Politics

1dirthawker said:
so here is another thing i have been pondering,

a year ago (or so) trump was talking about taking over greenland. of course he was doing his usual "art of the deal" thing, people on the left in particular and even some in this forum kinda lost their minds a bit.

now here we are, down the road from that proclamation and now denmark, greenland and the US are going to be signing an agreement regarding greenland that is beneficial to all parties involved. by simply sitting back and giving it a bit of time, viola, trump has his deal, it benefits the USA and the other parties are not only on board but in agreement.

so, my takeaway is, rather than lose your mind over what "trump said" (and yes, he says some outlandish stuff) why not take a breath, give it a little time and wait for the other shoe to drop without the high blood pressure, angst and frustration. there are some that would argue if trump said the sky was blue, but why?

anyway, just some thoughts regarding a "crisis" that never really occurred and ended up becoming a win for the US and also a political nothing burger for the rest of the world. oh except for russia and china, this deal keeps them out of greenland so yeah, basically a win for the world too.
Click to expand...
The problem with your theory is the US already had a deal with Denmark to set up defence systems in Greenland. And in fact at one point in time the US had a couple thousand military personnel and a couple of facilities there. Then pulled them out. No one told the US to leave. I imagine both Greenlanders and Danes wanted US greenbacks to stay. And as far as I know that agreement/treaty was permanent. So what has this latest "deal" accomplished? It's allowed Trump to wipe five layers of egg off his face. The Danes let him, and some not so bright American voters, convince themselves he actually did something productive. Must be a whole lot of smirking going on in Europe right now.
 

No surprise the DOJ claims of CNN et al violating national security were laughed out of court. Interesting that Trump tried the same bullying tactic kicking out a reporter during his last administration and didn't succeed. His problem is he does/writes/draws/says BS without thinking ... and then expects the DOJ to magically wave their pens and clean up his messes. Their silly defence was bound to fail but I give them an A for creativity. I'd like to know how much taxpayer dollars was wasted on this foolishness. Next up: wasting more money fighting in court over the Arch de Trump that now has suddenly become a defence fortress. Yep, another silly attempt to use the national security angle to get his way. Original plan, according to Trump, was for tourists to go to the top for viewing. So now tourists will be wandering around high tech top secret drone stuff? Christ, that guy is stupid!
 
Last edited:
steve white said:
Which begs the question, "why did it fall in WWI?"
Click to expand...
Drive through any small town on the prairies and look for the monument memorializing local boys who died in the trenches. Or go inside any church from that era and look for the plaques with long list of congregants who died in action. Canada answered the call and paid a very high price.
 
Hey Perfesser Dontario Kneeshooter, as usual, your history lesson about the US in Greenland is full of crap. I assume when you say two installations you really mean one… Thule. It was a forward (above Arctic circle) US air base for nuke bombers until early 60s when nuke ICBMS made much of the US nuke bomber deterrent fleet of that era obsolete. The US never pulled out of Thule. The mission shifted during 60s-early 70s to early warning, monitoring and surveillance… beginning with the Soviets and later for others. One of my college buds and early work cohorts spent months there during a couple of stints in ‘70 and ‘71 “watching” the ruskies. Told me he was lucky he didn’t go crazy on that isolated duty :)
 
For all our learned members who did not read the full US - Denmark agreement on Greenland.

Perhaps as important as expanding the USA's right to more military/defense sites in Greenland is,
The agreement also restricts certain investments by non-NATO/non-EU states in strategically sensitive sectors.

This means China and Russia cannot invest in a new port in Greenland for their fishing fleets ans other such B.S. These and other bad guys cannot buy farmland or ice mines next to USA bases or on the coast next to strategic waterways.

