Greenland

#76
#76
Yes — the United States and Denmark do have an existing defense agreement that gives the U.S. broad military access to Greenland, though it’s not a full “sovereignty transfer” or unconditional U.S. ownership.

Here’s what that means:

✔️ Existing Defense Agreement​

  • The U.S. and Denmark first signed a Defense of Greenland agreement in 1951 under NATO auspices.
  • That treaty allows U.S. military forces to use facilities in Greenland (most notably Thule Air Base, now known as Pituffik Space Base) in the context of the defense of Greenland and the broader North Atlantic area, in cooperation with Denmark.
  • It gives the U.S. forces free access and movement through Greenland territory by land, air, and sea for defense purposes, subject to Danish and NATO coordination. (United Nations Legal Affairs)

✔️ Current Access Under NATO Framework​

  • Because Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark is a NATO member, Article 5 of NATO’s collective defense applies — meaning an attack on Greenland would be treated as an attack on all NATO members, including the U.S.
  • The 1951 agreement works within that NATO framework and is intended to facilitate combined defense cooperation rather than cede sovereignty. (United Nations Treaty Collection)

✔️ U.S. Military Presence​

  • The U.S. operates a major base (Pituffik) in Greenland under this defense framework.
  • The Danish government has confirmed that existing arrangements “already give the United States wide access to Greenland” as part of mutual defense cooperation. (Business Insider)

❗ Important Clarifications​

  • This agreement does not transfer sovereignty or give the U.S. ownership or control of Greenland. Greenland remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and decisions about its territory require Danish (and increasingly Greenlandic) consent.
  • There is no separate agreement granting unfettered rights outside the defense context — and any expansion of U.S. access still requires Danish and Greenlandic approval. (GovInfo)

Context in Current Politics​

  • Recent political rhetoric (e.g., claims about U.S. wanting to “take over” Greenland) has brought attention to these defense ties, but the formal legal basis for U.S. presence remains the 1951 defense agreement and NATO cooperation, not a new treaty ceding control. (reuters.com)
If you want, I can provide a plain-language summary of the 1951 agreement showing the exact provisions that govern U.S. access to Greenland.
 
#77
#77
Yes — the United States and Denmark do have an existing defense agreement that gives the U.S. broad military access to Greenland, though it’s not a full “sovereignty transfer” or unconditional U.S. ownership.

Here’s what that means:

✔️ Existing Defense Agreement​

  • The U.S. and Denmark first signed a Defense of Greenland agreement in 1951 under NATO auspices.
  • That treaty allows U.S. military forces to use facilities in Greenland (most notably Thule Air Base, now known as Pituffik Space Base) in the context of the defense of Greenland and the broader North Atlantic area, in cooperation with Denmark.
  • It gives the U.S. forces free access and movement through Greenland territory by land, air, and sea for defense purposes, subject to Danish and NATO coordination. (United Nations Legal Affairs)

✔️ Current Access Under NATO Framework​

  • Because Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark is a NATO member, Article 5 of NATO’s collective defense applies — meaning an attack on Greenland would be treated as an attack on all NATO members, including the U.S.
  • The 1951 agreement works within that NATO framework and is intended to facilitate combined defense cooperation rather than cede sovereignty. (United Nations Treaty Collection)

✔️ U.S. Military Presence​

  • The U.S. operates a major base (Pituffik) in Greenland under this defense framework.
  • The Danish government has confirmed that existing arrangements “already give the United States wide access to Greenland” as part of mutual defense cooperation. (Business Insider)

❗ Important Clarifications​

  • This agreement does not transfer sovereignty or give the U.S. ownership or control of Greenland. Greenland remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and decisions about its territory require Danish (and increasingly Greenlandic) consent.
  • There is no separate agreement granting unfettered rights outside the defense context — and any expansion of U.S. access still requires Danish and Greenlandic approval. (GovInfo)

Context in Current Politics​

  • Recent political rhetoric (e.g., claims about U.S. wanting to “take over” Greenland) has brought attention to these defense ties, but the formal legal basis for U.S. presence remains the 1951 defense agreement and NATO cooperation, not a new treaty ceding control. (reuters.com)
If you want, I can provide a plain-language summary of the 1951 agreement showing the exact provisions that govern U.S. access to Greenland.

