Trump Links His Push for Greenland to Not Winning Nobel Peace Prize

Ransom

Ransom

Just this guy
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
12,863
Reaction score
3,335
Points
113
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From a text message sent by Donald Trump to Jonas Gahr Store, prime minister of Norway:


Considering your Country [sic] decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS [sic], I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace [sic], although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America....

The World [sic] is not secure unless we have Complete [sic] and Total [sic] Control [sic] of Greenland. Thank you!
​

Source:

www.nytimes.com

Trump Links His Push for Greenland to Not Winning Nobel Peace Prize

In a text, President Trump told Norway’s prime minister that he no longer felt obliged to “think purely of Peace” and that the U.S. needed the island for global security.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

🤣🤣🤣

This isn't fake, and it's utterly delusional. At the very least, could someone at least inform Trump that the government of Norway isn't responsible for awarding Nobel Prizes?

No, the president doesn't have to be "morally pure." But "not prone to absurd temper tantrums" is still a pretty low bar to clear...
 
Ransom said:
No, the president doesn't have to be "morally pure." But "not prone to absurd temper tantrums" is still a pretty low bar to clear...
Click to expand...
TDS north of the border style.

😉
 
I suppose not getting the Nobel Prize is as good an excuse for taking over Greenland as all the other justifications that have been proposed. That is to say, all the reasons that have been proposed so far are "utterly delusional." Maybe Congress will step in and provide adult supervision over our Executive branch, before it's too late.

"Last week, [Nebraska Republican Congressman] Bacon called Trump’s talk of taking over Greenland 'utter buffoonery,' adding that it might lead to impeachment efforts. Impeachment talk rarely originates from a president’s own party. By openly suggesting that Trump’s Greenland invasion rhetoric could warrant removal from office, the five-term congressman signals how polarizing the president’s stance on Greenland is at home and abroad."

[See Newsweek link]
Once Greenland is annexed, Canada will be next, for better or worse: "Donald Trump now appears to have set his sights on Canada – as the US president leaks private chats with world leaders amid the Greenland row. Trump shared an AI-generated image of himself speaking with European allies including Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron – appearing to talk through plans on seizing his North American neighbour."

Donald Trump at his desk in a meeting with several people, with a map of North America stylized with the American flag behind him.

www.the-sun.com

Now Trump appears to threaten US takeover of CANADA & shares private texts

DONALD Trump now appears to have set his sights on Canada – as the US president leaks private chats with world leaders amid the Greenland row. Trump shared an AI-generated image of himself sp…
www.the-sun.com www.the-sun.com
 
illinoisguy said:
I suppose not getting the Nobel Prize is as good an excuse for taking over Greenland as all the other justifications that have been proposed.
Click to expand...
Just a bunch of saber rattling by Trump. He’s trying to strong arm Greenland into a territorial purchase. I don’t think anyone actually believes he’s going to have the military invade Greenland.
 
illinoisguy said:
I suppose not getting the Nobel Prize is as good an excuse for taking over Greenland as all the other justifications that have been proposed. That is to say, all the reasons that have been proposed so far are "utterly delusional."
Click to expand...

Two wars with England, two World Wars, a Cold War, and a War on Terror, but now in 2026, Greenland is crucial to the U.S.'s national security?
 
Yeah, I've been wondering about that, how did we manage to survive for the last 250 years without Greenland?
 
i didn;t understand this ... and was against the idea... until it was explained to me by people who know a lot more about international issues than anyone i know... .. but fact is the world has changed... .. both advances in russian and chinese military technology/capabilities.... and changes in weather patterns that could permanently open a legendary "northwest passage" have made greenland strategic ground vital to safety of the entire north american continent.... not just the united states.....

add to that the fact that we already spend billions providing military security for the entire north american continent anyway .... including both greenland and canada..... and neither denmark or canada has the capability to defend or protect greenland should either russia or china make an aggressive move to establish bases there or even take them over......

yes greenland has been a remote - quaint and old school kind of place since people first moved there.... . but the world has changed and in strategic terms greenland is no longer remote......it;s hard for someone looking from afar to understand... and key board warriors and arm chair experts who live life on the internet might never understand it - but those who do military and security work all over the world see it in a much different light than what reading internet news articles and watching cnn can offer..... ....

they say owning greenland outright but leaving the people to govern themselves.... and making use of the land mass in a way similar to how we operate in guam and other u.s. territories would be best... .....and if you look at the history of how the united states took over hawaii and the military advantages it gave us in world war 2 - the importance of greenland is not much different.... .
 
