Even the Fox news comments are turning on them... WOW!

  • Thread starter Thread starter espquade
  • Start date Start date
Ok, I didn't mean to imply that you said the comments aren't from actual people because I think we can agree that many are and those do represent their reality correct? Maybe not yours or mine...
I can agree that is does reflect the individual person's thoughts. But it's a very small sample size that really can't be extrapolated to represent the whole country.

Do we really need this for national security ??? I just don't believe it.
Maybe in the past Greenland wasn't as much of an issue for national security, but now it is becoming one.
There are the resources that should be secured from the US's enemies from getting. We don't necessarily need to have them for ourselves but we absolutely need to protect from China and Russia getting their hands on them.
On top of that; and more important, there are new water transport lanes being formed in the polar regions due to ice melt. These lanes are in close proximity to Greenland and would absolutely be beneficial to Russia. Not only for shipping, but easy for them to use as an invasion into the Americas. I'm not saying they would actually do that, but it would be prudent to secure these lanes so that possibility is non-existent.
 
Looks like a Hallmark Movie... Do we really need this for national security ??? I just don't believe it.
You have to trust the man.
So much shit going on we don't know about.

Supposedly one if not both of the reds invade it first. Then it's too late

Personally i dont think it will make a damn bit of difference.

If a nuke ICBM is launched it will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to re-enter the atmosphere and deploy the war heads.

That goes for either side assuming its launched from the homeland and not a sub which can be a few hundred miles off the coast

Traveling at Mach 10 will be like trying to hit a
a pea falling out of a tree with a BB gun at 1000 yards
 
You have to trust the man.
So much shit going on we don't know about.

Supposedly one if not both of the reds invade it first. Then it's too late

Personally i dont think it will make a damn bit of difference.

If a nuke ICBM is launched it will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to re-enter the atmosphere and deploy the war heads.

That goes for either side assuming its launched from the homeland and not a sub which can be a few hundred miles off the coast

Traveling at Mach 10 will be like trying to hit a
a pea falling out of a tree with a BB gun at 1000 yards
Pretty much this....


President Trump is the man..... And The President of the United States of America answers to one but God and country.
 
Given the fact that you guys had polls at 9 PM on election night 2016 pretty much guaranteeing Hillary would win on every fucking news channel on broadcast TV and you once again missed by a longshot in 2024, do you really think the whole "Trick the public into thinking democrats are popular" plan is magically going to work this time ?
 
Unless there's like 372 million comments I don't think it means much.

You should have learned by now that polls and optics mean very little. And whatever comments you are looking at on Fox News can't actually be indicative of the country as a whole or conservatives as a whole.

My feeling is someone else sent you this link. Some liberals trying to counter all those videos of the dumbfucks in Minnesota. If those dumbfucks are indicative of democrats as a whole you guys aren't going to win a national election any time soon.
 
Personally I'm not interested in polls or comments.

What I'd have liked to have seen is Trump focussing on selling the idea that they'd be better-off with America - safer and richer. Get the locals there to want this.

The coercive nature of the tariff move is cringe to me and IMHO erodes his political capital.

Just my 2¢ worth. :dunno:
 
I can agree that is does reflect the individual person's thoughts. But it's a very small sample size that really can't be extrapolated to represent the whole country.


Maybe in the past Greenland wasn't as much of an issue for national security, but now it is becoming one.
There are the resources that should be secured from the US's enemies from getting. We don't necessarily need to have them for ourselves but we absolutely need to protect from China and Russia getting their hands on them.
On top of that; and more important, there are new water transport lanes being formed in the polar regions due to ice melt. These lanes are in close proximity to Greenland and would absolutely be beneficial to Russia. Not only for shipping, but easy for them to use as an invasion into the Americas. I'm not saying they would actually do that, but it would be prudent to secure these lanes so that possibility is non-existent.
I thought the whole point of NATO alliance was to keep foreign countries from invading other countries and collectively we do just that, so how in the hell is Russia or even China a threat? If they tried to attack Greenland then all of NATO would all join in and come after them so it would be insane for them to do so, so I'm not buying Trump saying ( Oh we need Greenland for national security) ... And if the United States erodes that trust by talking Greenland, then what's to stop other countries from invading and taking other countries?
 
I thought the whole point of NATO alliance was to keep foreign countries from invading other countries and collectively we do just that, so how in the hell is Russia or even China a threat? If they tried to attack Greenland then all of NATO would all join in and come after them so it would be insane for them to do so, so I'm not buying Trump saying ( Oh we need Greenland for national security) ... And if the United States erodes that trust by talking Greenland, then what's to stop other countries from invading and taking other countries?
If you don't think securing newly forming trade routes within US proximity is a matter of national security then I don't know what to say to you. It's a matter of getting ahead of changing times in global trade.

Watch this video and maybe you can get a better understanding of why Greenland is so important to the US now.
BTW. I have no idea who made this video, It's just one I found that gives a decent explanation.

 
If you don't think securing newly forming trade routes within US proximity is a matter of national security then I don't know what to say to you. It's a matter of getting ahead of changing times in global trade.

Watch this video and maybe you can get a better understanding of why Greenland is so important to the US now.
BTW. I have no idea who made this video, It's just one I found that gives a decent explanation.


This has nothing to do with Greenland though, the shipping lane China is trying to use more is going along Russia's coast and doesn't come close to Greenland. It's also extremely limited and will be for the next 50 years, if not forever.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with Greenland though, the shipping lane China is trying to use more is going along Russia's coast and doesn't come close to Greenland. It's also extremely limited and will be for the next 50 years, if not forever.

It seems like DJT might be trying to stay 1 step ahead of Putin?
Which i would think we all would want.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top