- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,739
- 5,063
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Welcome to the 21st Century version of the Monroe Doctrine. Of course, we should be responsible for reducing China's influence in Greenland, the Arctic, and yes, aslo in Panama. And, of course, we care much less about Europe than we used to. An 80-year relationship will definitely change.
======================================
Yes, Greenland needs to have better military defense and should have its minerals developed. Yes, Denmark could have done more, but it the US that has withdrawn its bases and greatly reduced its presence since WWII.
1) By treaty, we can build as many bases as we want in Greenland. We used to have 16. We have reduced our footprint to one base of a few hundred airmen in one-year rotations.
2) Few would object if we were to start mining operations, either near bases or not and paid well for workers who wanted to work for us. We may or may not need an agreement with the government, under pressure if necessary. The local economies throughout the country would flourish. There is no reason to do any of this near their capital where 20,000 of their 35,000 citizens live.
3) It would be good form (so non-Trump) to allow the government (basically in the capital to continue to be autonomous.
4) Yes, we should actively use the new bases to protect the Arctic and Greenland against Chinese actions, as well as to protect mining operations.
5) Finally, the Danes have sent military help whenever we asked: in Iraq, In Afghanistan, Libya and would have come to Syria. MORE Danes per capita participated and were injured than soldiers from any other European county. As when we called Canada a poor ally, Trump's and Vance's statements have been insulting. NATO has responded to only ONE attack on its members since its founding. It members came to the aid of the US after 911.
======================================
Yes, Greenland needs to have better military defense and should have its minerals developed. Yes, Denmark could have done more, but it the US that has withdrawn its bases and greatly reduced its presence since WWII.
1) By treaty, we can build as many bases as we want in Greenland. We used to have 16. We have reduced our footprint to one base of a few hundred airmen in one-year rotations.
2) Few would object if we were to start mining operations, either near bases or not and paid well for workers who wanted to work for us. We may or may not need an agreement with the government, under pressure if necessary. The local economies throughout the country would flourish. There is no reason to do any of this near their capital where 20,000 of their 35,000 citizens live.
3) It would be good form (so non-Trump) to allow the government (basically in the capital to continue to be autonomous.
4) Yes, we should actively use the new bases to protect the Arctic and Greenland against Chinese actions, as well as to protect mining operations.
5) Finally, the Danes have sent military help whenever we asked: in Iraq, In Afghanistan, Libya and would have come to Syria. MORE Danes per capita participated and were injured than soldiers from any other European county. As when we called Canada a poor ally, Trump's and Vance's statements have been insulting. NATO has responded to only ONE attack on its members since its founding. It members came to the aid of the US after 911.