What the agreement does​

  • U.S. military presence expands: The U.S. can modernize and expand Pituffik Space Base and establish additional defense areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.
  • More bases are possible: Additional U.S. defense areas can be proposed elsewhere in Greenland, subject to consultations and agreement between the parties.
  • Broad U.S. access: U.S. military aircraft, ships, vehicles and forces receive extensive rights to move through Greenland, including territorial waters. U.S. aircraft can fly over and land elsewhere in Greenland under the agreement's terms.
  • Golden Dome: The agreement specifically contemplates establishing a Golden Dome missile-defense system in Greenland.
  • Russia and China: Countries that are not NATO members cannot establish military installations or maintain a persistent military presence in Greenland. The agreement also restricts certain investments by non-NATO/non-EU states in strategically sensitive sectors.
  • Greenlandic businesses: The agreement says U.S. contracts connected with the defense areas should go to Greenlandic sources to the maximum extent possible, where feasible.
  • It is intended to be permanent: There is no expiration date; it can be amended only by mutual consent.
  • If Greenland becomes independent: The agreement provides that an independent Greenland would be expected to remain in NATO and assume the agreement's rights and obligations.

What it does not do​

It does not make Greenland U.S. territory and does not transfer sovereignty from Denmark to the United States. The agreement expressly reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and recognizes Greenland's right to self-determination.

The above information is from the USA White House information site via ChatGPT.
 
Thanks Mark. Anyone paying attention that reads knows that the new Greenland agreement locks in a lot more advantages than the friendly handshake from past deals.

Primarily that China and Russia are not allowed to squat near it. As Obama and Biden were allowing China and Russia to do at the Panama Canal, and in the northern ice cap regions.

DEI, The Muslim brotherhood, boys swimming with girls were more of the priority of their day.
 
Some things have changed between the old and the new treaty and some are the same...but I cant help wondering if it was worth all the fuss and all the bad will I guess that Trumps posture bought him and the US?

1790252455449.png

It would seem that the main win for the US and by extension the west is that non-Nato/non-EU states are restricted from establishing themselves in Greenland just like Mark and Jay wrote above.

Also I guess that in theory it could be seen as a win that the duration of the treaty no longer is tied to the existence of NATO, at least for those like Trump that perhaps would like to see NATO dissapear. More bases for the US is probably also a win, but if I recall correctly this was allready a possibility with the old treaty?
 
Yeah I would say Russia and China not being able to establish themselves and eventually choke off a strategic sea passage as they were eagerly wanting to do. May be seen as a better deal from than previous . :cool:
 
Mark A Ouellette said:
For all our learned members who did not read the full US - Denmark agreement on Greenland.

Perhaps as important as expanding the USA's right to more military/defense sites in Greenland is,
The agreement also restricts certain investments by non-NATO/non-EU states in strategically sensitive sectors.

This means China and Russia cannot invest in a new port in Greenland for their fishing fleets ans other such B.S. These and other bad guys cannot buy farmland or ice mines next to USA bases or on the coast next to strategic waterways.

What the agreement does​

  • U.S. military presence expands: The U.S. can modernize and expand Pituffik Space Base and establish additional defense areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.
  • More bases are possible: Additional U.S. defense areas can be proposed elsewhere in Greenland, subject to consultations and agreement between the parties.
  • Broad U.S. access: U.S. military aircraft, ships, vehicles and forces receive extensive rights to move through Greenland, including territorial waters. U.S. aircraft can fly over and land elsewhere in Greenland under the agreement's terms.
  • Golden Dome: The agreement specifically contemplates establishing a Golden Dome missile-defense system in Greenland.
  • Russia and China: Countries that are not NATO members cannot establish military installations or maintain a persistent military presence in Greenland. The agreement also restricts certain investments by non-NATO/non-EU states in strategically sensitive sectors.
  • Greenlandic businesses: The agreement says U.S. contracts connected with the defense areas should go to Greenlandic sources to the maximum extent possible, where feasible.
  • It is intended to be permanent: There is no expiration date; it can be amended only by mutual consent.
  • If Greenland becomes independent: The agreement provides that an independent Greenland would be expected to remain in NATO and assume the agreement's rights and obligations.

