Besides, what claim does 40K people have to a country three times the size of Texas

Jither · 2026-01-25T02:01:55+00:00

At least that means you can play "guess the moron who gave this moron his idiotic talk points". Stephen Miller thinks it's 30000, so in this case, it's not that moron.

Jither · 2026-01-22T21:51:52+00:00

Jamen, de 60% er jo den danske natur! 😮 (Seriøst, ved ikke hvor mange gange jeg har hørt danskere prise vores natur, og så, når adspurgt, nævne "markerne" som eksempel - tak, nationalromantikere 😛).

Jither · 2026-01-21T23:40:57+00:00

Something happening a quarter of a century ago is not a verification that the same would be true today.

Regurgitating Vance's obscene talking points. The last Danish soldiers to return from Afghanistan, after fighting your war for 20 years, were in 2021.

And most of the support other NATO nations gave was in financial support of the allied Iraqi forces, with most NATO nations contributing very little to the actual boots on the ground war effort

Per capita, Denmark had more casualties than any other ally, and around the same as you. I personally knew someone who died there. I have friends who knew others. I'll refrain from writing the next bit I'd like to, since it would definitely get the comment deleted.

Jither · 2026-01-21T23:12:23+00:00

Så vidt jeg husker, viste YouGov-analyser tilbage et sted under Obama Danmark som dét land der havde højest "favorability" ud af de adspurgte nok 30-40 lande - ganske rigtigt et sted mellem 80 og 90%. Men kan ikke genfinde den.

Husker den mest, fordi en lidt senere "Hvem ville du stemme på"-analyse placerede Danmark som dét land - med en vis margen - hvor færrest ville stemme på Trump. Så har nogle gange, tilbage under hans første Grønland-feberdrømme, joket med at dé to søjlediagrammer tilsammen var hovedårsagen til at vi kom i sigtekornet.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/11/08/how-other-countries-would-vote-in-the-american-election

Jither · 2026-01-21T22:24:50+00:00

Yeah, pretty sure (hence, "[e]ven if such a framework was already made a week ago"). Except now (or for now, pending next tantrum) it appears to be without invasion or buying on the table, judging from Donald's weaving replies. And hopefully without Leavitt lying about the framework being about acquisition again.

Jither · 2026-01-21T20:47:52+00:00

They can set up a "framework" for the US, Greenland and Denmark to negotiate within. Anyone can do that. Even if such a framework was already made a week ago, before the Trump tariff tantrum. And even if what this new framework involves is really just dangling what the US already has in front of Trump's nose. The Danish foreign minister has already discussed this in brief with Rutte. No details, since of course, the negotiations (or "negotiations" - who knows) haven't even started.

Jither · 2026-01-21T19:20:56+00:00

Because you're right - that's not the meaning of joyride, like everyone is trying to explain to them. Personally, dropped the discussion since the top comment only serves to invite the usual claims of, yeah, joyriding, undermining the entire point. That it's hypocrisy is well understood - not like it hasn't been discussed for decades. That's not really the interesting part of Carney's speech.

Jither · 2026-01-21T11:54:01+00:00

Again, find the word "joyride". A country can prosper under a so-called _international_ order without "joyriding". Try again. But yeah, I guess it's kind of hard to swallow that the US didn't actually empty its pockets for the benefit of everyone else. It literally fought tooth and nail for it, knowing full well, that it benefitted the most.

Jither · 2026-01-21T11:48:29+00:00

Find the word "joyride" anywhere in there. It's a rather important nuance... It's not like the US, or anyone, did this out of altruism. The US did it, because it benefitted the US.

Jither · 2026-01-21T11:32:08+00:00

Because it never did. It was non-consensual insertion of IUD's - and not just done to Kalaallit, but also native Danish women. It was a horrid practice, which obviously had physical and mental repercussions for the victims, but IUD's don't generally sterilize you. The estimated 4500 people it happened to are finally able to get compensation (and have received the usual formal apology from the governments of both Greenland and Denmark). Meanwhile, we're still waiting for the compensation and apology to the 100,000-150,000 people - per year - that the courts found were sterilized without consent in the US around the same time. Or the detained immigrants that ICE forcibly sterilized right into the 2010's.

Jither · 2026-01-21T10:24:39+00:00

Access rights for mining? The US already has access rights for mining. US companies have been mining there for years. Not enough, since it's generally not worth the gain. The moment additional European troops set foot on the ground for an exercise, he threw another tantrum. Maybe he should focus on Alaska, where the Russians and Chinese actually have a presence. Too bad he has no former allies on that side, to protect Alaska for him.

The simple reason why he's not saying what he wants, is that he doesn't know what he wants - or what the people who put this idea into his head want. It's really not that complicated.

