Trump refuses to rule out use of military force to take control of Greenland and the Panama Canal

We'll soon be in the find out phase. This honeymoon has soured.

Probably some misguided thought that somehow it will be more habitable than the rest of the US thanks to climate change (the climate change that doesn’t exist) opening up real resource extraction.

Greenland is rich in mineral resources. One of his dozen billionaires got into his empty head.

Military dominance in the Arctic. Russia and China are also vying for influence. The US already has a large military base there. Thule Space Base. But taking territory from friends and allies by military force is probably the worst way to go about doing anything.

There's a competition going on to see who can convince drump to publicly say the stupidest thing.

Same thing America always wants: oil and control over shipping lanes

I highly doubt this but they could be looking at it as a future refuge when climate change makes most the land around the equator completely uninhabitable. Though, since half of them are already old ghouls I highly doubt they're thinking that far into the future.

I'm guessing to build a resort for them and their rich friends so they can be safe and isolated from the rest of us peasants. Maybe get some natural resources as well with exploitative and unethical labor practices

"No, he was going to fix the BIDENflation, ya'll!"

He's a cult leader. They get to do crazy stuff with no consequences.

Surely 100 dollars out of your yearly taxes to start a pointless war on two fronts is better than 20 cents out of your yearly taxes to stop the greatest threat to human rights, ability for people to self govern and peace in europe against an enemy who has been interfering in everyones internal politics and threatening everyone with nukes constantly.

He doesn't get taken seriously. By anybody. Ever. It's his singular source of effectiveness.

They all just see him as a wrecking ball to destroy everything with.

with a de facto totalitarian who attempted a coup at the helm, americans will finally understand for the first time what it means to be "free". It will be like pulling out a rotten tooth: painful but it will get better. Once the civil war that is required to get trump out of office in 10 years is finished.

What can I say, though, he knows his deplorable base. I'm not sure they could get any more hard over such performative bullshit.

I wonder how many have been bitching about the price of eggs lately, by the way? I wonder if eggs went through the same miraculous transformation that fair elections did, post donvict's win.

A lot of us tried, but we were outnumbered.

Give us a moment. The sane among us are still trying to figure out which of our friends and family are still worth a shit.

I would love too. I really don't think America should invade any country. One thing everyone can do no matter what country they live in you can boycott Tesla and Twitter. Musk is going to be a major funder of the GOP so ending his propaganda megaphone and wealth could change the course of events.

Oh, I'm not seeing a world war. I'm more envisioning a corrupt bargain:

Russia grabs Ukraine

China grabs Taiwan

US grabs Greenland, Panama, and maybe even Cuba

And they all agree to just let it happen.

I'm surprised by nothing when it comes to that guy.

Easy: People within its ranks will begin to make choices. Not necessarily take action, just make choices. If things continue small insubordinations will occur and eventually rifts at nearly every level.

If things got really bad the military would split into three:

1. Pro Trump
2. Pro United States
3. Undecided/Everyone else.

If this happens it will be a test of the quality of leadership on both major sides. A fundamental breaking of the chain. It's why Trump wants to replace current military leadership: They've told him no. A pattern we'll continue to see for at least two years.

The US? Nothing.

But if you read the classic fascist playbook, a military conflict is an essential stage in grabbing and especially in securing power. A conflict with a near peer like China is too dangerous and costly, but a series of minor to medium conflicts – like war with Panama to "secure" the canal or "liberating" Greenland or Canada might suffice.

Greenland is just the low-hanging fruit, an easy target. Something for the masses at home. Taking it won't take an afternoon. In fact, they'll just show up, plant a flag, next to it a "No Danes" sign, then call it a day. Then make a biiig celebration of it at home so everybody is distracted while they irreparably dismantle American democracy.

Greenland has oil, and it'll be prime real-estate in a decade or two once the equatorial regions are inhospitable.

People would say that call of duty was extremely unrealistic this time around if they used this as a plot element haha

What the fuck did Greenland do to deserve this?

It shouldnt have been so large on the map. Obviously it's a giant threat to "America" in the north.

As the glaciers melt they think there will be new reserves of natural resources. Plus it will gives control of newly opened Arctic sea routes.

It would make some sense if it wasn’t controlled by an ally.

What the fuck did Greenland do to deserve this?

It likely has a lot of mineral wealth. It's best to get control of that wealth, before some dirty locals try to setup their own government with rules about respecting them, their culture or property.

/s on that last bit, for the terminally stupid.

At least Greenland, being part of Denmark, is also a part of NATO, which basically rules out military force. Unless you literally want to start another world war. Don't do it, Donnie.

I believe the "rationale" (for lack of a better word) is that the land of Greenland will become much more valuable in a post-climate-change world. Much of greenland will become warmer and therefore more comfortable to live in and more suitable for farming. So the idea is to take it now while it's still largely a chunk of uninhabitable ice rather than wait until later when everybody else is fighting for it too.

At least, that's my understanding of it.

With global warming, it's about to be prime real-estate.

With Greenland, he wants control of the Arctic. China and Russia are also competing for control. But this is just the wrong way to go about it in every sense of the word.

I mean

Good question

Essentially that would be the US invading another NATO country (Denmark) and annexing it's territory. Which I think would call for article 5 (In this case an act of war against all of NATO by the largest military of NATO). In practice, would Denmark and the rest of NATO just not call it an invasion? Send a bunch of strongly worded letters about an "unauthorized intrusion" or something? I have no idea.

I mean I think Trump is probably saying these things just to stay in the spotlight or distract from other news, like he often does.

Would probably get Greenland and the US would face a lot of hostility. But he doesn't seem to care about consequences much.