What it does not do​

It does not make Greenland U.S. territory and does not transfer sovereignty from Denmark to the United States. The agreement expressly reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and recognizes Greenland's right to self-determination.

The above information is from the USA White House information site via ChatGPT.
Click to expand...
The US already had a permanent treaty essentially granting unlimited access to build defensive military bases in Greenland territory. Restricting the Danes from letting Russia and China invest in Greenland property. So what? Denmark is hardly friendly with Russia. How many spy stations have they let the Russians build in Denmark? I doubt their relationship with China is a lot better. What I do see in this treaty is a not very transparent effort to encourage Greenland to separate from Denmark. The geography of the place would ultimately defeat total independence. Then what can they do? US has all the options locked up for making money from resources. So by necessity it becomes a US colony ... with all the expense that entails for US taxpayers. The status quo was working fine for everyone concerned ... until Trump stirred the pot.

What next? Trying to impose the same treaty on Canada? Good luck with that.
 
Ontario Hunter said:
The US already had a permanent treaty essentially granting unlimited access to build defensive military bases in Greenland territory. Restricting the Danes from letting Russia and China invest in Greenland property. So what? Denmark is hardly friendly with Russia. How many spy stations have they let the Russians build in Denmark? I doubt their relationship with China is a lot better. What I do see in this treaty is a not very transparent effort to encourage Greenland to separate from Denmark. The geography of the place would ultimately defeat total independence. Then what can they do? US has all the options locked up for making money from resources. So by necessity it becomes a US colony ... with all the expense that entails for US taxpayers. The status quo was working fine for everyone concerned ... until Trump stirred the pot.

What next? Trying to impose the same treaty on Canada? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Wait, You declared the U.S. gained nothing and this is the same agreement. Did you read the agreement or not ?
 
I read it. Essentially it changes nothing. Keeps Iranians from starting Greenland sugar plantations and Martians from opening movie theatres there. As I understand it this was a proposal put forward by the Danes. No doubt to blow some meaningless smoke up Trump's arse so he will think he accomplished something. Everyone knows how much he likes to have his ego inflated. Demonstrated most frequently by himself.
 
fourfive8 said:
Hey Perfesser Dontario Kneeshooter, as usual, your history lesson about the US in Greenland is full of crap. I assume when you say two installations you really mean one… Thule. It was a forward (above Arctic circle) US air base for nuke bombers until early 60s when nuke ICBMS made much of the US nuke bomber deterrent fleet of that era obsolete. The US never pulled out of Thule. The mission shifted during 60s-early 70s to early warning, monitoring and surveillance… beginning with the Soviets and later for others. One of my college buds and early work cohorts spent months there during a couple of stints in ‘70 and ‘71 “watching” the ruskies. Told me he was lucky he didn’t go crazy on that isolated duty :)
Click to expand...
If the US doesn't need to use Thule today, why does it need more military there? If the US stopped using the facilities, I would call that "pulling out." Hardly an exaggeration. Again, all the US had to do was ask and it would almost certainly have received what the Danes just gave. Instead Trump blows a lot of antagonizing hot air threatening invasion, blah, blah. I was pleasantly surprised when at the height of the "crisis" GOP Representative Ryan Zinke from Montana had the courage to speak up and confirm to media that Congress wasn't going to let that happen. Not surprisingly he shortly afterwards announced he would not run for reelection. He'd had enough of Trump ... and no doubt Trump had enough of Zinke. We all know how the president reacts to anyone he feels is "disloyal." Too bad. I probably would have voted for Zinke.
 
Ontario Hunter said:
The US already had a permanent treaty essentially granting unlimited access to build defensive military bases in Greenland territory. Restricting the Danes from letting Russia and China invest in Greenland property. So what? Denmark is hardly friendly with Russia. How many spy stations have they let the Russians build in Denmark? I doubt their relationship with China is a lot better. What I do see in this treaty is a not very transparent effort to encourage Greenland to separate from Denmark. The geography of the place would ultimately defeat total independence. Then what can they do? US has all the options locked up for making money from resources. So by necessity it becomes a US colony ... with all the expense that entails for US taxpayers. The status quo was working fine for everyone concerned ... until Trump stirred the pot.

