this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
597 points (98.5% liked)

News

29223 readers
3624 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Trump said he would talk to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney about making Canada the 51st state. But the president said he didn't expect it to get to the point of using military force — though he wouldn't commit to the same for Greenland. 

"Something could happen with Greenland, I'll be honest," Trump said in an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" that aired on Sunday.  He said that "we need that for national and international security," but he added "I don't see it with Canada. I just don't see it."

(page 3) 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

US could do that, sure.

But I bet it'd quickly find out just how much of its power, safety and bravado is due to being located in a geographically safe and isolated area with no real hostile armies trying to end them from the other side of the border.

Just how much of that willingness to fight comes from invading foreign underdeveloped territories across the sea, with little chance for the fight to make its way back to US cities and US civilians.

Easy to start fights from the comfort of a distant home, sending only military lives into the far away battlefield.

Something Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East can't claim, as they have to contend with potentially bad neighbors due to all sorts of reasons.

Go ahead, poke the bear, FAFO.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 129 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Threatening war on an ally, a member of the EU and UN; while helping the enemy.

That's not what a russian asset would do...

[–] [email protected] 63 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Forcing the UN to split their forces between Ukraine and Greenland....

Totally not what a Russian asset would do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 2 days ago (3 children)

If we need Greenland so bad how is it we’ve been just fine leaving them the fuck alone since forever?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The claim we need it for safety and security is bs considering we have probably more service members there than there are people in Nuuk.

Its all about minerals, which we have no claim to. If Greenland were a territory, the federal government would have full control over the entire thing. US territories are modern day colonies basically

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

It'll become more and more important as the north pole melts.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Don’t see it Canada? Sure come on in, start a nuclear war you fucking tard.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

Maybe when he starts WW3 we can call him a nazi without people playing dumb like he isn't

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Located between the U.S., Russia and Europe, Greenland is viewed as a strategic position for both economic and defense purposes, with melting sea ice opening up new shipping routes through the Arctic.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Shipping from the U.S. to Europe can only be made more inefficient by heading up towards Greenland. The only way it could be more efficient is if the U.S. took over Canada and was trying to directly trade with Russia without Europe being in the way. An attack on Greenland should be seen as an attack on Canada and all of the EU/UK

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 92 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We shall cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the geese of war.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Every word from this Orange Turd is treason. Their needs to be a trial and he needs to never see the light of day again.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago

He also said he's not sure if we need to uphold due process in all situations. I'm willing to concede the point in his case if it means we can hang him tomorrow.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Every time I hear this, I think "Ok, that's what his right hand is doing. What he doing with his other hand?"

Read: Isn't the batshit stuff pretty much always a distraction?

[–] [email protected] 74 points 2 days ago (10 children)

Translation:

Canada would probably put up a fight, and bullies only pick on those too weak to resist.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago

The Geneva Convention is gonna get another page

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm not Canadian, but it's seems obvious to me Canada would definitely put up a fight

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago (3 children)

A lot of Americans would also put up a fight on the side of Canadians

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I'd be happy to join a Canadian foreign legion. I view protecting Canada from foreign aggression my patriotic duty as a fellow human being, and neighbor.

Besides, once upon a time I swore an oath to protect my country from threats foreign and domestic, so I am honor bound to fight alongside Canada against the biggest threat the US has ever faced.

I'm not sure how many Americans would join me, or how receptive Canadians would even be to a bunch of tacticool looking non-professionals with guns showing up and CLAIMING to want to help, but I'm positive there will be americans fighting back. Whether it's on the front lines with guns, or with sabotage in the states, who can say.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Put up a fight?

Nah, more like encourage our trash to attack, then slide in right behind them.

We'd let the canadians help us give them what they deserve.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I mean, all of the might of United States military had trouble with the Afghani insurgents. Now, just imagine Canadian insurgents who speak the same language, look exactly like you, and know your history better than you do. No city in the continental United States will be safe.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Everything you said, and the longest un defended border in the world. Imagine if the Taliban could drive to major US cities.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Imagine if 95% of the Taliban lived within 100 miles of that boarder, too lol

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago

And spoke perfect English and were undistinguishable from US citizens on sight. And numbered 40 million.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 days ago (2 children)

look exactly like you

There are subtle differences if you know what you’re looking for.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nevermind that there'd be about 70% of the population sympathetic to their situation. That's a recipe for a lot of citizens sabotaging and/or helping them instead of us.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

Sympathetic?

We share the same enemy, and most of the world has for centuries, time to watch the dixiecrats pay.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 262 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Reminder to the military: you are not required to follow illegal orders. In fact, you are duty-bound to disobey them

[–] [email protected] 51 points 2 days ago (3 children)

An invasion of Greenland, or Canada, wouldn't necessarily be unlawful.

Remember 9/11? Remember George Bush asking Congress to approve his use of military force to hunt down the suspects?

Well that Authorization for the Use of Military Force, unlike any prior which had clearly defined limitations, was simply against "terror" and set to expire "never."

One member of Congress refused to vote for this, precisely because she understood that Congress was effectively forever giving up its ability to determine when and how the President was allowed to deploy the military. She got death threats. She was right.

All Trump has to do is "find" a terrorist threat in a country, and he's allowed to send US troops there. Remember how he recently decided that fentanyl is a weapon of mass destruction? Yeah.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You're thinking if us laws, but we're talking about international law

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The US deliberately does not subject itself to international laws, because it breaks them routinely. It is a rogue state in that regard, and it did not start with Trump or even Bush.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 93 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

I'm quite positive, whether he invades a sovereign nation or not, in some time -- be it five years, ten, or more -- we'll have our own version of the Nuremberg trials. Whoever is still alive that perpetrated or participated in this rape of democracy will be held accountable, someday, because all dictatorships fall.

The only question is how many people have to suffer before then.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›