Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
They've already said its not for sale. Just the public messaging from Trump is utterly insane. We would be shitting our pants if China or Russia were openly talking about taking American territory and that military options weren't off the table. We would perceive it nearly as a declaration of war.
The only thing we need to understand about Greenland is, our adversaries are very interested in controlling it.
And that's why we need to.
Make our hemisphere great again.
The problem with the “independent Greenland with US bases” idea is that it skips about ten real-world steps and pretends they don’t matter.
Under the 2009 Self-Rule Act, Denmark still controls foreign policy and defense unless Greenland formally becomes independent. And even then it requires negotiations, recognition, and an economy that viable That’s not opinion, that’s how the framework is written.
NATO also doesn’t become irrelevant just because it’s inconvenient to the scenario. Denmark is a founding member. If the US is seen as maneuvering to peel territory away from an ally, that directly weakens the alliance structure that actually gives the US global reach. That’s a strategic cost, not a “narrative.”
No one is seriously talking about invading Greenland. The concern is that undermining allied sovereignty for a speculative geopolitical flex makes us less secure, not more. Alliances are force multipliers. Burning trust to prove a point is the opposite of leverage. It’s truly just the work of a self-obsessed manchild in this case.
And dismissing all of that as ‘CNN’ or ‘The Narrative’ doesn’t answer it. It just sidesteps it and tries to deflect. If the argument is wrong, show where. If not, labeling it doesn’t change the math.
The common denominator is.....if it makes me happy first, then I'l just manufacture whatever is needed to maintain that. That underlying principle affects so many people today it's nuts. Not many out there supporting things that make them unhappy.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
I don’t really see where I implied skipping -ANY- processes and I’m pretty sure I referenced an example of a country that’s independent; yet, has our military ops in country and is pretty damn secure there-in?
And, yes, I dismiss PLENTY of the stuff I hear in here as MMF silliness (Mainstream Media Following).
Furthermore, I’ve stuck with what I’ve read from the people of Greenland from the onset: If there’s ANY change in their status? They want FULL independence. Period. Also, I’ve noted that poli-diplo-intel experts that know this stuff have commented, from the onset, that there’s really only one legit path and plenty of previous examples of how this works.
But, I digress.
Just like Defense, Intel and other Global issues…I should know better and do what I oft do in other matters…especially moto-industry and defense tech issues…I just read the funny posts and sip my coffee. But, on Greenland…where it gets dragged into other subjects…I didn’t let it go. Maybe I should go watch Frozen, again?🤣
Did ya read the Ozone paper? It’s enlightening and refreshing to see how many different inputs and all the tech that was deployed in the interest of getting answers. Truly…refreshing.
Have you been following what’s goin’ on in Iran? It allows for Hope. The people are getting brave.
An Independent Greenland would make me happy. Them staying aligned with Denmark, if that’s what they want, would make me happy.
So, there’s always that.
There's also the fact that under the treaty signed with Denmark in 1951 the US can already build and operate as many bases on Greenland as it likes. The problem here is that none of this needed to be a discussion. Absolutely nothing that the US has stated is an aim is unachievable now or in future through normal diplomatic channels, and there's absolutely no need to have made stupid comments about taking control or not ruling out military force.
I’m still amazed at how people are ignited by political rhetoric. 🤣
Speaking of "I just read the funny posts and sip my coffee."
Thank you for your daily contributions.
It just creates tension or 'beef' where there isn't any needed.
The Greenlanders probably would have been open to the idea of truckloads of cash done the right way. Irritating them as Vance and the Donald have, probably just put the price up. I have zero problem with rhetoric when it's useful.
Once people attach their identities to a politician, political party, or ideology, they lose their sense of self. Attacks against the particular political party or politician they’ve chosen to identify themselves with become perceived as attacks against their own existence. At this point anything or anyone that doesn’t align with your beliefs becomes an existential threat.
It’s psychological manipulation at its best and anyone who believes their suffering and their issues and the problems of the world can be solved from within the framework of the modern political arena is a victim of this manipulation.