What next? Trying to impose the same treaty on Canada? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You must be the self appointed captain of the debate team. Just because your arch villain President Trump accompanied this , along with ending seven wars, doesn’t make him evil.

Alice Cooper, a pioneer of “shock rock” concerts, realized when he was still Vincent Furnier, that everyone needs a villain. Since rock and roll didn’t have a villain at that time, he gave everyone what they lacked, a rock villain. Oh, at 80 years old Alice is performing 250 concerts this year!

The point of the above is it appears that Trump is your villain. I admit I did not like Presidents Clinton or Obama but I give them credit for their accomplishments. Perhaps you could quit hating so much. You may start feeling less angry about things that are different.
 
Last edited:
Altitude sickness said:
Ontario, I think King George III had the same mindset.

Well why all the fuss? Those damn colonists didn’t gain anything that I wouldn’t have given them.

The world doesn’t work on handshakes anymore
Click to expand...
Handshakes work better at keeping allies on board than threats. This brings to mind Theodore Roosevelt quote: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." With Trump it's "Shout nonsense threats loudly at everyone and carry a big stick ... to beat up the US economy and its international reputation."
 
Mark A Ouellette said:
You must be the self appointed captain of the debate team. Just because your arch villain President Trump accompanied this , along with ending seven wars, doesn’t make him evil.

Alice Cooper, a pioneer of “shock rock” concerts, realized when he was still Vincent Furnier, that everyone needs a villain. Since rock and roll didn’t have a villain at that time, he gave everyone what they lacked, a rock villain. Oh, at 80 years old Alice is performing 250 concerts this year!

The point of the above is it appears that Trump is your villain. I admit I did not like Presidents Clinton or Obama but I give them credit for there accomplishments. Perhaps you could quit hating so much. You may start feeling less angry about things that are different.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you didn't make the debate team cut. Trump accomplished nothing except making you think he accomplished something. From what I'm reading this was the Danes' doing. They tossed it out there because it gives Trump a noble escape route. The whole Greenland invasion idea had already died on the vine ... appropriately. I'm sure the other EU and NATO members brought this up and encouraged Denmark to make the proposal. As I said, he's a sucker for ego massaging. Everyone knows it. This agreement binds him closer to those two entities that he's been so critical of. And it does it without really sacrificing anything. Here's some cotton candy, Donald. Now you're our buddy, right? It will work ... for a while. Until he gets another wild hair up his arse.
 
Ontario Hunter said:
Handshakes work better at keeping allies on board than threats.
Click to expand...
Handshakes are as good as paper they are written on sometimes not even that. We see examples every time we have an administration change. I think on Day One Biden cancelled all Trump executive orders regardless of merit and vice versa.

Also, unless ratified by the Senate treaties are meaningless and last until the next administration. So, this agreement is good for about 2 more years after that it depends on the next POTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 1120 more.
Total: 435,265 (members: 1,170, guests: 434,095)

Forum statistics

Threads
70,289
Messages
1,568,960
Members
168,314
Latest member
LynLinuo
 

 

 

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

HENRY GRIFFITHS SAFARIS
HENRY GRIFFITHS SAFARIS
•••
HENRY GRIFFITHS SAFARIS
HENRY GRIFFITHS SAFARIS
•••
Grafton
Grafton
Retired, finally
•••
aminkus
aminkus wrote on RAVEN ROCKS PRECISION's profile.
hello, i am looking for 404 Jeffery Hydro Solids ?
thank you very much
•••
M
MHYOUNG 375 wrote on Marley7x57's profile.
That is not an Echols rifle but a clone as it has the Echols stock and all the bells and whistles. Lon Paul who built the rifle does great work.
•••

Share this page

 
Top