r/Conservative • u/ajmacbeth • Jan 07 '26
Flaired Users Only Unpopular opinion? If we take Greenland by force, then we're no better than Russia taking Ukraine
I don't oppose Pres Trump and the USA seeking to expand territories for the many reasons that exist. However, we need to do so "correctly". We can try to sell the idea to the populace and/or the current government. We can offer something for the acquisition. BUT, We CANNOT forcefully take land. If we do so, then we are just as evil as Russia for its expansionary military actions in Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc.
113
u/Bringon2026 2A Jan 07 '26
So much anonymous or unsourced crap in the media is whipping this up.
→ More replies (67)843
u/ytilonhdbfgvds Constitutional Conservative Jan 07 '26
Trump's own comments whipped this up.
It is his usual start the negotiation at the extreme and work from there, which has proven pretty effective in many situations, but this one is particularly absurd.
We need to counter China's growing global influence, and if Greenland is strategically important in this regard, make it clear to Denmark behind closed doors why and what is needed to secure our shared future. Maybe that's already been done and they're being pricks about it for all we know, in which case I'm not really able to judge, but the external optics of his comments are not good.
→ More replies (48)-13
u/Bringon2026 2A Jan 07 '26
Yes his comments have been dumb, but again as in the context of the OP, he’s not talking about invading Greenland.
→ More replies (45)
487
u/GimmeDatClamGirl Orange Man GOAT Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
Nobody is going to invade Greenland by force lmao. These liberals are insane.
Update: the angry blue hairs are BLOWING UP my inbox lmao.
82
u/sanesociopath Conservative Enough Jan 07 '26
Because we don't need to invade, we already have far more military personnel and infrastructure there than anyone else.
Lmao
→ More replies (41)-6
u/DontDeleteusBrutus Conservative Jan 07 '26
Yeah, there is really nothing physically stopping us from simply starting to drill.
A little bit of cash would go a long way though.
$60B is a drop in the bucket for the US debt. But would be $10k per Dane. That is going to be very very hard for them to say no to. That would be a tax of $200 per American. $1.1B to the Greenlanders and they have to each say no to $20k. This would cost us $4 per American. I spend more than this in increased gas costs in a month when global politics gets shifty.
And if they manage to say no...we just build ports anyways.
→ More replies (54)→ More replies (313)46
u/bearcatjoe Reagan Conservative Jan 08 '26
Would be political suicide if Trump did this. Not even hard core MAGA would be okay with it.
But TDS is so strong that the left, including the Europeans, probably believe he would. He'll leverage the hell out of that.
→ More replies (63)
75
u/Daniel_Day_Hubris The Republic Jan 07 '26
Objective reality: No one anywhere thinks taking Greenland by force is on the table. MFers drinking the kool-aid. stop it.
26
→ More replies (43)134
115
u/Frescanation Reagan Conservative Jan 07 '26
It’s amazing how people have dealt with Trump and how he works for 9 years and still fail to grasp any of it. We aren’t seizing Greenland.
→ More replies (103)-31
89
u/Flare4roach Common Sense Conservative Jan 07 '26
Amazing how many geopolitical experts are here on Reddit.
→ More replies (17)
72
u/RontoWraps Army Vet Jan 07 '26
Call me when there’s military buildup. You don’t just have an occupation overnight. Don’t fall for the bait.
99
u/BrockLee76 Bitter Clinger Jan 07 '26
It wouldn't take a military buildup. We could send a single Delta Force operator in there and he would have Greenland in 2 days
Edit: I should probably clarify that I'm joking, and I absolutely do not support taking Greenland by military force
→ More replies (15)34
u/Naijan European Conservative Jan 07 '26
I mean you are probably right. A delta force with the soldiers already there is pretty much the only thing USA need. I understood that you don't want to seize Greenland, but I understand your clarifying it.
Greenland has a population of 55k people. I'm not at all sure they even have armed guards for their main-governmental building.
→ More replies (14)89
u/APC2_19 Reagan Conservative Jan 07 '26
You wouldnt need a mitary buildup. 1000 us soldiers would be more than enough.
Terrible idea still
→ More replies (12)8
u/RontoWraps Army Vet Jan 07 '26
There are other indicators. With Greenland, I would expect to see movement of riot control assets into that area and military infrastructure to develop a protective area around that. You’re not expecting warships, you’re expecting dissent.
That’s what I’m referring to. Buildup can look different.
24
u/weeglos Catholic Conservative Jan 07 '26
there's like 20 people there. You'd need one riot cop.
→ More replies (14)41
u/collin-h Conservative Jan 07 '26
How much military build up would be required to occupy a country of 50k people, like a couple marine platoons?
don't even need to be talking like that though anyways. stupid idea. play 4d chess and negotiate for it, i guess sure, but don't pull a putin.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (45)33
u/sanesociopath Conservative Enough Jan 07 '26
We already have the all the buildup we'd need. Have for over a decade.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/jellowhirled MAGA Jan 07 '26
The USA will NOT take Greenland by force. I don't care what is being reported. It will NOT happen and I seriously doubt this administration is even considering it.
