greenland

@Sleepyguy said
Oh like the procedures where the government funded NGO's to build a pipeline of bus routes, shelters, plane trips, hotel accommodations, and so forth to facilitate an invasion by millions? Where untold thousands of children went missing (trafficked as sex slaves)? Did those procedures matter? This is the way with you leftoids. You lie and upend every norm, then complain about norms as sane people try to undo the damage.

This entire post is a remarkable lie attempting to cover Trump's ass.

"invasion by millions" -- were they all criminals and insane people too?
"untold thousands of children" -- there were many, many children whose parents were sent back to their country of origin by Trump and his ICE goons. Trump separated more children from their parents in one year than he did his entire first term.

You are aiding and abetting this man, who IS the one lying and upending norms, especially norms of the office of president. The left are the sane ones trying to hold this maniac in check.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
You do know there is a “procedure” for seeking asylum right?

And that "procedure" is easy to ignore when your guy keeps deporting asylum seekers.

@shavixmir said
Shhhhh….
Don’t tell them that! It’s our secret.

Well done trump! What an excellent deal you’ve secured!

Each side got what they wanted. Trump is a true genius. It was his plan from the beginning….. you ask for more, and you accept less. But less is what he wanted.
Told ‘ya

@Soothfast said
I'm rather at a loss over what was achieved with Greenland, and even more at a loss as to the "strategy" for going about achieving it.

Greenland, as part of NATO, was already a no-go territory for Russian or Chinese military bases. Should Trump next secure an agreement with France that Russia or China won't build a base in the suburbs of Paris?

The US has had a milita ...[text shortened]... take Trump seriously except in his capacity as an agent of general chaos and global destabilization.

What in the hell are you talking about, and do you expect someone to read a tome such as this?

@Suzianne said
And that "procedure" is easy to ignore when your guy keeps deporting asylum seekers.

Asylum seekers in Greenland? That is all that I can get from this post.

@T-R-O-L-L said
Doesn't matter to me.

I love the landscape of the American south west.

Red or Blue, I'll be living off of the state and your tax dollars just to spite you.

A loser socialist who admits on the Forum that he is a loser socialist. I have great respect for your doing that.

@AverageJoe1 said
What in the hell are you talking about, and do you expect someone to read a tome such as this?

1. It was well written.
2. You don't get to criticize other people's writing until you stop writing your stream of consciousness, using five commas in a row for no apparent reason, and typing "Brrrrrrrrrr."

@Sleepyguy said
It did change though didn't it?

The new agreement is perpetual, and outlives the dissolution of NATO and/or Greenland becoming independent. The new agreement expands US military facilities, and gives the US a veto on non-NATO bases and certain critical investments (minerals). The new agreement allows for the US to set up the "golden dome" missile defense system, where th ...[text shortened]... ng the place. I mean come on, that's a pretty good return for a bit of assholishness and blustering.

I really don't see anything specifically allowing establishment of a missile defense system base or anything about mineral investments.https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/09/[WORD TOO LONG]/

Am I missing something?

The text of the agreement is on the White House website.

@Soothfast said
I'm rather at a loss over what was achieved with Greenland, and even more at a loss as to the "strategy" for going about achieving it.

Greenland, as part of NATO, was already a no-go territory for Russian or Chinese military bases. Should Trump next secure an agreement with France that Russia or China won't build a base in the suburbs of Paris?

The US has had a milita ...[text shortened]... take Trump seriously except in his capacity as an agent of general chaos and global destabilization.

Here you go off the wall. You want to focus on annexation. How about what waswas actually negotiated and acccomplished.?!?! What a pain are wish-washed liberals.

Trump made Greenland’s strategic importance impossible for anyone to ignore! He expanded the American military presence, provides for additional bases, strengthens America’s ability to defend the Arctic, and and gives Greenland a direct role in the arrangement. That’s considerably more than simply continuing the status quo. So you are wrong as usual. Why do yall hate Trump? Rather have Kamala? AOC w b your nominee. Ready for HER??.
And you know full well that he never had planned to “ get Greenland as a U.S. territory” That’s not a logicallconclusion. Faeries cannot fathom material changes during negotiations. It is the art of the deal don’t you know

So before declaring the whole exercise a failure, I’d suggest looking at the actual strategic changes rather than simply repeating the word “annexation.” The USa now has an expanded military arrangement in Greenland, including additional basing and missile-defense possibilities. That’s a tangible result. You seem to be hung up on ‘ annexation’ Boring.