So, you have the ability to put something in a prompt, bravo. None of that really means anything though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LittleVol
#78
#78
Are the Danish opposed to allowing us to develop Greenland resources through mutual agreement? Far less costly to just let the free market work than to pursue an overheated military solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#79
#79
Are the Danish opposed to allowing us to develop Greenland resources through mutual agreement? Far less costly to just let the free market work than to pursue an overheated military solution.
They definitely should allow the US to do that. We've been buying up their Royal Dansk butter cookies for decades.
 
#80
#80
MontyPython is correct that we cannot attack Greenland. In theory, we probably could and I doubt NATO would go to war with us (partially because we are too strong for them to fight us).

However, one of the MAJOR points in creating NATO was to stop European wars. It wasn't just about Russia, it was about what happened in 1914 and 1939 and preventing that from occurring again. The thought is that if Europe was allied with itself in a defensive structure, they would no longer fight each other.

If Trump was to threaten Denmark, it would blow that open. Who is to say that Germany doesn't try to make claims again on lands it lost like Silesia and Pomerania (part of Poland today) or Alsace-Lorraine (the Germany speaking part of France around Strasbourg which, frankly, was the reason WW1 and WW2 even happened).

EU and NATO killed the old European squabbles over land (well at least in West and Central Europe. Russia-Ukraine is basically a squabble over land). USA could literally tear that Band-Aid off and start it all over again if we claim Greenland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#81
#81
MontyPython is correct that we cannot attack Greenland. In theory, we probably could and I doubt NATO would go to war with us (partially because we are too strong for them to fight us).
d.

"We"? the U.S. can take over Greenland if the President says go.
 
#84
#84
I've yet to see anything from Trump or any of his sycophants, stating what additional security access to Greenland the US needs, that we can only get with it being US territory.
 
#85
#85
I've yet to see anything from Trump or any of his sycophants, stating what additional security access to Greenland the US needs, that we can only get with it being US territory.

I looked at it differently, Greenland can't protect itself and not only are the Europeans (some country) not going to protect them... they'll probably be the ones to come in and take over.

I see nothing wrong with the offer, its their choice but if they get taken over... that's all on them at that point.
 
#87
#87
MontyPython is correct that we cannot attack Greenland. In theory, we probably could and I doubt NATO would go to war with us (partially because we are too strong for them to fight us).

However, one of the MAJOR points in creating NATO was to stop European wars. It wasn't just about Russia, it was about what happened in 1914 and 1939 and preventing that from occurring again. The thought is that if Europe was allied with itself in a defensive structure, they would no longer fight each other.

If Trump was to threaten Denmark, it would blow that open. Who is to say that Germany doesn't try to make claims again on lands it lost like Silesia and Pomerania (part of Poland today) or Alsace-Lorraine (the Germany speaking part of France around Strasbourg which, frankly, was the reason WW1 and WW2 even happened).

EU and NATO killed the old European squabbles over land (well at least in West and Central Europe. Russia-Ukraine is basically a squabble over land). USA could literally tear that Band-Aid off and start it all over again if we claim Greenland.
Putin's been working the Orange Bloviator for years to weaken NATO. Us swiping Greenland would go far toward destroying it.
 
#88
#88
Putin's been working the Orange Bloviator for years to weaken NATO. Us swiping Greenland would go far toward destroying it.

Exactly, Greenland doesn't have to worry about Russia, they have to worry about all the good guys. 😂

The forum seems like its just full of suicidal people.
 
#89
#89
I looked at it differently, Greenland can't protect itself and not only are the Europeans (some country) not going to protect them... they'll probably be the ones to come in and take over.

I see nothing wrong with the offer, its their choice but if they get taken over... that's all on them at that point.

That still doesn't answer the question as to "why it would need to be US territory to be adequately protected" in Trump's uninformed view.
 
#90
#90
That still doesn't answer the question as to "why it would need to be US territory to be adequately protected" in Trump's uninformed view.

Because why would the U.S. protect them? Let them figure it out.... freedom.
 
#93
#93
Because it's part of Denmark, a NATO member, we'd be obligated to defend them in an Article 5 scenario.
So what? Cancel the agreement, whatever makes you feel good.

But you have been sending the CIA into various countries for 40 years in violation of multiple agreements. This has been explained to you countless times.

Why would any sane person think any of these agreements have any value?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#94
#94
So what? Cancel the agreement, whatever makes you feel good.

But you have been sending the CIA into various countries for 40 years in violation of multiple agreements. This has been explained to you countless times.

Why would any sane person think any of these agreements have any value?

