• 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)

Andy_Ross said:
Ingraham: Greenland would not exist were it not for the United States of America. Canada would cease to exist without the U.S. Military.
Click to expand...

The US, entirely voluntarily, signed a treaty in which it formally gave up any claim to Greenland in exchange for Denmark giving the US several Caribbean islands. The only thing which has threatened the existence of Canada in the last couple of hundred years is the US military.

Hey, America - are you the baddies?
 
Rep. Ogles: "It's important that we have a stake in Greenland, that they are quite frankly a protectorate of the US. They've been in relationship with Denmark -- that needs to end. We have spilled more blood protecting Greenland than the Danes ... we are the dominant predator force in the Western Hemisphere"

https://twitter.com/x/status/2008884651293630496
 
Andy_Ross said:
Rep. Ogles: "It's important that we have a stake in Greenland, that they are quite frankly a protectorate of the US. They've been in relationship with Denmark -- that needs to end. We have spilled more blood protecting Greenland than the Danes ... we are the dominant predator force in the Western Hemisphere"
Click to expand...

It's entirely unimportant that you "have a stake" in Greenland because you have an agreement that you can use its territory for whatever defences you deem necessary. You signed a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ treaty declaring you had no claim to Greenland, and you got paid in territory in exchange for doing so. So, go ◊◊◊◊ yourself.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
MIKE JOHNSON: I'm not gonna take 1,000 gotcha questions this morning trying to pit me against the White House.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is crystal clear on the notion that warmaking is a responsibility jointly and severally exercised by both the President and the Congress. Either Congress and the President are in accord about what kind of warfare is going to occur, or else Speaker Johnson had better exercise his obligation under the Constitution to pit his House against the White House.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Q: Is the administration really willing to risk the NATO alliance by potentially moving ahead with a military operation?

MARCO RUBIO: The president always retains the option -- every president -- to address it through military means
Click to expand...

Thanks Marco, that clears it up. Whenever, say, Trump wants a hamberder, he retains the option to deploy the military to seize one. Very helpful insight there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom