Moving to Greenland in …3 …2 …1

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Read Stephen Miller's quotes about why they can take Greenland. Essentially because they want it.

"Evil" is the word that comes to my mind.

---

Why would the US taking Greenland by evil?

We going to put the locals in ovens like Hamas? Round them up in camps like fascists do? Enslave them like Dems do?

What evil is in store for Greenland if the US controls it?

---

As a general rule, theft even when done by a government is frowned upon and this country reject colonialism a long time ago. Maybe, just maybe, the Greenland people want to remain free to determine their own fate as every survey I have seen shows is their interest.

If we want to add military assets to Greenland and they agree to it. Same with mineral mining.

This country has stood for democracy and freedom and now we get this new idea of whatever we want, is ours.

---

I agree with this. However, looking ahead...Greenland, in their own self-interest, would be stupid not to secure their future with an agreement with us. Relying on the EU as your benefactor is boldly short-sighted.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Read Stephen Miller's quotes about why they can take Greenland. Essentially because they want it.

"Evil" is the word that comes to my mind.

---

Why would the US taking Greenland by evil?

We going to put the locals in ovens like Hamas? Round them up in camps like fascists do? Enslave them like Dems do?

What evil is in store for Greenland if the US controls it?

---

As a general rule, theft even when done by a government is frowned upon and this country reject colonialism a long time ago. Maybe, just maybe, the Greenland people want to remain free to determine their own fate as every survey I have seen shows is their interest.

If we want to add military assets to Greenland and they agree to it. Same with mineral mining.

This country has stood for democracy and freedom and now we get this new idea of whatever we want, is ours.

---

Bingo.

It's amazing how fast the ideals of this country as known before, are rejected and disregarded by some. Stephen Miller's quotes demonstrate that the United States is in mortal danger, morally.

---

Again, no one is advocating for armed seizure or taking the landmass by force. Fairly asinine to pretend otherwise.

But creating pressure and bullying posture to cajole a realignment is standard operating procedure for literally every power since the dawn of time (absent outright going to war and taking by force), and this country is no different, despite a recent rash of ideological puritans born of absolute luxury of the last 30-40 years of uncontested hegemony.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Read Stephen Miller's quotes about why they can take Greenland. Essentially because they want it.

"Evil" is the word that comes to my mind.

---

Why would the US taking Greenland by evil?

We going to put the locals in ovens like Hamas? Round them up in camps like fascists do? Enslave them like Dems do?

What evil is in store for Greenland if the US controls it?

---

As a general rule, theft even when done by a government is frowned upon and this country reject colonialism a long time ago. Maybe, just maybe, the Greenland people want to remain free to determine their own fate as every survey I have seen shows is their interest.

If we want to add military assets to Greenland and they agree to it. Same with mineral mining.

This country has stood for democracy and freedom and now we get this new idea of whatever we want, is ours.

---

Bingo.

It's amazing how fast the ideals of this country as known before, are rejected and disregarded by some. Stephen Miller's quotes demonstrate that the United States is in mortal danger, morally.

---

But, we weren't mortally in danger, morally, when the previous administration and current Democrat Party being pro-sexual mutilation of minors.

Got it, Mr. Reagan Republican.

wessimo said:

---

"with a population of only around 50,000, one might imagine a thought experiment where, for the low, low price of $50 billion, Trump offers every Greenlander $1 million in exchange for their country. That might prove more attractive." - Rabobank

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 6, 2026

---

Point well taken, but the price is gonna be for the land value ($1T+).

But offering all the locals ~$10 million each and giving the Danish government $500M seems more than fair. Have to leave room to negotiate, though.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Sure. To take Greenland we just need a gyrocopter and a retired lunch lady to land in Nuuk with a couple of cap guns and a flag that says "Ours!"

I'll plan the op before supper.

---

The US when we arrive...

wessimo said:

---

"with a population of only around 50,000, one might imagine a thought experiment where, for the low, low price of $50 billion, Trump offers every Greenlander $1 million in exchange for their country. That might prove more attractive." - Rabobank

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 6, 2026

---

This is the idea I've been suggesting since the topic came up early last year. It simple, peaceful, and 'the people'-centric. Really, it's the only approach that fits in Trump's "deal making" m.o.

Fitch said:

---

wessimo said:

---

"with a population of only around 50,000, one might imagine a thought experiment where, for the low, low price of $50 billion, Trump offers every Greenlander $1 million in exchange for their country. That might prove more attractive." - Rabobank

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 6, 2026

---

Point well taken, but the price is gonna be for the land value ($1T+).

But offering all the locals ~$10 million each and giving the Danish government $500M seems more than fair. Have to leave room to negotiate, though.

---

Could just declare Cartel de los Greenland a terrorist organization that is allowing the shipment of fentanyl around its borders and just invade them and take it.

