Worked pretty well in Venezuela. There's basically no one in Greenland, including non-US military personnel. Invading it would be unlike any other invasion. 500 marines with sidearms could take Nuuk easily, 100 probably could. If they send 10,000 heavily armed troops with air support and armor do you really think there's going to be resistance? You guys could send your entire army there and they'd still just surrender when the planes start landing.

Israel is in the right, and is a good ally. Palestine has been run by terrorists supported by their people for decades. In Palestine, selling property to a Jew gets you the death penalty. That's not an exaggeration. They are violent bigoted shitheads. Israel did their best to support a two-state solution for 80 years and was attacked at every turn, told repeatedly that they did not have the right to exist. Enough is enough, anyone with more than half a brain can see this. If Palestine wants to continue to exist they have to oppose terrorism against Israel rather than openly supporting it. They are unwilling. Global support for them is entirely based in ignorance.

You do realize your projecting here. A thief calling a home owner a thief. a killer calling the victim a murderer. Ultimately there are over 60,000 dead bodies in Gaza. Also you miss-spoke - Palestine does in fact NOT EXIST and Israel has been and continues to take steps to ensure it never does - with the Support of the US. Unwilling? Israel is unwilling for Palestine to exist. This is documented fact. Global support for a ethnic minority is not based on ignorance, it is based on a simple notion of morality, something which does not appear to exist in your world view.

To bring this back on topic, if the US takes Greenland, and starts oppressing the indigenous population - when they try to protest, and they go the way of the indians and the palestinians, you will say the same thing :

The US is in the right. Greenland has been run by terrorists. They are violent bigoted shitheads. If Greenland wants to continue to exist they have to oppose terrorism against US rather than openly supporting it. They are unwilling. Global support for them is entirely based in ignorance.

I understand your position. Might is Right.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 10 2026 01:57am

WW3 is gonna be HELLA lit




















And radioactive

If militant Greenlanders kidnap teenage girls and drags their brutalized, stripped corpses through the streets of Nuuk while thousands cheer, then yes I will say they are terrorists and get what they deserve. I find that circumstance unlikely in Greenland, although it is exactly what happened in Gaza.

Some of the most inhumane takes ever🤡 you think an isolated act of terrorism warrants A full blown genocide ? Wild..

This post was edited by AndrewTate on Jan 10 2026 02:14am

The definition of insanity: repeating the same thing and expecting a different result. While your narrow perspective may limit your understanding of history, it has repeatedly shown that when a larger country invades a smaller one, uprisings occur — and they are brutally crushed by the invader. Your argument — ‘I find that circumstance unlikely in Greenland, although it is exactly what happened in Gaza’ — is not logical. History doesn’t care about what you think is likely. For every Hawaii, there are a dozen Gazas.

The U.S. became deeply involved in the democratic republic of Iran after discovering its oil. I say “democratic,” but through U.S. involvement, that democracy was destroyed. The U.S. propped up a dictator — the Shah — whose regime helped secure American access to Iran's oil. When widespread domestic opposition overthrew the Shah, Iran stopped allowing the U.S. to control its oil and thus ceased to be a U.S. “ally.” By that time, the country had lost much of its democratic institutions — a direct consequence of U.S. involvement.

Iran had never been an ally in the traditional sense; it was a source of resources the U.S. wanted, which justified American interference in its internal affairs. These are words on a page, but in reality the U.S. significantly destabilized a country whose history goes back thousands of years. During the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq War, the U.S. supported its “ally” Iraq, effectively conducting a proxy war against Iran, its former “ally,” because the U.S. still wanted that oil. The U.S. did not get that oil, but Iraq killed a lot of Iranians.

Some time later, Iraq, an "ally" of the U.S., accused Kuwait of overproducing oil and slant-drilling into Iraqi fields. When Iraq sought international support, the U.S. response was to practically invite Iraq to invade Kuwait, in much the same way the U.S. invited Russia to invade Ukraine. They wanted it to happen. Iraq then invaded Kuwait in 1990, which the U.S. used as justification for military intervention and the Gulf War. The claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was based on the premise that it had acquired them decades earlier from the U.S.; however, postwar evidence showed that Iraq had, in fact, destroyed these weapons years prior — a point largely ignored by the international community. The sequence is telling: no WMDs? Iraq invaded Kuwait anyway. Kuwait economically provoked Iraq? Iraq sought international redress. No help came. The lesson: U.S. interests, not alliance or fairness, dictated the outcome.

Looking at Greenland and Denmark today, the pattern repeats: strategic resources, perceived weakness, and unilateral U.S. power dictate action, not loyalty or fairness — history shows that “might makes right” always favors the actor with the ability to impose it, while former allies and dependents are expendable.

The reason why the West is now viewing America warily is that traditionally, the U.S. did not attack its allies and reacted rather than proactively bombing countries (like Iran) unprovoked. Allowing Israel to strike Qatar was dipping a toe in the pool; attacking Greenland would be diving in headfirst.

China reevaluated its position more than ten years ago when Obama announced the U.S. pivot to Asia. Traditional U.S. “allies” are now reassessing their relationship with America in light of its threats against them. If the Family Guard Dog has rabies, perhaps it’s time to get a new Dog. In this regard, it can be argued that the notion of “might makes right” is isolating America — culturally, physically, and geopolitically. You can beat the guy down the street, your next-door neighbor. Now you are abusing your wife and kids. You carry a gun. Therapy is not going to fix this.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 10 2026 02:53am

Is it isolated if a vast majority of the population supports it?



The US not only propped up a dictator in Iran, they sent one guy in with a briefcase containing $2m USD and he overthrew the only democratically elected leader Iran has ever had. We've done worse than that too. If you think my position is that America is perfect, you couldn't be more wrong. America is just better than every other superpower in world history, by leaps and bounds. It's not even close from a moral perspective. The USA could have taken control of at least half of western Europe after ww2. By European standards, they had every right, at the very least to Germany and Italy. All you guys stole a slice of the pie after ww1 lol when are you giving those territories back? America instead spent a fortune helping to rebuild Europe, and another fortune helping to defend it. This is totally unprecedented in world history.

Your point on Iraq-Kuwait seems to be mixing up things from the first and second gulf wars. Iraq undoubtedly had WMDs(chemical weapons) during the first gulf war, they used them against their own people. That's not deniable... It's also a complete lie that these came from America, they produced their own chemical weapons, obviously. Lol you think America was sending sarin gas to Saddam Hussein? Jesus Christ. Is this your AI again?

The actions of NATO are not only America's fault though, you get your share of the blame for Ukraine too lol. Hilarious to pretend not to be part of the alliance when it does something that you decide in hindsight that you didn't like. Did your country oppose it in 2014? Unless you're from Turkey, the answer is no, you supported everything that we now know would end up causing the war. By your logic, your country "invited Russia to invade Ukraine", that wasn't a very nice thing to do. You aren't a victim, you are a co-conspirator.

If you think you can find a new "guard dog", fuckin try. There hasn't been a nation willing to do the things that America has done for you in all of human history. Your country has the right to pull out of NATO. Encourage your leaders to do it, if you really believe that would be good for you.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Jan 10 2026 04:14am

Seeing whats been going on they were definently in the right to support it lmao

You think they were right to support the murder and mutilation of a little girl for the crime of being Jewish?

You're right, I'm the one with the inhumane takes.

My country is not in Nato, thanks! Every country close to the US has to be very careful in condemning the US when it does bad things, as they may be next. THAT is the world that the US has created.