Nationalist Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said: It's members aren't going to go their separate ways after they kick the US out. Maybe they'll vote internally on who they'll align with per each individual conflict. Ya...that'll work... Man...you truly do live in LaLaLand. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
BeaverFever Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 7 hours ago, User said: That is not what was said. For as stupid as Trump's comments were, your dishonesty about them is no better. You clearly know a lot about having a badge like this as you dodged my question. Also, you have run away from almost all, if not every, thread we have ever been in. Answer the question, coward. Quote
User Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: Answer the question, coward. Why can’t you coward? Quote
paxamericana Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: America's greatness culminated in its leadership of forging a new global order, headquartered in New York. With that came a set of rules that ensured it would be at the center of everything. Economic, military, political. Wrong, it’s to use you all as cannon fodder against the soviets. You all outlived your useful purpose to America. 1 Quote
BeaverFever Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: It's not that easy...many of the U.S., Canadian, and EU partners provide subcontracted systems and parts that cannot be sourced from other places. Just like automotive production, western defence manufacturing and embedded systems integrate parts across many borders. For instance, nearly one third of Sweden's Grippen strike fighter is American made content, notably the GE F-414 turbofan engines, and so are several of the missiles (Sidewinder, AMRAAM, Maverick, etc.) and other components. Similarly, Canada's GD Land Defence operations in Ontario is a U.S. subsidiary and is reliant on American capital and subcontracting, with many parts crossing the border (several times). Sounds like you’re assuming that US pulling out of NATO means some sort of complete trade embargo I don’t think US leaving NATO means Canadian defence manufacturing can’t get components from US suppliers or vice versa. Now if you’re talking about a situation where USA is now an enemy of NATO then yeah all sorts of supply chains will get disrupted, but it cuts both ways. US also depends Canadian/ European equipment and subcontractors, not to the same degree but enough to take many critical systems and capabilities offline BAE, Saab, Thales, Kongsberg, Airbus and Leonardo and others are major contractors to the US militar, as are to a less critical extent Bombardier CAE and Wescam in Canada. Yes Canada being cut out of all the subcomponents contracts would have an economic impact but doe the US military would have an operational impact. But the silver lining for those companies is that if you’re business is making wheel bearings for a US Army vehicle it ain’t that hard to instead make wheel bearings for a non-US construction vehicle Trump is already providing companies the incentive to decouple from integrated US supply chains and I’m sure that after a little turbulence these subs and sub-subs will find non-US alternatives for the materials they need. As for GDLSC and it’s canadian-ness: interestingly I read a blog the other day about the “Canadianess” of GDLSC and Lockheed Martin Canada. The crux of it is that the people in those companies, while now “owned” by a US parent, still consider themselves a Canadian company. They were originally Canadian companies before being bought by the US multinational and they have all of the Canadian-specific expertise, military government relationships etc that they’ve built over generations as different owners have come and gone and they operate autonomously from the US HQ, which doesn’t know anything about Canada or anyone in the Canadian government or military. Before it became GDLSC about 20-25 years ago it was GM Defence Canada, and before that it was Canadian Locomotive Company, cranking out vehicles for the World wars and train locomotives and heavy machinery as far back as the 1850’s before Canada was even a country. Apparently that is a very big part of their culture and identity, a lot of ex-Canadian military work there and they have a very close relationship with the Canadian Army and if you go there and suggest they’re not Canadian you’re going to have a bad day. Apparently all the GDLS subsidiaries around the world are like that: very distinct culturally and technically, highly localized skill/knowledge and fairly autonomous from the parent. Similar story apparently with LMC, which is closely tied to the RCAF, was originally the Canadian Marconi Company founded in 1903 then later bought by Canadair (then a government-owned aerospace corporation) and later sold to LMC in the 90s. Just sharing some fun facts I read recently. Quote
BeaverFever Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: Why can’t you coward? What question? You’re still dodging you chickenshit. Do you or do you not believe Trump will actually forcibly annex Greenland (not buy it, not “make a deal” for it, but acquire it coercively) as he has stated? If so do you support it? Edited January 7 by BeaverFever Quote
User Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 22 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: What question? You’re still dodging you chickenshit. Do you or do you not believe Trump will actually forcibly annex Greenland (not buy it, not “make a deal” for it, but acquire it coercively) as he has stated? If so do you support it? Now you are too dishonest to even acknowledge there was a question. Quote
