Former Trump administration official and wife of top Trump aide Stephen Miller, Katie Miller, posted Saturday on X (formerly Twitter) an image of Greenland covered in the U.S. flag with the text “SOON”.
Former Trump administration official and wife of top Trump aide Stephen Miller, Katie Miller, posted Saturday on X (formerly Twitter) an image of Greenland covered in the U.S. flag with the text “SOON”.
The US is great at invading other countries
It has not the first clue how to safely keep one.
In the past they toppled other legitimate governments by using the CIA to cause some sort of revolution and kill the legitimate rulers.
None of that has lasted, and in the case of Iran directly led to the current theocratic dictatorship (Iran today is directly the result of US actions)
If the US invades either one of Canada, Mexico, or Greenland, it’ll be fucked. Friends and allies won’t turn up to help, it might causea fucking world war instead.
I don’t understand why nobody stops this. Even the CEO’s and all just be able to see that this isn’t going to end well for anyone
The US will invade more countries and the world won’t do shit.
But if the CIA has to do another coup that is their job security.
None of this large scale shit is ever meant to solve anything. Just extract value.
We’ve tried nothing and we’re out of ideas. - The American Public
Historically, the poors loosw the most. So maybe it’s worth the gamble. So much technology is available to really 1984 the population when it is in a more manageable number.
It also helps to have gentleman agreements with the rich on the other side. Elon has a satellite and can communicate without you knowing. So there’s that.
Be careful. The US actually is fantastic at invading other countries. At least we’re really good at the “bomb the existing regime to hell and topple it” part of the process. We’re great at invading other countries; we’re just not so good at running them after.
But this is the type of invasion the US actually is pretty good at. The US isn’t proposing taking invading and then hoping to set up an independent democracy that for some reason remains our friend. That’s what we tried in Iraq, and it failed because you can’t just impose your will on a foreign population. You can’t make someone love you. You can’t make a nation willingly adopt your style of government.
But invading Greenland? This isn’t a Middle East misadventure, invading a highly populated country. This is the US coming to a territory and saying, “this is ours now.” This means a few things.
First, winning hearts and minds doesn’t matter. Once annexed and legally part of the US, if they try to break away, they’re not just insurgents, they’re rebels. Look at General Sherman for how the US has treated rebel territories. In Iraq, the theme was always, “at the end of the day, we’re not going to be running this place, we need the Iraqis to be able to run it, hopefully without hating our guts.” With Greenland, the theme would be, “we’re here for the land and resources. This is US territory now. If some Americans want to secede from the rest of America, well we know historically how to handle that…”
Second, do you know why Greenland’s mining resources are so underdeveloped? It’s because there are only 56,000 Greenlanders. If they wanted to seriously open up their mining resources, they would have to bring in outside companies to really develop them. And this would require bringing in large numbers of foreign workers, mining experts, their families, etc. Realistically, the existing Greenlander population would likely become a minority group. Hell, the existing number of Greenlanders is so small, a rebellion could likely be dealt with by the US criminal justice system, the military wouldn’t even be required.
The annexation of Greenland would look nothing like the invasion of Iraq or even a hypothetical annexation of Canada or Mexico. Making the territory a US state would mean any American citizen could move there. Any company could bring in workers to start exploiting mining claims. It would look more like the annexation of Texas. (Where the US had thousands of US citizens illegally move to the sparsely populated territory, and then push for annexation.) And if there was any kind insurgency, the US would treat it far harsher than it did the insurgencies of Iraq or Afghanistan.
That’s not to say this would be a good thing, it wouldn’t. In many ways it would be much worse than the invasion of Iraq. It would be far more brutal and would result in the existing Greenlanders becoming a small ethnic minority in what is now their own country. And any insurgency would be brutally repressed in the manner of the US Civil War. And while insurgencies can pull off wonders, scale still matters. Whatever tiny insurgency a group of 56,000 people, people completely dependent on imported food and goods, can manage to produce? That is not something that can credibly stand up to the US military. Hell, it couldn’t even stand up to the FBI. They could raise some heroic 5,000 man rebel force, and the US could just have them all arrested.
At the end of the day, 56,000 people cannot resist the might of 330 million. Smaller nations can drive out larger foreign invaders, but only if they’re at least of a similar order of magnitude of population. Ukraine can plausibly fight off Russia. A tiny city state can’t.
Two things: One: The US economy will go down the drain the moment they try.
I think Ukraine showed us you don’t need much to destroy mining operations… And if the local population refuses to open mines, it’s because they don’t want to become an Alaska.
deleted by creator