@no1marauder said
I really don't see anything specifically allowing establishment of a missile defense system base or anything about mineral investments.https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/09/[WORD TOO LONG] ...[text shortened]... t-of-27-apri/

Am I missing something?

The text of the agreement is on the White House website.

Oh you're going to make me read it?

Let's see, in the preamble it says:

--
Recognizing the Parties’ shared interest in allowing the United States to have military access to the territory of Greenland to the extent necessary to defend the North Atlantic Treaty area, Greenland, and the American continent, including through establishment of a Golden Dome defense system; and ...
--

As for the minerals I think it is implied by this definition:

--
“Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities” means sectors or activities determined to be particularly sensitive, including but not limited to critical infrastructure and the extraction of resources.
--

followed by this further down:

--
Given the threat to national security and public order posed by increased efforts by adversaries to expand influence and control in Greenland, the Parties agree that states or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information that may constitute a threat to national security or public order within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties that the activities of such states or investors would not constitute a threat to national security or public order."
--

@AverageJoe1 said
Each side got what they wanted. Trump is a true genius. It was his plan from the beginning….. you ask for more, and you accept less. But less is what he wanted.
Told ‘ya

Dude, dude, dude…

Really? That’s what you seriously think?

You think trump got something?

Damn. Read the original deal and then read this one… tell us what he got. Go on.

I dare you.

@shavixmir said
Dude, dude, dude…

Really? That’s what you seriously think?

You think trump got something?

Damn. Read the original deal and then read this one… tell us what he got. Go on.

I dare you.

Dude, try Google.

Signed by all three parties, not just Denmark and the US but now Greenland as well.

New military sites.

Unrestricted free access to Greenland’s airspace and territorial waters.

Direct veto power over foreign investments in Greenland.

The U.S. long-term presence is secured by mandating that an independent Greenland must remain in NATO.

@Sleepyguy said
Oh you're going to make me read it?

Let's see, in the preamble it says:

--
Recognizing the Parties’ shared interest in allowing the United States to have military access to the territory of Greenland to the extent necessary to defend the North Atlantic Treaty area, Greenland, and the American continent, [b]including through establishment of a Golden Dome defe ...[text shortened]... of such states or investors would not constitute a threat to national security or public order."
--

The Preamble binds the parties to nothing and the only mention in the body possibly relevant merely provides for consultations if one party presents plans regarding military proposals beyond the text of the agreement. That doesn't seem to add anything.

You don't actually think Golden Dome will ever be built, do you?

The other paragraph talks about activities which would endanger the security of the Defense Zones. Claiming that gives the US a veto over any and all possible foreign investment in minerals in Greenland seems an absurd stretch.

@no1marauder said
The Preamble binds the parties to nothing and the only mention in the body possibly relevant merely provides for consultations if one party presents plans regarding military proposals beyond the text of the agreement. That doesn't seem to add anything.

You don't actually think Golden Dome will ever be built, do you?

The other paragraph talks about activities which ...[text shortened]... veto over any and all possible foreign investment in minerals in Greenland seems an absurd stretch.

you just hate it dont you? go ahead, admit it. You had rather see the US fail

@no1marauder said
The Preamble binds the parties to nothing and the only mention in the body possibly relevant merely provides for consultations if one party presents plans regarding military proposals beyond the text of the agreement. That doesn't seem to add anything.

You don't actually think Golden Dome will ever be built, do you?

The other paragraph talks about activities which ...[text shortened]... veto over any and all possible foreign investment in minerals in Greenland seems an absurd stretch.

What does "in Greenland" mean to you?

--
Given the threat to national security and public order posed by increased efforts by adversaries to expand influence and control in Greenland, the Parties agree that states or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information that may constitute a threat to national security or public order within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties that the activities of such states or investors would not constitute a threat to national security or public order.
--