An invasion of Greenland would fall under Article 5 and we'd be at war with NATO. An interesting strategy.
At least he was gentlemen enough to ask every NATO member to spend more on defence.
Testing, 1, 2, 3... kidding
Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
21–30 of 36 posts
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#22While I dislike the term "fake news" this is a typical example of a lefty mainstream source distorting what Trump said to make him look bad and then declining to link to the original source so as to make it hard to catch them out. Here's what he actually said https://youtu.be/K0EaHawPM2g As an aside I think the whole strategy is past its best by date. People are wise to it and still elected Trump despite the best eff…
Have you bothered to watch the video? He literally does what is on the title of this post.
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#23While I dislike the term "fake news" this is a typical example of a lefty mainstream source distorting what Trump said to make him look bad and then declining to link to the original source so as to make it hard to catch them out. Here's what he actually said https://youtu.be/K0EaHawPM2g As an aside I think the whole strategy is past its best by date. People are wise to it and still elected Trump despite the best eff…
Thankyou for linking to a primary source that confirms what the linked article from The Guardian states; Trump did indeed point blank refuse to rule out US military involvement in the control of Greenland and the Panama Canal.
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#24This news items does not deserve a flag. It's not every day an American president publicly muses about annexing neighbouring countries.
[deleted]
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#25This news items does not deserve a flag. It's not every day an American president publicly muses about annexing neighbouring countries.
It will be.
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#26I doubt it. Because the western premises and good faith leans on the non written law of not taking eachothers land. Exactly what Russia did in Ukraine. But that doesn't mean the guy is not doing it. The option is there. One thing we don't know yet is whether US intelligence knows something we don't, in terms of China and or Russia. USA has since 1942 I believe had the military defence over the island, so in that capa…
> One thing we don't know yet is whether US intelligence knows something we don't, in terms of China and or Russia. Isn't it a matter of resource mining? Greenland is getting warmer and thus the access to its resources becomes gradually easier.
I think control of shipping channels (northwest passage especially), natural deep water ports, and military installations are the main potential values. The oil and gas will likely never have much value, since by the time they’re thawed, the price of both will presumably have collapsed. The rare earth elements and uranium might be nice but bringing in the equipment and infrastructure to do serious mining will takr decades.
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#27> Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada. But here’s the problem with Canada. So many friends up there, I love the Canadian people. They’re great, but we’re spending hundreds of billions a year to protect it. We’re spending hundreds of billions a year to take care of Canada. We lose in trade deficits. Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his min…
If someone makes off-hand threats to another while brandishing a gun, that’s illegal (assault) and condemnable. The (soon) president of the US wields nuclear weapons and the most powerful military on earth, his words by default cary the threat of violence. The difference between this and an asshole with a gun is that nobody stands above a president, at least between elections. He has impunity, but he does at least merit condemnation.
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#28> Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada. But here’s the problem with Canada. So many friends up there, I love the Canadian people. They’re great, but we’re spending hundreds of billions a year to protect it. We’re spending hundreds of billions a year to take care of Canada. We lose in trade deficits. Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his min…
> Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his mind.
>People shouldn’t take his threats literally - but you should take them seriously.
So, when Trump talks about possibly using force to annex Greenland or control the Panama canal we all should consider this trolling but you also want everyone to take it seriously. I understand you think you’ve made some nuanced point there, however this is a complete contradiction, if you aren’t aware. The lengths some people go to excuse, explain away and play down this man’s words is quite astounding.
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the US invaded Greenland when Germany invaded Denmark in WWII and have had a military presence ever since. The US also engineered Panama's independence in order to get sovereignty over the canal zone, which they completed. And then of course they actually invaded the country in 1989.
"Invaded" implies a hostile, or at least forceful takeover. That's not what happened. In fact its local government reached out to the US and agreed to come under its wing as a de-facto protectorate, which it saw as a preferable alternative to Canadanian/British (and in any case German) intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_in_World_War_II
Ok, they "occupied" Greenland if you prefer although if they didn't have Copenhagen's greenlight it was an invasion. But that's largely semantics and does not address the general point and the fact that the US's interest in Greenland is not new despite Trump being Trump and they were keen to keep it. Even at the time it was not new.
Re: Trump declines to rule out using military to control Greenland, Panama Canal
#30While I dislike the term "fake news" this is a typical example of a lefty mainstream source distorting what Trump said to make him look bad and then declining to link to the original source so as to make it hard to catch them out. Here's what he actually said https://youtu.be/K0EaHawPM2g As an aside I think the whole strategy is past its best by date. People are wise to it and still elected Trump despite the best eff…
It's hard to be charitable to that comment: it's just pollution. Here's a full transcript of the linked video:
Reporter: Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas you are not going to use military or economic coercion?
Trump: No. I can't assure you - you're talking about Panama and Greenland - no, I can't assure you on either of those two, but I can say this: we need them for economic security. The Panama Canal was built for our military. I'm not going to commit to that. It might be that you'll have to do something. Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country. It's being operated by China. China! And we gave the Panama Canal to Panama, we didn't give it to China, and they've abused it. They've abused that gift. It should have never been made, by the way.
[jump cut]
Reporter: Mr President, back on Greenland. Your position is clear, but have you directed your staff to take a specific action to draw plans, and can you elaborate again. You didn't rule out military coercion and -
Trump: Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes. I've been told that for a long time - long before I even ran - people have been talking about it for a long time. You have approximately 45,000 people there. People really don't even know if Denmark has any legal right to it. But if they do, they should give it up, because we need it for national security; that's for the free world. I'm talking about protecting the free world. You look at - you don't even need binoculars - you look outside, you have China ships all over the place. Your have Russian ships all over the place. We're not letting that happen. And if Denmark wants to get to a conclusion - but nobody knows if they even have any right, title, or interest - the people are probably going to vote for independence or to come into the United States - but if they did do that, then I would tariff Denmark at a very high level.
Reporter: Did you ask your staff to draw plans for acquisition? Are you actively pursuing it?
Trump: No, we're not at that stage, but we have people - I haven't even entered office yet.