Greenland Watch 2026: America First!

[Philo Sofee]

Opening this thread so I can track the progress Trump and his administration is making on either buying Greenland or taking it by force.

I haven't decided if I'm voting republican in the 2028 election yet, but if Trump and his administration acquire Greenland, im definitely voting republican!

In my lifetime no President has EVER ***DIVIDED*** the states into Republican and Democrat. What happened to our UNITED States of America? What Moron is responsible for this?

[Philo Sofee]

Opening this thread so I can track the progress Trump and his administration is making on either buying Greenland or taking it by force.

I haven't decided if I'm voting republican in the 2028 election yet, but if Trump and his administration acquire Greenland, im definitely voting republican!

Danish troops just arrived in Greenland, including the head of the Danish army, Peter Boysen, after Donald Trumps threats. How sad is that? Our staunchest allies now have to defend themselves from us. How is this okay?

[Chap]

Somebody want to leash the syphilis addled pedophile before he marches us into ww3 against our allies?

Please see my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2920960#p2920960

Trump has now explicitly renounced the use of force, and appears satisfied with the possibility of some kind of possible outline of a possible agreement being possibly discussed. He has presumably noticed the effect of his previous attitude on stock markets, and is worried about the determined attitude of Nato allies, as well as the clear lack of support from US voters. He will probably end up getting basically what he could always have had under the terms of the 1951 treaty - expanding a NATO-linked defence presence, which in his first and second terms so far he has not bothered to do. Eventually he will notice that Alaska needs reinforcing too, no doubt.

All this was bluster designed for his MAGA base. But, as before, TACO. What a stupid waste of time and energy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Trump has succeeded in effectively isolating the US from the world, destroyed our ability to negotiate favorable trade deals, and has irrevocably tarnished our legacy as a global democratic leader. And yet, we have the superdope MAGA cultist Xanax18 tripping over himself to praise this abject failure of a human being, who is the object of his devotion. I suppose it’s because he enjoys seeing brown people brutalized by the federal government.

You know, when a government sets the bar for how it’ll treat people it won’t be long before it views everyone through the same lens. I don’t know why this isn’t obvious to these blockheads, but here we are.

- Doc

[canpakes]

All this was bluster designed for his MAGA base. But, as before, TACO. What a stupid waste of time and energy.

Don’t forget the market dump ‘n’ pump that his friends and their LLCs took advantage of by knowing in advance what he was going to say.

[Some Schmo]

I just keep thinking about all the whining the right has done about being the objects of condescension. It's like drinking a gallon of vodka and complaining about getting drunk. What the “F” do they expect, especially now that they follow a moron like he's Jim Jones?

damned idiots.

[Jersey Girl]

I previously posted a video by Dr. Razz about how Trump will always ultimately humiliate himself. It's part of the the dynamic of his childhood between himself and his father. Trump came to believe that he was worthless. He's still got his father in his ear telling him he doesn't deserve to live. So the bravado we see is a cover for self loathing.

Here is that video.

Why Donald Trump’s Need for Humiliation Drives His Actions (A Psychiatrist’s Bold Insight)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5kZn8-CLQHere's Dr. Razz's latest.

Here is Dr. Razz's follow up post Davos:

Trump Completely Backs Down On Greenland And Humiliates Himself Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs3Ap9bofj8

by the way, I love that he showed a clip of Trump fielding questions from reporter. How Trump acts all mysterious, like he's got a plan to save mankind or something. It's. all. B. S.

[Doctor Steuss]

Anyway, we all know that an attack on one NATO member is considered to be an attack on all of them and they're all obligated to come to the attack-ee's aid. Up until now everyone has taken for granted that it's referring to the old Soviet Union, but riddle me this: What if a NATO member is attacked by another NATO member? What happens then?

From what I understand, Article 5 only works through unanimous agreement. If one member were to attack another, that would likely preclude them from voting for every other member to join together against them.

The aggressor could be expelled from NATO, but once again, that's not exactly something the treaty has a mechanism for. More than likely it'd require a kind of disillusion of NATO, and a creation of NATO 2.0 with all of the countries, sans the aggressor.

When the NATO treaty was crafted, they apparently never anticipated someone like the serial self-defecator-in-Chief gaining power of a member nation.

[Chap]

Anyway, we all know that an attack on one NATO member is considered to be an attack on all of them and they're all obligated to come to the attack-ee's aid. Up until now everyone has taken for granted that it's referring to the old Soviet Union, but riddle me this: What if a NATO member is attacked by another NATO member? What happens then?

From what I understand, Article 5 only works through unanimous agreement. If one member were to attack another, that would likely preclude them from voting for every other member to join together against them.

The aggressor could be expelled from NATO, but once again, that's not exactly something the treaty has a mechanism for. More than likely it'd require a kind of disillusion of NATO, and a creation of NATO 2.0 with all of the countries, sans the aggressor.

When the NATO treaty was crafted, they apparently never anticipated someone like the serial self-defecator-in-Chief gaining power of a member nation.

Here is Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Nothing about unanimous agreement there. Check the whole treaty text here:

https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/offici ... tic-treaty

I don't think you will find anywhere else any provision that limits the application of Article 5 in the way you suggest. If you are a NATO member and anyone attacks you within the zone in which the treaty applies, then if I am a member I am obliged to help you, including by the use of armed force. with the aim of "restor[ing] and maintain[ing] the security of the North Atlantic area".

The problem that does arise is if country A, a NATO member, attacks country B, also a member. It could be argued that if NATO member country C limits itself to taking military action to help country B to repel the attack of country A, but does not attack the territory of country A, then country A cannot claim it has been attacked by country C in a way that qualifies it for aid under article 5. Here article 6 is relevant:

Article 6

- For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [declared inapplicable after those territories left French control in 1962], on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Since Greenland is not an "area in Europe" it might seem that if the US sent troops to attack Greenland, then any US forces in Greenland could be attacked without the US being able to invoke Article 5. But Greenland is in "the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer", so ...

I just make these points as a matter of law. If Trump was to decide after all to attack Greenland, debate on Articles 5 and 6 is unlikely to play a major role in deciding what happens next.

[Res Ipsa]

Somebody want to leash the syphilis addled pedophile before he marches us into ww3 against our allies?

Please see my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2920960#p2920960

Trump has now explicitly renounced the use of force, and appears satisfied with the possibility of some kind of possible outline of a possible agreement being possibly discussed. He has presumably noticed the effect of his previous attitude on stock markets, and is worried about the determined attitude of Nato allies, as well as the clear lack of support from US voters. He will probably end up getting basically what he could always have had under the terms of the 1951 treaty - expanding a NATO-linked defence presence, which in his first and second terms so far he has not bothered to do. Eventually he will notice that Alaska needs reinforcing too, no doubt.

All this was bluster designed for his MAGA base. But, as before, TACO. What a stupid waste of time and energy.

Add it to the list of crap that Trump says. He’ll say something different soon.