Greenland Deal humiliates board libs.
(no message)
+5
#642585
Back to threaded view
Full conversation · 16 posts
-
-
Level 2
Fundamentally different. Unlike old one it’s purely a bilateral deal NOT within NATO framework, i.e.
It’s completely independent of NATO. NATO will have no control, no business to do with US military in Greenland.
Old deal: U.S. military presence in Greenland is because of NATO (both Denmark and U.S. are nato members). Legally if NATO say no, U.S. can not build military bases there and can’t add new military bases without permission of nato (permitted by every nato member)
New deal: U.S. can do whatever they want permanently on military presence in Greenland.
-
Level 3
Awesome post. Trumpies, read it and see how stupid you all are for thinking this is different.
Utter nonsense. Exact same deal as Cold War agreement.
Fucktards cheer a return to the status quo.
-
Level 4
It locks up key geography in NE & Arctic for the US & blocks China & Russia's expansion hopes
BaronVonZemo64634 postsIt locks it up for the US specifically without needing outside approval from NATO - that is quite a difference given the recent direction of several of those countries.
You are either fairly ignorant on this topic, or you suffer so greatly from TDS that it has blinded you. Either way, it's a bad look.
This is a great, great deal for generations of Americans and Greenlanders.
Your actually mad about it. pathetic.
BVZ -
Level 4
TDS reduced your geopolitics IQ by at least 30%.
You’re now disappointed by that Trump is not an imperialist as you called him before regarding to the Greenland issue. You’re mad. This is truly TDS. Get help!
-
Level 5
Just mindlessly Parroting "TDS...TDS..." shows an inability to provide a substantive argument...
...not something to be proud of.
-
-
-
Level 2
I will be flying the Greenland flag tomorrow! ;-)
(no message)Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
-
-
Level 1
This whole Trump 'Kabuki Theatre' is absurd...any U.S. President could have just ASKED for the same
provisions and gotten them...as per the following AI summary...Note that Greenland and Denmark have always welcomed U.S. presence there. Trump is an unhinged Idiot.
----------------
AI OverviewNo previous president needed to ask for these specific provisions because the United States already held extensive military, overflight, and basing rights in Greenland under a 1951 defense treaty.
Existing Treaties
The 1951 Defense Agreement: This historic pact already gave the U.S. near-total military access, overflight rights, and basing privileges on the island.NATO Partnership: Formed in 1949, NATO already tied Denmark and the U.S. together in mutual defense, meaning Greenland was already protected under the Western alliance umbrella.Why the New Provisions Were Different
Coercive Tactics: Donald Trump used heavy pressure, including tariff threats against European nations and ultimatums about taking the territory, which previous presidents chose not to do.
New Restrictions: The recent 2026 agreement adds modern updates, such as formally banning non-NATO countries from building bases and restricting sensitive investments to the U.S. and its allies.
------------- -
Level 1
Yep, humiliated…
ShowMeIrish9091 postsWhat changed? Who agreed to what?
Slightly better than a Mexican -
Level 1
They’re pissed cuz US gets any base deemed necessary while China, Russia,&nonNato’s presence banned
BaronVonZemo64634 postsThe China part is the kicker for them as they fund the Left now as their mouthpiece.
BVZ-
Level 2
Read a little history. US always got any base it wanted; China and Russia never did.
US had thousands stationed there in Cold War. We also had unlimited mineral access.
What Trump seems to have announced (by post, so who knows) is a maintenance of the status quo.
You are ignorant.
-
Level 3
There's no bringing Baron back from whatever universe he's taken residence in...since WWII,
Greenland and Denmark would bend over backwards to meet the same requests...the whole thing is a Fait Accompli...
-
Level 3
So, you don't understand the difference with this deal in present day context? Unsurprising really.
BaronVonZemo64634 postsThis is a deal specifically with the US. WE (not sure if you still want to be included in that term) don't rely on NATO's approval for bases, etc. The previous deal was through NATO.
If you haven't noticed, NATO has some members who have been choosing to diverge significantly from the US in recent years...particularly so when the the money teet dried up.
Also, with climate warming changes, the Northwest passage has become a big thing, and the Chinese and Russians have been making a FAR more aggressive push in the past decade than they were post WWII. This seals them out going forward with no option to manipulate other NATO countries into blocking us from what we need to do.
You didn't understand this. You didn't WANT to understand this.
Suggestion: the next time you call someone ignorant, make sure that you aren't the ignorant one,
BVZ
-
-
End of conversation