Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
image.jpeg.17ad93b0c9ac21ed2b78d0a7e6bfc2d9.jpeg
 
3:06
 
Greenland has re-emerged as a flashpoint in global geopolitics after Donald Trump reiterated his interest in bringing the Arctic island ...
YouTube · NEWS9 Live · 8 hours ago
image.jpeg.bb52809621fd02be645008b18ca82549.jpeg
 
6:33
 
US President Donald Trump has reiterated his ambitions of US control of Greenland for national security purposes. The leaders of Denmark and ...
YouTube · ABC News (Australia) · 15 hours ago
image.jpeg.ada56149fd7ade03d80bf8ad3d279a5b.jpeg
 
Europe has closed ranks behind Denmark and Greenland ... 'Greenland belongs to its people' Europe unites against Trump's arctic ambition; end of ...
YouTube · The Economic Times · 3 minutes ago
image.jpeg.c614504ecadc633a1a38de3e773084f3.jpeg
 
 
Denmark's Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, told Donald Trump to "stop the threats" about the U.S. taking over Greenland.
YouTube · DW News · 1 day ago
Posted

Who would buy US-built weapons if they pulled out of NATO ?  This is 100s of billions to the US economy.

What cards does the US intend to play here, if any ?

  • Like 1

 

Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase !

Michael Hardner

Posted
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who would buy US-built weapons if they pulled out of NATO ?  This is 100s of billions to the US economy.

What cards does the US intend to play here, if any ?

It's really a big loser for us. The purchase of OUR weapons is the main reason Trump is pushing for greater defense spending by Europe and why it was always a good deal for US at their former spending rates.

Posted

The USA likes to pretend that only they can 'protect' other nations from the shadowy bogeyman. Even when it plays the bogeyman.

It's not up to the people of Greenland (or Venezuela for that matter) to determine their own fate. Just ask the people of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador or Chile how that goes.

Posted
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who would buy US-built weapons if they pulled out of NATO ?  This is 100s of billions to the US economy.
 

 

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) are less than 1% of total US GDP, and all defense spending is around 4% of GDP.   So the answer to your question is that the bulk of weapons sales would continue to be the U.S. Department of Defense (War).

 

fdd-infographic-us-defense-spending-as-a

 

Foreign defense contractors (including those in Canada) benefit from U.S. domestic and foreign military sales as subcontractors...this would also continue sans U.S. NATO membership.

 

Quote

What cards does the US intend to play here, if any ?

 

Some old reasons (national security vs. China/Russia) and new...natural resources extraction.  In the Cold War past, the U.S. had numerous military and "research" bases in Greenland.  

  • Like 2

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who would buy US-built weapons if they pulled out of NATO ?  This is 100s of billions to the US economy.

What cards does the US intend to play here, if any ?

1. Everyone who buys them now.

2. They could just buy Greenland...?

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Trump has said repeatedly that he’s going to annex Greenland, militarily if necessary. Do you deny it?

Robosmith repeatedly spams with threads with no real substance of his own like a lazy spambot.

Do you deny it? 

 

 

Posted
27 minutes ago, User said:

Robosmith repeatedly spams with threads with no real substance of his own like a lazy spambot.

Do you deny it? 

I think the facts are clear.

The US is going to make themselves very visible in Greenland. Very visible.

Cuba is probably teetering and prime for drastic change.

As for Mexico...the cartels need to be wiped out. Doing that would rock the Mexican government. It would be messy.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
50 minutes ago, User said:

Robosmith repeatedly spams with threads with no real substance of his own like a lazy spambot.

Do you deny it? 

In reality it is your ^WHINING that is the SPAM here with ZERO substance.

And Trump planning to take Greenland is a major issue du jour, esp after he just invaded Venuzuela, and all you can do is WHINE.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, User said:

Robosmith repeatedly spams with threads with no real substance of his own like a lazy spambot.

Do you deny it? 

Dodging is the only way a coward can earn a badge. Here you go. Let me know when you grow the testicles to answer the question honestly. 
 

image.jpeg.f13e5822484cae7152b8123b124435e0.jpeg

Edited by BeaverFever
  • Thanks 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

In reality it is your ^WHINING that is the SPAM here with ZERO substance.

And Trump planning to take Greenland is a major issue du jour, esp after he just invaded Venuzuela, and all you can do is WHINE.

