R
Robostyle
Well-known member
We have been fine without it for how long?
Do you view this as a logical outlook?
We have been fine without it for how long?
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.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...
Maybe in the past Greenland wasn't as much of an issue for national security, but now it is becoming one.Do we really need this for national security ??? I just don't believe it.
You have to trust the man.Looks like a Hallmark Movie... Do we really need this for national security ??? I just don't believe it.
Pretty much this....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
Wrong! I didn't vote for her for your information ... BuckwheatWoke George Lynch wishes Kameltoe was president.![]()
There you go folks, Woke George Lynch is just another typical hypocritical lib racist.Wrong! I didn't vote for her for your information ... Buckwheat![]()
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 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.
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.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.
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.
No matter what his reasons are, Woke George Lynch will always be against it.It seems like DJT might be trying to stay 1 step ahead of Putin?
Which i would think we all would want.
Fucking WokeMericans.....No matter what his reasons are, Woke George Lynch will always be against it.
Yes. But they're called "influencers," and nobody really likes them.Do people really put a lot of stock in youtube comments?