Fitch said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Read Stephen Miller's quotes about why they can take Greenland. Essentially because they want it.

"Evil" is the word that comes to my mind.

---

Why would the US taking Greenland by evil?

We going to put the locals in ovens like Hamas? Round them up in camps like fascists do? Enslave them like Dems do?

What evil is in store for Greenland if the US controls it?

---

As a general rule, theft even when done by a government is frowned upon and this country reject colonialism a long time ago. Maybe, just maybe, the Greenland people want to remain free to determine their own fate as every survey I have seen shows is their interest.

If we want to add military assets to Greenland and they agree to it. Same with mineral mining.

This country has stood for democracy and freedom and now we get this new idea of whatever we want, is ours.

---

Bingo.

It's amazing how fast the ideals of this country as known before, are rejected and disregarded by some. Stephen Miller's quotes demonstrate that the United States is in mortal danger, morally.

---

Again, no one is advocating for armed seizure or taking the landmass by force. Fairly asinine to pretend otherwise.

But creating pressure and bullying posture to cajole a realignment is standard operating procedure for literally every power since the dawn of time (absent outright going to war and taking by force), and this country is no different, despite a recent rash of ideological puritans born of absolute luxury of the last 30-40 years of uncontested hegemony.

---

If you think no one is advocating it, then why are we saying is Greenland next after we took military action in Venezuela? Some people seem to think the only question is do the same to Cuba or Greenland next in the interest of national security. If not explicit, there is a whole bunch of implicit bias toward using military or the threat of it to take over Greenland with the Donroe Doctrine.

So we are mad that Trump has not yet done something but is talking about something that would absolute be in the best interest of the United States of America? And the moderated concern is that he will not use the right "decorum" with the Danes in discussing our intentions regarding a strategic block of ice that we have regularly used over the past 100 years anyways, regardless of permission from the Danes.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Fitch said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Read Stephen Miller's quotes about why they can take Greenland. Essentially because they want it.

"Evil" is the word that comes to my mind.

---

Why would the US taking Greenland by evil?

We going to put the locals in ovens like Hamas? Round them up in camps like fascists do? Enslave them like Dems do?

What evil is in store for Greenland if the US controls it?

---

As a general rule, theft even when done by a government is frowned upon and this country reject colonialism a long time ago. Maybe, just maybe, the Greenland people want to remain free to determine their own fate as every survey I have seen shows is their interest.

If we want to add military assets to Greenland and they agree to it. Same with mineral mining.

This country has stood for democracy and freedom and now we get this new idea of whatever we want, is ours.

---

Bingo.

It's amazing how fast the ideals of this country as known before, are rejected and disregarded by some. Stephen Miller's quotes demonstrate that the United States is in mortal danger, morally.

---

Again, no one is advocating for armed seizure or taking the landmass by force. Fairly asinine to pretend otherwise.

But creating pressure and bullying posture to cajole a realignment is standard operating procedure for literally every power since the dawn of time (absent outright going to war and taking by force), and this country is no different, despite a recent rash of ideological puritans born of absolute luxury of the last 30-40 years of uncontested hegemony.

---

If you think no one is advocating it, then why are we saying is Greenland next after we took military action in Venezuela? Some people seem to think the only question is do the same to Cuba or Greenland next in the interest of national security. If not explicit, there is a whole bunch of implicit bias toward using military or the threat of it to take over Greenland with the Donroe Doctrine.

---

Seems obtuse in light of what The Economist is reporting. "Greenland is next" doesn't have to mean by military conquest.

#BREAKING: Greenland and Denmark request a meeting with Marco Rubio.

— Insider Wire (@InsiderWire) January 6, 2026

NEW: The U.S. is exploring a deal to engage Greenland directly, bypassing Denmark, per @TheEconomist.

The draft centers on a Compact of Free Association:
 - U.S. funding + higher living standards
 - Greenland keeps self-rule
 - Washington assumes defense responsibilities… pic.twitter.com/Ds3VMTJeoo

— Quantus Insights (@QuantusInsights) January 6, 2026

will25u said:

---

#BREAKING: Greenland and Denmark request a meeting with Marco Rubio.

— Insider Wire (@InsiderWire) January 6, 2026

NEW: The U.S. is exploring a deal to engage Greenland directly, bypassing Denmark, per @TheEconomist.

The draft centers on a Compact of Free Association:
 - U.S. funding + higher living standards
 - Greenland keeps self-rule
 - Washington assumes defense responsibilities… pic.twitter.com/Ds3VMTJeoo

— Quantus Insights (@QuantusInsights) January 6, 2026

---

If Greenland keeps self rule, then are we just paying them to use whatever we can dig up from their land and basically nothing else changes?