This is one area where we fully agree, the dangers and real world impacts of identity politics. And to the folks that think people are just anti-Trump, this is a problem that affects the vast majority of us today. Some folks blame media, though I blame us for being terrible at consuming media, but media is significantly involved either way.
People do things every day that them unhappy.
Yeah I just don't want to equate something like a Dem voting to support for 2a rights (like they should) or a Rep voting to support gay marriage rights (like they should), with something like getting chemo, or saying "yes boss" when you really want to say something else. Supporting something that makes you unhappy in order to maintain a value versus doing things that make you unhappy in order to survive/function are separate concepts, though I admit that trying to find a hard cut line between where one officially becomes the other, could definitely introduce some murkiness.
Sometimes compromising makes every party involved unhappy but it is still necessary at times.
I’m not saying YOU intentionally skipped steps, I’m saying the SCENARIO treats those steps as if they’re frictionless and won't require much thought or effort. Independence, defense authority, and international recognition are sequential, negotiated processes with real sticking points that are not automatic in the least. That’s not nitpicking, that’s the gauging the machinery in action.
Yes, there are independent countries with US bases, obviously. But those arrangements came AFTER independence, recognition, and negotiated security frameworks, not before, not by assumption, and not because it 'felt inevitable.' The distinction matters.
On Greenland wanting full independence, also mostly agreed. There seem to have been consistent desire from some, maybe even a majority, of the residents. But wanting it and being able to execute it are not the same thing. When over half the budget is a block grant from your 'parent' country and the economy is extremely narrow, independence is a process, not a switch. That’s just reality.
You also said: “Just like Defense, Intel and other Global issues…I should know better…” – and that honestly made me smile. Not sarcastically, genuinely. Because that’s a pretty wide lane. So help me understand the origin story here. Are we talking professional exposure, academic background, direct involvement… or are you secretly the real-life Will Hunting / Jack Ryan / Dos Equis guy who just casually knows everything about geopolitics between coffee sips? 😉 I ask because those fields are exactly where assumptions usually get people burned.
Labeling counterpoints as MMF or “The Narrative” doesn’t really engage them. If the alliance cost is negligible, show why. If NATO impact is overstated, show where. That’s the math.
If there’s “only one legit path” and “plenty of previous examples,” I’m all ears – which path, which examples, and how they map to Greenland’s legal and economic framework. That’s the substance.
The Frozen / ozone / Iran pivots are entertaining, but they don’t move the Greenland argument. The core question is still the same: does gaining territory at the perceived expense of an ally strengthen or weaken US strategic position?
That’s the hinge. That’s the part I’m interested in.
It looks like we might actually agree on some general issues at the core of this diplomatic silliness that’s gonn’ on.
All the while…
It seems extremely convenient for some to recall damn near anything I’ve posted in here since 2008; yet, I’m gonna find the need re-explain any of it ..again? No. No need. The selective recollection around here is pretty damn funny.
The Narrative Followers: As for where these guys are coming from and their posts all too often being tit-for-tat straight outta the MSM? Again, no need to explain or expand on that.
Pivot? Uh, ok (hear it as if it’s Al Pacino’s character in Ocean’s 13 is saying it)
So, if that’s what we’re doing, now? Go with that, too. I reflected on things we’ve discussed recently and the up-rising in Iran which, in my mind, falls squarely under “diplomatic issues” not unlike the shit goin’ on between us, Denmark and Greenland.
And, of-course our continuing ozone discussion since we’re both in here…touched on that.
So, now, to your interestingly newly required “point-specificity”: The Strategic & Tactical value of the U.S. increasing its presence and footprint in Greenland…along with the other issues where I’d indicated that I pretty much was wasting my time on and that I should’ve known better…the only change on my position after reading your post is that…
“I nailed it and my list of all things ‘not worthy’ is too short!” 🤣
Yes…I reflected on other things we’ve been talking about and, again, reflected on Iran…and that, in this crowd, is pivoting. Wow. That’s my 2nd or 3rd time LOLing. Nice.
