• 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)

Very few words to write a pointless post.
You seem to think that NATO was about protection. I assume that you think so because that's what all military alliances pretend to be about.

The obvious thing to do would be to look at the countries that were attacked after NATO came into being. Vietnam would have needed protection.
Vietnam War (Wikipedia)
So would Laos and Cambodia. If I remember correctly, Vietnam would have need protection against not only the USA but also Australia and New Zealand. Maybe you can tell us why. I don't think Vietnam ever attacked or threatened any of those countries.

And don't get me started on all the Latin American and African countries that needed protection and didn't get any.

So much for NATO being "formed as an alliance against future aggression," but it does kind of make sense of your "Exactly (!) as is threatened now by the USA against Greenland/Denmark."
You are not entirely wrong. One way for small countries to get protection is to ally themselves with the major aggressor(s).

And speaking of "Greenland/Denmark": As for the latter, no sooner had the Warsaw Pact been dissolved before Denmark became a warfaring nation, beginning with the Balkan wars in the 1990s and continuing in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, even though Denmark was never threatened by any of those countries.
Denmark at war 1991-2011 (Danmarks Nationalleksikon)

"An alliance against future aggression", my ***!


ETA: It just occurred to me: In the mid 1980s, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, a Danish right-wing politician, claimed that the Warsaw Pact was the only reason why NATO existed. Once the aggressive Warsaw Pact was brought to an end, there would be no more need for NATO.
And yet, here we are, 34 years after the end of the Warsaw Pact.
Man, was he wrong!!!
 
Last edited:
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...
Committed not just to NATO and not just ethically! There is a more direct contractual obligation, a defense agreement, that she chose to commit to - explicitly:
Pentagon fires Greenland base commander for refuting JD Vance’s remarks (MSNBC, April 11, 2025)
“I commit that for as long as I am lucky enough to lead this base, all of our flags will fly proudly — together,” she added. (Under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark, when the installation was known as Thule Air Base, the flags of the United States, Greenland and Denmark are required to be flown on the base.)
Click to expand...
Did Vance tell her pull down those other flags :GREENLAND::DENMARK: because :usa: is now supposed to be the best and **** the rest?
If he did, I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.

She also pointed out that Vance is the one who doesn't respect that commitment:
“I do not presume to understand current politics, but what I do know is the concerns of the U.S. administration discussed by Vice President Vance on Friday are not reflective of Pituffik Space Base,” Meyers wrote in her email, which was first reported by Military.com.
Click to expand...

On Thursday, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell posted a statement on X announcing that Meyers had been let go “for loss of confidence in her ability to lead.” His statement suggested that Meyers had behaved in a partisan manner, despite the fact that her email explicitly dismissed politics.
“Actions to undermine the chain of command or to subvert President Trump’s agenda will not be tolerated at the Department of Defense,” Parnell wrote in his post, which linked to the article on Military.com.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem to have anything to do with "her ability to lead." It's all about her (un)willingness to obey Trump unconditionally.
 
dann said:
Very few words to write a pointless post.
You seem to think that NATO was about protection. I assume that you think so because that's what all military alliances pretend to be about.

The obvious thing to do would be to look at the countries that were attacked after NATO came into being. Vietnam would have needed protection.
Vietnam War (Wikipedia)
So would Laos and Cambodia. If I remember correctly, Vietnam would have need protection against not only the USA but also Australia and New Zealand. Maybe you can tell us why. I don't think Vietnam ever attacked or threatened any of those countries.

And don't get me started on all the Latin American and African countries that needed protection and didn't get any.

So much for NATO being "formed as an alliance against future aggression," but it does kind of make sense of your "Exactly (!) as is threatened now by the USA against Greenland/Denmark."
You are not entirely wrong. One way for small countries to get protection is to ally themselves with the major aggressor(s).

And speaking of "Greenland/Denmark": As for the latter, no sooner had the Warsaw Pact been dissolved before Denmark became a warfaring nation, beginning with the Balkan wars in the 1990s and continuing in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, even though Denmark was never threatened by any of those countries.
Denmark at war 1991-2011 (Danmarks Nationalleksikon)

"An alliance against future aggression", my ***!


ETA: It just occurred to me: In the mid 1980s, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, a Danish right-wing politician, claimed that the Warsaw Pact was the only reason why NATO existed. Once the aggressive Warsaw Pact was brought to an end, there would be no more need for NATO.
And yet, here we are, 34 years after the end of the Warsaw Pact.
Man, was he wrong!!!
Click to expand...
All of your examples were not of NATO. Why didn’t you mention Serbia which is the only country that has been actually attacked by NATO?

And ultimately, it is Russia that Europe fears, and the Ukraine war show that this fear is well-founded, Warsaw Pact or no Warsaw Pact.
 
You do know where to find Serbia on a map, don't you?
dann said:
And speaking of "Greenland/Denmark": As for the latter, no sooner had the Warsaw Pact been dissolved before Denmark became a warfaring nation, beginning with the Balkan wars in the 1990s and ...
Man, was he wrong!!!
Click to expand...

You may not have noticed, but NATO is not an alliance of peaceful nations keen on only defending themselves and others. Not even the European member states. That's what I'm pointing out. Our countries are allies with warmongers, and they're eager participants in those wars.
Consider your own argument! Did I claim anywhere that Russia didn't attack Ukraine?

For some reason, all Western European nationalists are able to point at Russia and say: See?! There's the one and only aggressor! Isn't it obvious?! We, the entirely peaceful nations must defend ourselves against that brutal and entirely unprovoked attack.
But whenever our nations attack other countries, we portray ourselves as staunch defenders of everything that is right and decent in the world.
What do you think our Balkan warfare looked like to Russians?
What do you think Denmark was doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Organizing delivery of powdered milk to starving children?