CDN1 Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 (edited) 9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: STFU you lying Russian bot. The WH said this yesterday, just 3 days after invading Venezuela, capturing its crappy leader, and stealing its oil: “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,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN. “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.” https:/www.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/us-options-greenland-military Taking control of Venezuela's oil is a direct hit against Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba. This helps Ukraine, could lead to regime change and revolution in Iran. The changing demographics of Europe are destined to violently destabilize the region, making it an existential liability to the future security of the United States. Edited January 7 by CDN1 1 Quote
Nationalist Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 50 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: What question? You’re still dodging you chickenshit. Do you or do you not believe Trump will actually forcibly annex Greenland (not buy it, not “make a deal” for it, but acquire it coercively) as he has stated? If so do you support it? 27 minutes ago, User said: Now you are too dishonest to even acknowledge there was a question. So I'll deal with the Beave's question. I do not believe Trump will forcibly take Greenland. Instead I think he'll flood the zone with military bases and American businesses. This will bring a prosperity that the people of Greenland will not want to lose. In essence...he'll buy Greenland's cooperation. 1 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
ironstone Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 Did Denmark annex Greenland? . GPT-4o mini Yes, Denmark annexed Greenland in the early 18th century. The formal annexation occurred in 1721, when Denmark claimed sovereignty over Greenland, establishing a colony. Over time, Greenland remained a part of the Danish Kingdom, although it gained home rule in 1979 and further autonomy in 2009, allowing it to govern many of its internal affairs. However, Denmark still retains control over foreign affairs and defense. Did the Biden administration ever express interest in Greenland? Yes, the Biden administration has shown interest in Greenland, particularly in terms of its strategic and environmental significance. The U.S. sees Greenland as important for several reasons: Climate Change: Greenland's melting ice sheets due to climate change draw attention to issues of global significance. The administration emphasizes the need for cooperation with Greenland to address climate challenges. Strategic Military Interests: Greenland's location is crucial for Arctic security, and the U.S. maintains Thule Air Base there, which is a key military installation. The Biden administration continues to monitor developments in the Arctic region, particularly concerning China and Russia's activities. Renewable Energy: Interest in Greenland's natural resources, including potential for renewable energy developments, aligns with the Biden administration's focus on clean energy alternatives. While the direct interest may not have reached the levels of former President Trump's proposal to buy Greenland, the Biden administration’s approach reflects a broader commitment to Arctic engagement and cooperation. I don't care for the language that Trump has been using with regard to Greenland but he's always been very blunt and straight to the point when he speaks and this issue is no different. If Biden(his puppeteers) had managed to reach a deal with Greenland, he would have been hailed as a genius and great statesman. 1 Quote Beware the Brookfield industrial complex...
Nationalist Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 3 minutes ago, ironstone said: Did Denmark annex Greenland? . GPT-4o mini Yes, Denmark annexed Greenland in the early 18th century. The formal annexation occurred in 1721, when Denmark claimed sovereignty over Greenland, establishing a colony. Over time, Greenland remained a part of the Danish Kingdom, although it gained home rule in 1979 and further autonomy in 2009, allowing it to govern many of its internal affairs. However, Denmark still retains control over foreign affairs and defense. Did the Biden administration ever express interest in Greenland? Yes, the Biden administration has shown interest in Greenland, particularly in terms of its strategic and environmental significance. The U.S. sees Greenland as important for several reasons: Climate Change: Greenland's melting ice sheets due to climate change draw attention to issues of global significance. The administration emphasizes the need for cooperation with Greenland to address climate challenges. Strategic Military Interests: Greenland's location is crucial for Arctic security, and the U.S. maintains Thule Air Base there, which is a key military installation. The Biden administration continues to monitor developments in the Arctic region, particularly concerning China and Russia's activities. Renewable Energy: Interest in Greenland's natural resources, including potential for renewable energy developments, aligns with the Biden administration's focus on clean energy alternatives. While the direct interest may not have reached the levels of former President Trump's proposal to buy Greenland, the Biden administration’s approach reflects a broader commitment to Arctic engagement and cooperation. I don't care for the language that Trump has been using with regard to Greenland but he's always been very blunt and straight to the point when he speaks and this issue is no different. If Biden(his puppeteers) had managed to reach a deal with Greenland, he would have been hailed as a genius and great statesman. Or...at least...not a total flop. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