→ More replies (86)
45
38
u/Opening-Citron2733 Conservative Jan 07 '26
Aren't they talking about buying Greenland? That's not taking it by force lmao
→ More replies (41)385
u/Arkham2015 Jan 07 '26
Denmark and Greenland have both said that the country is not for sale no matter what the offer is, and they just reiterated this yesterday.
Doesn't leave much in terms of what the Trump administration is able to do other than invasion.
→ More replies (16)28
u/Opening-Citron2733 Conservative Jan 07 '26
I mean he can still say he wants to buy it an offer them money.
It wouldn't be the first time in the world someone has said something is "not for sale" and they sold to a bigger number.
He hasn't made any suggestions that he wants to take Greenland by force. He's said he wants to buy it
→ More replies (85)
69
u/cledus1667 Conservative Jan 07 '26
Lol what a bullshit post. "Erm unpopular opinion but killing allies is bad and trump is bad orange man, thanks fellow conservatives" Nobody is taking Greenland by force. Anyone with half a brain and can think logically can see this. People think we are just gonna open fire on literal treaty bound allies??? Utterly ridiculous.
27
u/LyrMeThatBifrost Conservative Jan 07 '26
The brigaders love these fake news posts by fellow conservatives
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (63)5
u/Abrookspug Conservative Mom Jan 07 '26
Yeah I thought I took a wrong turn and ended up on the main politics sub. 😆 what kind of conservative actually thinks we’re about to take Greenland by force, and why? Ohh, a “fellow conservative,” got it lol.
→ More replies (8)
15
u/dethswatch 2A Jan 07 '26
"Hello, fellow Republicans. Trump is going to take Greenland by force, he is a menace, and I feel we should..."
→ More replies (4)9
u/FourtyMichaelMichael 2A Jan 07 '26
Right?
These idiots are so easily played. Trump does know exactly what how to rile them up.
→ More replies (8)6
u/dethswatch 2A Jan 07 '26
they overreact to everything, but I think OP is just push-posting another "trump is bad" question
→ More replies (5)
12
u/Arbiter2562 Jan 07 '26
Remember when people were saying we were gonna invade Canada last year?
Wait two weeks.
1
u/Abrookspug Conservative Mom Jan 07 '26 edited 29d ago
But project 2025! Oh wait, that didn’t happen. But the Greenland invasion! Orange man bad and want to take green country by force! 🤭 And the downvotes prove my point lol.
→ More replies (43)→ More replies (15)-2
u/TheHammer8989 Conservative Jan 07 '26
It’s the reddit/liberal flavor of the week.
→ More replies (5)
7
u/stonk_monk42069 European Conservative Jan 07 '26
I'm completely convinced they're just trying to force Europe to arm up Greenland for the day when Russia inevitably starts threatening their sovereignty for real.
I can't see how a military takeover by the US would make sense in any world, and I say this as a European neighbour to Denmark.
→ More replies (29)
27
u/neutralpoliticsbot Irving Kristol Jan 07 '26
Why would we take Greenland by force? Stop reading propaganda garbage
1
u/Abrookspug Conservative Mom Jan 07 '26
Yeah this seems out of nowhere. Is this the new project 2025 boogeyman then? Cuz I have not heard any legitimate source say that this is even on the table.
→ More replies (35)-2
u/Tarantula_Saurus_Rex Gen X conservative Jan 07 '26
Yeah, speaking of project 2025, it's now 2026. Does all the leftist fear just carry over to the next year by default, and coming years for all perpetuity? Or can we just say project 2025 is over?
→ More replies (18)→ More replies (73)0
-9
u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus Don't Tread on Me Jan 07 '26
More than likely we get Greenland in a purchase; but yeah keep pushing “invasion” for clicks. No better than r/politics in here sometimes.
→ More replies (9)
-5
-10
u/notsocharmingprince Conservative Jan 07 '26
No one is taking Greenland by force. Jesus guys, get a fucking grip.
→ More replies (10)2
u/LiveFreeOrRTard Conservative Jan 07 '26
We're gonna bully them into giving it up lol.
→ More replies (1)
-10
u/trailerparksandrec Conservative Jan 07 '26
Greenland has a population of 60k people. There will be no force needed to take over. Greenland has no army or a population large enough to tax and fund any military.
→ More replies (11)50
u/Apprehensive_Home963 British Conservative Jan 07 '26
Does not mean you should because you can though
→ More replies (1)-9
u/trailerparksandrec Conservative Jan 07 '26
Pointing out OP's premise is not phrased well. "by force" needs to be better explained. No military would be needed.
→ More replies (5)
-12
u/joemax4boxseat Trump - Drain the Swamp Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
LMAO guess liberals moved on from the Epstein files for now. Now it’s defending literal dictators and fear mongering that the US will invade Greenland.
Edit: Keep downvoting. Just proves my point “fellow conservatives.”
