This is why WE need Greenland. Any questions?

Yes, let’s base our entire nuclear defense and geopolitical maneuvering on a TV show. Jfc

Not the point

Got it, we do foreign policy from movies not...

Read the thread

Do the Greenlanders and Danes have a say? Or is a fictitious streaming drama sufficient nowadays?

The absolutely do

@PepAiello And what are they saying?

@patriot_savvy Greenland “is not for sale” and they want to stay part of Denmark. The Green Danes, the smart ones, realize the strategic importance of their island but don’t want coerced unification with America.

It's much more meaningful to look at the map this way. Greenland takes on much greater importance.

Great assist

Yeah…what does “no new wars” mean to you?

This discussion has nothing to do with war

No it has to do with America exerting its authority by throwing its weight around….the very same mentality America has condemned Russia for.

@DurdenAD70 @patriot_savvy Reality? It’s a fucking television show mate. The main reason we’re seeing all this theatre over Greenland is because he wants to posture and distract from the Epstein files. He pulls this shit all the time

@TJRichardson16 @DurdenAD70 @patriot_savvy LMFAO 😭😭😭

@44Exploration @TJRichardson16 @patriot_savvy Usual suspects 🤣

Can we trade Minneapolis to Denmark in exchange for Greenland?

I like it Patrick. I really do

I beg to differ.

We actually don’t disagree 😉

We do, though. Because, at the end of the day it has nothing to do with nukes, and everything to do with MASSIVE AI data centers being built in Greenland because of the ideally cold climate, which will be storing ALL of our data and information, WITHOUT OUR CONSENT, to then be used AGAINST US when the Palantir social credit score system comes online. That will be essential for knowing how much Universal Basic Income you will receive each month after AI and robots take our jobs, based on your “behavior.” Not to mention the “smart cities” that the tech elite like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, Larry Ellison etc, who are now Trump’s best friends, will build there. The “AI race” thing is an ILLUSION, this ALL has to do with human ENSLAVEMENT & CONTROL through AI, and setting up the Beast System. The vision is for all of America to be this way, a dystopian hellscape Technocracy run completely by AI, robots and drones.

By your logic you also need the UK as an ally for your national security… how do you think the British government is gonna react to friendly land being taken and sanctions put on it

It’s all in my thread conversation in my comment section

Nothing there, but let me be clear, I despise my government and often dream of the day Nigel becomes our PM, that being said though if the British people are punished by trump because we stand up for our allies or because of Starmer then I’m done with the special relationship

And that sums it up perfectly Tiff! 🔥🔥🔥

As soon as I saw this, I was like “yup. A perfect explanation”. Great minds dear Ken.

@RealKenWalls I love that series

@RealKenWalls Me too doll face

Wow based on a TV show..... Damn there is dumb and there ist americandumb. Just reopen one of the 16 not used US bases. If It's about security

This clip (great scene) does nothing to explain why any territory, be it Scotland or Greenland, needs to be annexed by the US, and why bases and alliances are not enough. There is zero sign (nor any reason) that an independent Greenland would kick the US out there.

Here you go bud.

@guimauvebxl @grok is the 1951 agreement between Denmark and the USA still in effect and does that provide a roadmap to the US opening or reopening bases without force?

Yes, the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between the US and Denmark remains in effect as of 2026. It allows the US to construct, maintain, and operate military bases in Greenland through bilateral cooperation, providing a clear framework for opening or reopening bases without force.

Infuriating that y’all can’t think of a better use of our tax dollars here in America. I swear I do t want to hear anything about deficits, or sending money to foreign countries, from republicans again

*don’t.

@patriot_savvy

Yet the lib actress with the sharpie will be the first one to oppose Trump on acquiring Greenland....

Oh the irony.

A Hollywood storyline is the cornerstone of military and foreign policy, according to this genius.

No. If you want to know my geopolitical stance, you can read it here. Fing clown.

The US has a presence there, why do they have to own it? They can put whatever bases they want there no? Why did the US pull out of there? Why is Russia suddenly a threat? I think it's for resources and future control of shipping lanes.

If you truly are interested with in-depth analysis and answers, read this thread 🧵 of my conversation with Grok. Your choice.

@bonbon663 I saw your thread with Grok and it seems we are covered already

@bonbon663

Great video ☝️

Thank you Geo 🙏🏻

@realDonaldTrump, @VP, @DNIGabbard, @SecWar, all of you should be reposting this video. This hits HARD! It's easy to understand and it 100% correct.

@realDonaldTrump @VP @DNIGabbard @SecWar BINGO!

Greenland is in NATO. The US can build military bases there without owning the nation

If Greenland would only allow the US to build as many bases there as we want (psst: they already do, and it's in writing).

Do you mean Iceland?

The Kingdom of Denmark is part of NATO and has an ongoing deal with the US since 1951 permitting US troops and technology in Greenland. There’s no need for conquering Greenland.

One of the members of the Joint Chief of Staff has stated Russia and China are mapping the arctic and determining choke points.

He’s 100% CORRECT. Read this thread. Covers a multitude of angles and reasoning

Trump is only speaking openly about what has been talked about behind closed doors.

