• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

how far is trump to go for greenland

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
20,835
4,511
Midlands
Visit site
✟807,342.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There's umpteen polls from umpteen sources out there, and one can probably find at least one to satisfy whatever bias confirmation they have.
Yup. Just as some people go Judge shopping, some people go poll shopping.
 
Upvote 0

Servus

<><
Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
30,500
16,281
Washington
✟1,070,475.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
it's nto a deal if one sides idea of a deal is, "you do it or else."
When things are made up about a situation to make it sound much worse than it really is, that's usually a good indication that it's actually not a big deal. Who are you getting this stuff from?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
16,113
9,812
53
✟420,484.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Fun fact, the only country to invoke NATO is the United States. And Denmark specifically, sacrificed more of it's citizens in Afghanistain (as a percentage of it's population) - for our protection - than any other member.
Yeah but that’s hardly likely to endear Denmark to Trump. Helping his enemies is never a good way to go about currying favour with him.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,546
2,057
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟342,794.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I can see the logic from a security point of view. At least have the US play a big part in its security. Its virtually an extension of the US territory and more strategically important to the US than some far away nations in Europe.

Even the EU admits that for security reasons the US should have a stake in Greenland.

But I like that such an option is put on the table. Only someone like Trump would dare raise such an idea. Its refreshing even if its crazy at times lol.

But exciting lol. Just like how they flew in and captured a dictator like a James Bond movie. Maybe they can do that on a larger scale with Greenland.

One minute its Greenland and overnight its suddenly the US lol. Its funny I reckon. How it stirs up the world. Its like "hey you can't do that". Trump says in his funny way "but I just did" lol.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,504
10,373
✟302,825.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I can see the logic from a security point of view. At least have the US play a big part in its security. Its virtually an extension of the US territory and more strategically important to the US than some far away nations in Europe.

Even the EU admits that for security reasons the US should have a stake in Greenland.

But I like that such an option is put on the table. Only someone like Trump would dare raise such an idea. Its refreshing even if its crazy at times lol.

But exciting lol. Just like how they flew in and captured a dictator like a James Bond movie. Maybe they can do that on a larger scale with Greenland.

One minute its Greenland and overnight its suddenly the US lol. Its funny I reckon. How it stirs up the world. Its like "hey you can't do that". Trump says in his funny way "but I just did" lol.
There is nothing funny about breaching international law, invading an ally, ignoring sovereignty and demolishing a global system that, for all its failings, delivered.

Your casual, even juvenile, approval of such behaviour is an offence to every European, every Greenlander, every right thinking person on the planet. Shame on you.

At the height of the cold war the US had many thousands of personnel, in dozens of bases, stationed in Greenland. That same option is available today, without invasion. Only a power hungry fool would favour the aggressive option.
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
5,100
5,017
Davao City
Visit site
✟331,839.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Its virtually an extension of the US territory and more strategically important to the US than some far away nations in Europe.
Greenland isn't anywhere close to being an extention of US territory and is closer to the UK and Norway than the US.

greenland.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,546
2,057
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟342,794.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is nothing funny about breaching international law, invading an ally, ignoring sovereignty and demolishing a global system that, for all its failings, delivered.
What "breaching international law, invading an ally, ignoring sovereignty and demolishing a global system". Has Trump done this lol. Thats the point. Trump has done no such thing and yet people are already claiming he is a dictator. They have been for 10 years now lol.
Your casual, even juvenile, approval of such behaviour is an offence to every European, every Greenlander, every right thinking person on the planet. Shame on you.
Lol, sorry. It was a joke. I don't think everyone sees it the same way. Nothing has happened and people are going crazy over his words. Thats what he does lol. Always has done and its part of his persona I think.

The art of deal making. Use hyperbole to bring the issue to attention. Then once that happens start negociations. Its worked a lot of the times and brought changes that I don't think would have happened otherwise.
At the height of the cold war the US had many thousands of personnel, in dozens of bases, stationed in Greenland. That same option is available today, without invasion. Only a power hungry fool would favour the aggressive option.
I don't think that would ever happen and its all political talking points. Trump seems to have so far made the world a little bit safer. I don't think its as much of a big bad dictator as people make out.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,035
23,794
US
✟1,817,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You should know that the US had 10 times as many troops as now at the Greenland air base during the Cold War. There is iunder the present agreement. While it might be problematic to have lots more, I certainly could see bring the numbers to COld War levels and to hire civilian contractors to search for minerals near the base.
The 1951 treaty requires mutual agreement between the US and Denmark for troop strength changes. "Troop strength" is a matter of sizes and types of military units, not merely numbers of personnel.

Right now there are about 150 US Space Force personnel in Greenland at what used to be called Thule Station. Moving a ground or sea combat unit to Greenland (Space Force has no combat units) would require an agreement of the two nations of the treaty.

