Do you support invasion and annexation of Greenland?

[League Champion 1,938]

17 hours ago, thegeneral said:

When does the invasion begin? They aren’t giving selling us Greenland.

I'm guessing within the next 2 weeks. Troops are on the way. A shot not need be fired. We will walk in, plant our flag and set up shop. 

Who's going to stop it? 

[Fnord 2,716]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

is a treaty a contract?

AI Overview

Yes, a treaty is essentially a formal, legally binding contract or agreement between sovereign nations,

 

must a contract benefit both parties?

AI Overview

Yes, a legally binding contract generally must have mutual benefit (consideration)

What's your point? That somehow the treaty is not benefitting the US? 

[jerryskids 7,280]

19 minutes ago, Fnord said:

What's your point? That somehow the treaty is not benefitting the US? 

You posted your treaty definition in response to a post that claimed that Denmark wanted the US to protect them and provide nothing in return.  I was merely saying that such a contract would not hold up legally.

Anyway, I don't recall your or other Lefties' responses to my earlier post about Denmark entertaining selling parts of Greenland to China a few years ago.  Should that be a concern to the US?

[Fnord 2,716]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You posted your treaty definition in response to a post that claimed that Denmark wanted the US to protect them and provide nothing in return.  I was merely saying that such a contract would not hold up legally.

Anyway, I don't recall your or other Lefties' responses to my earlier post about Denmark entertaining selling parts of Greenland to China a few years ago.  Should that be a concern to the US?

NATO is the treaty. If you define Denmark as being one of the staunchest supporters of American military adventurism over the last few decades as "receiving nothing in return" I'm not sure what to tell ya. 

ETA: missed your second point. China isn't part of NATO and they haven't been essentially gifted free reign in Greenland like the US has. If you have some insight on the differences, please share. Otherwise, nothingburger.

[jerryskids 7,280]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

NATO is the treaty. If you define Denmark as being one of the staunchest supporters of American military adventurism over the last few decades as "receiving nothing in return" I'm not sure what to tell ya. 

ETA: missed your second point. China isn't part of NATO and they haven't been essentially gifted free reign in Greenland like the US has. If you have some insight on the differences, please share. Otherwise, nothingburger.

I wasn't saying Denmark had not provided the US anything, I was merely going by the statement you quoted.  I'm confident that they've done things, like provide us land for the Space Force base, which count as reciprocal.

You missed the point on China.  China owning any land on Greenland is a concern for the US.  With Denmark owning Greenland, the US doesn't control that decision.  It is a geopolitical strategic reason for the US to own Greenland.

[Fnord 2,716]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I wasn't saying Denmark had not provided the US anything, I was merely going by the statement you quoted.  I'm confident that they've done things, like provide us land for the Space Force base, which count as reciprocal.

You missed the point on China.  China owning any land on Greenland is a concern for the US.  With Denmark owning Greenland, the US doesn't control that decision.  It is a geopolitical strategic reason for the US to own Greenland.

I understand that. The Chinese were not sold any piece of Greenland. Greenland's citizens do not want us there, either. I can't blame them.

I still don't recall anyone being able to explain how Greenland suddenly became such a strategic imperative that we needed to risk fracturing NATO over acquiring it, especially when we essentially have free reign to do what we want there. 

[thegeneral 3,835]

1 hour ago, League Champion said:

I'm guessing within the next 2 weeks. Troops are on the way. A shot not need be fired. We will walk in, plant our flag and set up shop. 

Who's going to stop it? 

Two weeks! You have it down.

[League Champion 1,938]

59 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Two weeks! You have it down.

Looking at it logistically, 2 weeks. 

[thegeneral 3,835]

3 minutes ago, League Champion said:

Looking at it logistically, 2 weeks. 

I don’t see us dropping unwelcome troops into Greenland. But two weeks is Don’s bullshit answer for any timeline. Just like when he says a thing is down by a very specific percentage like 94%. He’s just making that up. 

[League Champion 1,938]

Just now, thegeneral said:

I don’t see us dropping unwelcome troops into Greenland. 