He’s been speaking about this since 2019

It is not a new idea... 1. Andrew Johnson (1865–1869) Concern: Greenland's strategic position for U.S. expansion in the Arctic, post-Civil War, as part of broader territorial ambitions (e.g., after purchasing Alaska in 1867). It was seen as a stepping stone for trade routes and naval influence. Mitigation Attempts: In 1867–1868, Secretary of State William Seward explored purchasing Greenland (and Iceland) from Denmark for $7.5 million. A report was commissioned, but the deal never materialized due to lack of congressional support and Denmark's reluctance. This was an early, unsuccessful attempt at acquisition. 2. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945) Concern: During World War II, Greenland's proximity to North America made it a potential base for Nazi Germany to launch attacks or monitor U.S. shipping. The island was critical for weather stations, air routes, and defense against U-boats in the Atlantic. Mitigation Attempts: In 1941, the U.S. signed the "Greenland Agreement" with Denmark's ambassador (after Denmark's occupation by Germany). This allowed U.S. forces to establish military bases, airfields, and weather stations (e.g., Bluie West-1). Roosevelt authorized "preemptive" occupation to secure the island, building over a dozen bases. No purchase was attempted, but it established long-term U.S. military presence. 3. Harry Truman (1945–1953) Concern: In the early Cold War, Greenland's Arctic location was essential for monitoring Soviet threats, radar early warning systems, and potential missile defense. The U.S. feared Soviet influence or invasion in the region. Mitigation Attempts: In 1946, Truman offered Denmark $100 million to purchase Greenland outright (equivalent to ≈$1.5 billion today). Denmark refused, but negotiations led to expanded U.S. basing rights under the 1951 Defense Agreement, allowing permanent military installations like Thule Air Base (built in 1951). This was a direct acquisition attempt that shifted to leasing and cooperation when purchase failed. 4. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961) Concern: Escalating Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union; Greenland was key for ballistic missile early warning (DEW Line) and strategic bombing routes over the Arctic. Nuclear threats amplified the need for radar and air bases. Mitigation Attempts: Eisenhower expanded Truman's efforts, authorizing the construction of Thule Air Base (1951–1953) as a massive U.S. facility for B-52 bombers and radar. No purchase was pursued, but the 1951 agreement was leveraged for full control of the base. In 1957, Project Iceworm explored secret nuclear missile sites under the ice (abandoned due to instability). Focus was on military buildup rather than ownership.

Yes, we can already build all the bases we want. Why do we need to own it?

The presence is permanent, no permission required. There are routine flights there by the US military - I know people who serve there. A new base requires permission as a matter of courtesy, but it’s a rubber stamp. I know this personally. You’ve been sold lies to build a case.

Much more meaningful to look at the map this way

Nice. Thanks Dandy

This as well. Sorry about you Dems that don’t understand maps.

A clearer view.

Damn! One question, how do WE convince Greenlanders that one of our major objectives is providing their own protection?

GREAT QUESTION Sisco! You don’t “convince” by force or rhetoric. You demonstrate through mutual benefit, respect for sovereignty, and tangible investment. That means • Security cooperation at their request, not imposed • Economic development that strengthens their self sufficiency • Infrastructure, ports, communications, and energy that serve Greenland first • Defense partnerships that protect Greenlanders’ interests in an increasingly contested Arctic The reality is the Arctic is already militarizing. Russia and China are not asking permission. The choice isn’t between protection or independence, it’s between trusted allies or predatory powers. When protection is framed as empowerment and partnership, not occupation, people don’t need convincing. They choose it. That’s how grown up geopolitics works.

Just gonna ignore this then.

A clip from a TV show with pretend characters ? Yeah. I got a question, Tiffany.. Do you think this is really credible analysis? It's TV. Like Family Guy. Or The Voice. Derp.

David. May I call you David? This may sting a little. It’s a dramatized clip, not a policy memo. The point isn’t that it’s “TV.” The point is that writers pull from real world doctrine, existing strategy debates, and known geopolitical fault lines. If you think popular culture hasn’t repeatedly previewed how elites think, talk, and telegraph priorities, you haven’t been paying attention. Dismissing analysis because it doesn’t come wrapped in a white paper is lazy. Calling it “Family Guy” just tells me you missed the point entirely. I know it must be painful and difficult to walk around every day believing you are of high intelligence only to be consistently proven otherwise, put it’s a process. You gotta get through it.

Psst…Greenland for Ukraine. You heard it here first

They have previously let and will continue to let us set up military bases there, conduct navy drills, etc. There is absolutely no need to own it when they are already aiding us in the defense effort as much as possible.

It if it’s taken by force by say China or Russia…

That clip is from a fictional TV show. Its probably best to not base national foreign policy on a fictional TV show.

I can assure I’m not and that was totally not the point. Please read the thread in my comment section

But if Greenland becomes US doesn't that mean you need to take Svalbard to protect Greenland? While your at it Iceland seems essential to protect the North Atlantic, better take that. There seems to be some madness going on here.

This is fiction. Creegan is fiction. There is a base in Scotland but it is not called Creegan.