WWTBAM Bored

I am so not into the Greenland thing. I am so getting bored with his whatever.
What can I say.

I’m guessing you could say a lot to your elected representative to make your views known.

You are not shy about knowing what to say

a1mamacat wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 17, 2026 7:26 pm

I’m guessing you could say a lot to your elected representative to make your views known.

You are not shy about knowing what to say

Pretty sure I would be ignored.

I don't like it either.
I think trump's wrong on this one.
Appeal to the Greenlanders. Give them the best arguments and let them decide what they want to do. If they want to remain as they are, let them be. I don't support taking Greenland by force or intimidation.

Text message sent by Trump today to the Prime Minister of Norway (which doesn't have anything to do with Greenland other than being a member of a fellow NATO country, along with the US and Denmark):

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.

Translation: You didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize so I'm going to war.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 19, 2026 11:05 am

Text message sent by Trump today to the Prime Minister of Norway (which doesn't have anything to do with Greenland other than being a member of a fellow NATO country, along with the US and Denmark):

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.

Translation: You didn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize so I'm going to war.

And he said Zelinsky would be the one who would start WW 3.

Sounds like trump made some kinda deal about Greenland.

We'll find out.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 2:39 pm

Sounds like trump made some kinda deal about Greenland.

We'll find out.

Can’t wait to hear the big news!

Here’s hoping that we’ll all be as proud of him and our country on this deal as we were when we heard that he won the Nobel Peace Prize!

Pay no attention to the fact that he’s as corrupt and ill as he is.

Greenland is a big deal. I know a lot of you think "Pffft!" but it is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. It needs to be in the hands of the best protector. And Denmark is not it.

I could go into detail about how and why Greenland is important, but you all can just look at a globe and figure it out.

There is a retired navy pilot who has his dog in the same obedience class as ours. He spent most of his career flying submarine hunters out of Greenland. I asked why Greenland and he smirked and said "Because that's where all the subs are."

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:11 pm

Greenland is a big deal. I know a lot of you think "Pffft!" but it is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. It needs to be in the hands of the best protector. And Denmark is not it.

Putin said much the same thing about Ukraine before he invaded. And I'm sure if someone had asked Hitler, he'd have said the same thing about Czechoslovakia before he took it over.

China and Russia are not going to invade Greenland. That's why we have NATO, to protect it if they tried.

And those Chinese and Russian subs were there 10 years ago. And 20. And 30. We didn't invade Greenland then and somehow, we're still safe.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:33 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:11 pm

Greenland is a big deal. I know a lot of you think "Pffft!" but it is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. It needs to be in the hands of the best protector. And Denmark is not it.

Putin said much the same thing about Ukraine before he invaded. And I'm sure if someone had asked Hitler, he'd have said the same thing about Czechoslovakia before he took it over.

China and Russia are not going to invade Greenland. That's why we have NATO, to protect it if they tried.

And those Chinese and Russian subs were there 10 years ago. And 20. And 30. We didn't invade Greenland then and somehow, we're still safe.

I'm surprised you support your position in such a way "it's always been this way and we're still O.K.". You would challenge that philosophy on many other topics, as you should. And this one, too.

China is much stronger than is has been, and is more aggressive in inserting its influence in foreign lands. Russia is more desperate. Yes, we are still O.K., until we're not.

Just because you've never locked your doors and nothing's happened doesn't mean you shouldn't begin locking your door.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 8:00 am

Just because you've never locked your doors and nothing's happened doesn't mean you shouldn't begin locking your door.

The geography of Greenland makes it easy for a hostile force to invade but difficult to hold on a long-term basis as a military hub.The country is the size of Texas and Oklahoma combined but its population is about 60,000. The largest town is the capital Nuuk on the southwest coast, which has almost half the total population. The country has no military, so any modern army could easily airdrop or send troops in from a sub and "capture" the capital and airport in a matter of minutes.

However, to make Greenland useful militarily, an invader would need a naval and/or airbase, and that would take months to build and multimillions of dollars. Meanwhile the US has a military base in Greenland (formerly Thule, now Pituffik), which could serve as a base of operations to repel any invaders or bomb the crap out of any attempted hostile military installations.

The only reason to take over Greenland is to extract minerals, which has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with enriching Trump's buddies.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:11 pm

Greenland is a big deal. I know a lot of you think "Pffft!" but it is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. It needs to be in the hands of the best protector. And Denmark is not it.

I could go into detail about how and why Greenland is important, but you all can just look at a globe and figure it out.

There is a retired navy pilot who has his dog in the same obedience class as ours. He spent most of his career flying submarine hunters out of Greenland. I asked why Greenland and he smirked and said "Because that's where all the subs are."

Agreed. Didn't quite understand at first, and as usual, wish he had a bit more "diplomat" in him, but it makes sense.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:33 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:11 pm

Greenland is a big deal. I know a lot of you think "Pffft!" but it is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. It needs to be in the hands of the best protector. And Denmark is not it.

Putin said much the same thing about Ukraine before he invaded. And I'm sure if someone had asked Hitler, he'd have said the same thing about Czechoslovakia before he took it over.

China and Russia are not going to invade Greenland. That's why we have NATO, to protect it if they tried.

And those Chinese and Russian subs were there 10 years ago. And 20. And 30. We didn't invade Greenland then and somehow, we're still safe.

LOL! Ask Ukraine how that's working for them.

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 10:44 am

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:33 pm

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:11 pm

Greenland is a big deal. I know a lot of you think "Pffft!" but it is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. It needs to be in the hands of the best protector. And Denmark is not it.

