Greenland USA

[Kurokage]

When it doesn't happen,  what then?

Will you come back to say you overreacted?

I didn't realise you controlled what we all spoke about on here?? 
You sound like the Burger King himself when speaking with female reporters!!

https://thehill.com/policy/international...greenland/

Trump weighs US military as option to obtain Greenland, White House says...
The White House said on Tuesday that President Trump is weighing using the U.S. military to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland. 
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to The Hill. 
 “The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal,” she said. 
Leavitt’s statement comes on the heels of a report by The Wall Street Journal that indicated Secretary of State Marco Rubio told congressional lawmakers during a closed-door briefing Monday that Trump’s goal is to buy the island from Denmark. The administration has once again increased its pressure on potentially obtaining the island following its capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.
Trump has touted taking over Greenland before, but the Venezuela operation has upped those sentiments.
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters on Sunday. 

[putnam6]

Is anybody seriously thinking the US will invade Greenland with troops? FFS 

Has Deny Ignorance become Above Top Secret on the spectrum?

[Oldcarpy2]

Is anybody seriously thinking the US will invade Greenland with troops? FFS 

Has Deny Ignorance become Above Top Secret on the spectrum?

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/Qln5kgnUKwVmE/giphy.gif]

Karoline Leavitt apparently thinks so.  FFS.

[guyfriday]

Is anybody seriously thinking the US will invade Greenland with troops? FFS 

Has Deny Ignorance become Above Top Secret on the spectrum?

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/Qln5kgnUKwVmE/giphy.gif]

I don't think Greenland has anything to worry about, but Denmark on the other hand might. If the people of Greenland vote for their independence from Denmark, like they are allowed to, and Denmark say nope, then I think that's where the issue starts to come in. Especially if the EU and NATO decide that Denmark is right in restricting the Greenlanders freedoms. 

In the end, if the local government of Greenland asks the US to come in and help them leave Denmark's control, then Trump would most likely move in then. As for a military assault on Greenland, it just doesn't make sense to do so.

[Kurokage]

Is anybody seriously thinking the US will invade Greenland with troops? FFS 

Has Deny Ignorance become Above Top Secret on the spectrum?

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/Qln5kgnUKwVmE/giphy.gif]

Maybe not, but the fact a US president can claim invading a NATO allies sovereign land is ok, and Trump supporters on here are making excuses for that just shows how cult-like his followers are.

Also the fact that to outsiders it's making the US and so NATO look like a joke and bunch of disorganised idiots.

[putnam6]

Karoline Leavitt apparently thinks so.  FFS.

Oh no, the White House press secretary said

"That utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the President's disposal."

Paranoidly wrong as usual...most people believe leasing land for military and naval bases and enhanced security agreements will be the result. aka its a negotiation tactic no more no less

OR we can abandon the Arctic to the Chinese and the Russians, who already have extensive installations in the region and count on Canada for Arctic defense 

 

No, Karoline Leavitt did not explicitly suggest that the United States would invade Greenland with troops.

However, as White House Press Secretary, she issued a statement on January 6-7, 2026, indicating that the Trump administration was discussing "a range of options" to acquire Greenland, and that utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the President's disposal.

Her Exact Statement (Reported Consistently Across Multiple Sources)

"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal."
This phrasing leaves military force on the table as a hypothetical option but does not advocate for or suggest an imminent invasion. In subsequent press briefings, Leavitt emphasized that diplomacy and a potential purchase from Denmark are the preferred and actively discussed approaches, while declining to rule out other options.Context

• The comments renewed Trump's long-standing interest in Greenland for strategic reasons (Arctic security, countering Russia and China).
  
• They followed statements from other officials (e.g., Stephen Miller) and came amid international backlash from Denmark and NATO allies.
  
• Some media headlines and critics interpreted it as floating or threatening military action, but Leavitt's words were carefully non-committal on force.
  

Sources reporting this include ABC News, CBS News, The Guardian, CNN, Politico, CNBC, and Fox News, all quoting the same or very similar statement.
 Interpretation in Media and Reactions

• Many outlets (e.g., CBS, Politico, The Guardian) interpreted the phrasing as not ruling out military force to seize or take control of the territory, potentially amounting to an invasion of a NATO ally (Denmark).
  
• Critics, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, warned it could "end NATO" if pursued.
  
• U.S. lawmakers (both parties) and European leaders strongly opposed any force, viewing it as posturing rather than a serious plan.
  
• No public details exist on operational plans, timelines, or what "utilizing the military" would look like—it's deliberately ambiguous, likely as negotiating leverage.
  

In summary, the "military option" remains undefined beyond being left on the table as a possibility, while the administration stresses preference for negotiation or purchase. This has caused significant international backlash but no concrete military details have emerged.

[Kurokage]

Oh no, the White House press secretary said

"That utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the President's disposal."

Paranoidly wrong as usual...most people believe leasing land for military and naval bases and enhanced security agreements will be the result. 

OR we can abandon the Arctic to the Chinese and the Russians, who already have extensive installations in the region and count on Canada for Arctic defense 

 

You don't see "utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the President's disposal"  as a threat? 
Isn't Demark and Greenland allied with the U.S.?? Should an American President be speaking to a fellow NATO member in those kinds of terms?

[Oldcarpy2]

Oh no, the White House press secretary said

"That utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the President's disposal."

Paranoidly wrong as usual...most people believe leasing land for military and naval bases and enhanced security agreements will be the result. 

OR we can abandon the Arctic to the Chinese and the Russians, who already have extensive installations in the region and count on Canada for Arctic defense 

 

Stuff what the Greenlanders might want, eh?  

The US already has a small military presence and nothing to stop them increasing it, but making Greenland part of the US?

"Paranoidly wrong as usual"?

Get over yourself.

Other opinions than yours are available.

[putnam6]

You don't see "utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the President's disposal"  as a threat? 
Isn't Demark and Greenland allied with the U.S.?? Should an American President be speaking to a fellow NATO member in those kinds of terms?

Trump would lose all support except his most loyal 15-20%. It's so ridiculously unlikely... so many other legit end results to consider 
 

• U.S. lawmakers (both parties) and European leaders strongly opposed any force, viewing it as posturing rather than a serious plan.
  
• No public details exist on operational plans, timelines, or what "utilizing the military" would look like—it's deliberately ambiguous, likely as negotiating leverage.
  

 

Interpretation in Media and Reactions

• Many outlets (e.g., CBS, Politico, The Guardian) interpreted the phrasing as not ruling out military force to seize or take control of the territory, potentially amounting to an invasion of a NATO ally (Denmark).
  
• Critics, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, warned it could "end NATO" if pursued.
  
• U.S. lawmakers (both parties) and European leaders strongly opposed any force, viewing it as posturing rather than a serious plan.
  
• No public details exist on operational plans, timelines, or what "utilizing the military" would look like—it's deliberately ambiguous, likely as negotiating leverage.
  

In summary, the "military option" remains undefined beyond being left on the table as a possibility, while the administration stresses preference for negotiation or purchase. This has caused significant international backlash but no concrete military details have emerged.

[ANNEE]

Do we have to make it a 51st state?

Can't we give it to Rhode Island?

I always thought they kinda got the short end of the stick, area-wise.

What about Puerto Rico -- aren't they inline to be the next state?

Oh - wait!  They don't have oil.