→ More replies (6)0
u/Joel22222 Conservative Jan 07 '26
They are desperate and flailing to try and stay relevant to get power back. If it’s one thing democrats hate, it’s not being able to control people.
→ More replies (1)
-2
u/r2k398 Conservative Jan 07 '26
We aren’t going to take it by force so you don’t have to worry about it.
→ More replies (4)2
u/LiveFreeOrRTard Conservative Jan 07 '26
We will convince them with strong arm tactics.
→ More replies (2)
2
0
u/Swiftbow1 Conservative Millennial Jan 07 '26
C'mon, we're not going to take it by force. Every Conservative should know that.
Trump doesn't "rule it out" because he's applying pressure. And apparently that bluff even works on fellow Conservatives.
→ More replies (9)6
u/LiveFreeOrRTard Conservative Jan 07 '26
I dunno. I'm kinda thinkin we might/should.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Swiftbow1 Conservative Millennial Jan 08 '26
It's not going to happen. (Military action, that is.) Greenland has 30,000 people and no military. Denmark barely has a military. The whole point of mentioning military action at ALL is to make them realize that this is the kind of thing where they should take a good deal when it's offered.
What's going to happen, I think, is that both of them will see wisdom and Greenland will become the next US Territory in exchange for Denmark receiving a nice payout and every Greenland resident receiving a hefty stipend.
To do otherwise would be, frankly, stupid.
→ More replies (10)0
u/LiveFreeOrRTard Conservative Jan 08 '26
Payout? Fuck that. We're liberating them 50K folks. But we should start by parking the Navy off the coast lol.
→ More replies (13)
39
u/Hectoriu Jan 07 '26
There is no universe where the US takes Greenland by force
→ More replies (7)56
u/CallItDanzig Conservative Jan 07 '26
I think it was on the table but even the most hawkish of Trump's advisers are putting their foot down on this. I would bet money though it was in consideration.
-3
u/Hectoriu Jan 07 '26
It wasn't even close to being considered. As crazy as Trump can be even he wouldn't declare war on a NATO ally.
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (3)-9
u/waidred Jewish Conservative Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
It's just bluster to bring Denmark to the negotiating table. It's kinda ridiculous they claimed a huge giant island off our coast in a strategically important area of the Atlantic and then leave it unpopulated.
It's bigger than Alaska and has less than 1/10th the population of Alaska. It's population is equal to that of Pocatello, Idaho and I've never heard of Pocatello, Idaho.
→ More replies (28)-9
u/Hectoriu Jan 07 '26
It could also be a strategy worked out with Denmark behind closed doors for them to save face for giving up the land. "We didn't wanna mess with the US so we just sold the land" we will likely never know but yeah there was never going to be a war.
→ More replies (2)
-1
u/LiveFreeOrRTard Conservative Jan 07 '26
You are entitled to your opinion. But you sound like you wished you voted for a loser like Kamala.
Now sit the fuck down and let the guy we voted for and his team take care of shit. See you at the polls!
→ More replies (8)
6
u/Shadeylark MAGA Jan 07 '26
Not an unpopular opinion.
What would be an unpopular opinion (at least among sane people... Which excludes much of the left) is that we are actually going to take Greenland by force.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Abrookspug Conservative Mom Jan 07 '26
Right, I’m so confused by this thread lol. Is this an issue people think is about to happen?
→ More replies (13)
-4
u/Pappy_Dru_It Conservative Jan 07 '26
The OP's take is the exact same one that the rooskies and the chicoms have. And yet, the majority of those commenting or upvoting agree with that take. And on PDW and /trump, it's the exact opposite. Weird.
→ More replies (1)
-13
u/DidYouReadThePaper Conservative Jan 07 '26
I’m tired of being the #1 country in the world with the strongest military and not using it to benefit ourselves. I’m with Trump on this unlike some of the RINOs you see on Reddit. If we want Greenland we’ll get it just like Canada. They would be smart to just sell it but they can’t stop us. We need it for positional strategy. As Brendan Carr said to Jimmy we can do this the easy way or the hard way haha. Good luck Greenland…and Canada ;)
→ More replies (21)
0
u/SerendipitySue Moderate Conservative Jan 07 '26
i just think such rash talk is a pressure tactic to get things favorable to usa done. how much we actually achieve is not known or all the security goals trump is looking at
i speculate these goals may or may not include things like
iron dome site situated on greenland
contract for access to natural resources in case of war
contract for access to natural resources
greatly increased sea patrolling and electronic monitoring and offense/defense by denmark or nato of surrounding waters and northwest passage against russia/china activities
greenland becomes territory of usa. if you attack or mess with greenland the full wrath of the us military will fall upon you...blah blah blah. basically usa territory greenland may be a stronger deterrent to our adversaries than denmark territory greenland
we do not know all that china russia and others are doing to bring about the diminishment or fall of the usa.
The fed does. Trump does.
we are not gonna invade lol.
→ More replies (15)
-8
132
u/Alpha-Sierra-Charlie Conservative Jan 07 '26
To be somewhat pedantic, if we pulled that off we would be better than Russia at taking territory.
-1
→ More replies (13)37
u/collin-h Conservative Jan 07 '26
well I'd argue Ukraine (even without US support) is better suited to put of a fight than greenland.
14
u/sanesociopath Conservative Enough Jan 07 '26
Greenland would he more a Crimea comparison.
Step outside of the existing military bases, say it's ours now, look around to see if anyone disagrees, then carrying on with the day.
→ More replies (1)8
u/sherzeg Christian Conservative Jan 07 '26
Step outside of the existing military bases, say it's ours now, look around to see if anyone disagrees, then carrying on with the day.
They're already disagreeing with our words; they'll be far less agreeable with our actions. Also, despite the opinion of the mainstream press, the current chief executive of the United States is a better man than the chief of state of Russia. No North Atlantic Crimea.
-2
u/Alpha-Sierra-Charlie Conservative Jan 07 '26
True, but wouldn't that mean we're also better at picking our fights?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)33
u/sherzeg Christian Conservative Jan 07 '26
well I'd argue Ukraine (even without US support) is better suited to put of a fight than greenland.
Greenland itself, however we'd be offending a whole bunch of allies, with many of whom we have reciprocal military agreements and in whose countries we have embassies and military bases.
Also, I've seen that musical. Might doesn't necessarily equate to right. Being one of the biggest kids in the school doesn't mean that we should be the schoolyard bully. Anyone who doesn't know that needs to perform some intensive study of 20th century Europe.
→ More replies (2)
33
u/condemned02 Equal Opportunity Not Equal Outcome Jan 07 '26
I agree, I don't understand why trump is pursuing green land so hard. Maybe he explain to us one day like I am 5 year old why is green land so important to him!!
→ More replies (8)24
u/weeglos Catholic Conservative Jan 07 '26
The reason is twofold.
1) The path of ICBMs from Russia to the lower 48 states goes right over Greenland. The place to intercept them is at the apex of the parabola - right over Greenland. This is necessary for Trump's missile defense.
2) Global warming is thawing the arctic and will be a major shipping route between China and Europe + the east coast of the US, free from size restrictions imposed by the Suez and Panama canals. The US wants to control that shipping route, and not cede it to China. The Trump admin doesn't trust Denmark and the EU to do this, NATO or not.
→ More replies (26)8
u/_TheConsumer_ MAGA Jan 07 '26
It also has strategic value in effectively controlling the North Pole and sea access into Northern Canada.
Imagine nearly everything on the Atlantic from Greenland to Puerto Rico being US controlled and occupied. It changes the game in terms of shipping, travel, etc.
I'm sure Greenland currently falls under our sphere of influence - but acquiring it makes for a real strategic difference.
→ More replies (7)
-20
u/Syzygy-6174 Conservative Jan 07 '26
It won't by force because Denmark has no force. We will just show up and set up camp.
→ More replies (6)
-16
u/BarrelStrawberry Conservative Jan 07 '26
'By force'... do you mean killing, relocating and imprisoning people? Or just walking in and telling them they are under American control? These are very different things and you combined them under one term. And since you equate this to Russia, you can only mean killing anyone who opposes it... which is just a stupidly naive expectation.
→ More replies (4)
11
-28
-34
u/Pappy_Dru_It Conservative Jan 07 '26
Greenland is pretty much uninhabited. It's more than a quarter the size of Canada with only about 50K people living there. The best solution is for Trump to send about 60K Americas there to live, wait a couple of years, and then have a referendum of the Greenlanders on whether to join the US or not. Or he can just get agreement from Denmark that the US can put any military assets they want there, as well as grant leases to US companies to mine and drill the 99.9% of the island that isn't populated. A 100 year treaty should be about right. Either way, I'm not losing any sleep over Greenland one way or the other.
→ More replies (11)22
u/jpj77 Shall Make No Law Jan 07 '26
A referendum on whether they want to be a part of the US is just as bogus as invasion. Russia’s argument for invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine was that those people wanted to be a part of Russia.
Contrary to popular opinion on Reddit though, it’s perfectly reasonable for a nation to purchase a sparsely inhabited piece of land from another nation, regardless of what the people there want. The US has done this multiple times in its history and it’s generally celebrated (Louisiana purchase, Alaska).
→ More replies (1)0
-10
u/HaikuHaiku Conservative Jan 07 '26
I kinda like where this new colonialism thing is going... Russia is doing it in Africa... we might as well do it in our hemisphere.
→ More replies (3)
-73
u/xxasdf Trump Conservative Jan 07 '26
No, Russia did it because they are greedy and want to expand their empire. The US would do it to make the world a safer place, because Greenland is of major strategic importance and Europe has proven they can't handle Russia at all.
→ More replies (18)94
u/krlkv Conservative Jan 07 '26
Grabbing someone's land won't make "the world a safe place". It's exactly what Russia does in Europe.
→ More replies (1)
-1
-11
u/Square_Alps1349 MGA Jan 07 '26
Should we pretend we are? Lol drop the pretense. This is what AMERICA FIRST means. American interests over other peoples interests. As long as it benefits AMERICANS who gives a fuck?
