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.
 
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.
 
Clutch Cargo said:
I have spoken with hundreds of Greenlanders in Denmark and they all love Trump.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you. Do you have any evidence for this? Did you at least write it down somewhere in your travel notes?
 
Last edited:
Clutch Cargo said:
American military has been stationed on Greenland for a very, very long time already so the consensus is already in.
Click to expand...
There have been American troops stationed in Germany since 1945. That doesn't mean they want to be the 51st state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom