274
Trump again insists the US ‘needs’ to take over Greenland for national security: ‘We’ll have to work it all out’
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2025
274 points (99.6% liked)
News
33724 readers
3404 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oil,that's what he means by national security. Dear Americans please get rid of that cancer you call potus. General strikes is what you can do.
They'll just find another great american to replace him
(source)
TBF, he also means strategic expansionism. (The Arctic is playing an ever greater role in geopolitics, as the ice melts)
There is actual strategic value to Greenland. It is right in the line of sight between Russia and the USA. If the USA were to place a missile defence station on Greenland, they would be able to intercept Russian missiles.
There is also some legitimate claim to the island, since the USA was the one to help the Greenlanders during and after WW2. Which is not the best claim, but it us the most recent claim of them all. All the claim Denmark has, is that there were some Danish settlers there in the 18th century. And maybe the claim that they need to atone for their inuit genocide which has helped to make Greenland self rule infeasible for now.
The lawfully formed government of the people asserts that they are part of Denmark whilst having the power to be independent or part of another nation if the political will exists to enact it which is ultimately what makes a country a country.
Imagining we have any claim on it based on rendering aid almost a century ago is...kinda deranged. Also its strategic value can easily be realized as it is now via alliance.
What cannot be realized by alliance is handing out their resources like prizes to cronies which is the actual motivation.
Except no, because you can intercept ICBMs only in the first and final stages of flight. In the coast phase they are too high and do not light up on radars.
Next argument please.
I'll pass. You have a shitty style of debate.
The problem is that your post consists only of specious arguments that indicate you haven't really thought about this. EG it makes little sense to try to annex Greenland for defense when the act of trying to take it would blow up half of our alliances, start a war, and ultimately provide no more benefit than simply continuing to ally with Greenland/Denmark.
If I were the glorious leader of the USA, I could just fall back on the fact that I am the smartest person by presidential decreed. But I am not, so I can only make specious arguments.
It is a great thought experiment though. How can the glorious leader justify the American claim to Greenland?
Right, because attacking the person rather than the actual argument is a stellar example of mature discussion skills.
I am explicitely not attacking your person, but your style of debate. You might very well be a great person to hang out with. I'm not making assumptions about that.
You cannot change who you are, so it would be unfair to comment on your person. You can however change your debate style by not saying things like "next argument please".
Next argument please.
Lol, I am making assumptions about your person now 😅
Next person please.