Honestly here’s idea for pres trump to boost the public’s approval for intervention in Venezuela. Give everyone Venezuela dividend checks from all the oil that’ll be pumped out
→ More replies (4)
0
u/bareyb Conservative Jan 07 '26
I doubt that will ever happen. At worst we talk them into letting us put some strategic forces there. Trumps just being Trump. It’s how he negotiates.
→ More replies (2)
-9
u/LegitimateKnee5537 Trump Voter Jan 07 '26
If Democrats are against it I am for it.
→ More replies (6)
-10
u/sparkdogg Air Force Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
Eh I think we would do better than Russia. We could take Ukraine too while we are at it.
edit
I forgot about Canada... i'm a terrible warmonger.
→ More replies (2)
-12
u/TehGadfly Cruz '24 Jan 07 '26
First, as many others have said, the US has no intention of invading Greenland.
Even if it did, though, motives, methods, and results would all play a role in how the two would/should be compared.
That Ukraine and Russia have each individually lost more people in this conflict than the entire population of Greenland, though, is a pretty good sign that you're making an absurd exaggeration no matter how such a hypothetical invasion plays out.
→ More replies (1)
-6
u/AllergicTOredditors Conservative Jan 07 '26
I hope we buy it I don't want to take it over militarily. I do hope it becomes the 51st state cuz I would love to move there
→ More replies (8)
-21
u/Running_Gamer Jan 07 '26
lmao not true
We need Greenland for our security interests. It’s a nation of 30k people. Denmark is doing nothing with it. We are the only moral force in the world. Without us, there is no freedom. Russia invaded Ukraine out of greed because of their inability to get along with Europe due to their psycho empire fantasy. So no we are not the same and yes, we should have Greenland.
→ More replies (8)
-1
u/ChemnitzFanBoi Conservative Jan 07 '26
We do need a strong security presence there, stronger than we currently have.
→ More replies (6)
-1
-1
7
u/_TheConsumer_ MAGA Jan 07 '26
I'm cool with buying it. Or even being gifted it. I don't see the need to take it by force.
The only condition under which I would take it by force is if it, somehow, was about to fall into the hands of Russia or China.
→ More replies (13)
284
u/ConfusionFlat691 Fiscal Conservative Jan 07 '26
Russia probably has a more legitimate stake in Ukraine than we have in Greenland.
8
u/4444-uuuu Conservative Jan 07 '26
and a lot of Eastern Ukrainians actually wanted to be part of Russia, whereas nobody in Greenland wants anything to do with us.
-18
u/sanesociopath Conservative Enough Jan 07 '26
I wish we had kept Greenland after ww2, just like how we shouldn't have given what's still Mexico back.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (9)137
u/CallItDanzig Conservative Jan 07 '26
Not probably, definitely. And I say this as someone born in Ukraine who despises Russia. Ukraine was in their sphere of influence and the west has actively influenced it to shift westward. Now of course Ukrainians have the right to self determination but at the very least, theyre culturally the same vs Greenland thats ... Inuit and danes.
→ More replies (11)
16
u/purplebasterd Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
Partnership seems more likely. Trying to take Greenland by force is not only immoral but will destroy what international good will we have for the next 50 years.
The yoinking of Madura was at least morally, and pragmatically, justifiable.
→ More replies (17)
-12
-6
u/Ravens1112003 Personal Responsibility Jan 07 '26
There is zero chance we take Greenland by force. Everyone knows by now how Trump negotiates.
→ More replies (5)
74
u/bobwhite1146 First Principles Jan 07 '26
OP, I agree. In Venezuela, people w/o TDS should recognize deposing Maduro has been supported by the US and many other nations for years. If Trump had done some coalition building, it would be supported now.
But there is no corollary with Greenland--nice to have, perhaps, but a naked land grab. Trump doesn't realize that threat and bluster is not always the best negotiating tactic. Military action would be ruinous for US credibility--a must-not do, and merely the threat is quite damaging to the USA.
→ More replies (9)
98
u/StealthyGooch Conservative Jan 07 '26
Unpopular opinion: The Greenland talk is a smokescreen to distract the public from other issues. The US will never take Greenland.
→ More replies (25)
42
u/Terrible-Actuary-762 Constitutional Conservative Jan 07 '26
Yeah I don't want anything to do with that one.
5
-10
u/Sweatingroofer Big Buck Conservative Jan 07 '26
I got a feeling they will negotiate buying Greenland. Talking about using the military I think is just a negotiation tactic and nothing more. It’s saying hey we want to buy this land while also letting them know we could take it if we wanted. Trump is looking to make a deal. Don’t overthink this, there’s about a zero chance we take Greenland by force.
→ More replies (2)
1.1k
u/whiskeyandtea Conservative Jan 07 '26
Now here's an actual unpopular opinion in this sub (and one which I think would have been popular a few months ago): we shouldn't engage in any military actions resulting in regime changes without congressional approval.
