https://www.yahoo.com/news/hours-suggesting-seize-panama-canal-132929397.html

What a joker.

Oh. I forgot.
These comments for Panama, then Greenland, came after saying Canada could become the 51st state.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cjr21q588r7o

The jokes are writing themselves

concordtom said:

---

Oh. I forgot.
These comments for Panama, then Greenland, came after saying Canada could become the 51st state.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cjr21q588r7o

---

Trump's staff hasn't had the heart to tell him that if he buys Greenland, he gets Nuuk, not nookie.

Colonizers is in their DNA. It's they only way they know

Sounds good, can expand the MLb and NHL footprint plus rum and fish

bear2034 said:

---

Trump is going to invade Concord and find Tom.

---

going4roses said:

---

Colonizers is in their DNA. It's they only way they know

---

Don't be fooled, however.
This trait is not passed down in the same DNA strands that determine skin pigmentation.

Troglodytes dominate imperialism/ colonialism

If we look around the world

Greenland is as independent as Puerto Rico. I don't know why all the recent headlines don't mention it is owned by the Danes.

The Panama Canal has an ugly Colonialist history. If Panama can't get its act together, it should be controlled by multiple countries, not just the US.

wc22 said:

---

The Panama Canal has an ugly Colonialist history. If Panama can't get its act together, it should be controlled by multiple countries, not just the US.

---

If Trump can't get his act together, he should be controlled by the libs!

Actually he needs to be sent to the golf course and the bingo hall

concordtom said:

---

wc22 said:

---

The Panama Canal has an ugly Colonialist history. If Panama can't get its act together, it should be controlled by multiple countries, not just the US.

---

If Trump can't get his act together, he should be controlled by the libs!

---

So kind of like Biden was the last couple of years?

Cal88 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wc22 said:

---

The Panama Canal has an ugly Colonialist history. If Panama can't get its act together, it should be controlled by multiple countries, not just the US.

---

If Trump can't get his act together, he should be controlled by the libs!

---

So kind of like Biden was the last couple of years?

---

One of the few. pic.twitter.com/lSuajPJRRj

— Angela 💭 (@ms_babyrussell) December 23, 2024

I view this language as stirring up a fight.


Former national security adviser Robert O'Brien said in a Sunday interview that Denmark should let the U.S. "buy" Greenland if it cannot defend the self-governing country, noting the territory will become increasingly important in the coming years.

In an interview on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures," O'Brien described Greenland as a "highway from the Arctic all the way to North America" and noted that the autonomous country, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, will become increasingly important as the climate warms in the coming years.

"It's strategically very important to the Arctic, which is going to be the critical battleground of the future because, as the climate gets warmer, the Arctic is going to be a pathway that maybe even cuts down on the usage of the Panama Canal," O'Brien said.


Talk of buying Greenland can also be seen as a national security play. The Arctic is a key region as the U.S. looks to counter Russia and China, and it's becoming more contested as melting ice opens up new shipping routes.

O'Brien quoted President-elect Trump as saying that the U.S. won't defend Greenland free of charge.

"The Russians and Chinese are all over the Arctic," O'Brien said. "The Kingdom of Denmark owns Greenland, and they have got an obligation to defend Greenland. And so President Trump said, 'If you don't defend Greenland, we will buy it and we will defend it. But we're not going to defend it for free and let you and not develop Greenland and not extract the minerals and oil and resources of Greenland.'"

"Denmark is now on the front lines of the war against Russia and China. They're like the Baltic states. They're like Poland because of their vast territory in Greenland. And so they have got to defend Greenland," O'Brien added. "And if they can't defend it, we're going to have to, and we're not going to do it for free."


Alternatively, O'Brien said, if Denmark does not want to pay the U.S. for Greenland's defense, the U.S. can take the territory off its hands.

"They can let us buy Greenland from [Denmark], and Greenland can become part of Alaska. I mean, the native people in Greenland are very closely related to the people of Alaska, and we will make it a part of Alaska," O'Brien said.

In a Truth Social post announcing his pick for ambassador to Denmark last week, Trump declared that U.S. ownership of the island territory "is an absolute necessity."

Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Eged pushed back on Trump's comments, saying Greenland "will never be for sale," and Denmark announced a new package to boost security of the Arctic Island.

Let's disregard the hostility in trying to take Denmark's land.
Trump views Greenland as something to exploit rather than protect. He's waiting for it to melt so he can exploit it. But if it melts, we've got bigger problems.

concordtom said:

---

I view this language as stirring up a fight.


