Trump taking over Greenland?

Both the purchase and the lease happened in 1867 and 1898 respectively. I don't know but are countries keen on being purchased these days!

Project 2025 pretty clearly lays it out:

Project 2025 - Page 190

The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region. Economic freedom spurs prosperity, innovation, respect for the rule of law, jobs, and sustainability. Most important, economic freedom can help to keep the Arctic stable and secure.

The U.S. should work to ensure that shipping lanes in the Arctic remain available to all global commercial traffic and free of onerous fees and burdensome administrative, regulatory, and military requirements. While this should be the next Administration’s policy with respect to all countries that might seek to block free-flowing commercial traffic, the next Administration will clearly have to exert substantial attention toward Russia.

Both the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy are vital tools to ensure an unmonopolized Arctic. It is imperative that the Navy and Coast Guard continue to expand their fleets, including planned icebreaker acquisitions, to assure Arctic access for the United States and other friendly actors. The remote and harsh conditions of the Arctic also make unmanned system investment and use particularly appealing for providing additional situational awareness, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Coast Guard should also consider upgrading facilities, such as its Barrow station, to reinforce its Arctic capabilities and demonstrate a greater commitment to the region.

The People’s Republic of China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” which is an imaginary term non-existent in international discourse. The United States should work with like-minded Arctic nations, including Russia, to raise legitimate concerns about the PRC’s so-called Polar Silk-Road ambitions.

Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. A formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better understand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Greenland’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland.

We can clearly see what 'economic freedom' and 'economic ties' looks like to the current US administration via the tariffs, Venezuelan oil grab and the proposed Gazan and Ukranian peace deals! There is absolutely no freedom to be seen for anyone but the US, Russia and Israel in any of them!

They (the US) had 17 military bases on Greenland and closed 16 of them. They have been given free rein to have any military they wish to base there. Therefore, the only reason they want it as US territory is for its rare earth minerals.

"Indeed, the meek shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5) and (Psalm 37:11),

More likely Putin has something over Trump (Epstein) etc and is blackmailing him.

Not just the Bella 1 but also a second ship as well. Two in one day, although there are between 1-2000 creepy crawly illegal vessels.

Trump has taken the Bella 1 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwynjdqgellt

The post your are replying to was talking about European collective involvements, not the UK individually: European nations have not been collective protagonists in any major wars since WW2 - our involvement in the Middle East was largely as a result of the US triggering Article 5.

And no, the US did not publically ask to trigger article 5 but they were the beneficiary of it when NATO invoked it on their behalf after 9/11 and if you think that wasn't done in agreement and likely as a result of US diplomatic pressure behind the scenes, then you need to understand more about how geopolitics is handled outside of the public eye.

That triggering of article 5, the only time it has ever happened, was the opening salvo of the war on terror.

The US chose not to take full benefit of NATO command in their response opting instead to lead the 'coalition of the willing' which also included non-NATO countries because they believed it to be less restrictive (and they are control freaks).

Even though they didn't go for centralised NATO command until 2003 when they wanted to switch their focus to Iraq, the triggering of article 5 did provide them with a lot of additional support and resources including domestic and foreign surveillance and maritime patrols that they wouldn't necessarily have got otherwise.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not directly related to the article five invocation and many NATO nations, including, most famously France, but also Germany, who refused to take part, so therefore can't be classed as collective action by European nations.

And yes, Afghanistan is not part of the Middle East in pure geographic terms, but it was included as part of the 'Greater Middle East' in geopolitical terms after 9/11 by the US. It has become synonymous with the region in wider geopolitics, which along with sharing the similar developmental challenges and culture with the geographical middle east, led to the World Bank reclassifying Afghanistan and Pakistan as MENA (now MENAAP) for administrative purposes last year.

They didn't. They threw 20mn people at Nazi to defend own territory but then marched to occupy half of Europe. Those who lived in Eastern Europe under control of USSR would struggle to say who were the worst, Russians or Germans.

No wonder those "saved" countries, like Baltics, Poland etc, do the most to support Ukraine, they still remember their savior...

There is a simple solution which Europe could implement - a proper Digital Service Tax and ban of social media for under 18 like in Aus.
Hit magnificent seven hard. Yes, there would be retaliation and tariffs, but their impact would be compensated by money stream (flood) from Musk, Zuckerberg etc. And they'd then remove Trump pronto.
Oh, and reducing SM use would do a lot of good to public's MH.

Yes, you did.

What...? I assume you've quoted the wrong posted or are under the influence of something, because I didnt even slightly allude to most of what you've said that I said. Where on earth are you getting this? Bizarre.

NATO triggered art 5 on behalf of the US in a show of support after 9/11

This attitude fascinates me.

You’re saying that he is a liar. A manipulative liar.

But you’re also saying it’s OK to threaten sovereign nations and NATO to get what you want.

I cannot fathom supporting a manipulative, lying, threatening, conniving bully. And saying that it’s OK becasue he won’t really do what he says he will do. Your standards for public service are in the toilet.

Well, thats not entire correct, they kept pushing further and further West, as fast as they could.

Their aims weren't to save Europe but to occupy it. .. and they carried on doing that long after WW2 ended.

They had no historic claim to Germany, didn't stop them effectively holding 1/2 of it... took over countries in Eastern Europe in the 50s and 60s too.

What i really bloody hate is that due to brexit we are now trapped here, unless we are particularly wealthy or have duel nationality or something.
I'd honestly want to leave the UK if it ties itself further with the US. I even own a family home in a European country.. but due to Brexit I can't live there because I can't get a work visa! I dont have enough savings to declare myself financially independent either so I can only stay in my house 7 months out of the year or something.
If Starmer doesn't defend Greenland and NATO I no longer want to be British because its disgusting. But unfortunately we have no choice despite the braying of the idiots 'just leave if you dont like it!'

Anyone who believes UK involvement in the Middle East was a result of the US triggering Article 5 has either a dubious grasp of geography or of history or of both.

Afghanistan is at the crossroads between Central and South Asia.

The US did not trigger Article 5 in the Middle East.

TBH You re right, he is an awful person... Remember "Grab em by the Pussy" he was involved with Epstein, up to his neck.

We all hate Andrew but many are ok with Trump.....

So for that reason alone, i agree with you.

Russia saved Europe from the Nazis let's be honest. It always irritates me when people conveniently forget that

Erm....ok.

You're not quite right, are you? The only disgusting and hateful person right now is you, saying what you said.

OK just so we have a list.

Piracy (oil ships)
Murder (the men they shot in the water) OR
War crimes (depending on how you define the above)
Illegal invasion
Covering up sex trafficking of children
Kidnapping (ICE taking citizens)
Illegal deportation without due process
Insurrection (just went past the anniversary)
Threats to kill (ex-servicemen and members of congress)

The rule of law is now meaningless in the US. So just taking Greenland won’t be an issue. There is nothing stopping them.

Oh I have no faith in any of them …I’ve no doubt we are headed for war. Doesn’t mean I have to have a good opinion of them . They are disgusting human beings (and barely deserve that title) . If hell exists they are all headed there.

However we all know hell does not exist so I can only wish revolting deaths on all of them.

Be careful what you wish for. Vance has already shown he is no friend of ours nor of Europe.