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

[Yssup Rider]

I’d take it a step further.

Trump should be barred from the White House.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what we should do is just buy it from Denmark

How much do you think Greenland would cost to buy?
What effect would that have on US debt?
Snarkily, will tariffs pay for Greenland?

so what exactly happens if Poland attacks Germany?

Each of the members of NATO, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by RX792P

How much do you think Greenland would cost to buy?
What effect would that have on US debt?
Snarkily, will tariffs pay for Greenland?



Each of the members of NATO, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

there is no provision for what would happen if two NATO members attacked each other


thanks for clearing that up


and considering we've been protecting Greenland since 1941 they should give it to us for free unless they pay us about 2 trillion dollars for the last 81 years for protecting it.



Denmark couldn't protect the back end of their ass let along Greenland we've been covering it for them for 81 years

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I’d take it a step further.

Trump should be barred from the White House.

if you say so

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
what we should do is just buy it from Denmark

they should give it to us for free

OK, now that we have the fantasy...
How much do you think Greenland would cost?
$12.5 billion?
$1 trillion?

If Greenland is currently so well protected by the US already, why is there any 'need' to annex Greenland?

BTW, why would Poland invade Germany?

If defense/national security is the goal, what's wrong with cooperative enlargement of Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base)...a la Camp Humphreys, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Kadena Air Base/Air Station Iwakuni or even Ramstein.

Would be less expensive than buying Greenland and achieve a lot more good will and cooperation for the US than a 'takeover'.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by RX792P

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
what we should do is just buy it from Denmark


OK, now that we have the fantasy...
How much do you think Greenland would cost?
$12.5 billion?
$1 trillion?

If Greenland is currently so well protected by the US already, why is there any 'need' to annex Greenland?

BTW, why would Poland invade Germany?

If defense/national security is the goal, what's wrong with cooperative enlargement of Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base)...a la Camp Humphreys, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Kadena Air Base/Air Station Iwakuni or even Ramstein.

Would be less expensive than buying Greenland and achieve a lot more good will and cooperation for the US than a 'takeover'.

ok then what would happen if France attacked Belgium? you are ducking the question because there is no provision for that occurrence regardless of how unlikely it is.


show me one military base Denmark has in Greenland. we already have several bases and airfields in Greenland. Denmark has none.


guess which US president first discussed acquiring Greenland?


Andrew Johnson. yeah .. in 1867 .. you people amuse me thinking this some new thing Trump cooked up.


Nonsense!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed..._United_States

[pxmcc]

Denmark and Greenland have already offered Trump a beefed up security presence in Greenland. Trump said no.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/...105500996.html

why is that not good enough?

Trump can turn Greenland into a damn fuck-you-Russia-and-China porcupine with signoffs by both Greenland and Denmark. why does he have to be so damn greedy..

he's very undemocratic and un-American in his viewpoint..

#nokings..
#dontshitonyourfriends..
#NATO..
#keepthemoralhighground..

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Denmark and Greenland have already offered Trump a beefed up security presence in Greenland. Trump said no.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/...105500996.html

why is that not good enough?

Trump can turn Greenland into a damn fuck-you-Russia-and-China porcupine with signoffs by both Greenland and Denmark. why does he have to be so damn greedy..

he's very undemocratic and un-American in his viewpoint..

#nokings..
#dontshitonyourfriends..
#NATO..
#keepthemoralhighground..

A senior administration official, also granted anonymity to respond, disputed that the president has written off any negotiations.


and we're done here.


politico ..



bahahahahaaaaa

[RX792P]

Mostly deflection rather than discussion/response...who's ducking the question?

Yes, Article 5 is written rather 'flexibly'.

Why would France attack Belgium?
IIRC, neither Poland nor France have made any statements regarding the need for Germany or Belgium to be a part of Poland or France due to 'national security' or 'territorial claim'

Either (ditto US/Greenland) would throw NATO into major turmoil..which Russia/China would surely welcome.

show me one military base Denmark has in Greenland. we already have several bases and airfields in Greenland.

It's small.
Nuuk, Greenland, hosts the headquarters of Denmark's Joint Arctic Command
Kangerlussuaq hosts Danish F16s


Several? What bases/airfield does the US have in Greenland outside of Pituffik Space Base? Surely you're not including Camp Century.
Pituffik Space Base is not very large either, hosts around 150 U.S. Air Force and Space Force personnel, alongside Danish and Canadian military members and civilian contractors, totaling roughly 600-650 personnel, with the U.S. contingent being about 150.



Larger question remains unanswered...

If defense/national security is the goal, what's wrong with cooperative enlargement of Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base)...a la Camp Humphreys, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Kadena Air Base/Air Station Iwakuni or even Ramstein.

The 1951 Greenland Defense 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.

[elghund]

Originally Posted by RX792P

Mostly deflection rather than discussion/response...who's ducking the question?

Yes, Article 5 is written rather 'flexibly'.

Why would France attack Belgium?
IIRC, neither Poland nor France have made any statements regarding the need for Germany or Belgium to be a part of Poland or France due to 'national security' or 'territorial claim'

Either (ditto US/Greenland) would throw NATO into major turmoil..which Russia/China would surely welcome.



It's small.
Nuuk, Greenland, hosts the headquarters of Denmark's Joint Arctic Command
Kangerlussuaq hosts Danish F16s


Several? What bases/airfield does the US have in Greenland outside of Pituffik Space Base? Surely you're not including Camp Century.
Pituffik Space Base is not very large either, hosts around 150 U.S. Air Force and Space Force personnel, alongside Danish and Canadian military members and civilian contractors, totaling roughly 600-650 personnel, with the U.S. contingent being about 150.



Larger question remains unanswered...