paxamericana Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 We’re getting Greenland one way or another. Not sure why you all insist that America shouldn’t? You and what military again? Quote
Deluge Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: Do you agree with Trump that the US should annex Greenland against their wishes, even using military means? Do you agree with Trump that the US should annex Greenland against their wishes, even using military means? Do you agree with Trump that the US should annex Greenland against their wishes, even using military means? No, but I don't believe he will go that far. No, but I don't believe he will go that far. No, but I don't believe he will go that far. Quote
User Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 18 minutes ago, Nationalist said: So I'll deal with the Beave's question I don’t mind answering his question, but i would first point out it is loaded. The issue is that these threads are created by a lazy spambot, that was my point here and the reason why I posted in this thread and Beaver doesn’t want to address that. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: The fact that WW2 began based on the same logic you're espousing and the UN Charter (its creation spearheaded by the US) was created to prevent more similar wars WW2 began because of Treaty of Versailles punishment and UK appeasement. Different logic and circumstances. The U.S. has sought Greenland many times in the past. Quote Also, the places you listed became a part of the US prior to the UN Charter when European empires still ruled, and some joined voluntarily by vote or purchase Threatening Denmark and its allies with war if they don't sell Greenland isn't peaceful. And some were spoils of war. Nothing magic about the UN Charter...many wars since then...including Canada. 2 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Nationalist Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 32 minutes ago, User said: I don’t mind answering his question, but i would first point out it is loaded. The issue is that these threads are created by a lazy spambot, that was my point here and the reason why I posted in this thread and Beaver doesn’t want to address that. I know. But as Libbies tend to do...the Beave here seems to wanna derail your "fun with robo". So I've done my best to rationally answer him in an effort to quell his derailment of your point. please proceed.. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
BeaverFever Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 1 hour ago, User said: Now you are too dishonest to even acknowledge there was a question. Not to me there wasn’t. Unless you’re talking about my opinion of Robosmith. But that’s not the topic of this thread and that came after you already dodged others’ question on your stance on Greenland. And you CONTINUE TO DODGE You are here shitting on everyone else’s opinion while refusing repeated requests to provide an opinion of your own. That is the definition of an INTERNET TROLL. Why are you only trolling this thead? Because you only mindlessly apologize for Trump AFTER he does something and parrot whatever flimsy justification he or his muppets put out afterwards. But you have NO IDEA what Trump might do or say about Greenland and you don’t want to say something now that might be offside with what happens in future You’re afraid to say annexing Greenland would be wrong or that Trump would never cross a line like that because you’re afraid he might actively do it and - horror of horrors- you’ll be wrong on the internet! Worst of all you’ll have accidentally criticized your messiah which is a cardinal sin in MAGAland. OTOH you’re afraid to sayTrump will or should annex Greenland because you know there is absolutely no intelligent legal moral or ethical argument for it whatsoever and you don’t (yet) have any MAGA lies and talking points to mindlessly parrot. Don’t worry I’m sure we’ll soon hear how Greenlanders are actually “narco-terrorists” flooding USA with Fentanyl or similar such nonsense. It’s coming. And then you can parrot away. But until such time as you’re actively willing to contribute to the topic why don’t you stop the trolling? 1 Quote
User Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said: But that’s not the topic of this thread and that came after you already dodged others’ question on your stance on Greenland. That was the point of my comment and you ignored that and tried to change the subject. I have responded to others like Moonlight on this. Don’t consider my treatment of you to be more than it is. If you really want me to respond to your question on something Trump has said, then provide me the exact quote from Trump, not your twisted dishonest phrasing and then what your question is you want answered. Quote
robosmith Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 15 hours ago, Nationalist said: 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. Yes, Europe has A LOT to say in the matter. We need Europe on OUR SIDE to counter Chinese HEGEMONY. You're welcome. Quote