Former national security adviser Robert O'Brien said in a Sunday interview that Denmark should let the U.S. "buy" Greenland if it cannot defend the self-governing country, noting the territory will become increasingly important in the coming years.

In an interview on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures," O'Brien described Greenland as a "highway from the Arctic all the way to North America" and noted that the autonomous country, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, will become increasingly important as the climate warms in the coming years.

"It's strategically very important to the Arctic, which is going to be the critical battleground of the future because, as the climate gets warmer, the Arctic is going to be a pathway that maybe even cuts down on the usage of the Panama Canal," O'Brien said.


Talk of buying Greenland can also be seen as a national security play. The Arctic is a key region as the U.S. looks to counter Russia and China, and it's becoming more contested as melting ice opens up new shipping routes.

O'Brien quoted President-elect Trump as saying that the U.S. won't defend Greenland free of charge.

"The Russians and Chinese are all over the Arctic," O'Brien said. "The Kingdom of Denmark owns Greenland, and they have got an obligation to defend Greenland. And so President Trump said, 'If you don't defend Greenland, we will buy it and we will defend it. But we're not going to defend it for free and let you and not develop Greenland and not extract the minerals and oil and resources of Greenland.'"

"Denmark is now on the front lines of the war against Russia and China. They're like the Baltic states. They're like Poland because of their vast territory in Greenland. And so they have got to defend Greenland," O'Brien added. "And if they can't defend it, we're going to have to, and we're not going to do it for free."


Alternatively, O'Brien said, if Denmark does not want to pay the U.S. for Greenland's defense, the U.S. can take the territory off its hands.

"They can let us buy Greenland from [Denmark], and Greenland can become part of Alaska. I mean, the native people in Greenland are very closely related to the people of Alaska, and we will make it a part of Alaska," O'Brien said.

In a Truth Social post announcing his pick for ambassador to Denmark last week, Trump declared that U.S. ownership of the island territory "is an absolute necessity."

Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Eged pushed back on Trump's comments, saying Greenland "will never be for sale," and Denmark announced a new package to boost security of the Arctic Island.

---

Denmark is a Nato country but has not been meeting its 2% minimum defense spend (it is possible that changed very recently). Even if it did meet the 2%, it wouldn't be able to defend its main territory, much less Greenland. But as a Nato country, we would be obliged to defend it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-boost-defence-by-59-bln-over-next-five-years-2024-03-13/

I wonder what the citizens of Greenland want? Maybe they want to join Canada in which case they can be part our 51st state.

Like I said, picking a fight in order to extract gain. Nobody is invading Greenland.

China is all over the Arctic? I suppose that's possible, but it isn't geographically close. I've never heard anything about China in the Arctic until now.

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I view this language as stirring up a fight.


Former national security adviser Robert O'Brien said in a Sunday interview that Denmark should let the U.S. "buy" Greenland if it cannot defend the self-governing country, noting the territory will become increasingly important in the coming years.

In an interview on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures," O'Brien described Greenland as a "highway from the Arctic all the way to North America" and noted that the autonomous country, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, will become increasingly important as the climate warms in the coming years.

"It's strategically very important to the Arctic, which is going to be the critical battleground of the future because, as the climate gets warmer, the Arctic is going to be a pathway that maybe even cuts down on the usage of the Panama Canal," O'Brien said.


Talk of buying Greenland can also be seen as a national security play. The Arctic is a key region as the U.S. looks to counter Russia and China, and it's becoming more contested as melting ice opens up new shipping routes.

O'Brien quoted President-elect Trump as saying that the U.S. won't defend Greenland free of charge.

"The Russians and Chinese are all over the Arctic," O'Brien said. "The Kingdom of Denmark owns Greenland, and they have got an obligation to defend Greenland. And so President Trump said, 'If you don't defend Greenland, we will buy it and we will defend it. But we're not going to defend it for free and let you and not develop Greenland and not extract the minerals and oil and resources of Greenland.'"

"Denmark is now on the front lines of the war against Russia and China. They're like the Baltic states. They're like Poland because of their vast territory in Greenland. And so they have got to defend Greenland," O'Brien added. "And if they can't defend it, we're going to have to, and we're not going to do it for free."


Alternatively, O'Brien said, if Denmark does not want to pay the U.S. for Greenland's defense, the U.S. can take the territory off its hands.

