Could Trump take Greenland by force?

[Greenkindness]

I would like to think he couldn’t, but could he? Would he basically invade it if he couldn’t buy it? Would the UK defend it as part of NATO?

Could he also take the Panama Canal?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gzn48jwz2o

I’m hoping it’s all distraction politics but I also think Trump and his cronies are stupid and dangerous people.

I'll ignore you blatant breach of MN talk guidelines as you re wrong.

Tibet was never international recognised as an independent country in modern times, China saw it as a n autonomous region but ultimately under their control... the RoW also agreed with this.

If you want to going back many centuries, then perhaps but then you'd have to redraw the boundaries in many continents.

True!

I think America has done good things and bad things. Some of its foreign policy has been rather hypocritical compared to their own narrative of themselves but that's true of most countries. I do think that there is a danger in having a very uncritical view of American history in that when it gets challenged/people learn new things, its easy for it to be flipped completely and that makes people more vulnerable to Russian/Chinese bias. e.g. Tucker Carlson's complete astonishment that Russia were the ones who "won" WW2 when Putin told him twas so. In reality it was a team effort (in which the USSR switched sides and the US joined late). Thats why it was a "World" war. But that's not the narrative all Americans have. Also, it doesn't help that Trump/Musk are acting like the very worst stereotype of an obnoxious American who thinks America "saved everyone's asses" and wants to buy everything. A weird mix of arrogance and grievance. And as English is one of the most commonly understood world languages everyone can hear. Apologies to the nice Americans!

Sorry, where have i blamed Labour?

Alaska is vulnerable to Russian attack across the Bering Straits, but the lower 48 isn't. Best route from Russia to the US eastern seaboard (where Washington DC is) is via Greenland.

Vietnam asked for Chinese help before the Vietnam war when they saw US forces beginning to accumulate military supplies in their country. There were plenty of disputes between neighbouring countries Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in those days but China came to Vietnam aid when the country was on its knees during the conflict with the US.

The Chinese invasion in 1979 lasted one month.

Still haven't had an explanation why the US, a country thousand of kms away without ever being under threat, invaded Vietnam, and committed such atrocities against their civil population.

And after Vietnam came another long list of countries targeted by the US, that never posed a security risk to America.

@Alondra at the risk of getting bogged down in a whole other conflict, I'm not sure your understanding is correct. In the 1960s and early 70s, Vietnam had received aid from China but relations between the two countries went pear-shaped later in the 1970s. In 1975 the Vietnamese Communist Govt were not happy with the level of aid that China was offering and sought alternative support from the Soviets. This didn't please China and relations between the two countries continued to deteriorate. Eventually culminating in the invasion by China in 1979 as outlined above.

The US invaded Vietnam after war broke out between North & South Vietnam in 1958 and was part of the Cold War (in simplistic terms). There was a fear that if South Vietnam fell to the communist North, that the world would be under greater threat for the communists. The catalyst for the invasion was a US ship being attacked by the North Vietnamese in 1964. That is the explanation. Whether what the US did in Vietnam was warranted is a whole other topic altogether.

There are a gazillion books out there explaining why the US went to war in Vietnam, if you were actually interested in why

No one today is defending that war, it is widely agreed that it was a huge mistake and the humanitarian toll is indefensible. So I'm not sure what kind of strawman argument you're trying to make.

Re the history -- China was supporting North Vietnam. The US was not accumulating military supplies within North Vietnam. It was asked by South Vietnam for support to fight an insurgency in the South that was being supported by North Vietnam and China. The US should never have gotten involved but let's not pretend that North Vietnam was just sitting there minding their own business and China had to intervene to save them from destruction, as your description implies.

Yeah, there are gazillion books but few offer a simple explanation. That after WWII the US planned and set about to expand militarily their global control.

Which brings us to today and Trump threatening to take by force Greenland, Canada and the Panama Channel.

Nothing changes in US policy. Just a bigger despot.

Vietnam was a proxy war between the USSR and the US. Same as Afghanistan.

The US really doesn't like socialism.

@Alondra the explanations are rarely simple. International affairs are complex and often there are long-standing and historically entrenched reasons for conflicts.

dementia he wants to be king of the world

With Vietnam there was also the French involvement that frequently gets overlooked. The perceived "double yoke" of imperialism for the Vietnamese. Just to add another layer of complexity to the argument

I wonder whether they’re risking that presence by his current approach.

Which brings us to today and Trump threatening to take by force Greenland, Canada and the Panama Channel.

He’s not a consent kind of guy.

Aye, if he doesn't care about women's consent, he's not going to care about countries' consent.

And the Yanks voted for him despite all this.

Yep. It was a hard stretch to believe they didn’t know what he was like the first time, but they definitely know what he’s like this time around and they were fine with that.

😂😂😂

When trump talks you are not listening to a seasoned politician, used to years of treading lightly and walking a fine line.

He's a bombastic negotiating business man.

That's his background and who he is.
Much easier to take what he says with a pinch of salt for now although his threat against hammas a sounded very real.

When

Yeah, not a chance.

Typical, once again it's those lunatic men that have money & that money has given them power or notions/perceptions of power that want to cause international chaos.
All because of their ego.

Honestly it's like boys comparing their penis size in the school toilets/showers in order to feel better about themselves except in this case it's geopolitics.

I'm sure the world would be a safer place if women & also the decent men out there were in charge?

I find the best approach with Trump is just smile and nod and say that's nice deaf.

Remember all the stuff he said he was going to do last time? What happened to all that?

You are optimistic.

Just 5 years huh?

Actually I think the Greenland economy will massively benefit. Trump will immediately start mining for minerals and drilling for oil. He will have zero interest in environmental concerns. This will provide well paid work for Greenlanders.
This isn't to suggest in any way I think Trump is right or it's for the best. But I just don't think it's true that there wouldn't be economic benefits for Greenlanders.

In theory. But in reality, if you look at every single time a foreign power has come into a country and started extracting the materials it doesn't usually make the locals rich (well, maybe a few end up loaded). Otherwise regions like West Africa would be a real life Wakanda. Usually, being an exporter of raw materials is not a route to riches. In fact the opposite. The only country really to buck that trend is Saudi Arabia and thats for specific reasons (and they do it as a soverign country.) And even though they bucked that trend, the oil wealth also means democracy/representation/rights don't matter because the government doesn't rely on its citizens for money (through tax).