> > It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.

I don't want to repeat what others are saying, but how on earth could you not consider that all of the existing rules, laws and agreements just go in the trash under a new "owner"? Of course the US plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty, goodness me.

What I wonder is about the second order effects. I mean, I'm pretty far from Denmark but here the talk is pretty much like an existential crisis.

Even if the US does nothing about it, seems that many people has finally realized that Europe has no allies.

This has a lot of implications regarding the Pax Americana, the US/EU financial system, Eurasia, and many others.

I don't see any positive outcome for the west in general. Europe in particular is screwed but besides short-term gains I don't think the US is going to be able to sustain anything but very fragile and transactional alliances, if any.

> unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.

It's probably not helpful for me to speculate, but surely this? If the US is truly prepared to invade another ally's territory for material gain, I'd assume the idea that they'd honor other existing laws is unlikely.

The blind spot causing your confusion is that you “imagine none of this change under a new owner”. I’m almost flabbergasted by it.

The owner decides the rules.

> It seems like that's exactly what it would have to do post acquisition--unless of course the US also plans to bulldoze Greenland's sovereignty.

That is how acquisition of territory works. When it becomes US land, US laws apply. Not whatever laws were in place before. What were you expecting?

It may not just be about the minerals....

It could be about leaving NATO.

US (Trump) feels they need Greenland for "security".

They currently have (almost complete) access to use Greenland via NATO and the existing agreements with Denmark. So there is no need to extend this.

However, if the US would want to leave NATO, they would no longer have access to Greenland under existing agreement.

Therefore, if the US wants to leave NATO and still use Greenland (both militarily and for resources), they need to acquire Greenland.

Acquiring Greenland would allow the US to control the entire western hemisphere, leave NATO, and abandon the eastern hemisphere entirely.

The man in charge has said in the past that he admired dictators. Many did not pay attention to this.

Congress is easy to takeover by a political party and this happens cyclically, so no one was surprised by that.

People also ignored gerrymandering because both major political parties do that, and historically it can be undone.

However, the takeover and stacking of the judicial branch with political cronies was another definite warning sign. People that were paying attention noticed this came first, because it’s the brakes that can slow an administration from getting out of control. The brake lines were effectively cut.

If you’ve studied German history and World War II, you know that Hitler didn’t just happen. There was an imperialist history. Though not typically stated in this way, the U.S. has historically been an empire for much of the 20th century, if you consider bases around the world and involvement in world conflicts (and the same could be said about some other countries, NATO, UN, etc.)

The American people cannot rise up against its own government in any substantial way when (1) families are split with half of the people are brainwashed, and (2) they think that things can be undone after N years by voting that party out (but the opposing party can not pivot to undo the economic and world political damage done by the current administration).

Most dictators were not known from the beginning of their reign as evil incarnate.

Americans keep hoping to see in the news that someone will stop this, but they suspect that if they were to try to stop it, they and their families would eventually be punished or killed. So, they’re all just waiting a few years hoping that it will be undone, and that surely the military will not let the U.S. takeover a country that does not have a despotic leader; that would break the longstanding U.S. trend of only getting very involved publically at least if they are taking the stance of the respected jock defending the little kid getting beat up.

> 1. You won't govern it. Greenland has it's own Self-Government Act. [0]

It may be governed the way of the Gambino family governing New York city: by receiving envelopes.

They are probably thinking of Alaska or Louisiana Purchase, i.e. not just buying the land within Denmark, but territory transfer.

Everything that's been said publicly is just pretence, just like Maduro's/Venezuela's supposed drug trafficking. This is about Trump being and old man in his waning days who wants to create a legacy. Those around him have ambitions of empire.

You're overthinking this. These are just stupid people. Think of the dumbest uncle you have ranting online over some ridiculous story. These are the people making these decisions, and they're putting about the same amount of planning into them.

[flagged]