


now about this part of your statement .. google AI says you are wrong


your false claim ...


"Come back with at least a pithy comment AND fact that can disprove that the USA let Denmark have Greenland in trade for the Virgin Islands. Don't pretend that it was taken from us."


google says ..


The U.S. didn't trade Greenland
to Denmark for the Virgin Islands; rather, the 1917 treaty where the U.S. bought the Danish West Indies (now U.S. Virgin Islands) included a Danish-requested agreement where the U.S. recognized Denmark's sovereignty over all of Greenland in exchange for Denmark selling the Caribbean islands, solidifying U.S. security interests in the Caribbean during World War I and preventing German acquisition. While there were earlier discussions about a complex trade involving Greenland and Philippine islands, the actual deal was a direct sale of the West Indies with a Greenland clause, not a direct land swap

we bought the Virgin Islands sport. we call it the US Virgin Islands now. because we bought them.


arguing against facts you don't like isn't a good look young man.

So, Waco_Kid,
You agree that the US already has the ability to establish new bases or "defense areas" (to whatever level) if deemed necessary by NATO.

Thus making 'acquisition' of Greenland by the US unnecessary to provide adequate 'national security'.

Thanks.

So, Waco_Kid,
You agree that the US already has the ability to establish new bases or "defense areas" (to whatever level) if deemed necessary by NATO.

Thus making 'acquisition' of Greenland by the US unnecessary to provide adequate 'national security'.

Thanks. Originally Posted by RX792P

and if NATO doesn't deem it necessary? they should of course knowing as we all do Greenland's significance since WWI? yes WWI. even more so since WWII. you do know Germany attempted to occupy Greenland and the US prevented it?



Germany did not successfully invade and occupy Greenland, but they made attempts during WWII to establish weather stations and gain strategic presence, which were largely thwarted by the U.S. and its allies who declared Greenland a de facto protectorate under the 1941 Defense Agreement with Denmark. The conflict became a covert Arctic war, with the U.S. Coast Guard and forces fighting German patrols and destroying their weather stations, preventing a full German takeover.



Germany's Goal in Greenland:

• Strategic Importance: Greenland was vital for controlling Atlantic weather patterns, crucial for both sides in the war.
• Cryolite: The island's Ivittuut mine supplied cryolite, essential for aluminum production, making it a key resource.
• Weather Stations: Germany aimed to establish meteorological stations to provide vital weather data for U-boat operations in the Atlantic.

Allied Response & Defense:

• Defense Agreement: After Germany occupied Denmark in 1940, the U.S. signed a defense pact with Denmark's ambassador in Washington (acting independently) in 1941, making the U.S. responsible for Greenland's security.
• U.S. Forces: American troops built bases, guarded mines, and actively fought German incursions, turning Greenland into a key U.S. military outpost.
• Covert Operations: U.S. Coast Guard personnel, disguised as volunteers, patrolled the coasts, destroying German stations and intercepting personnel.

The Outcome:

• While German reconnaissance planes flew over and small teams landed, their efforts to set up permanent, functional weather stations were largely unsuccessful due to Allied pressure.
• The U.S. successfully maintained control, denying Germany a strategic foothold in North America.

Trump intends to prevent either China or Russia (or a coalition of both) from controlling Greenland in any way, certainly not militarily and also economically.



at the minimum Trump is once again forcing slacker NATO to step up their game yet again.

and if NATO doesn't deem it necessary?

Poor argument.

There's no indication whatsoever (rather than Trump's continuous wailing about NATO) that NATO would be other than happy for a greatly increased US military presence in NATO.

OTOH, if Trump's real goal is to 'own' the 'strategic minerals' in Greenland...
Never mind that there's no economical or practical method of getting to those strategic minerals under the ice pack...obviously Trump didn't worry about similar problems with Venezuela crude oil.

an interesting 'transactional' analysis of the US attempts to 'acquire' Greenland. Worth a five minute read.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...-on-Earth.html

I can’t fuckin believe this is still a thing.

I can’t fuckin believe this is still a thing. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

shit be gettin realer tho. Europe deploys troops to Greenland. now they gotta worry about Trump as much as Putin. it's effing madness..

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ys-2026-01-14/

the Senate almost grew some nuts and nearly passed a a War Powers Act for Venezuela. of course i support that legislation. but a Greenland War Powers Act is on a whole nother level.

i haven't researched it yet, but anyone know if the Senate alone can stop the President? my guess would be no, but Trump certainly twisted some arms to get his desired outcome. my guess would be to nip it in the bud.

Republican senators need to choose country over party. not a single Democratic senator supports taking Greenland by force. secretly, my guess is a good number of Republican senators-and Congressmen-know what a fucking disaster a military invasion of Greenland would be. time to stand up and be counted tho. private concerns and intra-caucus whispers aint worth squat..