Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama

The US should probably look at fixing its own issues first, eh? Even if you blame all the problems on the Democrats, doesn't mean they don't need fixing.
If the objective is to "eat the rich" here, Americans might start with Elon, and Trump himself – before going after the Greenlanders, who at least have done nothing to the US.

The ease of extraction of value is likely to be way higher. Greenland will require serious investment. If the objective is just to rob someone otoh. obviously the Greenlanders are supposedly protected by the US already, so they are should be easy prey. US billionaires less so, and they are planning the robbery.
 
If the objective is to "eat the rich" here, Americans might start with Elon, and Trump himself – before going after the Greenlanders, who at least have done nothing to the US.
This is honestly the appeal of Trump. If you listen to his speeches, he is incredibly optimistic. His campaign slogan after all is to Make America Great Again. He really doesn't try to divide Americans at all, and he doesn't believe that wealth is a zero sum game. Instead of fighting over how to split a pie, why not bake a new, bigger pie? This idea with Greenland is legitimately a win-win for both the US and Greenland, but people are insulting Trump in really childish ways just because he's the one who is currently proposing it. The US purchasing land is nothing new, even purchasing land from Denmark... in 1917, we bought the Danish West Indies, which are now the US Virgin Islands. And no, the Virgin Islanders do not desire independence from the US.

We can provide incentives to the Greenlanders to accept protectorate status, and improve their lives while the US becomes more prosperous and safe. What could possibly be wrong with that?
 
US Virgin Glaciers sounds ok.

Why don't the Greenlanders club together and pay you to change your mind on this? Everyone and everything is for sale, right?
Good idea; Greenlanders can do the same, paying 1 million to each US citizen will only cost 340 trillion dollars.
 
Last edited:
This idea with Greenland is legitimately a win-win for both the US and Greenland, but people are insulting Trump in really childish ways just because he's the one who is currently proposing it.
A less clownish president could probably make a better case for it yes, a large part of the opposition stems from the fact that Trump is completely untrustworthy.
 
Last edited:
Well, Denmark apparently isn't doing anything with Greenland, and if the US had the territory then we'd be able to raise the standard of living for the Greenlandic people as well as have access to more resources and a strategically useful position. I see this as an absolute win.
i covered this earlier, but i'll try and relist

- danes "not doing anything" "with" greenland is the kind of paternalistic colonial crap that makes them reluctant to any purchase
- conservative muricans seem to have this idea of greenland being a glacial trailer park or like a decrepit reservation covered in ice. it's not. they're incredibly rural, but that's about it. the idea that you could raise their living standards betrays that you haven't actually looked into what it's like there.
- gdp per capita in greenland is higher than germany. raw capital is not the issue.
- the problem is costs and restrictions of reality. it's indeed still a glacier.
- so this whole "poor fisherman" stuff is ridiculous
- same logic of costs & reality extends to investment. this is not eu4. you can't just admin dev a mile thick glacier and expect returns.
- elsewhere you appealed to giving them subsidies. you're aware that greenland already receives this right (this is why their material conditons don't reflect their capital conditions); i'm unsure you understand what they have in governmental benefits from denmark atm. it is the reason they aren't independent.
- greenland is part of the international free western trade environment and you can already invest in them at your leisure.

here's a new one though, i think! you say they can just receive american subsidies, which is wild. so greenlanders already receive subsidies. why in the world would they expect you to
a) make such subsidies an arranged reality from a republican administration (remember, they have free healthcare, free access to education in denmark and the eu, a swathe of social subsidies, including economic suppory from the eu)
b) question a again, so make such subsidies, but keeping in mind your treatment of native americans and your other territories, let alone the racial stuff, but also irt full citizen rights; they enjoy both an independent parliament and the representative power they have in the danish parliament on top
c) keep your end of the deal? i know you like trump and usually decides his deals are kept, but... uhm. they're not. if he truly keeps his word, and everyone is else is wrong, it still means he doesn't have the bargaining power needed for such a purchase, unfair as you think it may be. you don't understand that your good impressions do not have the international reach you think it does. he also has a tradition of nullifying deals haphazardly, too. we're literally talking about a guy & an administration that broke a carefully arranged trilateral agreement between the states, denmark, and greenland, that has been managed diplomatically since ww2. like, basically, so you think greenlanders are such inhuman idiots that they'll drop a deal of scandinavian level social & economic subsidies for literally any other deal that may then immediately get canceled?
 
Last edited:
I feel it should be noted that Denmark wishing to be the colonial power tied to Greenland is done for the same monetary reasons/speculation the US is going to replace Denmark in that. Ethics plays no role in either.
If anything, the US has the added security reasons - since Denmark won't ever be protected by a fortified border at Greenland.
 