Putin said much the same thing about Ukraine before he invaded. And I'm sure if someone had asked Hitler, he'd have said the same thing about Czechoslovakia before he took it over.

China and Russia are not going to invade Greenland. That's why we have NATO, to protect it if they tried.

And those Chinese and Russian subs were there 10 years ago. And 20. And 30. We didn't invade Greenland then and somehow, we're still safe.

LOL! Ask Ukraine how that's working for them.

They probably would tell you that they’re not a member of NATO, so they don’t know why you’re mentioning them.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:11 pm

Greenland is a big deal. I know a lot of you think "Pffft!" but it is like the ring in Lord of the Rings. It needs to be in the hands of the best protector. And Denmark is not it.

I could go into detail about how and why Greenland is important, but you all can just look at a globe and figure it out.

There is a retired navy pilot who has his dog in the same obedience class as ours. He spent most of his career flying submarine hunters out of Greenland. I asked why Greenland and he smirked and said "Because that's where all the subs are."

These comments always miss the point. People correctly point out that we have a military alliance built already to give us the opportunity to place troops in Greenland. We used to have something like 18 bases there. Now we have one. That was our decision.

There’s never been a coherent national security justification for seizing Greenland when we have those avenues already. On the other hand, destroying NATO would leave us exposed in other ways in the north Atlantic.

Weyoun wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 11:50 am

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 10:44 am

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 20, 2026 11:33 pm

Putin said much the same thing about Ukraine before he invaded. And I'm sure if someone had asked Hitler, he'd have said the same thing about Czechoslovakia before he took it over.

China and Russia are not going to invade Greenland. That's why we have NATO, to protect it if they tried.

And those Chinese and Russian subs were there 10 years ago. And 20. And 30. We didn't invade Greenland then and somehow, we're still safe.

LOL! Ask Ukraine how that's working for them.

They probably would tell you that they’re not a member of NATO, so they don’t know why you’re mentioning them.

" NATO, as an alliance and through its individual members, is providing significant and coordinated military, financial, and training support to Ukraine, including advanced air defense systems, artillery, and essential equipment, while also coordinating aid delivery and promising long-term assistance, though direct deployment of NATO troops to fight in Ukraine has not occurred. This support is channeled through initiatives like the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) and the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) command, aimed at helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia's aggression."

The more you know..

tlynn78 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 12:10 pm

" NATO, as an alliance and through its individual members, is providing significant and coordinated military, financial, and training support to Ukraine, including advanced air defense systems, artillery, and essential equipment, while also coordinating aid delivery and promising long-term assistance, though direct deployment of NATO troops to fight in Ukraine has not occurred. This support is channeled through initiatives like the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) and the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) command, aimed at helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia's aggression."

The more you know..

The one thing that NATO and member countries don't provide is troops, either ground forces, or air or naval forces. And both the Russians and the Ukrainians have always known that.

If Russia or China invaded Greenland, the US wouldn't just ship boxes of rifles and grenades to Greenland to help the locals defend themselves.

At Davos today, Trump said we would always defend our allies (he said it like it’s an obvious fact), but he’s not sure they’d do the same (I’m sure). He also ruled out acquiring Greenland by force.

I can think of several compromises they’re probably discussing, such as Denmark and Greenland joining NORAD along with the U.S. and Canada, or increasing the number of U.S. bases. The bases could be under American jurisdiction (like Guantánamo Bay, maybe with a 50-year lease). A base near Nuuk, where most Greenlanders live, would provide employment. They could name one of them Fort Trump to sweeten the deal.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 2:12 pm

They could name one of them Fort Trump to sweeten the deal.

I think he just might go for that.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 2:22 pm

jarnon wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 2:12 pm

They could name one of them Fort Trump to sweeten the deal.

I think he just might go for that.

Looks like he's made a deal.

Sorry, Saucy, no WWIII so far.
But SSS got another hitler comparison in, so it was worth it to him.

The is not a new deal - this is Trump surrendering. For now. They have always said that the US & NATO is free to do what it wants in Greenland from a military perspective. Trump said that wasn’t good enough because he needs the US to “own” it. So this is simply Trump backing down.

a1mamacat wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 4:02 pm

The is not a new deal - this is Trump surrendering. For now. They have always said that the US & NATO is free to do what it wants in Greenland from a military perspective. Trump said that wasn’t good enough because he needs the US to “own” it. So this is simply Trump backing down.

Of course it is.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 4:14 pm

a1mamacat wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 4:02 pm

The is not a new deal - this is Trump surrendering. For now. They have always said that the US & NATO is free to do what it wants in Greenland from a military perspective. Trump said that wasn’t good enough because he needs the US to “own” it. So this is simply Trump backing down.

Of course it is.

I guess Trump should be congratulated because some calmer heads in the Republican party made him agree not to destroy NATO this time to satisfy his latest whim.

By that same token, I should be congratulated for not hitting any pedestrians with my car when I went grocery shopping the other day.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 6:24 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 4:14 pm

a1mamacat wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 21, 2026 4:02 pm

The is not a new deal - this is Trump surrendering. For now. They have always said that the US & NATO is free to do what it wants in Greenland from a military perspective. Trump said that wasn’t good enough because he needs the US to “own” it. So this is simply Trump backing down.

Of course it is.

I guess Trump should be congratulated because some calmer heads in the Republican party made him agree not to destroy NATO this time to satisfy his latest whim.

By that same token, I should be congratulated for not hitting any pedestrians with my car when I went grocery shopping the other day.

Let's do this, like you always do to me: Please show the source and evidence of your conjecture.