No Spin Ag said:

---

will25u said:

---

#BREAKING: Greenland and Denmark request a meeting with Marco Rubio.

— Insider Wire (@InsiderWire) January 6, 2026

NEW: The U.S. is exploring a deal to engage Greenland directly, bypassing Denmark, per @TheEconomist.

The draft centers on a Compact of Free Association:
 - U.S. funding + higher living standards
 - Greenland keeps self-rule
 - Washington assumes defense responsibilities… pic.twitter.com/Ds3VMTJeoo

— Quantus Insights (@QuantusInsights) January 6, 2026

---

If Greenland keeps self rule, then are we just paying them to use whatever we can dig up from their land and basically nothing else changes?

---

We agree to defend them. What this means in reality is that it keeps China and Russia out of there. If Greenland is going to thaw out like the left thinks it will, then we want first rights on all those resources.

Pretty good breakdown of why Greenland would be VERY strategically important to the US in regards to specifically Russia.

Greenland - As viewed from a proper map

Why Greenland? Well because Moscow bases almost all of their strategic military assets on the Kola Peninsula next to Finland. This is where the Russian ICBM silos, submarine bases, and their strategic bombers are.

If you look at the… pic.twitter.com/z6qECCJ3u5

— Object Zero (@Object_Zero_) January 6, 2026

Quote:

---

Greenland - As viewed from a proper map

Why Greenland? Well because Moscow bases almost all of their strategic military assets on the Kola Peninsula next to Finland. This is where the Russian ICBM silos, submarine bases, and their strategic bombers are.

If you look at the flight path (ballistic or powered) from Kola to anywhere on the lower 48, then everything goes over Greenland.

Greenland is the theatre where any strategic exchange between Washington and Moscow is contested.

If you want to intercept a ballistic missile, the best point to do so is at the apogee, at the top of the flight path. The shortest route for an interceptor to get to an apogee is from directly below the apogee.

That's where Greenland is.

So, without stating what should happen here, this is **why** the Trump administration says they **need** Greenland for national security.

The other thing that is happening is that the Northern Passage through the Arctic is opening up, and soon there will be Chinese cargo ships sailing through the Arctic to Rotterdam. It's faster than the Suez and the ships aren't limited to Suezmax size so China and EU trade is going to accelerate a lot.

This means Chinese submarines will also be venturing under the Arctic into the Northern Atlantic, IF THEY AREN'T ALREADY DOING SO.

Hence, the North East coast of Greenland serves not 1 but 2 critical strategic security objectives of US national security.

If this wasn't clear to you, please understand that the Mercator global map projection is for children and journalists only. It is not a useful guide to where any countries or territories actually are in the real world that we live in.

No self respecting adult should be using Mercator for their worldview. Anyone saying "there must be some other secret reason for Trump being interested in Greenland" is a certified ignoramus.

---

YouBet said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

will25u said:

---

#BREAKING: Greenland and Denmark request a meeting with Marco Rubio.

— Insider Wire (@InsiderWire) January 6, 2026

NEW: The U.S. is exploring a deal to engage Greenland directly, bypassing Denmark, per @TheEconomist.

The draft centers on a Compact of Free Association:
 - U.S. funding + higher living standards
 - Greenland keeps self-rule
 - Washington assumes defense responsibilities… pic.twitter.com/Ds3VMTJeoo

— Quantus Insights (@QuantusInsights) January 6, 2026

---

If Greenland keeps self rule, then are we just paying them to use whatever we can dig up from their land and basically nothing else changes?

---

We agree to defend them. What this means in reality is that it keeps China and Russia out of there. If Greenland is going to thaw out like the left thinks it will, then we want first rights on all those resources.

---

Sounds good to me. Now for them to agree to it.

FobTies said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Why in the absolute **** would Greenland be "next?"

---

---

Not connecting the dots between what you seem to be reading and what was actually Tweeted.

Yep, thx for putting it on this page.
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3590003/replies/71684027
Just giving you some crap here. Agree strongly. Shipping and ABM defense are two key reasons, which have nothing to do with rare earth minerals etc.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Fortress North America objectives:

-Secure long term deal with Greenland (with or without Denmark) to house key US defense installations

-Remove communist Regime from
Cuba

-Pressure Brazil to abandon BRICS

This is the real world here folks you don't let your enemies get a foot hold in your back yard because communists in your own country are upset and might call you mean

---

Again…we already have bases on Greenland and DNK has agreed to increases so what exactly are we doing now????

Trump will let you know when he is satisfied.

But I think the min objective is to keep others out and for us to have access and use as we please, with compensation for such provided to the local population.

Quote:

---

Greenland and Denmark have reportedly requested a special meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. At least that's what Greenland's foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, posted on social media on Tuesday.

---

Get in line as Rubio has a lot on his current dance card.