"They can let us buy Greenland from [Denmark], and Greenland can become part of Alaska. I mean, the native people in Greenland are very closely related to the people of Alaska, and we will make it a part of Alaska," O'Brien said.

In a Truth Social post announcing his pick for ambassador to Denmark last week, Trump declared that U.S. ownership of the island territory "is an absolute necessity."

Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Eged pushed back on Trump's comments, saying Greenland "will never be for sale," and Denmark announced a new package to boost security of the Arctic Island.

---

Denmark is a Nato country but has not been meeting its 2% minimum defense spend (it is possible that changed very recently). Even if it did meet the 2%, it wouldn't be able to defend its main territory, much less Greenland. But as a Nato country, we would be obliged to defend it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-boost-defence-by-59-bln-over-next-five-years-2024-03-13/

I wonder what the citizens of Greenland want? Maybe they want to join Canada in which case they can be part our 51st state.

---

Maybe we can be their 11th province instead? Universal healthcare. a tiny military budget, corner the maple syrup market and more gold medals in the winter olympics.

Cal88 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I view this language as stirring up a fight.


Former national security adviser Robert O'Brien said in a Sunday interview that Denmark should let the U.S. "buy" Greenland if it cannot defend the self-governing country, noting the territory will become increasingly important in the coming years.

In an interview on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures," O'Brien described Greenland as a "highway from the Arctic all the way to North America" and noted that the autonomous country, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, will become increasingly important as the climate warms in the coming years.

"It's strategically very important to the Arctic, which is going to be the critical battleground of the future because, as the climate gets warmer, the Arctic is going to be a pathway that maybe even cuts down on the usage of the Panama Canal," O'Brien said.


Talk of buying Greenland can also be seen as a national security play. The Arctic is a key region as the U.S. looks to counter Russia and China, and it's becoming more contested as melting ice opens up new shipping routes.

O'Brien quoted President-elect Trump as saying that the U.S. won't defend Greenland free of charge.

"The Russians and Chinese are all over the Arctic," O'Brien said. "The Kingdom of Denmark owns Greenland, and they have got an obligation to defend Greenland. And so President Trump said, 'If you don't defend Greenland, we will buy it and we will defend it. But we're not going to defend it for free and let you and not develop Greenland and not extract the minerals and oil and resources of Greenland.'"

"Denmark is now on the front lines of the war against Russia and China. They're like the Baltic states. They're like Poland because of their vast territory in Greenland. And so they have got to defend Greenland," O'Brien added. "And if they can't defend it, we're going to have to, and we're not going to do it for free."


Alternatively, O'Brien said, if Denmark does not want to pay the U.S. for Greenland's defense, the U.S. can take the territory off its hands.

"They can let us buy Greenland from [Denmark], and Greenland can become part of Alaska. I mean, the native people in Greenland are very closely related to the people of Alaska, and we will make it a part of Alaska," O'Brien said.

In a Truth Social post announcing his pick for ambassador to Denmark last week, Trump declared that U.S. ownership of the island territory "is an absolute necessity."

Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Eged pushed back on Trump's comments, saying Greenland "will never be for sale," and Denmark announced a new package to boost security of the Arctic Island.

---

Denmark is a Nato country but has not been meeting its 2% minimum defense spend (it is possible that changed very recently). Even if it did meet the 2%, it wouldn't be able to defend its main territory, much less Greenland. But as a Nato country, we would be obliged to defend it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-boost-defence-by-59-bln-over-next-five-years-2024-03-13/

I wonder what the citizens of Greenland want? Maybe they want to join Canada in which case they can be part our 51st state.

---

Maybe we can be their 11th province instead? Universal healthcare. a tiny military budget, corner the maple syrup market and more gold medals in the winter olympics.

---

Higher taxes, no First Amendment, repressive governmental policies, a housing crisis, poor health services, and worse hockey. And god help them if there's a war and the US does not protect them . . . as they completely rely on the US for defense.

We have a real world experience on this. Do more people seek to immigrate from the US to Canada or vice-versa? What about business relocations? And when they need advanced health care, do Canadian's stay home.or visit the US?

For the record, I'm in favor of you moving to Canada. Based on what I see on the news, you'd fit right in.

The cool thing is with global warming the climate should improve considerably.

I have a number of ancestors who passed through Canada for a generation or two. Maybe they'll grant me citizenship.

UPDATE

I just looked it up.
I have 2 gg grandmothers born in Canada. Others further back, but that's the closest line. It's not going to cut it.