If defense/national security is the goal, what's wrong with cooperative enlargement of Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base)...a la Camp Humphreys, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Kadena Air Base/Air Station Iwakuni or even Ramstein.

The 1951 Greenland Defense 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.

If the US simply negotiates expanded military bases and presence, which would probably be welcome……Trumps larger objective won’t be met.

Renaming Greenland to Trumpland…….

elg….

[The_Waco_Kid]

lots of whataboutism here ...

Originally Posted by RX792P

Mostly deflection rather than discussion/response...who's ducking the question?

Yes, Article 5 is written rather 'flexibly'.

Why would France attack Belgium?
IIRC, neither Poland nor France have made any statements regarding the need for Germany or Belgium to be a part of Poland or France due to 'national security' or 'territorial claim'


still does not show any article detailing what would happen if hostilities developed between two NATO members .. because there isn't any. it wasn't considered then or now. it was all about the USSR


Either (ditto US/Greenland) would throw NATO into major turmoil..which Russia/China would surely welcome.

and if that did happen which is very unlikely what would China and Russia do? attack? they aren't that stupid and Russia showed the world rather infamously they aren't the military badasses they used to be. if they ever were. maybe in the cold war era but that's ancient history



the western military analysts were shocked Russia floundered out of the gate in Ukraine. Putin really did think he could take Ukraine in a matter of weeks. that didn't happen.


It's small.
Nuuk, Greenland, hosts the headquarters of Denmark's Joint Arctic Command
Kangerlussuaq hosts Danish F16s


Several? What bases/airfield does the US have in Greenland outside of Pituffik Space Base? Surely you're not including Camp Century.
Pituffik Space Base is not very large either, hosts around 150 U.S. Air Force and Space Force personnel, alongside Danish and Canadian military members and civilian contractors, totaling roughly 600-650 personnel, with the U.S. contingent being about 150.

which is considerably more than Denmark has

Larger question remains unanswered...

If defense/national security is the goal, what's wrong with cooperative enlargement of Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base)...a la Camp Humphreys, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Kadena Air Base/Air Station Iwakuni or even Ramstein.

The 1951 Greenland Defense 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.

it's not the military presence alone it's resources. speaking of 1951 Truman offered 100 million to Denmark. they turned it down but it shows the US interest in acquiring Greenland goes back to Andrew Jackson. Trump is not the first president with interest in Greenland as a US territory.


"Trump is actually not the first U.S official to mull buying Greenland. It came up while Andrew Jackson was president in the 19th century."



https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/greenl...iner-1.5255027

[RX792P]

Truly scary guy Stephen Miller
(who knows or should know the answers to these questions)

“The real question is, by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?"

In proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention respecting the cession of the Danish West-Indian Islands to the United States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.

Robert Lansing

New York, August 4, 1916.

https://history.state.gov/historical.../frus1917/d881


Greenland is not a colony of Denmark; it is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with extensive autonomy and the right to independence, though it retains close ties and relies on Denmark for some areas like foreign policy and defense. While Greenland was a Danish colony for centuries (1721-1953) and experienced assimilation policies, it gained Home Rule in 1979 and full Self-Government in 2009, allowing it control over most internal affairs.

I would opine the real questions are:
By what right does the United States propose to assert control over Greenland?
What is the basis of a United States territorial claim?
What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony/state/property of the United States?

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

lots of whataboutism here ...

it's not the military presence alone it's resources. speaking of 1951 Truman offered 100 million to Denmark. they turned it down but it shows the US interest in acquiring Greenland goes back to Andrew Jackson. Trump is not the first president with interest in Greenland as a US territory.


"Trump is actually not the first U.S official to mull buying Greenland. It came up while Andrew Jackson was president in the 19th century."



https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/greenl...iner-1.5255027

You're right Trump is not the only one to try to buy Greenland. However, I'd opine that's irrelevant to this discussion...unless you want to focus on the part where neither Greenland nor Denmark were/are interested in a sale.

it's not the military presence alone it's resources.

Trump claims

"We need Greenland for national security, not minerals."

Surely Trump is not prevaricating about his real interest?

Snarkily...it can't be melting sea ice opening up new shipping routes through the Arctic can it?...climate change is a hoax...

I strongly concur with Greenland being a key part of security strategy. Much to some person's dismay, even PBS agrees
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/h...rctic-security

But I also believe a much better strategy is cooperation rather than a 'forced take-over', especially when the means for cooperation and expansion of US bases is already in place.

[69in2it69]

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Partie


I'm pretty sure if we are the attacker, of how the rest of the European NATO members will view us.


However, member states could theoretically declare another member in "material breach" of treaty obligations, which might lead to suspension or termination of their membership.

NATO emphasizes shared values and collective defense, making expulsion politically complex and unlikely without significant consensus among member states.


Note the last sentence. Significant, not universal.

[Yssup Rider]

The PM of Denmark has said that if the Trump moves against Greenland, then NATO will be over.

Which is what the poster boy for the 25th Amendment wants.

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The PM of Denmark has said that if the Trump moves against Greenland, then NATO will be over.

Which is what the poster boy for the 25th Amendment wants.

He thinks he can carve up the world for him and his dictator friends in Russia and China. Just image if Russia seized Greenland from the US, China took Puerto Rico and Mexico laid claims to all it's old territories. All in the name of THEIR NATIONAL SECURITY. What would old shitler do then? But then I feel like some regular posters here are familiar with either Russian or Chinese.


FYI.


CaliforniaEntire stateNevadaEntire stateUtahEntire stateNew MexicoEntire stateArizonaMost of the stateColoradoWestern halfWyomingSouthwestern cornerKansasParts of the stateOklahomaParts of the stateTexasRecognized claims only