• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Ownership of Greenland is Essential to Our Security

it belongs to someone else, and if they don't want to sell it, or to give it to you, you can't have it.
That hasn't always stopped us.
We took the N American continent before the natives knew it. We owned Panama for 99 years just because we wanted to build something on it. We are gonna build a wall around Mexico and make them pay for it.
And to this day, both Germany and Japan are occupied (by US) countries.
Define 'occupied'.
We have military bases in most countries. Even UK and Australia. We own the RAF and all it's bases.
 
We own the RAF and all it's bases.
Most RAF bases have zero US presence.

The US has a few important UK bases, which are owned by and leased from the RAF; Such bases are often essentially US territory from the perspective of those living and working on them, and rarely have any RAF personnel except for perimeter security, but they are not legally owned by the USA.

RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire is a good case in point. It was part of the US early warning system in the Cold War, and was an entirely US run facility, though the RAF usually had liason officers there, and any warnings were passed to both MoD and the Pentagon.

In the late 1980s it was upgraded, and a new state of the art phased array radar replaced the old radomes. Then the Cold War ended, just before the upgrade was finished.

The US gave the entire site back to the RAF intact, and the British finished the last of the fitout, and now have a state of the art space monitoring facility that was paid for by Uncle Sam. The information sharing relationship has reversed; There are typically fewer than half a dozen US service personnel on site, and the RAF does the operational work. Warnings from the facility are still sent to both MoD and Pentagon.

The US most certainly doesn't own the RAF; And has no presence at all at most RAF bases, though a tiny handful are effectively USAF bases, that just happen to be labelled "RAF" for diplomatic reasons.
 
Most RAF bases have zero US presence.
Well, OK, I admit 'own' was an exaggeration.
My info is a few decades old, and half remembered. From a documentary about the overabundance of US bases worldwide.
My impression was the RAF let us take over during WW2, and we never gave it back.
 
Most RAF bases have zero US presence.
Well, OK, I admit 'own' was an exaggeration.
My info is a few decades old, and half remembered. From a documentary about the overabundance of US bases worldwide.
My impression was the RAF let us take over during WW2, and we never gave it back.
The RAF let the USAAF and later USAF use (and/or build) large numbers of bases during WWII and the immediate affermath. Most of these bases reverted to the RAF or were closed during the late '40s and early '50s. There are abandoned airfields everywhere in East Anglia and Lincolnshire, built between 1942 and 1944, to take advantage of the wide expanses of flat ground, close to the East Coast (and therefore close to Germany and Occupied Europe).

A few dozen were kept by the USAF for Cold War purposes; Most reverted to the RAF in the '90s.

Today there are ten USAF bases in the UK, some sharing runways and facilities with the RAF, and some routinely used only by the US.

The RAF Regiment (the ground combat arm of the RAF) are tasked to provide wartime perimeter security at these facilities; The MoD Police (who are not a part of the UK armed forces, and not to be confused with the Military Police, who are part of the Army) provide perimeter security in peacetime.

The relationship between the UK and US over these bases is very friendly; The US haven't been asked to give them back while they still wanted them, and the US have given back any they don't want, as and when they became redundant.

For example, US SAC had a base at Greenham Common during the Cold War, which was also the main RAF base for the UK's nuclear cruise missiles. The US withdrew their forces in 1991, and the base was closed in 1993 when the RAF also decided they no longer needed it. It was later used as a filming location for The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, wherein the hardened Cruise Missile bunkers played the role of the D'Qar X-Wing base.

A friend of mine was driver of one of the cruise missile trucks based at GC in the '80s. They had a full scale training exercise, and the peace protestors blocked the gate to the base by lying in the road. As he had been ordered to act as though an incoming Soviet strike had been detected, and his role was to get the missile off base at all costs, he simply drove the truck through the perimeter fence, leaving a huge gap that the protestors used to invade the base.

He was cleared of any wrongdoing by the inquiry, though the MoD Plods were not so fortunate, as it was their job to keep the perimeter secure, whether or not an all terrain heavy missile launcher had just been driven through the fence. :)
 
Last edited:
This is just a simple example of his lack of spelling ability. Green land is essential to our security--we should be able to feed our own people! He just doesn't realize "Greenland" != "green land"! :)
 
So apparently Trump is suggesting we use force to annex Greenland and Panama. But only economic coercion to annex Canada.


I’m curious if they would then become states. That might result in a shift in the balance of power in the senate and definitely the house.

Would we finally get a universal health insurance system? Socialism!

Maybe we should invade.
 
I've read that Trump's interest over the purchase of Greenland is more about China than Russia anyway.

The land mass of Greenland supposedly contains a lot of rare earth elements that are the same minerals that China and only China has control over right now. These are rare earth elements that will become essential as the world converts from fossil fuels to electricity.

You can not make America great again if you do not have the natural resources to do it with.
You cannot make any country great by seizing another country. Modern day example: Ask Putin how seizing Ukraine is going…

Normal countries form trade partnerships. It makes the greater.
 
So apparently Trump is suggesting we use force to annex Greenland and Panama. But only economic coercion to annex Canada.


I’m curious if they would then become states. That might result in a shift in the balance of power in the senate and definitely the house.
If we cannot even make DC and/or Puerto Rico a state, I see no reason to expect any new territories to become states.

It took over 50 years for Hawaii to become a state and almost 100 years for Alaska.
 
This is just a simple example of his lack of spelling ability. Green land is essential to our security--we should be able to feed our own people! He just doesn't realize "Greenland" != "green land"! :)
But after this territory becomes our 51th state the official name will be changed to Orangeland to honor Trumps legacy.
 
Canada and Denmark are part of NATO. Any military force used against them triggers the mutual defense pact.
Not exactly. The country that is being attacked has to actively invoke article 5 before it comes to effect.

A modern example would be how after a Ukrainian S-300 missile went off course and crashed into Poland. Technically that was an attack but article 5 didn't happen.
 
Canada and Denmark are part of NATO. Any military force used against them triggers the mutual defense pact.
Not exactly. The country that is being attacked has to actively invoke article 5 before it comes to effect.

A modern example would be how after a Ukrainian S-300 missile went off course and crashed into Poland. Technically that was an attack but article 5 didn't happen.
I don't think the Danes will just sit back and watch the US take over one of their semi-autonomous regions by force of arms.

They would fight back, and they would ask for (and should get) assistance from other NATO nations pursuant to Article 5.

The US obviously wouldn't comply with her treaty obligations, but then, anyone who thinks Trump is in any way reluctant to ignore laws that stand between him and his desires, has really not been paying attention.

I am sure nobody in the rest of NATO wants to get into a shooting war with the USA, but I am also sure that few of them will refuse to do so if obliged by international law.
 
Back
Top Bottom