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

[The_Waco_Kid]

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.

over how? NATO folds? attacks the US? attacks each other? attacks evil Russia? China?


explain!!!!


who said this ..


Dwight D. Eisenhower's notable statements on NATO emphasize collective security, shared sacrifice, and the necessity for European self-reliance, famously stating in 1951 that if American troops weren't back home in ten years, NATO would have failed, and warning later about European nations becoming "suckers out of Uncle Sam" by not contributing enough to their own defense, stressing shared effort over unilateral burden-sharing to maintain peace


Ike was right. he was also supreme commander of .. NATO. and then he was president.



if NATO still needs the US in 2026 it is a failure. it was a failure long ago.

[RX792P]

From the White House in a statement to Reuters

President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal.

Hmm...wonder where we've heard that sort of rhetoric before...


Russian President Vladimir Putin has consistently framed Russia's actions in Ukraine, including the 2022 invasion, as necessary for Russian national security...as well as framing those actions as 'self defense'.


Oh yeah....that's where...

https://legal-resources.uslegalforms...boat-diplomacy

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

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







if you say so

He quoted the provision for you. If it specifically states otherwise, i'm sure you can run along and find that link for us and than do a neener neener and get some well deserved satisfaction from it. Otherwise, as a previous poster noted, you are deflecting the convo. That is a shame since a serious and sincere dialog can occur with the subject.

As for somebody paying back the USA. You seem to forget all about the cold war. Greenland/Denmark had a request to put bases there. Uncle Sam wanted to keep an eye on Stalin and such. Greenland could have said "no". Where would that have left us? No warning of attacks until it hit the Dew Line? We would have been blind and the Bear would have been on the back porch before we knew it. It would have cost shit tons more without those bases. Somebody mention cooperation here. It seems to have worked for everyones benefit.

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.

Oh. He likes to deflect.

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

And who is the source of this whataboutism? That source could make this more meaningful converstation.

And Truman offer shows what I said about us wanting to protect our back door. A compromise to out right purchase was made. Seems to have worked this long. Don't break something if it ain't broken. And at this critical time, any improvement can wait till a better time.

Originally Posted by 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.

Oh, you don't need to explain that. The link supplied stated enough. Some people just can't accept it when they can't find anything to counter it. They would do better with their time writing their congressman than whine on a hooker board.

[pxmcc]

Greenland War Powers vote may happen in the Senate. seriously needed..

https://www.politico.com/live-update...llego-00712605

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

He quoted the provision for you. If it specifically states otherwise, i'm sure you can run along and find that link for us and than do a neener neener and get some well deserved satisfaction from it. Otherwise, as a previous poster noted, you are deflecting the convo. That is a shame since a serious and sincere dialog can occur with the subject.


he quoted a bland nothing burger statute show me what it proves if NATO A attacks NATO B


it doesn't define the What IF?


As for somebody paying back the USA. You seem to forget all about the cold war. Greenland/Denmark had a request to put bases there. Uncle Sam wanted to keep an eye on Stalin and such. Greenland could have said "no". Where would that have left us? No warning of attacks until it hit the Dew Line? We would have been blind and the Bear would have been on the back porch before we knew it. It would have cost shit tons more without those bases. Somebody mention cooperation here. It seems to have worked for everyones benefit.



Oh. He likes to deflect.

if you say so

And who is the source of this whataboutism? That source could make this more meaningful converstation.

And Truman offer shows what I said about us wanting to protect our back door. A compromise to out right purchase was made. Seems to have worked this long. Don't break something if it ain't broken. And at this critical time, any improvement can wait till a better time.


No. now is the time before time runs out.



Oh, you don't need to explain that. The link supplied stated enough. Some people just can't accept it when they can't find anything to counter it. They would do better with their time writing their congressman than whine on a hooker board.

the link. it proves nothing more than the bible does to believers


bahaha

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Greenland War Powers vote may happen in the Senate. seriously needed..

https://www.politico.com/live-update...llego-00712605

Congress .. idiots bahahaa oh my are they gonna have a hissy fit?


bahhahahaa

[ICU 812]

Greenland: After Venezuela . . .and Iraq and Afghanistan and Panama and Grenada and Viet Nam . . . .folks automatically think of invasion with fighting.

but there could be another way.

Suppose we just BUY Greenland or lease it? Say we offer ten billion dollars to Denmark. Make it in Gold Bars, I don't care. Make the deal pending g on a referendum by the people living in Greenland. Then offer them a million dollars (cash or gold) for every man, woman and child and see how that vote turns out. Resettlement expenses could be a sweeter as well.