Quote:

---

The Government of Greenland and the Danish Government have contacted the U.S. Department of State with a request for an early ministerial meeting between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Greenlandic Minister for Foreign Affairs and Research Vivian Motzfeldt, and the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Lars Lkke Rasmussen.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the United States' striking statements regarding Greenland.
Up to now, it has not been possible for the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to meet with the Government of Greenland, even though the Government of Greenland and the Danish Government have repeatedly, throughout 2025, requested a meeting at the foreign-minister level.

---

Told you he was busy.

LINK

Epic troll

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Greenland and Denmark have reportedly requested a special meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. At least that's what Greenland's foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, posted on social media on Tuesday.

---

Get in line as Rubio has a lot on his current dance card.

Quote:

---

The Government of Greenland and the Danish Government have contacted the U.S. Department of State with a request for an early ministerial meeting between the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Greenlandic Minister for Foreign Affairs and Research Vivian Motzfeldt, and the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Lars Lkke Rasmussen.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the United States' striking statements regarding Greenland.
Up to now, it has not been possible for the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to meet with the Government of Greenland, even though the Government of Greenland and the Danish Government have repeatedly, throughout 2025, requested a meeting at the foreign-minister level.

---

Told you he was busy.

LINK

---

Almost at busy as Jared in Trump's first term. Almost.

Canada wants some too...

Quote:

---

"two top Canadian officials are reportedly planning to visit Greenland and possibly open an embassy there. "

---

Fox

I don't think talking smack about acquiring Greenland is going to help anything. Doing more business with Greenland is. Build a stronger relationship with them and help them work toward eventual independence.

UntoldSpirit said:

---

I think New York should be next actually.

---

Donald Trump's Escape From New York...coming to an outrage near you.

Gigem314 said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

I think New York should be next actually.

---

Donald Trump's Escape From New York...coming to an outrage near you.

---

Someone really needs to do an AI on this.

Green2Maroon said:

---

I don't think talking smack about acquiring Greenland is going to help anything. Doing more business with Greenland is. Build a stronger relationship with them and help them work toward eventual independence.

---

Why in the world does… the world need an "independent" Greenland?

I mean if Al Gores dream of the ice caps melting comes true I suppose maybe Greenland becomes more settlement friendly.

But Greenland begs to be controlled by someone. It should be us. Particularly as we cast off the European teat leaches and focus on our own backyard.

Funny to see all the knee jerk reactions on page 1 as if bringing up the topic of "Greenland next" is some TDS rant.

The tone sure has changed on this thread as Trump and others at the WH legitimately rationalize the acquisition of Greenland.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Fitch said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Read Stephen Miller's quotes about why they can take Greenland. Essentially because they want it.

"Evil" is the word that comes to my mind.

---

Why would the US taking Greenland by evil?

We going to put the locals in ovens like Hamas? Round them up in camps like fascists do? Enslave them like Dems do?

What evil is in store for Greenland if the US controls it?

---

As a general rule, theft even when done by a government is frowned upon and this country reject colonialism a long time ago. Maybe, just maybe, the Greenland people want to remain free to determine their own fate as every survey I have seen shows is their interest.

If we want to add military assets to Greenland and they agree to it. Same with mineral mining.

This country has stood for democracy and freedom and now we get this new idea of whatever we want, is ours.

---

Bingo.

It's amazing how fast the ideals of this country as known before, are rejected and disregarded by some. Stephen Miller's quotes demonstrate that the United States is in mortal danger, morally.

---

Again, no one is advocating for armed seizure or taking the landmass by force. Fairly asinine to pretend otherwise.

But creating pressure and bullying posture to cajole a realignment is standard operating procedure for literally every power since the dawn of time (absent outright going to war and taking by force), and this country is no different, despite a recent rash of ideological puritans born of absolute luxury of the last 30-40 years of uncontested hegemony.

---

If you think no one is advocating it, then why are we saying is Greenland next after we took military action in Venezuela? Some people seem to think the only question is do the same to Cuba or Greenland next in the interest of national security. If not explicit, there is a whole bunch of implicit bias toward using military or the threat of it to take over Greenland with the Donroe Doctrine.

---

Because he was asked about it directly by a reporter on the plane and said "I don't want to talk about Greenland right now, but all I'll say is we need it for national security." The press made this a story, the White House is simply sticking to the same script they've had since last January.

They made an agreement with Denmark in 2009 allowing them to determine their own future. This includes possible independence at some point.

Doesn't make it a good idea. They are absolutely incapable of being a sovereign nation. It would just be another money funnel for UN, NATO, WHO, IMF, GCF, WTF, PETA and the Avengers.

We need less countries in the world, not more.

Vatican City aside, Greenland has a population of under 57,000. Thousand, not million.

Basically the same as Galveston for a land mass 3x the size of Texas.