Greenland Deal humiliates board libs.
(no message)
Back to threaded view
Full conversation · 12 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
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 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…
ShowMeIrish 9084 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
BaronVonZemo 64253 postsThe China part is the kicker for them as they fund the Left now as their mouthpiece.
-
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.
-
End of conversation