Then see how that vote turns out.

Might not need Congress to approve the money if the 12 billion or so is found with a DODGE style effort. Just make everyone a contractor toan agency and pay them.

The president is, at her, a real estate developer. /this approach would be much like buying up all the condos in a city block for a tear-down and building a 40 tory office tower.

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Greenland: After Venezuela . . .and Iraq and Afghanistan and Panama and Grenada and Viet Nam . . . .folks automatically think of invasion with fighting.

but there could be another way.

Suppose we just BUY Greenland or lease it? Say we offer ten billion dollars to Denmark. Make it in Gold Bars, I don't care. Make the deal pending g on a referendum by the people living in Greenland. Then offer them a million dollars (cash or gold) for every man, woman and child and see how that vote turns out. Resettlement expenses could be a sweeter as well.

Then see how that vote turns out.

Might not need Congress to approve the money if the 12 billion or so is found with a DODGE style effort. Just make everyone a contractor toan agency and pay them.

The president is, at her, a real estate developer. /this approach would be much like buying up all the condos in a city block for a tear-down and building a 40 tory office tower.

I think I'd like someone else handling the deal...


1. Trump Taj Mahal (1991)



Opened in April 1990, the Trump Taj Mahal was financed with $675 million in junk bonds at a 14% interest rate. Within a year, the casino couldn’t meet its debt obligations and filed for bankruptcy in 1991. Trump agreed to give up 50% ownership to bondholders in exchange for more favorable terms. [1]


2. Trump Castle (1992)



In March 1992, Trump Castle, another Atlantic City casino, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The prepackaged bankruptcy plan aimed to restructure the casino’s debt and reduce interest payments. [2]


3. Trump Plaza Hotel (1992)



The Plaza Hotel in New York, acquired by Trump in 1988 for $390 million, filed for bankruptcy in November 1992. Under the reorganization plan, Trump gave up a 49% stake to lenders to alleviate the hotel’s $550 million debt burden. [3]


4. Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts (2004)



In 2004, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, the parent company of Trump’s casino holdings, filed for bankruptcy due to mounting debts exceeding $1.8 billion. The restructuring plan included a $400 million bailout, and Trump reduced his ownership stake from 56% to 27%. [4]


5. Trump Entertainment Resorts (2009)



Following the 2008 financial crisis, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for bankruptcy in February 2009. The company cited declining revenues and a $1.25 billion debt load. Trump resigned from the board shortly before the filing, distancing himself from the company’s financial troubles. [5]


6. Trump Entertainment Resorts (2014)



In September 2014, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for bankruptcy again, primarily due to ongoing financial struggles at the Trump Taj Mahal. The company reported liabilities between $100 million and $500 million, with assets of no more than $50,000. [6]


Trump's Financial Obligations

Overview of Debt

Donald Trump has significant financial obligations due in the next few years, primarily consisting of loans linked to his real estate assets.
Key Details

Deutsche Bank$170 million Luxury hotel in Washington, DC 2024
Deutsche Bank$125 million Doral golf resort 2024
Deutsche Bank$25 million - $50 million Chicago hotel and complex 2024
Ladder Capital$479 million Various properties 2026-2029


Implications

• Trump has reported holding 14 loans on 12 properties, with at least six loans totaling approximately $479 million due over the next four years.
• Some loans are personally guaranteed, meaning creditors could pursue his personal assets if he defaults.
• The refinancing of these debts could create significant conflicts of interest, especially if he remains in a position of political power.

These financial obligations are critical as they coincide with a period of declining revenues from his hotels and resorts, raising concerns about his ability to meet these debts.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Greenland: After Venezuela . . .and Iraq and Afghanistan and Panama and Grenada and Viet Nam . . . .folks automatically think of invasion with fighting.

but there could be another way.

Suppose we just BUY Greenland or lease it? Say we offer ten billion dollars to Denmark. Make it in Gold Bars, I don't care. Make the deal pending g on a referendum by the people living in Greenland. Then offer them a million dollars (cash or gold) for every man, woman and child and see how that vote turns out. Resettlement expenses could be a sweeter as well.

Then see how that vote turns out.

Might not need Congress to approve the money if the 12 billion or so is found with a DODGE style effort. Just make everyone a contractor toan agency and pay them.

The president is, at her, a real estate developer. /this approach would be much like buying up all the condos in a city block for a tear-down and building a 40 tory office tower.