No troops, peacekeepers. Learn how to work Kid. 

[HellToupee 2,390]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I don’t see us dropping unwelcome troops into Greenland. 

We have 150-200 military there with a bunch of “contractors”. We’re good to go

[thegeneral 3,835]

11 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

We have 150-200 military there with a bunch of “contractors”. We’re good to go

So what’s the invasion talk? Seems like they want to take something, like the minerals

[TBayXXXVII 2,691]

On 1/14/2026 at 8:29 PM, thegeneral said:

A touch of hyperbole from the Gemini. The point remains he called it!

Of course now that dude’s lips will be firmly planted on Don’s ass he’ll have a hard time explaining what he really meant.

When Kamala called Biden a racist on national tv, liberals didn't care, did they.

[League Champion 1,938]

9 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

So what’s the invasion talk? Seems like they want to take something, like the minerals

America First

[Mike Honcho 5,586]

 

Quote

 

Republican Signals Support for Trump Impeachment

Nebraska Republican Don Bacon has blasted President Donald Trump’s talk of taking over Greenland, branding the idea "utter buffoonery" and warning it could spark bipartisan impeachment efforts—underscoring deepening GOP fractures over Trump’s foreign policy brinkmanship.

 

 

Maybe there is a line

[thegeneral 3,835]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

When Kamala called Biden a racist on national tv, liberals didn't care, did they.

Lol

[thegeneral 3,835]

2 minutes ago, League Champion said:

America First

Why wouldn’t we just negotiate the rights to these things or better yet let companies do this.

[TBayXXXVII 2,691]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Lol

I'll take that as a "no". 

[thegeneral 3,835]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'll take that as a "no". 

It’s funny that the Gemini Killer called this out even using Denmark In his little story. He’ll of course be chortling Don’s ballsack if this were to ever occur now.

Politics

If it makes you feel better liberals do it too.

[cmh6476 1,193]

On 1/12/2026 at 4:32 PM, jerryskids said:

There is no way English is this guy's first language.   

It's obviously gibberish 

[jerryskids 7,280]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

I understand that. The Chinese were not sold any piece of Greenland. Greenland's citizens do not want us there, either. I can't blame them.

I still don't recall anyone being able to explain how Greenland suddenly became such a strategic imperative that we needed to risk fracturing NATO over acquiring it, especially when we essentially have free reign to do what we want there. 

Huh?  I've explained it, you just choose to ignore it.  China as a global military threat is new.  The Islamification of Europe is new.  Trump has specifically discussed the China threat with Denmark, there are videos from both sides regarding it.

[League Champion 1,938]

31 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Why wouldn’t we just negotiate the rights to these things or better yet let companies do this.

Why?

[Fnord 2,716]

20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Huh?  I've explained it, you just choose to ignore it.  China as a global military threat is new.  The Islamification of Europe is new.  Trump has specifically discussed the China threat with Denmark, there are videos from both sides regarding it.

Thanks, I legit couldn't remember if someone had answered. I don't find your argument very compelling, which may be the reason for my memory lapse. IIRC the Don claimed that there was Chinese naval activity around Greenland. You'll pardon me (but the Don won't, I don't have enough cash) for doubting the veracity of that statement.

[thegeneral 3,835]

45 minutes ago, League Champion said:

Why?

Because that’s how we should operate with countries like Denmark.

[dogcows 1,446]

5 hours ago, jerryskids said:

is a treaty a contract?

AI Overview

Yes, a treaty is essentially a formal, legally binding contract or agreement between sovereign nations,

 

must a contract benefit both parties?

AI Overview

Yes, a legally binding contract generally must have mutual benefit (consideration)

If allowing American bases on Greenland doesn’t benefit the U.S., why do we have them there?

We have a clear benefit. Maybe this president wants a greater benefit, but you cannot say we have zero benefit from the current arrangement.

But why are you even pretending that benefitting the U.S.  is the reason?

The prez wants to project dominance, get his next prize, and steal the mineral wealth to be deposited in off-shore bank accounts with the Venezuelan oil money.