robosmith Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 14 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 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 I see a lot of WHINING to distract from their lack of a defense for Trump's AGGRESSION. I have to wonder if they would approve a Trump invasion of Poland, esp since there's been a major oil find there. “Biggest oil discovery in Poland's history” made in Baltic Sea Notes From Poland https://notesfrompoland.com › 2025/07/21 › biggest-oil... Jul 21, 2025 — Central European Petroleum (CEP) today announced that it has found a deposit containing 22 million tonnes of oil and 5 billion cubic metres (bcm) ...Read more 14 hours ago, BeaverFever said: 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. Poland would be a major target given their new major oil discovery. Quote
paxamericana Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 11 minutes ago, robosmith said: Yes, Europe has A LOT to say in the matter. We need Europe on OUR SIDE to counter Chinese HEGEMONY. You're welcome. Unfortunately they have already recused themselves from being involved in the Taiwan China conflict. This was openly discussed during the Biden administration, before Trump. https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-china-america-pressure-interview/ 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 13 minutes ago, paxamericana said: Unfortunately they have already recused themselves from being involved in the Taiwan China conflict. This was openly discussed during the Biden administration, before Trump. https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-china-america-pressure-interview/ "They" is ONLY one country which is why you've POSTED ONLY a naked link. Duh Quote Macron and Xi discussed Taiwan “intensely,” according to French officials accompanying the president, who appears to have taken a more conciliatory approach than the U.S. or even the European Union. “Stability in the Taiwan Strait is of paramount importance,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who accompanied Macron for part of his visit, said she told Xi during their meeting in Beijing last Thursday. “The threat [of] the use of force to change the status quo is unacceptable.” Quote
John Stone Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 (edited) 6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: And some events that happened more recent than that. The point is that they have happened many times in the past...in the times of that period. Nothing special about today in that respect. Right....a club dominated by superpowers...and for NATO, "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". Greenland got more Americans than ever after that. Doesn't matter...the current leadership is what we have to work with. Don't think for a minute that the world was thrilled with decisions by previous leaders (e.g. Suez Crisis, Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc.). Agreed...has nothing to do with morality. Just ask "indigenous" peoples of the Americas...and elsewhere. It is achievable through negotiation and treaty...just like in Canada ! As for reckless...spot on...it is what Americans have done for over 200 years (see what I did there? ). FWIW………. Trump is not the first to show an interest in Greenland 1867 – SecState Seward raised the idea of annexing Greenland AND Iceland – 2fer – in for a penny in for a pound? 1910 – US ambassador to Denmark, Egans, made the Danes an offer to exchange Greenland in return for the Dutch Antilles and the Philippine island of Mindanao 1946 – SecState Byrnes made an offer to buy Greenland for 100 mil. 2019 – Trump’s offer is basically, Plata o Plomo Hindsight is 20/20 ......... the U.S. should have purchased Rupert's Land from the Brits before Canada became a country - opportunity missed. Edited January 7 by John Stone Quote
robosmith Posted January 7 Author Report Posted January 7 (edited) Trump is UNILATERALLY DESTROYING the world order and the DO NOTHING RepubliCON Congress is complicit. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1696087011352095 VIDEO Edited January 7 by robosmith Quote
BeaverFever Posted January 7 Report Posted January 7 1 hour ago, Nationalist said: So I'll deal with the Beave's question. I do not believe Trump will forcibly take Greenland. Instead I think he'll flood the zone with military bases and American businesses. This will bring a prosperity that the people of Greenland will not want to lose. In essence...he'll buy Greenland's cooperation. Thank for answering the question How will he actually flood Greenland with businesses? Force Greenland to accept mass migration of MAGA-friendly businesspeople from USA? What if Greenland refuses to accept those people or grant them business licenses? What kind of business would an American open in Greenland anyway? I know Denmark granted USA military access to Greenland back in 1941 (which defeats Trump’s claim that US needs it for Atlantic security since US military is already there) but I don’t know that it’s permission to build unlimited bases without their approval. Danish intelligence has already reported that Trump operatives are already in Greenland attempting to recruit local collaborators and influencers compile lists of potential local enemies to discredit and isolate and to catalog anti-Denmark narratives and propaganda opportunities that will resonate with locals. If any foreign government were doing this in USA Americans would already be called a hostile act. Under Trump if you even remind military members that under US law they have a legal obligation to disobey illegal orders, you’re guilty of sedition, but apparently it’s perfectly fine for them to convince members of an allied country to commit treason and collaborate with a country trying to annex them. Quote
Recommended Posts
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.