I think we've discussed the fallacy of buying Greenland here, though Waco Kid hasn't responded with how much he thinks it would cost.

First one assumes Denmark...and the people of Greenland...want to sell...not at all a given.

Million $ for each man,woman,child comes out to $57 Billion.

Using GDP ($3.3B) as a proxy for earnings, a 5X multiplier would set country value at about $16.5 Billion.

Add in a 'sweetener' for Denmark of $5 Billion.

$78.5 Billion... and we haven't even discussed annual costs.

Where does the US come up with that money? Deficit spending?
Tariffs? (heck, Trump's already 'spent' that income several times over)

Versus $20 billion or so to build massive military bases in Greenland...already allowed by treaty.

Might not need Congress to approve the money if the 12 billion or so is found with a DODGE style effort.

Let's not even go there...Savings goal of $2 Trillion became $1 Trillion became $150 Billion became an actual $3 Billion or so...a subject for another thread.

[jcv521]

The debate in congress should consider all sides and not focus on the fact that if President Trump wants it, it must be bad. Look at the pros and cons.
Seems to me that national security is a valid point. Not that I am sure what to do, but let’s hear all sides debated with personalities set aside. Leave TDS at the door! And yes that is a very real thing!

[elghund]

Originally Posted by jcv521

The debate in congress should consider all sides and not focus on the fact that if President Trump wants it, it must be bad. Look at the pros and cons.
Seems to me that national security is a valid point. Not that I am sure what to do, but let’s hear all sides debated with personalities set aside. Leave TDS at the door! And yes that is a very real thing!

There is no need to buy it or take it. In both those cases, it costs billions and then we have to take care of the citizenry there.

There are currently treaties with Denmark and Greenland that give the US pretty much full access to expanded military presence simply for the asking. This way, we get the military presence Trump seems to think we need, at no expense to purchase or maintain the country’s infrastructure and population.


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/w...core-ios-share

elg….

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by elghund

There is no need to buy it or take it. In both those cases, it costs billions and then we have to take care of the citizenry there.

There are currently treaties with Denmark and Greenland that give the US pretty much full access to expanded military presence simply for the asking. This way, we get the military presence Trump seems to think we need, at no expense to purchase or maintain the country’s infrastructure and population.


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/w...core-ios-share

elg….

He's not in the least worried about national defense, he's dumb enough to think a handshake from Russia and China means the US is safe. He wants the minerals.


As you point out, we have, and have had, free access to do what we want as far as national defense there.

[pxmcc]

^^even the minerals are negotiable. if Trump has an investment plan, all he has to do is present it to the Danes and Greenland. 10 to 1 they'll sign off on an investing and profit-sharing deal. he's just being greedy. we have no need to acquire Greenland to get anything we want or need.

he just wants his name in the history books for the expansion of U.S. territory and another coup like the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's "Folly."

he thinks NATO is expendable; it's not. China is fixin to clean our clocks within ten years. without NATO and our Pacific Allies, we're toast..

the longer the war, the worse our odds against China. our manufacturing base is pathetic, and Trump is doing nothing effective to fix it. instead, he's expelling our best workers and our future manufacturing labor force. we're gonna need NATO, bigly..

[elghund]

Originally Posted by pxmcc

^^even the minerals are negotiable. if Trump has an investment plan, all he has to do is present it to the Danes and Greenland. 10 to 1 they'll sign off on an investing and profit-sharing deal. he's just being greedy. we have no need to acquire Greenland to get anything we want or need.

he just wants his name in the history books for the expansion of U.S. territory and another coup like the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's "Folly."

The entire Greenland issue is a perfect snapshot of where Trump fucks himself in public opinion.

He can have all of Greenland without the responsibility of maintaining the country….he can have the goodwill of Denmark and Greenland by including them in growing our military there…….he can have the backing of Congress by not disrupting NATO or making billions of dollars of unnecessary expense…….he can negotiate contracts to gain control of all the mineral rights…..

Simply by playing by the existing laws and treaties.

Instead, he walks the edge of being a lawbreaking petty dictator, pisses everyone off and starts a huge resistance to what he wants to accomplish.

While his goals are not all wrong…..his execution of attaining those goals sucks.


elg…

[Yssup Rider]

I cannot fucking believe this is a serious subject.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I cannot fucking believe this is a serious subject.

Oh...very serious...

https://www.politico.eu/article/dona...deal-military/

Would a collapse of NATO and the trust of European allies improve or damage both US and Europe security?