aleshanee said:
i didn;t understand this ... and was against the idea... until it was explained to me by people who know a lot more about international issues than anyone i know... .. but fact is the world has changed... .. both advances in russian and chinese military technology/capabilities.... and changes in weather patterns that could permanently open a legendary "northwest passage" have made greenland strategic ground vital to safety of the entire north american continent.... not just the united states.....

add to that the fact that we already spend billions providing military security for the entire north american continent anyway .... including both greenland and canada..... and neither denmark or canada has the capability to defend or protect greenland should either russia or china make an aggressive move to establish bases there or even take them over......

yes greenland has been a remote - quaint and old school kind of place since people first moved there.... . but the world has changed and in strategic terms greenland is no longer remote......it;s hard for someone looking from afar to understand... and key board warriors and arm chair experts who live life on the internet might never understand it - but those who do military and security work all over the world see it in a much different light than what reading internet news articles and watching cnn can offer..... ....

they say owning greenland outright but leaving the people to govern themselves.... and making use of the land mass in a way similar to how we operate in guam and other u.s. territories would be best... .....and if you look at the history of how the united states took over hawaii and the military advantages it gave us in world war 2 - the importance of greenland is not much different.... .
Click to expand...
I think I’m mostly on board with your opinion. I like the idea of a self-governing territory, but wouldn’t support it becoming a state. Essentially, that’s what it already is except with Denmark. However, I believe no weapons should be used to advance our will. These aren’t the 1700s with colonialism being pushed by the threat of warfare. If we accomplish our goals by attacking a peaceful nation, we’re no better that Russia invading Ukraine. In fact, we’ll be worse than Russia because at least Russia has a legitimate argument for parts of Ukraine being on former Russian land.
 
Trump is egotistical, prideful, arrogant and narcissistic.
This is another illustration of such.
And, it’s dumb.

I do understand the point of the whole Greenland narrative but he’s just wrongheaded in his methodology.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Trump is egotistical, prideful, arrogant and narcissistic.
This is another illustration of such.
And, it’s dumb.

I do understand the point of the whole Greenland narrative but he’s just wrongheaded in his methodology.
Click to expand...
Your TDS is showing. Next thing you will be saying that he is a despicable person. 😉
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Trump is egotistical, prideful, arrogant and narcissistic.
This is another illustration of such.
And, it’s dumb.

I do understand the point of the whole Greenland narrative but he’s just wrongheaded in his methodology.
Click to expand...
i look at it a different way... .. .trump is definitely everything you said in the first sentence.. ... but we will have to wait and see if his method works or not.... . .for over 100 years american presidents have tried to acquire greenland with vintage american mr nice guy diplomacy....... .they have rightly presented u.s. ownership of greenland as everything from vital to western hemisphere security - to a financial boon for both denmark and greenland residents.... ..and nothing has worked.....

now... with arctic ice melting and both russia and china making moves on greenland.. (both visible and clandestine) ... and with the united states being the only military power that can defend greenland against them.... .. the issue of whether "it;s vital to western hemisphere security" should not even be a question any longer..... it;s an established fact.....

the only question now is whether or not americas want to continue sacrificing their wealth and the blood of their youth to save western europe every time they are threatened by a hostile aggressor from the east - and be happy to get very little help and nothing but contempt in return for it.... we have done that so many times in the past that europe is used to it.... and now they expect us to do it once again... ... they might be right... if hakeem jeffries or AOC is president by 2027 we will know they were.....
 
As explained, Greenland is vital to our nation's security due to the changing climate and a potential permanent northwest passage

BUT

I do not believe the United States needs to acquire Greenland in order to maintain this peace. We should work through diplomatic means and should definitely keep Greenland (and Denmark) on our side as a viable ally and economic partner. Let Greenland be Greenland and may they enjoy a season of prosperity based upon all of this. The United States should have bases over there in order to protect our national interests and to prevent domination and exploitation by China, Russia, and whoever else.

I love the fact that President Trump is pushing back against the globalist agenda but we should respect the sovereignty of other nations as we should expecct them to respect ours!
 
I just got an email survey from our local Congressman, Michael Baumgartner asking if I support the annexation of Greenland. He did mention that the move would cause friction between us and our NATO ally, Denmark. I answered that such a move is unnecessary and will cause problems without increasing our security.

Baumgartner, who replaced Cathy Mc Morris-Rogers, has been a good representative for Eastern Washington. He's been mostly supportive of the current administration but by the wording of the one question survey he sent out, I don't think he's supportive of this move.
 
Me: I am moving and need a truck.
Friend: I have a truck that you can use anytime. Here is a spare set of keys.
Me: Where is the title?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top