Liberal Forum

Territorial expansion is our Manifest Destiny. This nation needs to exist. It is humanity's last hope. I endorse Trump on this.

White House discussing options to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table

(Full article at above link)

The White House said Tuesday that President Donald Trump is “discussing a range of options” to acquire Greenland making clear that using the US military is not off the table.
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.
“President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”The statement comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers this week that the Trump administration is considering buying Greenland as he downplayed concerns about US military intervention in the short term, according to two sources familiar with the discussion. The administration’s aspirations related to the resource-rich, self-governing territory of Denmark had not been publicly mentioned in recent months, but officials were still discussing the matter behind the scenes.At the request of Rubio’s team, the State Department in recent months provided an analysis of the untapped resources in Greenland, including rare earths, according to a source familiar with the analysis. One conclusion was that there is no reliable study of how vast those resources may be. The assessment also said there would be tremendous cost in accessing the resources given the cold temperatures and lack of infrastructure, the source said.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Monday that Trump’s desires should be “taken seriously,” warning that a US military attack on Greenland could effectively end NATO. Greenland said Tuesday it has asked for a meeting with Rubio following the Trump administration’s recent statements. Trump has long eyed Greenland, a resource-rich island of 836,000 square miles strategically located between the US, Europe and Russia. Its rich deposits of natural resources, including oil, gas and rare earth minerals, make it even more strategically important. 
 

Punch » 06 Jan 2026, 10:09 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 10:09 pm

Territorial expansion is our Manifest Destiny. This nation needs to exist. It is humanity's last hope. I endorse Trump on this.

White House discussing options to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table

(Full article at above link)

The White House said Tuesday that President Donald Trump is “discussing a range of options” to acquire Greenland making clear that using the US military is not off the table.
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.
“President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”The statement comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers this week that the Trump administration is considering buying Greenland as he downplayed concerns about US military intervention in the short term, according to two sources familiar with the discussion. The administration’s aspirations related to the resource-rich, self-governing territory of Denmark had not been publicly mentioned in recent months, but officials were still discussing the matter behind the scenes.At the request of Rubio’s team, the State Department in recent months provided an analysis of the untapped resources in Greenland, including rare earths, according to a source familiar with the analysis. One conclusion was that there is no reliable study of how vast those resources may be. The assessment also said there would be tremendous cost in accessing the resources given the cold temperatures and lack of infrastructure, the source said.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Monday that Trump’s desires should be “taken seriously,” warning that a US military attack on Greenland could effectively end NATO. Greenland said Tuesday it has asked for a meeting with Rubio following the Trump administration’s recent statements. Trump has long eyed Greenland, a resource-rich island of 836,000 square miles strategically located between the US, Europe and Russia. Its rich deposits of natural resources, including oil, gas and rare earth minerals, make it even more strategically important.

Treating Greenland as a national security risk is another exaggeration. America is not under any threat by not having Greenland. It just gives us more geopolitical leverage in the Arctic region. Russia and China are not going to invade them for their ports and minerals. Denmark is already a NATO ally and our military base there, Thule, is very much operable. It is just another power move for corporations. Greenland is very mineral-rich. It has some of the largest undeveloped metal deposits in the world, all in one place. At the moment, China dominates global rare-Earth processing worldwide. Thus, they contract most of the rare-Earth metal supply for products related to AI, electronics, EVs, drones, and military capabilities. But it is controlled. They don't own the mines or control the supply. They have the most contracts for the supply, but they don't own them. They can be cut -off whenever NATO says so.

 

Vegas » 06 Jan 2026, 10:41 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 10:41 pm

Treating Greenland as a national security risk is another exaggeration. America is not under any threat by not having Greenland. It just gives us more geopolitical leverage in the Arctic region. Russia and China are not going to invade them for their ports and minerals. Denmark is already a NATO ally and our military base there, Thule, is very much operable. It is just another power move for corporations. Greenland is very mineral-rich. It has some of the largest undeveloped metal deposits in the world, all in one place. At the moment, China dominates global rare-Earth processing worldwide. Thus, they contract most of the rare-Earth metal supply for products related to AI, electronics, EVs, drones, and military capabilities. But it is controlled. They don't own the mines or control the supply. They have the most contracts for the supply, but they don't own them. They can be cut -off whenever NATO says so.

well said

Punch » 06 Jan 2026, 10:09 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 10:09 pm

Territorial expansion is our Manifest Destiny. This nation needs to exist. It is humanity's last hope. I endorse Trump on this.