===========
Also, the air base is on the water. The US can certainly move naval defenses to international waters near the base to better defend the base.
You spelled "ice" wrong. During Arctic winter and much of spring, sea ice around the base is extensive and thick, effectively blocking normal vessel traffic. Vessels typically can navigate the waters only in late summer.

And, no, the US cannot unilaterally move naval vessels into Greenland waters without the agreement of the Danish government, according to the treaty.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,035
23,794
US
✟1,817,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since a lot of the world relies upon the US to keep them safe, why object to what would help the US in providing even more protection?
Sometimes I think you're being satirical.

Sometimes I'm afraid you're not.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,035
23,794
US
✟1,817,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What "breaching international law, invading an ally, ignoring sovereignty and demolishing a global system". Has Trump done this lol. Thats the point. Trump has done no such thing and yet people are already claiming he is a dictator. They have been for 10 years now lol.

Lol, sorry. It was a joke. I don't think everyone sees it the same way. Nothing has happened and people are going crazy over his words. Thats what he does lol. Always has done and its part of his persona I think.

The art of deal making. Use hyperbole to bring the issue to attention. Then once that happens start negociations. Its worked a lot of the times and brought changes that I don't think would have happened otherwise.

I don't think that would ever happen and its all political talking points. Trump seems to have so far made the world a little bit safer. I don't think its as much of a big bad dictator as people make out.
When the hyperbole is the breaking a treaty, it's gone too far. That's like a man telling his wife that he's leaving her for another woman as "negotiation" for her to cook steak instead of chicken.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,546
2,057
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟342,794.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Greenland isn't anywhere close to being an extention of US territory and is closer to the UK and Norway than the US.

View attachment 375254
Greenland is actually part of the North American continent. Its an extension of the same land mass. Whereas Norway is part of a completely seperate land mass.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,546
2,057
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟342,794.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When the hyperbole is the breaking a treaty, it's gone too far. That's like a man telling his wife that he's leaving her for another woman as "negotiation" for her to cook steak instead of chicken.
Where is the treaty that has been broken. What if the treaty is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,035
23,794
US
✟1,817,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Fun fact, the only country to invoke NATO is the United States. And Denmark specifically, sacrificed more of it's citizens in Afghanistain (as a percentage of it's population) - for our protection - than any other member.
For the US military, there is a hidden point in that.

In my 26 years in the service, I never worked anywhere that NATO troops were not in my unit. US troops in Afghanistan had NATO troops around them. We've lived on their bases. We fought with them as allies. We exercised with them as allies. We created combat tactics with them, and share many of the same actual documents. Most full generals would have been members of NATO units during their careers (a box to check for advancement).

The US Constitution says clearly--it needs no judicial interpretation--that the treaties ratified by Congress are the supreme "law of the land."

The difference between Greenland and Venezuela for the military is that there was no standing law the prohibited us from attacking Venezuela, and Congress did not pass one. But there is standing law that prohibits us from attacking a NATO ally.

An illegal order is an order that breaks a standing law.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
43,035
23,794
US
✟1,817,267.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where is the treaty that has been broken. What if the treaty is wrong.
The US Constitution says clearly--it needs no judicial interpretation--that the treaties ratified by Congress are the supreme "law of the land."

If "the treaty is wrong," then Congress must amend it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JosephZ
Upvote 0

Nithavela

you're in charge you can do it just get louis
Apr 14, 2007
31,300
23,033
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟614,653.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

FAITH-IN-HIM

Well-Known Member
Aug 23, 2024
2,795
2,012
WI
✟79,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For the US military, there is a hidden point in that.

In my 26 years in the service, I never worked anywhere that NATO troops were not in my unit. US troops in Afghanistan had NATO troops around them. We've lived on their bases. We fought with them as allies. We exercised with them as allies. We created combat tactics with them, and share many of the same actual documents. Most full generals would have been members of NATO units during their careers (a box to check for advancement).

The US Constitution says clearly--it needs no judicial interpretation--that the treaties ratified by Congress are the supreme "law of the land."

The difference between Greenland and Venezuela for the military is that there was no standing law the prohibited us from attacking Venezuela, and Congress did not pass one. But there is standing law that prohibits us from attacking a NATO ally.

An illegal order is an order that breaks a standing law.

I hope that someone on the President's legal team is advising him that acquiring or attacking Greenland without congressional approval could be grounds for impeachment. If he obtains Greenland, whether by purchase or force, then a century from now, people will only associate his name with a president who was impeached three times and COVID-19.

The President believes that acquiring Greenland would secure his legacy and place him among leaders like Washington or Lincoln. In reality, whoever becomes president in 2029—regardless of NATO's existence—will return Greenland to Denmark.
 
Upvote 0