Robo... @User has evidently gotten tired of your...shall we say, less than thoughtful OPs. I agree with him that you tend to start threads with bare links and nothing more. But where @User finds your lack of intelligence concerning...I just accept that you're an id1ot.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Robo... @User has evidently gotten tired of your...shall we say, less than thoughtful OPs. I agree with him that you tend to start threads with bare links and nothing more. But where @User finds your lack of intelligence concerning...I just accept that you're an id1ot.

I just accept that you have ZERO to add beyond WHINING to a major story of the day I POSTED.

Posted
9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I just accept that you have ZERO to add beyond WHINING to a major story of the day I POSTED.

A major story huh?

Tell me...do you think anyone but you strange Libbies, think Europe and the mighty Canadian PM...have any say in the matter? They do not.

All the US has to do is load Greenland with military presence eh voila...mission accomplished. 

You really never learned to think past your obligatory ANTIFA ideology, did you. Meh...

I suppose the world need id1ots.

Why...I'm not certain but, I'll ask Gawd tonight in my prayers.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted (edited)

Do ANY of the MAGA trolls on this forum have the gonads to actually admit Trump has ZERO moral ethical or legal justification to forcibly annex Greenland from a NATO ally?  

Can ANY of them even try to explain with a straight face how this is anything different than when Hitler annexed Poland or when Putin annexed Crimea?  
 

What I see is them all avoiding the topic

Edited by BeaverFever
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

All the US has to do is load Greenland with military presence eh voila...mission accomplished

The question was can they?  I thought that was a given. 
 

I have been under the impression that the point of debate has always been “should they”. 

Posted
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Foreign defense contractors (including those in Canada) benefit from U.S. domestic and foreign military sales as subcontractors...this would also continue sans U.S. NATO membership.

Those Canadian and European companies would just pivot (eventually) to each other as defence products in a new non-US NATO would have to go waaay up. Or they would pivot to something else entirely. Most Canadian “defence” companies - and there aren’t that many - are dual-use manufacturers rather than pure-play military.  
 

The real problem is that as soon as US leaves NATO, Russia will likely pounce on the Baltic and maybe Finland and NATO won’t be ready. to respond. 

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Deluge said:

robomarx thinks Greenland should have secure borders, but the US should not have secure borders. 

It's why robomarx should be deported with the illegal aliens. 

Do you agree with Trump that the US should annex Greenland against their wishes, even using military means?

9 hours ago, User said:

Another worthless lazy spambot thread. 

Do you agree with Trump that the US should annex Greenland against their wishes, even using military means?

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I think the facts are clear.

The US is going to make themselves very visible in Greenland. Very visible.

Cuba is probably teetering and prime for drastic change.

As for Mexico...the cartels need to be wiped out. Doing that would rock the Mexican government. It would be messy.

Do you agree with Trump that the US should annex Greenland against their wishes, even using military means?

Edited by Moonlight Graham

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Some old reasons (national security vs. China/Russia) and new...natural resources extraction.  In the Cold War past, the U.S. had numerous military and "research" bases in Greenland.  

Do you agree with Trump that the US should annex Greenland against their wishes, even using military means?

Edited by Moonlight Graham
  • Like 1

"All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain

Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.

Posted
2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

As soon as Trump is gone, Greenland will kick the American military out of the country.  The base will be operated by other NATO nations.  

This search engine states that the US has had a military presence in Greenland since 1941.

GPT-4o mini
The United States has maintained a military presence in Greenland since 1941. This began during World War II when the U.S. established bases to secure its interests and protect against potential threats from Axis powers.

Key Milestones:
1941: The U.S. and Denmark (then under German occupation) agreed on the establishment of a military presence.
1943: The U.S. built bases, notably Thule Air Base, which is still operational today and plays a significant role in American airborne early warning and missile defense systems.
The military presence has evolved over the decades but has remained consistent since its inception during World War II.

Russia and China's Interest in Greenland
Both Russia and China are expressing interest in Greenland, primarily due to its strategic location and resource potential within the Arctic region.

Russia's Perspective
Geopolitical Strategy: Russia views Greenland as a critical area for expanding its influence in the Arctic. The country has been actively enhancing its military infrastructure in the region, which includes opening several military bases and restoring old Soviet installations. This military buildup coincides with growing concerns about NATO's activities in the Arctic.

Now which of the superpowers would you prefer to have on Greenland?

Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,025
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    Jameslive
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • maro ay earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • maro ay earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Longley earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • ashtonfennescey earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • ashtonfennescey earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...