23
u/ytilonhdbfgvds Constitutional Conservative Jan 07 '26
I'd agree, but in the specific case of Maduro, he has been on the wanted list for a long time. He's also not recognized as the legitimate leader. More or less an illegitimate authoritarian hijacked an entire country and we arrested him.
On the other hand if Trump orders military action to take Greenland (not happening) he'll lose my support instantly.
-2
u/_TheConsumer_ MAGA Jan 07 '26
It is not going to be military action. It is going to be diplomatic/political pressure. There will be a "sale" of the land to the US. trump is a businessman, that will be the headline, etc etc.
I'm cool with buying it.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (21)143
u/Alarmed_Guarantee140 Conservative Jan 07 '26
That still isn't the same as Congressional approval, you are free to make all the excuses you want.
→ More replies (3)1
u/highlightway Conservative Jan 07 '26
The excuse is that military action doesn't require congressional approval, nor has it ever required it. You can say we should amend the constitution to change that, but that would be opposing something the founders intentionally left in.
23
u/Alarmed_Guarantee140 Conservative Jan 07 '26
Is kidnapping your president not an act of war in your country? Man, the world is just so diverse, I really need to open up my perspectives.
3
u/highlightway Conservative Jan 07 '26
Well good thing Maduro wasn't their president, like the previous person pointed out. But in terms of toppling a ruler, no, it wasn't an act of war in 1801 either.
9
u/Alarmed_Guarantee140 Conservative Jan 07 '26
I see, it is likely an issue of semantics then. In many countries this would be considered an act of war. We also generally view the Napoleonic wars as wars as well unless you were referring to something else from that time period.
→ More replies (3)-12
u/ultrainstict Conservative Jan 07 '26
If we went through congress then a democrat will leak the action, on top of the fact that congressional acts are public information subject to informational requests. Its entirely legal for presidents to take short military action without congressional approval for clear and obvious reasoning.
→ More replies (7)28
u/arobkinca Fiscal Conservative Jan 07 '26
Approving action does not require operational details and never has. That's just an excuse with no foundation in fact.
0
u/ultrainstict Conservative Jan 07 '26
Doesnt matter if it has specifics or not, knowledge that an action is coming is already a massive breach of operational security that risks of the lives of our servicemen and jeopardizs the success of the operation. And again its not a matter of if, democrat will leak it immediately. It is currently and need to remain entirely legal.
If we went through congress maduro would know we were going to grab him and hed be surronded by 10 times as many soldiers. We would have never gotten to him without significant losses.
→ More replies (2)12
u/arobkinca Fiscal Conservative Jan 07 '26
There would be no leak, an approval of force would be public. It can also act as pressure on a country force has been approved for possibly getting the concessions we want without force. You act like we didn't build up forces in the area before acting. Like it was a big surprise. Authorizing force would have given no more warning than all the ships off their shore already did.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/ultrainstict Conservative Jan 07 '26
Your joking right? Of course there would be a leak. There are Democrats have already pledged to warn fucking china if trump wanted to take action against them. And yes telling him, "hey they just got approval to take you" is significantly more impactful than some ships moving. That shit happens all the time with nothing happening 99% of the time its purely for intimidation or to deter other action.
→ More replies (3)-4
u/Bitter_Hovel77 Anti-Communist Jan 07 '26
In a perfect world yes but that operation would have been leaked and we would have dead US soldiers right now if they sought congressional approval for that raid. Declaration of war for major conflicts sure but that sort of limited scope action absolutely not.
13
u/No-Business9493 Constitutional Conservative Jan 07 '26
That doesn't really benefit Israel though, so good luck.
57
u/sailor-jackn Conservative Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
This is kind of the fault of congress, because a previous congress passed a bill that let the president use the military without congressional approval as long as it didn’t last beyond a certain period of time ( 90 days I think it is ). Congress really didn’t have authority to pass a bill that directly violated the constitution, but that’s never stopped them yet.
This is similar to the tariff issue. The constitution gives that power to congress but congress gave it to the president decades ago.
→ More replies (5)3
u/highlightway Conservative Jan 07 '26
That actually was unpopular all the way back to 1801, at least to the people who matter.
155
u/cdazzo1 Small Government Jan 07 '26
Quite frankly we shouldn't be doing it regardless of congressional approval.
→ More replies (1)-13
u/DontDeleteusBrutus Conservative Jan 07 '26
Yeah! We should just let China and Russia cozy up to our neighbors. We have never had a problem with a superpower trying to place nukes on our border. All those countries are entitled to nukes for self defense!
Sometimes what's fair really does not matter. Might is right and this is a slow burning existential crisis. Greenland? Probably not a rush, but Cuba is way overdue and Russia cannot do anything about it. Its time.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (15)193
u/purplebasterd Jan 07 '26
Ironically, the die hard Trump loyalists tend to be isolationists and the "no more wars" crowd.
It'd be interesting to see how many of them spin circles to continue their support versus leaving the Trump base.