Yes, "it is Russia that Europe fears."
We always fear the enemy, whether we have reason to fear the enemy or not. The USA feared Vietnam. Now it fears Greenland. It's about the national security of the USA. And when it sounds a little hollow, the "we" may be described a little less literally than you would otherwise assume, as in *our Western values are threatened." Or "our way of life." Whatever! Or something else that needs to be defended against the brutal enemies of everything that is good. Like, when Denmark has “not done a good job by the people of Greenland,” and the USA needs to come to its rescue.

Now the chickens have come home to roost, and we have no reason to act surprised that we now happen to be the target as in the case of Greenland.
They have to have it!
Isn't it obvious?
 
Clutch Cargo said:
The indigenous Greenlanders don't like the Danes anyway so if Greenland is treated better by the Americans then I'm sure they will gladly support the US.

🇬🇱 >>> 🇺🇲 :hug4
Click to expand...
Probably, yes. But nothing indicates that the Americans will treat Inuits better than the Danes. There are lots of examples of indigenous people being treated very badly by the U.S., and as we know, every policy can be reversed every four years.
 
Clutch Cargo said:
The indigenous Greenlanders don't like the Danes anyway so if Greenland is treated better by the Americans then I'm sure they will gladly support the US.
🇬🇱 >>> 🇺🇲 :hug4
Click to expand...
You should try to keep up with the news instead of relying on alternative MAGA 'facts':
Thanks to Trump Sr. & Jr. and Vance, Greenlanders now love Denmark and being part of the Danish Realm!
From post 626:
Med MAGA-hatten på kaldte han Trumps søn en helt - nu er tonen anderledes: 'Dum idiot' (DR.dk, Mar 26, 2025)
Den karakteristiske røde kasket sad på hovedet af Julius Sandgren.
"Make America Great Again" stod der med store hvide bogstaver. Og Julius Sandgren var godt tilfreds.
Det var i starten af januar, og han havde lige spist middag med Donald Trumps søn, Donald Trump Jr.
(...)
Men i dag har piben fået en anden lyd. En helt anden lyd, faktisk.
Han har solgt kasketten og siger nej tak til Trump.
- Vi er ◊◊◊◊◊◊. Farvel til amerikanerne. Vi vil helst have danskere.
Men var det ikke dig, der kaldte Donald Trump Jr. En helt?
- Vi tog fejl. Det er på grund af pengene. Han vil overtage Grønland. Det gør man ikke.
Så du fortryder, at du tog den røde hat på?
- Ja. Jeg fortryder det. De behandler ikke mennesker ordentligt. Det er kun danskere, der gør det. Med medicin, det sociale, forhold for pensionister. Det er danskere, der har startet det.
Click to expand...
Wearing the MAGA hat, he called Trump's son a hero - now the tone is different: 'Stupid idiot' (DR.dk, Mar 26, 2025)
The characteristic red cap was on Julius Sandgren's head.
"Make America Great Again," it said, in big white letters. And Julius Sandgren was very pleased.
That was in early January, and he had just had dinner with Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr.
(...)
But today he's singing a different tune. A completely different tune, in fact.
He has sold the cap and says no thanks to Trump.
- We are ◊◊◊◊◊◊. Goodbye to the Americans. We would rather have Danes.
But didn't you call Donald Trump Jr. A hero?
- We were wrong. It's because of the money. He wants to take over Greenland. You don't do that.
So you regret wearing on the red hat?
- Yes. I regret it. They don't treat people properly. Danes are the only ones who do. With medicine, welfare, conditions for pensioners. The Danes are the ones who introduced it.

I think there's a lesson or two in there for members of the MAGA cult in the USA.
This poor guy wasn't in the cult long enough for it to wreck his brain.
 
Last edited:
German Deutsche Welle (DW):
Why has the US' Greenland military base commander been fired? ( DW News on YouTube, April 11, 2025 - 4:28 min.)
2:46--> The colonel was definitely putting herself in a dicey situation by having something in writing that seemed to contradict that very thing: that following of orders that said, according to military.com, at least a portion of the email that was released didn't so explicitly say that she was against anything the Trump administration was saying. In fact, it says that she was not involving herself in politics just that she wanted to show a sense of solidarity with the non-American personnel that were on that base.
Nonetheless, a dicey thing for anyone in uniform to be doing in any military really and certainly the American one.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
The US score was high because it was economic rather than political freedom and the US economy was subject to very light touch regulation.

I think it has dropped because even less regulation has led to more monopolies, cartels, increased industrial fraud and less transparency.
Click to expand...
And because the "index" is created by a reich-wing US "think" tank.
 
Greenland was important in WW2 because it provided a base for convoy escorts and long range anti submarine aircraft.
 
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...
But she didn't disobey any orders, she simply showed the sofa lover up as a person with no morals, no qualities and no value.
 
Clutch Cargo said:
The indigenous Greenlanders don't like the Danes anyway so if Greenland is treated better by the Americans then I'm sure they will gladly support the US.

🇬🇱 >>> 🇺🇲 :hug4
Click to expand...
steenkh said:
Probably, yes. But nothing indicates that the Americans will treat Inuits better than the Danes. There are lots of examples of indigenous people being treated very badly by the U.S., and as we know, every policy can be reversed every four years.
Click to expand...
American military has been stationed on Greenland for a very, very long time already so the consensus is already in.
 
You made that up.

I can do that as well.

I met thousands of Greenlanders in Greenland who say they hate Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom