-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Greenland
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
I think you will be waiting a long time, Chuck.
I know this thread has is mostly a political discussion at this point. Honest hypothetical question though. Assuming the US, Denmark, and the citizens of Greenland (I don't think I missed anyone with standing) all agree to a purchase/change of nationality/whatever it would be called, wouldn't this represent a significant strategic advantage to the US? Would you be onboard with it? If not, why?
hlg6016
A/C Wings Here
But all of that will require patience and diplomacy.
Greenland democratically votes for annex to the US and Denmark approves it? Go for it. Sounds like self determination to me.
What do you think we would get out of owning Greenland that we can’t already get out of a defense or resource deal?
What everyone is up and arms about is the aggression shown to a dependable NATO ally. When Western European (cough NATO) nations are spitballing deploying troops somewhere to deter US aggression…we probably need to take a step back. Those are resources I rather have ensuring security in the Baltics.
It’s not the person, it’s the fact that we have consistently showing bad faith to some of our best allies. Especially Canada and our RCAF brothers who are literally the first manned line of defense for the US.
I don’t disagree with the US has interest in Greenland, but there is zero reason why we need to be predatory about it. I’m positive there is something transactional and fair we could come up with Greenland and Denmark if it’s that vital to US interests.
I think functionally there is probably no difference between what you describe and annexation. I'm just interested within that limited hypothetical scope if peoe are for or against and if against why.
Yep tracking that. "Dependable" is subjective/relative. I think the thrust of the MAGA view is that most NATO nations haven't been pulling their weight for several decades. Not saying I agree just what I observe.
I fundamentally disagree with you here. If the same thing was happening two years ago with the previous administration (no I don't think that would ever really happen) the sides would just be swapped.
I hate you for that mental image
I reject your assumptions... but what is the strategic advantage of "owning" Greenland and assuming responsibility for the care, feeding and defense of a geographically distant place of that size? What would the costs be to access any of the natural resources, and why would the US bearing that burden alone be of strategic value?
Whats the point of answering a hypothetical question if you reject the assumptions that formed its basis? It's an assumption that the US would bare the costs you outlined in the first question or the costs to access the resources alone. I reject those assumptions as outside the scope of the question.