• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's US Threat to Greenland (which belongs to Denmark)

Vixen said:
She 'undermined' sofa-boy JD Vance, is the excuse.


.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of Vance (I like to keep sofas clean, for one thing) but open criticism of orders is not something a military officer is supposed to do. The whole military really has a thing about respecting the chain of command, even when the links at the top are currently occupied by maddened clowns and turds. The outcome of this was inevitable and entirely proper, and cannot possibly have been a surprise.
 
theprestige said:
Saying your military base doesn't align with the concerns of your commander in chief seems like an obvious career limiting move to me.
Click to expand...
It's like those bishops who publicly criticize the pope then are so surprised to find out he's not chill with that. Know your corporate culture before you flap your gums!
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's like those bishops who publicly criticize the pope then are so surprised to find out he's not chill with that. Know your corporate culture before you flap your gums!
Click to expand...
It's going to need hard for a lot of senior military to be able to cope with the idea that they have been ethically committed to NATO then have to effectively be an enemy of NATO.

No valid reason was given for this change. Vance's speech was twisted, vile nonsense. There is no "no other option". The other option is the actual purpose of their mission. Greenland is, and always has been, protected by NATO of which their base is an integral part.
 
I am beginning to think the idea is to purge all non white males and all females from all command positions.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm not a fan of Vance (I like to keep sofas clean, for one thing) but open criticism of orders is not something a military officer is supposed to do. The whole military really has a thing about respecting the chain of command, even when the links at the top are currently occupied by maddened clowns and turds. The outcome of this was inevitable and entirely proper, and cannot possibly have been a surprise.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s my thought too.

She’s right that her bosses are pair of wankers but saying so in public is obviously going to get her fired so there can’t be any complaints on those grounds.
 
a_unique_person said:
It's going to need hard for a lot of senior military to be able to cope with the idea that they have been ethically committed to NATO then have to effectively be an enemy of NATO.

No valid reason was given for this change. Vance's speech was twisted, vile nonsense. There is no "no other option". The other option is the actual purpose of their mission. Greenland is, and always has been, protected by NATO of which their base is an integral part.
Click to expand...
Protected by NATO against what? Polar bears?
American bases on Greenland were always about protecting the USA.
 
dann said:
Protected by NATO against what? Polar bears?
American bases on Greenland were always about protecting the USA.
Click to expand...
Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean that planning protection is wrong. Based on certain recent comments from a sociopathic moron it looks like NATO may yet have to protect Greenland in the near future. So the answer to your question is "against the USA".
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm not a fan of Vance (I like to keep sofas clean, for one thing) but open criticism of orders is not something a military officer is supposed to do. The whole military really has a thing about respecting the chain of command, even when the links at the top are currently occupied by maddened clowns and turds. The outcome of this was inevitable and entirely proper, and cannot possibly have been a surprise.
Click to expand...
She knew when she sent it what would happen.
 
Why the U.S. Abandoned Dozens of Military Bases in Greenland (WSJ, April 8, 2025 - 8:26 min.)
Denmark is planning to spend over $1 billion to protect Greenland and the Arctic region – a highly strategic asset coveted by President Trump for its strategic location between North America and Russia. The U.S. has one military base on the island called the Pituffik Space Base and began stationing forces here after Denmark was invaded by Germany during WWII. So why did the U.S. exit the territory in the first place and what level of involvement do they have on the island today?
WSJ explains Denmark’s efforts to boost defense here with dog-sleds and drones – and why the U.S. abandoned several military bases there decades ago.
Click to expand...
The short version is that those bases were no longer needed for the protection of the USA against nuclear bombs coming from Soviet Russia after the Soviet Union decided to go capitalist. But now that Canada and Europe have become the new enemy, things have changed again.

One of the experts mentions the fear of a "peaceful invasion," an oxymoron if I ever saw one when you are not talking about something like this.
 
a_unique_person said:
You are correct but there was the side effect that Greenland itself would get NATO protection.
Click to expand...