White House discussing options to acquire Greenland, says military use isn’t off the table

(Full article at above link)

The White House said Tuesday that President Donald Trump is “discussing a range of options” to acquire Greenland making clear that using the US military is not off the table.
"President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Tuesday statement to CNN.
“President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”The statement comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers this week that the Trump administration is considering buying Greenland as he downplayed concerns about US military intervention in the short term, according to two sources familiar with the discussion. The administration’s aspirations related to the resource-rich, self-governing territory of Denmark had not been publicly mentioned in recent months, but officials were still discussing the matter behind the scenes.At the request of Rubio’s team, the State Department in recent months provided an analysis of the untapped resources in Greenland, including rare earths, according to a source familiar with the analysis. One conclusion was that there is no reliable study of how vast those resources may be. The assessment also said there would be tremendous cost in accessing the resources given the cold temperatures and lack of infrastructure, the source said.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Monday that Trump’s desires should be “taken seriously,” warning that a US military attack on Greenland could effectively end NATO. Greenland said Tuesday it has asked for a meeting with Rubio following the Trump administration’s recent statements. Trump has long eyed Greenland, a resource-rich island of 836,000 square miles strategically located between the US, Europe and Russia. Its rich deposits of natural resources, including oil, gas and rare earth minerals, make it even more strategically important.

It’s baffling to me that you guys are OK with this ****   
 

Mrkelly » 07 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm

It’s baffling to me that you guys are OK with this **** 

one word

TRUMP!!!!

Mrkelly » 07 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm

It’s baffling to me that you guys are OK with this **** 

trump owns the world.

Mrkelly » 07 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 12:38 pm

It’s baffling to me that you guys are OK with this ****   
 

 

We don't need to take control of the country.  We have an AF base there that used to be called Thule (has a new name) and during the cold war it housed almost 7,000 troops.  

Greenland is a a strategic area where you can control access to the North Atlantic, both commercial and military.  

Huey » 07 Jan 2026, 2:57 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 2:57 pm

We don't need to take control of the country.  We have an AF base there that used to be called Thule (has a new name) and during the cold war it housed almost 7,000 troops.  

Greenland is a a strategic area where you can control access to the North Atlantic, both commercial and military.

I appreciate the honesty 

let’s see if it holds when tRump goes through with it
 

Vegas » 06 Jan 2026, 10:41 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2026, 10:41 pm

Treating Greenland as a national security risk is another exaggeration. 

Those are your words, not Trump's.

Are you trying to be BV Lite...less filling, with the same tastelessness?
 

jerrab » 07 Jan 2026, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 1:51 pm

trump owns the world.

Damn right, and you just run around in it, like a spayed roach.

RebelGator » 07 Jan 2026, 5:55 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 5:55 pm

Those are your words, not Trump's.

Are you trying to be BV Lite...less filling, with the same tastelessness?

Those are Trump's words. Do you not pay attention?

Vegas » 07 Jan 2026, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 7:55 pm

Those are Trump's words. Do you not pay attention?

You better read it again.
 

Vegas » 07 Jan 2026, 7:55 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 7:55 pm

Those are Trump's words. Do you not pay attention?

Your word was risk, his word was priority.

Big difference. 

 

RebelGator » 07 Jan 2026, 8:03 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 8:03 pm

Your word was risk, his word was priority.

Big difference.

Semantics. That is what BV does. If it wasn't a risk, then it wouldn't be a priority.

Vegas » 07 Jan 2026, 8:08 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 8:08 pm

Semantics. That is what BV does. If it wasn't a risk, then it wouldn't be a priority.

It can be a priority and not a risk.

You may as well call me a no good **** as compare me to BV.

 

RebelGator » 07 Jan 2026, 8:27 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 8:27 pm

It can be a priority and not a risk.

 

How? Why would taking over a whole country be a priority for national security if there was no risk to our national security? 

Vegas » 07 Jan 2026, 8:31 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 8:31 pm

How? Why would taking over a whole country be a priority for national security if there was no risk to our national security?

I'll settle for possible future risk,  if you want to declare a truce.      

RebelGator » 07 Jan 2026, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Jan 2026, 8:35 pm

I'll settle for possible future risk,  if you want to declare a truce.    

Sure.