Lol, you asked why we'd defend them without them being US territory, and that's why.
 
#95
#95
Lol, you asked why we'd defend them without them being US territory, and that's why.

Why would we continue? There is nothing in it for me or us. If you want to go over there, nobody is stopping you. From a logical standpoint they are not paying for anything. Why would I care if the Germany took them over? I don't.
 
#96
#96
Why would we continue? There is nothing in it for me or us. If you want to go over there, nobody is stopping you. From a logical standpoint they are not paying for anything. Why would I care if the Germany took them over? I don't.

Because we are a member of NATO, and the only NATO member to ever actually invoke Article 5.

You admittedly don't actually vote, so no one cares whether you feel that US NATO membership is beneficial to you personally or not.
 
#97
#97
Because we are a member of NATO, and the only NATO member to ever actually invoke Article 5.

You admittedly don't actually vote, so no one cares whether you feel that US NATO membership is beneficial to you personally or not.

Nobody cares how i feel even if I did vote which is why I don't vote. 😂All you nuts will most probably continue to be insane.

Those agreements don't mean anything.
 
#99
#99
Nobody cares whether even if I did vote which is why I don't vote. 😂

Those agreements don't mean anything.

Seems like they do actually.

NATO: Coalition Contributions to the War on Terrorism​

On September 12, 2001, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) met in emergency session and, for the first time in its history, invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. Our Allies have delivered on that obligation with concrete actions, both individually and collectively:

  • All 19 NATO Allies and the 9 NATO "aspirants" have provided blanket overflight rights, ports/bases access, refueling assistance, and increased law-enforcement cooperation. NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) crews logged over 3,000 hours patrolling and protecting American skies while U.S. planes were called to Afghanistan.
  • 16 Allies now support Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan and the global campaign against terrorism, Operation Noble Eagle. 14 Allies have deployed forces in the region. 9 Allies are participating in combat operations.
  • Allies and other partner countries have deployed nearly 4,000 troops to Afghanistan and also provide 95% of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), led first by the United Kingdom and now by Turkey.

Belgium:

  • Led the largest multinational humanitarian assistance mission to Afghanistan from October 6-29, 2001, providing 90 metric tons of a food supplements.
  • Contributed four aircrews for NATO AWACS to assist in U.S. homeland security efforts at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, OK.
  • Provided liaison officers, analysts, and communication specialists to U.S. military efforts.
Canada:
  • Special Operations Forces are currently operating in Afghanistan supporting multiple missions.
  • Light Infantry Battle Group with 830 personnel completed many security and combat operations.
  • Navy making substantial contribution to our Arabian Sea interdiction efforts; completed over half undertaken so far.
Czech Republic:
  • Deployed its 6th Field Hospital to Bagram, Afghanistan, to provide medical support to ISAF.
  • Providing a transport aircraft to support NATO AWACS; transported 733 persons and 11 tons of cargo in 46 flights.
  • Stationed its Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons decontamination/detection unit in Kuwait.
Denmark:
  • Deployed 100 Special Operations Forces personnel to Afghanistan as part of a unit under U.S. command.
  • Provided one C-130 aircraft and a contingent of ground support personnel in Manas, Kyrgyzstan, for in-theater transportation.
  • Six F-16 aircraft deployed to Manas in October 2002.
France:
  • Deployed an infantry company to Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan to provide area security.
  • Provided France's only carrier battle group to support combat operations in the North Arabian Sea.
  • Provided humanitarian assistance, and national and coalition airlift support in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
  • Deployed marines, army mountain forces, land-based strike aircraft, and a carrier battle group to assist OEF; after the U.S., in 2002, France has been the single largest military contributor.
Germany:
  • For the first time in more than fifty years, deployed combat ships and maritime aircraft for operations outside Europe.
  • Lead country in establishing and training the Afghan police force; Special Operations forces presently are conducting missions in Afghanistan.
  • German-led contingent of 1,300 soldiers (including 200 Dutch personnel) commands Multi-National Brigade with responsibility for Kabul.
Greece:
  • Conducting operations, under the control of the Coalition Forces Maritime Component Commander, with the 210 crewmember frigate Psara, an Aegean Hawk helicopter, and a Special Forces team.
  • Deployed C-130 transport aircraft, one engineer company, and staff officers to Afghanistan.
  • Providing naval and air bases in Crete as logistics sites.
  • Contributed aircrews for NATO AWACS providing security flights over the U.S.
Hungary:
  • Expanded counterterrorism training at International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest.
  • Provided 6 battalions worth of equipment to Afghan National Army, including small arms, ammunition, coats, and mess kits.
Italy:
  • Deployed 440 military personnel to ISAF.
  • Supporting combat operations in the North Arabian Sea with own carrier battle group. Deployed more than 13% of its entire naval forces to OEF in Afghanistan.
  • Transported more than 17,000 lbs. of supplies and equipment to Pakistan.
  • Deploying 1,000 Alpini, their elite ground troops.
Netherlands:
  • Operating two naval frigates in Persian Gulf area.
  • Deployed 495 personnel, including 224 military personnel, in Afghanistan with ISAF.
  • Six F-16 aircraft deployed to Manas in October 2002.
Norway:
  • 10 mine-clearing vehicles and personnel cleared more than 750,000 square yards on Qandahar and Bagram airfields.
  • Special Operations Forces have conducted operations in Afghanistan. Contributed to NATO AWACS over U.S.
  • Six F-16 aircraft deployed to Manas in October 2002.
Poland:
  • Combat engineers and logistics platoon forces in Bagram have assisted in construction and fortification, and provided logistical support.
  • Cleared more than 4,000 square yards of mines.
  • Assisting in maritime operations related to OEF.
Portugal:
  • Deployed one eight-person medical team to ISAF.
  • Provided blanket overflight and landing rights at Laja Air Base.
Spain:
  • 350 soldiers participating in the ISAF.
  • Maintained 50-person hospital at Bagram until September 2002 to treat soldiers and civilians.
  • 400 additional military personnel involved in: international task force monitoring and patrolling air and sea off the Horn of Africa for potential terrorist activity; and maintaining one Hercules airplane and two helicopters in Kyrgyzstan for search and rescue.
Turkey:
  • ISAF lead nation (since June 20, 2002), providing 1,400 troops. Tour concludes in December 2002.
  • Special Forces liaison officer detailed to the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan.
  • Five Turkish ships participating in NATO counterterrorism operations in the Mediterranean.
United Kingdom:
  • Provided unconditional diplomatic support and military assistance following September 11th: Launched cruise missiles, inserted Special Forces, contributed thousands of soldiers to toppling the Taliban, provided aerial and naval support, and opened key U.K. bases to support U.S. operations.
  • Deployed the largest naval task force to OEF since deployments during the Gulf War.
  • From January-July 2002, led ISAF with over 4,000 personnel; supporting current Turkish lead with nearly 500 soldiers.
  • British Commodore Fanshawe serves as Deputy Combined Joint Force, Maritime Component.
  • Providing aerial refueling and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support. Military staff attached to major U.S. component commands.






Contributions by NATO's Candidate Countries to the War on Terrorism







Albania:

  • Provided elite commando detachment under Turkish command to ISAF.
  • Donated small arms and ammunition, as well as mortars and shells, to equip one battalion of the Afghan National Army.
Bulgaria:
  • Provided a nuclear, biological, and chemical decontamination unit to Afghanistan as part of ISAF.
  • Hosted the deployment of six U.S. KC-135 aircraft and 200 support personnel at Burgas, the first stationing of foreign forces in Bulgaria since WWII.
  • Donated and airlifted arms and ammunition to the Afghan National Army.
Estonia:
  • Deployed two explosive detection dog teams for airbase operations in Afghanistan.
Latvia:
  • Granted U.S. blanket overflight clearance.
Lithuania:
  • Provided doctors to a Czech medical unit in ISAF.
  • Approved the deployment of 40 Special Operations forces to support US troops as part of OEF.
Macedonia:
  • Two Macedonian officers seconded to a Turkish unit in ISAF. Taken measures to prevent attacks against U.S. service personnel in Macedonia and Kosovo.
Romania:
  • Deployed a motorized infantry battalion of 450 soldiers in Afghanistan, extended until July 2003.
  • Deployed a military police platoon of 58 soldiers and two C-130 transport aircraft.
  • Donated 1,000 assault rifles and 300,000 rounds of ammunition to the Afghan National Army.
Slovakia:
  • Deployed a unit of engineers in Afghanistan.
  • Granted overflight, landing, and refueling rights.
Slovenia:
  • Donated over 80 metric tons of arms and ammunition for equipping and training the Afghan National Army.
  • Providing demining and mine victims assistance.

Released on November 12, 2002
 

Advertisement



Back
Top