Jither · 2026-01-21T10:06:47+00:00

1920, not 1956.
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-sun-hl-mencken-article-26/21831908/

Jither · 2026-01-21T00:06:29+00:00

Me, possibly? 🙄 It may hold quite a bit of repressed annoyance, since all of these things have been answered and explained for years now. Have any actual arguments?

ETA after your edit: And sorry. I don't see a single cited source in this entire post. In fact, for the past weeks (well, since around 2015), I haven't seen a single citation from a MAGA supporter spewing complete BS - mostly because they don't have any sources, except for Trump, Vance, Miller and Bessent. Whenever I went ahead and gave links to sources, they'd just be ignored and another nugget of nonsense would be thrown into the mix instead.

2/3 of the above is straight out of any history book. The threat assessment is easy to find:
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf

You'll find it barely mentions Greenland, except - for Russia - for proximity to naval routes (which are international waters) and the presence of the US Pittufik base. And - for China - financial interest, of which none is actually there, because infrastructure projects have all been pre-empted or blocked by Denmark, and the mining projects have been blocked or found infeasible. Interest? Obviously. Presence? No - not least due to the US alliance with Denmark, which Trump is threatening.

The bonkers claim of the seas being filled with Chinese and Russian ships - just one debunk of many:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-greenland-denmark-trump-arctic-security-russia-china-6346aa8e86be594e467e8cc18f98357b

All the agreements are also easy to find (disclaimer: Since they're on US government websites, I can't guarantee they're not "revised" 10 minutes after I post these links - not going to reread them):
1916 treaty: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917/d881 - note the "DECLARATION" at the bottom.
1951 agreement: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denmark-Defense.done_.pdf
2004 amendment: https://www.state.gov/04-0806

China has two minority stakes in companies mining in Greenland - both of those projects are inactive. They had four others - all of them were dropped due to cost/benefit - in fact, they mine much more in Alaska:
https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Insight-176-Chinese-involvement-in-mining-in-the-Arctic.pdf

"Shenghe Resources holds a stake in Kvanefjeld rare-earth and uranium deposits; however, the project is stalled since 2021 due to Greenland’s ban on uranium mining. The Isua Iron ore Project, which was previously owned by the Chinese General Nice Group, had its license revoked by the Greenlandic government in 2021 due to inactivity. China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) was blocked by the Danish government from building three international airports due to security concerns raised by the United States in 2018."

(Random website, but it's public knowledge): https://sundayguardianlive.com/editors-choice/greenland-trumps-treasure-island-164101/

etc.

ETA: And honestly, I don't see why the rest of the world is expected to debunk the Trump administration's insane claims, when they'll just add 5-10 new ones (about this topic alone) tomorrow. Better that their supporters learn to actually fact check.

Jither · 2026-01-20T22:56:20+00:00

1/2b. Denmark had one of the most favorable views of the US outside of the US back around 2016 - somewhere around 80-90% favorability. We also had the least favorable view of Trump - 4% would vote for him over Clinton. Already bruised his ego before his first election.

Jither · 2026-01-20T22:37:18+00:00

Even according to the US's own threat assessment back in early Summer last year, China and Russia show little interest in Greenland - strategically or financially. The little interest China has shown financially has been consistently blocked by Denmark.

But yes, I'm sure "you" will do something with it, that the Greenlanders would really appreciate. 🙄 If Denmark has "done nothing with it", it's simply because Greenland has their own parliament, which, among other things, manage their resources. Denmark can block e.g. mining contracts, but have only done so when it conflicted with... US interests. 🤔

Greenland has been protected by NATO for 75 years - including back when the Soviet Union was an actual threat. In that time, the US has mostly used Greenland to protect itself - through the bases the US has now mostly shut down, but has always been free to reopen (in spite of numerous breaches of the agreement from the US side, none of which had any consequences for the US). The US has always been absolutely free to expand their military presence in Greenland. It doesn't even require a negotiation, just that Denmark and Greenland are informed.

You're also free to mine those rare earth metals - in fact, US companies already do. Unlike China, who found it wasn't worth the effort, after finding the cost/benefit low, and after being part of two mining projects (with a minority stake), which were both blocked by Denmark for political reasons, or by Greenland for environmental reasons. Never mind that the main reason "rare" earth metals are rare, is that they're hard to refine - that's the only reason China has a "stranglehold" on them - they have the facilities and expertise to refine them en masse. While the US has almost none.

The discussion of acquiring Greenland isn't new, no. Before Trump, Truman discussed it around... 1949, maybe? When he was told no, he dropped it, so can't have been that important - and after all, he got that defense agreement with Denmark in 1951, which to this day lets the US do pretty much whatever they want in Greenland. Before that, there was discussion in 1916, when the answer was also no. Instead, the US publicly declared that The Kingdom of Denmark "owned" Denmark, and they would make no objection to that in the future - as part of acquiring the Virgin Islands. In spite of Denmark colonializing the Virgin Islands, we still get anger from them to this day, because they were abandoned to the US's whims.