Last edited:
I feel it should be noted that Denmark wishing to be the colonial power tied to Greenland is done for the same monetary reasons/speculation the US is going to replace Denmark in that. Ethics plays no role in either.
big red buzzer sound; that is a huge misreading of the attitude here. there are basically three attitudes.
- some indeed think like that, in that it's pure geopolitics, economic speculation, or even colonial ambitions.
- some want greenland to be remain of the kingdom, but literally only because they're reliant on our subsidies. this group otherwise supports independence. < most danes think like this.
- some want greenland to be independent specifically because they don't want to pay the subsidies.
other attitudes exist, but they're far fewer from my impression.

the general attitude and trajectory has been towards greenlandic independence for a very long time. your idea of the danish attitude here is informed by (reasonable!) knowledge of geopolitics elsewhere here. it doesn't reflect what's been happening in denmark and greenland for at least half a century - and it mistakes denmark for having a different international attitude than it's been having for 200 years. while we've recently enjoyed snuggling up to the power players, we don't actually want to be part of any of that imperial crap anymore. been like that since 1864.

like, so, from the cursory google search, this question popped up as a reddit result:
1737911486828.png

and i cannot express enough how ridiculous the divide between how people think of territorial constituents elsewhere in the world, and how the danish think about it. a question like this, to a dane, will always seem to come out of nowhere; this asked question was innocious and fair, of course. but it's still a sheer divide from how danes generally feel. we don't want any colonies, actually, no thank you. most danes want to help greenland due to an empathetic obligation over a people with, whether anyone likes it or not, common history, and that's a current constituent in the danish kingdom. it's not just a question of time. it's like asking whether we regret losing our navy, losing england, losing scania, losing sweden and norway, estonia, etc, etc, because to a lot of other countries there's actually a somewhat living sentimentality about the glory days of the past, but we literally are done with it.

like, since 1864, the only real event that challenged our disinterest in imperial ambition was the easter crisis, which ended up reaffirming the current view on that kind of stuff.

a core part of this point is that even danish fascists just appeal to pretty beaches and crap. they don't want the virgin islands back or whatever. there's not a whole lot of talk about military and reclaiming random areas around the world. among my acquaintances, and this is anecdotical, the people that just want to dump greenland because of the subsidies are the cryptofascists. those that speculate in geopolitics are usually the liberal-conservative types.

small nationalism, baby.

anyways, only stats on the divide between the three groups in denmark i've found from a cursory google glance was a bunch of russian polls with very low factual credibility. so i can't speak on the stats.

If anything, the US has the added security reasons - since Denmark won't ever be protected by a fortified border at Greenland.
and on this, what it's basically changed about the situation is that danes sympathetic to greenlander independence have become worried as to greenland's ability to indeed defend themselves if invaded. they don't have the same diplomatic capital & treaties that denmark does right now. so that'd require work on the behalf of those that were worried about leaving them without subsidies.
 
US Virgin Glaciers sounds ok.


Good idea; Greenlanders can do the same, paying 1 million to each US citizen will only cost 340 trillion dollars.
You're for sale yourself them – like supposedly everyone else – one can take it?
 
Greenlanders can easily get rich and protected without giving up independence.
 
You're for sale yourself them – like supposedly everyone else – one can take it?
Sorry old chap, our own price or lack of it doesn't come into the specifics of this case - we aren't characters in some moralist fairytale, just posters in a forum.
I must say that your deductions are getting pretty chaotic, and sadly you never fail to try to make the thread - in a bizarre manner - about the poster and not the post.
 
Very nice video about Greenland from Ukraine TV show (russian language, use capsions auto translate) - look really like my homeland, but winter a bit warmer in Greenland.
Actually, it's clearly what Greenland can't be independent. Not enough ppl, resources and etc
 
Great idea BJ, but your own price is just a dog bone :)
Suits you perfectly in all respects.
Thank you, but I am already comfortably retired. We are not dog people, cat toys would be more suitable.
 
@Kyriakos Here is your ticket to riches! Become a citizen of Greenland/Denmark and collect $1 million USD and retire in luxury. Never have to work again.


I was disappointed to read this and find no offer of $1 M USD :(
 
We can provide incentives to the Greenlanders to accept protectorate status, and improve their lives while the US becomes more prosperous and safe.
You could. I've been arguing the same on the very thread.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
Nothing at all.

Problem is, Trump has not offered such incentives. Instead, he has been questioning legitimacy of Danish claim to Greanland and has refused ruling out use of military force to control it.

That is not how one treats an ally. That is straight Putin vibes.
 
Problem is, Trump has not offered such incentives. Instead, he has been questioning legitimacy of Danish claim to Greanland and has refused ruling out use of military force to control it.

That is not how one treats an ally. That is straight Putin vibes.
That's reasonable. While I do think more often than not Trump's abrasiveness is an advantage in dealing with foreign nations, I agree that an ally should not be treated so poorly.
 
You could. I've been arguing the same on the very thread.

Nothing at all.

Problem is, Trump has not offered such incentives. Instead, he has been questioning legitimacy of Danish claim to Greanland and has refused ruling out use of military force to control it.

That is not how one treats an ally. That is straight Putin vibes.
They will offer protectorate status first, naturally. But if that fails (which isn't certain at all), they may indeed claim stuff. Which too may be followed by a deal etc.
The army outright invading the tiny settlements that exist in Greenland, is unlikely to say the least. US can claim or even set up its own territory (since virtually all of Greenland is uninhabited) and go from there.
 
Back
Top Bottom