Their big beautiful wall will keep me out. No fair.



Yes, Canada can grant citizenship if your ancestors lived there, but only if you are a direct descendant of a Canadian citizen within the "first generation" meaning your parent must have been born in Canada to pass on citizenship to you if you were born outside the country; this is called citizenship by descent and has a limit to the first generation born outside Canada to a Canadian parent.

Cal88 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I view this language as stirring up a fight.


Former national security adviser Robert O'Brien said in a Sunday interview that Denmark should let the U.S. "buy" Greenland if it cannot defend the self-governing country, noting the territory will become increasingly important in the coming years.

In an interview on Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures," O'Brien described Greenland as a "highway from the Arctic all the way to North America" and noted that the autonomous country, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, will become increasingly important as the climate warms in the coming years.

"It's strategically very important to the Arctic, which is going to be the critical battleground of the future because, as the climate gets warmer, the Arctic is going to be a pathway that maybe even cuts down on the usage of the Panama Canal," O'Brien said.


Talk of buying Greenland can also be seen as a national security play. The Arctic is a key region as the U.S. looks to counter Russia and China, and it's becoming more contested as melting ice opens up new shipping routes.

O'Brien quoted President-elect Trump as saying that the U.S. won't defend Greenland free of charge.

"The Russians and Chinese are all over the Arctic," O'Brien said. "The Kingdom of Denmark owns Greenland, and they have got an obligation to defend Greenland. And so President Trump said, 'If you don't defend Greenland, we will buy it and we will defend it. But we're not going to defend it for free and let you and not develop Greenland and not extract the minerals and oil and resources of Greenland.'"

"Denmark is now on the front lines of the war against Russia and China. They're like the Baltic states. They're like Poland because of their vast territory in Greenland. And so they have got to defend Greenland," O'Brien added. "And if they can't defend it, we're going to have to, and we're not going to do it for free."


Alternatively, O'Brien said, if Denmark does not want to pay the U.S. for Greenland's defense, the U.S. can take the territory off its hands.

"They can let us buy Greenland from [Denmark], and Greenland can become part of Alaska. I mean, the native people in Greenland are very closely related to the people of Alaska, and we will make it a part of Alaska," O'Brien said.

In a Truth Social post announcing his pick for ambassador to Denmark last week, Trump declared that U.S. ownership of the island territory "is an absolute necessity."

Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Eged pushed back on Trump's comments, saying Greenland "will never be for sale," and Denmark announced a new package to boost security of the Arctic Island.

---

Denmark is a Nato country but has not been meeting its 2% minimum defense spend (it is possible that changed very recently). Even if it did meet the 2%, it wouldn't be able to defend its main territory, much less Greenland. But as a Nato country, we would be obliged to defend it.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-boost-defence-by-59-bln-over-next-five-years-2024-03-13/

I wonder what the citizens of Greenland want? Maybe they want to join Canada in which case they can be part our 51st state.

---

Maybe we can be their 11th province instead? Universal healthcare. a tiny military budget, corner the maple syrup market and more gold medals in the winter olympics.

---

Higher taxes, no First Amendment, repressive governmental policies, a housing crisis, poor health services, and worse hockey. And god help them if there's a war and the US does not protect them . . . as they completely rely on the US for defense.

We have a real world experience on this. Do more people seek to immigrate from the US to Canada or vice-versa? What about business relocations? And when they need advanced health care, do Canadian's stay home.or visit the US?

For the record, I'm in favor of you moving to Canada. Based on what I see on the news, you'd fit right in.

---

You don't like maple syrup??

---

Sure - that might be the most compelling reason to invite Canada as our 51st.

Found the article mentioned.
https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/opinion/panama-is-violating-its-canal-treaty-and-risking-us-safety/

From the article
"The first treaty obliged Panama to operate the canal neutrally, with nondiscriminatory pricing, and allowed the United States to defend it from any threat that might interfere with its neutrality.

The second treaty transferred full control to Panama effective on Dec. 31, 1999, without superseding the first treaty's broad provision allowing for US defense of this crucial military and economic asset."

concordtom said:

---

Like I said, picking a fight in order to extract gain. Nobody is invading Greenland.

---

Trump Force One lands in Greenland pic.twitter.com/J1wAaFS3KS

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 7, 2025

Greenland is beautiful!!! 🇬🇱 pic.twitter.com/PKoeeCafPz

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 7, 2025

The Donald Jr. has landed in Greenland.

BREAKING: Trump proposes to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.