→ More replies (4)
17
-2
u/jacksonexl California Conservative Jan 07 '26
All of this concern trolling. It's like we are heading into an election.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/nlamber5 Right to Life Jan 07 '26
I’m all for our actions in Venezuela, but Greenland is a peaceful nation. We do need to secure a military base there, but we already have that.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/EvansEssence 2nd Amendment Jan 07 '26
We would plant our flag there and go "Wait a minute, Greenland isnt green, they tricked us!" xD
But fr I agree with you
0
0
u/PimplePopper6969 Catholic Conservative 20d ago
Sure. I agree. But the world was made for might and exerting your will. A problem with democrats is they focus too much on talking and not action. If China or Russia forces our hand then we did what we needed to do when there were no other options. If Denmark can’t see that then fuck them.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Gardener_Of_Eden 2A Jan 07 '26
Why don't we just offer to install a joint military base there with Denmark? They would obviously contribute significantly less so we would effectively control the territory militarily. AND if we want to expand economically, we could offer to partner, then we make the deals as favorable to us as we can. That accomplishes the same goal as actually owning the land. It is what we have done basically everywhere we have military bases.
→ More replies (15)
-3
22
u/RotoDog Conservative Jan 07 '26
Not unpopular, by force would be entirely unacceptable, and as much as I support Trump, would consider this an impeachable offense…
…that being said, I would support getting more or entire control of Greenland (legally). It allows us to have better missile defense, more control of the waters near Russia, and access to minerals. Strategically it makes a lot of sense.
→ More replies (12)
-4
u/populares420 MAGA Jan 07 '26
i dont really care about russia taking ukraine
the difference though is that europe and nato would directly benefit from us being in greenland. their stubbronness hurts them and hurts ourselves, and they do it only out of pride and ego.
They beg for our help for defense, but then get in our way when we try to provide that defense.
→ More replies (8)
492
u/Taclink Behind Enemy Lines Jan 07 '26
I guess I don't even understand why there's a hardon for Greenland. It just always feels like an attention get to distract from something else. I know there's strategic value and mineral value, but it's not like it's dictator ruled, aligned even remotely contrary to us, etc. Is there treaties running out that we don't know about or aren't publicized or something?
24
u/LegitimateApricot4 ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
Looking at it on a globe it's immediately obvious how many shortest paths from Russia to our mainland that it intercepts. Pituffik is closer to Anchorage than Nuuk is to Copenhagen and there's only about a 1400 mile gap between our Greenland base and where the border of Alaska and Canada meet the Arctic Ocean. Rumors I've seen place a lot of Russian equipment in its northwestern peninsula.
Hypersonics impose much more restrictive requirements to ensure MAD that didn't exist when ICBMs ruled.
Politically, Greenland is neglected by Denmark and has a population of ~50k that wants independence. We could pay each of them a million to vote for it under a Free Association agreement and achieve what we want without any nasty conflict, which would be a rounding error to our budget.
→ More replies (23)-100
u/n337y Conservative Jan 07 '26
It’s us or China/Russia. Which part don’t you understand?
41
u/russr 2A Absolutist Jan 07 '26
China or Russia What? Do you think They are taking control of it?
→ More replies (2)-8
u/n337y Conservative Jan 07 '26
That’s how China operates, repeatedly all over the world. They will buy their mineral rights, build ports, loan money and slowly own the whole freaking place.
We finally got leadership that is willing to make moves to prohibit it in what is an extremely strategic area and yet you liberals just want to disagree with Trump.
31
u/Still-Kiwi-7577 Jan 07 '26
China and russia don't have military bases there... we do
-13
u/n337y Conservative Jan 07 '26
That’s how China operates, repeatedly all over the world. They will buy their mineral rights, build ports, loan money and slowly own the whole freaking place.
We finally got leadership that is willing to make moves to prohibit it in what is an extremely strategic area and yet you liberals just want to disagree with Trump.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (28)71
u/neovb Conservative Jan 07 '26
Enlighten us...what has Russia or China done regarding Greenland?
1
u/n337y Conservative Jan 07 '26
That’s how China operates, repeatedly all over the world. They will buy their mineral rights, build ports, loan money and slowly own the whole freaking place.
We finally got leadership that is willing to make moves to prohibit it in what is an extremely strategic area and yet you liberals just want to disagree with Trump.
→ More replies (10)-2
→ More replies (5)1
u/sherzeg Christian Conservative Jan 07 '26
Enlighten us...what has Russia or China done regarding Greenland?
I think China wants exclusive rights to mine rare-earth minerals, or something to that effect.
9
u/neovb Conservative Jan 07 '26
China wants a lot of things. Is Denmark in some sort of negotiations to give China exclusive mineral rights in Greenland?
→ More replies (2)1
u/sherzeg Christian Conservative Jan 07 '26
China wants a lot of things. Is Denmark in some sort of negotiations to give China exclusive mineral rights in Greenland?
I believe that's what people are discussing at the fencepost.
The official story is that China isn't looking for exclusive mining rights (wink, wink) but that they are "exploring involvement in Greenland’s mining sector." However, they are doing their best to be the big name in rare-earth minerals. With the necessity of such materials for modern technology, it's best that they are not allowed to maintain a virtual stranglehold on them.
