Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
i feel like trump is shooting himself in the foot w the greenland thing as a distraction from everything else maybe i’m wrong but i feel some of his base do not like this idea
upvote 34 downvote

default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

They’re just kinda confused. We all know we’ve always had full military rights to that place. So we’re like, what’s the angle here

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 3w

It’s an objectively horrible idea.

upvote 1 downvote
⚒️
Anonymous 3w

It’s not a distraction, it’s an actual plan.

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 3w

Rare earth minerals, trade routes opening up as the ice caps melt and new shipping lanes are developed. Renting is always worse than owning

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 3w

We’re not even renting. They let us stay there for free. You’re like, trying to pay a mortgage to use a public library

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 3w

And anyways no we don’t want hundreds of billions of our tax money going to Denmark so a company no one’s ever heard of can stripmine it into a wasteland

upvote 4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #1 3w

I’m not a fan of the decision really, but it’s hardly a distraction or anything. Trump has mentioned this move since his first term. It’s the same reason we captured Maduro and invaded Iraq & Afghanistan. Strategic advantage plus economic benefits will always outweigh a simple strategic advantage

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 3w

but i think the question then becomes does our desire for strategic advantage and economic benefit outweigh the sovereignty of the people living there

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 3w

and i think this scenario is a lot different then venezuela, iraq, and afghanistan. An argument can be made that the political turmoil in those countries justified intervention. But greenland is facing no such issues and (as far as i know) is happy w its current status as a semiautonomous territory

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

I can’t think of one instance of U.S. history that would make me think that we would care about the sovereignty of 56k inuits. This is especially true if we purchase greenland and cause no true upheaval of their current life. Like I said, I disagree with the plan and think it would be wrong, but Trump hasn’t exactly proven to be our most considerate president

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> OP 3w

It’s different, but the argument is that a preemptive takeover of Greenland would have massive strategic benefits in the coming decades. China has already attempted to start mining contracts in Greenland, so if they succeed we could be in trouble. It’s the same reason we want to keep Venezuelan oil for ourselves instead of allowing it to go to russia and china

upvote 1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 3w

Idk man if I were now subject to American healthcare rules and insurance companies after being part of Denmark I’d probly just off myself.

upvote 1 downvote