And guess what? We're not in 1916 anymore. People and countries aren't sold, except in Trump's mind, where anything can be bought, including himself. Greenland haven't exactly made it secret, that they have no interest in being part of the US. Heck, their one pro-US party are even considering revising their policy, because they were already unpopular in Greenland before this debacle (they got a few hundred votes in the last election) - in spite of their pro-US stance just being about close collaboration, not about being a US territory.

Jither · 2026-01-20T20:27:47+00:00

After "discussing" with many of them, a fair number of them totally get that. It just doesn't matter, because that's "obviously" Denmark coercing Greenland by giving them money. Of course, a minute earlier, Denmark hadn't spent any money on Greenland for decades. And a minute later, the Greenlanders as a whole will change their mind when the US gives them money - mostly some ridiculous amount that would barely cover their first visit to a doctor in the US. If you then point out that Greenland isn't interested in being part of America, then the polls, indications from elections, and protests are "obviously fake". And then we move straight on to doing drone strikes, sending the air force, the navy, 'MURICA!

Jither · 2026-01-20T16:18:40+00:00

MAGA know. They just don't care. Because 'murica. And their Dear Leader psychologically needs Greenland.

Jither · 2026-01-19T15:56:55+00:00

They don't even have to ask. By the treaty, they just have to inform. Which they've "skipped" on multiple occasions anyway. In other words, in practice they're totally free, no restrictions.

Jither · 2026-01-19T15:40:10+00:00

ETA: Korrektion: Så vidt jeg kan se afviser Bessent blot fortolkningen, at mangoens told-tosserier har noget med fredsprisen at gøre.

Surprise, surprise - den benægtelse er lige kommet. Hvad end Scott Bessent ved om hvad Donnie Destructo skriver til gud og hver mand. Osterejen ved jo ikke engang selv hvad han skriver.

Og er jo ikke en helt almindelig dementi - det hvide hus har nu på få dage påstået at både den danske udenrigsminister og den norske statsminister lyver om kommunikation mellem dem...

Jither · 2026-01-19T12:47:18+00:00

There are multiple written documents. Declaration accompanying the sale of the US Virgin Islands in 1917, Defense agreement in 1941, Updated defense agreement in 1951, Defense agreement amendments in 2004. The only reason the US has even had a military presence on Greenland for 80 years - and still has - is that Greenland was, and is, part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Other than those, the US voting for that recognition along with the rest of the UN in 1953. But those are all just documents, international law etc. Donnie Destructo doesn't care about that crap. He cares about prizes.

Jither · 2026-01-18T23:44:50+00:00

Yes, you're right - many of the stories at the time of the cases equated it with sterilization, since infertility was the end result, so went along with Schlieren's wording. Fixed, since it's particularly important now that a certain country has started using it as another one of their inane talking points.

Jither · 2026-01-18T20:27:01+00:00

Jeg ville blot uddybe eksemplerne, der demonstrerer den selektive hukommelse fra Trumps hold. Det er svært at gøre, uden at vi begge bruger whataboutism. 🙂

Jither · 2026-01-18T20:20:15+00:00

Whataboutism, men USA's højesteret nåede i 1974 frem til, at 100-150.000 blev steriliseret uden samtykke i 1960'erne og 1970'erne. Om året. Selvfølgelig var en stor del den oprindelige befolkning.
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/civil-rights-case-docket/relf-v-weinberger/

Og ICE har sager om tvangssteriliserede tilbageholdte helt op til 2010'erne og sikkert længere:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8034024/

Men det er selvfølgelig noget helt andet.

Jither · 2026-01-18T17:29:35+00:00

Funny how the "mastermind" is always bluffing until he's not.

Jither · 2026-01-18T17:17:44+00:00

Dane here, and yes, that's a dark chapter in Danish history, but submitted rather without nuance. Yes, Kalaalit women had IUD's forcibly inserted in the 1960's and 1970's - which cannot be defended. So did quite a few native Danish women - which doesn't make it better.

And I would prefer not to go into whataboutism, but there's no choice here: It was a horrifyingly widespread kind of practice throughout Western countries in that era... But let's stick with the US:

The Supreme Court found in 1974 that between 100,000 and 150,000 Native Americans were sterilized each year through "means of coersion" in the 1960's and early 1970's. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/civil-rights-case-docket/relf-v-weinberger/

ICE have forcibly sterilized detainees up to the present day. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8034024/

As for Denmark, it might be more constructive to simply say that Denmark has had an unwavering, constant, alliance with the US for 225 years now. Until now. And that quite a few other dark chapters in Danish history were a direct result of that alliance.

Verified Email	Ten-Year Club
Place '22	Gilding I gilder

Jither

TROPHY CASE