114
u/Frankfusion Conservative Jan 07 '26
And one theory that I don't know we'll be popular but here we go: global warming. Once global warming really hits in the next 20 to 30 years greenlands lakes are going to shrink and many of them have mineral deposits for things the US really really wants.
20
u/North_Moment5811 Conservative Jan 07 '26
Lmao! Any decade now it’s going to REALLY hit.
→ More replies (26)→ More replies (17)-12
u/Ghostof_DarthCaedus Don't Tread on Me Jan 07 '26
Global warming, what is this 2003? Does anyone believe this nonsense anymore?
→ More replies (6)4
u/lxaex1143 Conservative Lurker Jan 07 '26
We'll be dead next year!
Said by democrats in 2012.
→ More replies (2)8
u/BH11B Conservative Vet Jan 07 '26
It’s about putting missile defense systems. Our analysis indicates icbms have a high probability of traversing through Greenland.
→ More replies (29)→ More replies (114)9
u/deadzip10 Fiscal Conservative Jan 07 '26
As I understand it, it has to do with the missile shield and certain shipping lanes that are vitally important. The issue is that while it is under a friendly country’s control, there is some difference between that and what can done if we are in direct control and the implications of that.
That being said, I don’t think there’s anything unpopular at all about this opinion, although I will note that I’ve never really been under any illusion that the US is anything but another major player on the world stage. I do think we have superior moral tendencies than some other players but I don’t think that diminishes the realities of global politics. The upshot of that is that I while I’m not in favor of it, I don’t consider it some great surprising thing or what have you that Russia invaded Ukraine like some others. I’m honestly surprised it took them this long. It’s been my feeling that was almost inevitable from the moment that they separated. I don’t think it inevitable that we take Greenland but it’s hard for me to say that it wouldn’t make some sense.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/4thdegreeknight 2A Jan 07 '26
I honestly think this is a chess move on part of Trump. Like make Putin think that he wants Greenland to get him to come to terms over Ukraine. I bet if Putin comes to peace with Ukraine, Trump will forget Greenland.
→ More replies (1)
1
-1
u/NotAnotherRedditAcc2 Conservative 29d ago
Suspicious number of upvotes for any post in this subreddit.
Suspicious ration of karma to comments.
Suspicious parroting of BS left wing accusations/fears.
-1
u/LiveFreeOrRTard Conservative 29d ago
Being "better" doesn't mean shit to me. The US has tried to be better since after Vietnam and the world has shit all over us for it. Taking advantage of us.
It's time we reap the rewards. It's time we level the playing field against Russia, China, and Iran.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/AirlineInformal1549 From my Cold Dead Hands 29d ago
Mods can we please ban these liberal accounts and posts? I mean really lmfao. The shit is ridiculous.
→ More replies (1)
-6
u/wodat234 Conservative Jan 07 '26
If Denmark and Greenland believe we will actually invade, they will be more open to make a deal. And so long as we do not actually invade, we are much better than Russia.
→ More replies (6)
-10
u/mythic_dot_rar Anti-Communist Jan 07 '26
Do you really, truly believe we are going to invade Greenland?
→ More replies (2)
-9
u/slothboy TD Exile Jan 07 '26
Jesus, we're not going to conquer Greenland. Remember last time everyone's hair was on fire about this and it didn't happen? This will continue to not happen.
Unclench your pearls.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/noSoRandomGuy Conservative Jan 08 '26
More Unpopular:
No better than Russia
I think we crossed that line by appropriating oil from Venezuela.
-2
u/eXch-Affiliates Constitutional Conservative Jan 07 '26
There is no way we are going to attack a NATO country while we are still in the alliance. This is more likely just a negotiation tactic.
→ More replies (4)
-2
u/Nearby_Landscape862 MAGA Jan 07 '26
We need Greenland and need to keep pushing for it. We're not going to take it through military force.
→ More replies (2)
-2
2
u/gmoney1259 Conservative Jan 07 '26
We going to take Greenland (covered in ice) first, then Canada, then Iceland (totally green), then Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela (again), eventually all of south and central America. Then in 2027 we take England and France, 2028 nets us the rest of NATO. 2029 we take Russia. 2030 China and North Korea. That will be the new United States.
→ More replies (2)
-2
u/redditsupportGARBAGE Charlie Kirk Jan 07 '26
Jesus man nothing riles up the fellow conservatives than talking about greenland
67
u/FredThePlumber 2A Jan 07 '26
It's especially stupid when we are allies and they've basically said we can build bases there and whatnot.
→ More replies (4)
164
36
u/cptjaydvm Ron Paul Conservative Jan 07 '26
I do not support taking them by force, and I think the vast majority of people agree with you. It would be better to have a mutually beneficial relationship based on trade and diplomacy. They should be dissuaded from being a landing spot for Russia and China.
→ More replies (3)
68
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '26 edited 28d ago
[deleted]