Dude, point made. So, I’m gonna jus’ let things hang.
PIVOT ADVISORY!!! The Following may constitute “a pivot”!
Went to a trade show this week, including today. Then went to the stadium. Didn’t reflect on any of this or the nutty stuff that goes on in here.
It was nice.
Even got a coupl’a texts from some of the guys in here…yet, none of this shit came up. Like I said…
It was nice.
Ya know what, I’m gonna go with Mark Twain on this one.
I’m jus’ sayin’…
Hell yea hail satan
Pit Row
Fair enough, and I actually agree with your opening line, we probably do align on some of the broad strategic interests. That’s why I’m trying to stay on the mechanics instead of the personalities.
The ‘selective recollection’ and ‘Narrative Followers’ framing is kind of my point, though. That’s labeling, not constructive argument. I’m not asking you to re-explain your posting history since 2008. I’m asking, in this specific case, how the Greenland scenario clears the legal, economic, and alliance hurdles you yourself acknowledge exist. That’s not nitpicking, that’s the choke point. That’s the issue to discuss
On pivots, it’s not a moral judgment, it’s just structure. When the thread is Greenland, Denmark, NATO, sovereignty, and it jumps to ozone, Iran, Frozen, trade shows, and stadium trips, it gets hard to tell where the causal argument actually is. If the Iran comparison is meant to be instructive, connect it. If not, it’s just parallel commentary. I think it’s not, mostly
When you say you ‘nailed it’ on strategic/tactical value, that’s the part I’m genuinely interested in unpacking and discussing. Strategic value to who? At what cost? And relative to which alternatives?
Same with ‘only one legit path’ and ‘plenty of previous examples’. Those interesting. I’m not challenging that they exist, I’m asking which path and which examples, and how closely they map to Greenland’s current legal and economic reality.
And looping back to your earlier “Defense, Intel and other Global issues… I should know better” comment, this is genuine curiosity, not snark. I’ve seen you wax pretty confidently about defense tech, intel, deployment tactics, and global politics over the years, but I’ve never actually heard what the underlying background is. Professional experience? Academic work? Contracting? Advisory roles? I’m asking because that context really does matter when people speak with that level of certainty.
I’m not trying to trap you or score points. I’m just trying to understand your reasoning.
How does pursuing Greenland in a way that strains our relationship with an ally improve US strategic position more than it degrades trust with the rest of our allies?
That’s the hinge. That’s the math I keep coming back to.
Everything else is color commentary.
Seems to me what the US is doing isn't any different than China taking Taiwan .
Well the US is good and China bad…
If you can’t argue the facts, throw insults. Says a lot about you.
That’s not an insult 🤷🏼
Then you are not a retard
What exactly is the situation where we're legitimately worried that Russia or China would take Greenland? We already have a base there, it's a NATO territory, so how could it be taken? Seems like being worried about it being taken is the same as saying that we and all of NATO don't have the courage to do anything about it if it were taken. We know we have resources a plenty and certainly the skill/ability to do something about it, so the only remaining factor is that we must not have the will.
My perception of America must be very different, because my perception of American values is that-that would absolutely positively never be allowed to happen no matter what, same as if they tried to take Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, or Hawaii, or Alaska, or Florida, or....etc. etc. It seems like you'd have to not think very much about American values/skill/resources in order for that fear to feel justified.
100% the China Russia angle makes no sense as any attack by them on Greenland would invoke all members of NATO to defend them. I think the long term play is Donald wants out of UN and NATO so he can flex his military muscle. He wants the world and he’s testing the waters with these moves. We are risking relationships with long term allies and quickly becoming a Nation others can’t trust or looked up too. We are racing to the bottom.
Just dropped in to get caught up on this topic.
WOW. Just WOW🤦♂️
Later.
'Like it or not'
He's going to have the whole world completely fucked up before midterms.
It will be a strange world if europa starts to see America as an enemy ......and if he has Greenland....then Canada????....he's crazy enough for it....I've never seen anyone in the netherlands being compared to Hitler on public tv....until now.....
Post a reply to: Greenland