Did Greenland need that protection?! Even during WW2, I don't think the Nazis did anything that might have harmed the Greenlanders. If I understand it correctly - and maybe I don't because it's not something I have looked into - the Nazis tried and a couple of times managed to establish weather stations in Greenland, but those weather stations didn't bother the Greenlanders in any way because they were established in the wilderness on the east coast far from human habitation, and the Nazis didn't want their weather stations to be discovered and then destroyed. Greenland in World War II (Wikipedia)
However, skirmishes did occur, and at one point the Nazis ambush managed to kill one person, probably a Dane, a member of the sled patrol in the desolate Northeastern Greenland. Krigen I Nordøstgrønland (His2rie)

Weather stations were an important part of the war effort for both the Allied and the Axis powers, but not really for the Greenlanders.
You could say that the Greenlanders might have had a hypothetical interest in helping the Allied forces defeat the Axis powers because Greenlanders would probably have been treated as Untermenschen if the Nazis had won WW2 and conquered the island, but the point of the American bases on Greenland in WW2 was control of the North Atlantic, which was also the point of the German interest in the island.

But you will have to elaborate on the alleged side effect: NATO protection post-WW2. Protection from what exactly? Did Stalin threaten to invade Greenland? Again: The (main) point of the U.S. bases on Greenland was to protect the USA, but it was probably more than that. I think I was too naive when I only mentioned protection because another point might have been and probably was the ability to attack the USSR: The bases could have been used not only to discover and help shoot down missiles and bombers coming from the USSR, but also to help guide missiles and bombers going the other way. And it was probably more than that: 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash (Wikipedia)
This purpose would have made the U.S. bases on Greenland a potential target of a Soviet attack - a 'side effect' that would no doubt be in need of NATO protection, but not to protect Greenland and the Greenlanders.
 
dann said:
Did Greenland need that protection?! Even during WW2, I don't think the Nazis did anything that might have harmed the Greenlanders. If I understand it correctly - and maybe I don't because it's not something I have looked into - the Nazis tried and a couple of times managed to establish weather stations in Greenland, but those weather stations didn't bother the Greenlanders in any way because they were established in the wilderness on the east coast far from human habitation, and the Nazis didn't want their weather stations to be discovered and then destroyed. Greenland in World War II (Wikipedia)
However, skirmishes did occur, and at one point the Nazis ambush managed to kill one person, probably a Dane, a member of the sled patrol in the desolate Northeastern Greenland. Krigen I Nordøstgrønland (His2rie)

Weather stations were an important part of the war effort for both the Allied and the Axis powers, but not really for the Greenlanders.
You could say that the Greenlanders might have had a hypothetical interest in helping the Allied forces defeat the Axis powers because Greenlanders would probably have been treated as Untermenschen if the Nazis had won WW2 and conquered the island, but the point of the American bases on Greenland in WW2 was control of the North Atlantic, which was also the point of the German interest in the island.

But you will have to elaborate on the alleged side effect: NATO protection post-WW2. Protection from what exactly? Did Stalin threaten to invade Greenland? Again: The (main) point of the U.S. bases on Greenland was to protect the USA, but it was probably more than that. I think I was too naive when I only mentioned protection because another point might have been and probably was the ability to attack the USSR: The bases could have been used not only to discover and help shoot down missiles and bombers coming from the USSR, but also to help guide missiles and bombers going the other way. And it was probably more than that: 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash (Wikipedia)
This purpose would have made the U.S. bases on Greenland a potential target of a Soviet attack - a 'side effect' that would no doubt be in need of NATO protection, but not to protect Greenland and the Greenlanders.
Click to expand...
A lot of words to not make a relevant point.

Can you name any countries that did need protection at the immediate time NATO was formed? Or at the immediate time they joined NATO? NATO was formed as an alliance against future aggression. Exactly as is threatened now by the USA against Greenland/Denmark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom