President Donald Trump has said the U.S. will revisit its stance on Greenland in the coming weeks.

Asked if he expected to take action on the territory, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday: "Let's talk about Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine. We'll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let's talk about Greenland in 20 days."

He added: "We need Greenland from a national security situation. It's so strategic."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 192 points 9 months ago (11 children)
  • [โ€“] 31 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    ๐Ÿคท

    Even his most coherent quotes contradict themselves, and he talks shit all day long. And the phrasing "Greenland deadline" is a little too evocative for my taste, but clickbait is a must these days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [โ€“] 13 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    yes, it's not like actually already invaded a country and kidnapped its leader... I mean, stop exaggerating please

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 3 points 9 months ago

    It sounds like it's a deadline for Greenland, which sounds ominous, but really he just said "we'll talk about it". Damn I hate how the media sanewash Trump all the time. He's babbling! Don't report on it as if he said something of consequence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Apparently he thinks one month is ten days...

    But yeah, calling that a deadline is kinda clickbaity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    Plus, it sound slike some decision will be made then, when all he said was "let's talk about Greenland then".

    At best, it's a deadline for him and his advisors, not for Greenland. Which is ludicrous anyhow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    From what he actually said, it sounds like talks about a potential decision will begin then. That's not at all what a deadline is.

    The way it was reported made it sound like a decision was already made, and actions would be taken by then. That's not at all what he said though.

    There's already plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize him, so I can't stand when journalists distort things to make them seem even worse. It gives too much credence to the people defending him by framing all criticism as media spin.

    Things are already bad enough without reactionary sensationalism, so just focus on the facts without compromising journalistic integrity. Otherwise it's just disinformation, which doesn't help anyone. We're supposed to be better than this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    focus on the facts

    even contemplating invading Greenland is ludicrous

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 23 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    He added: "We need Greenland from a national security situation. It's so strategic."

    The US already has military bases on Greenland in accordance with diplomatic agreements. This isn't about national security or defense strategy. If it were, there would be diplomatic ways to increase US military presence. This risks losing the diplomatic agreements which allow the US to maintain a military presence there. It won't be very strategic if US forces get banished from the realm.

    This isn't about national defense. It's about natural resources. Trump wants to exploit Greenland for its rare minerals the same way he wants to exploit Venezuela for its crude oil.

    It's so transparent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] -4 points 9 months ago

    Greenland is strategic, in addition to mineral extraction. The GOP base may deny global warming, but the powers behind the throne get it. As the Arctic thaws and opens year-round shipping lanes, Greenland becomes prime territory to control.

    As to bases, that's a big chunk of land for our single base to cover. We'll want several in key locations.

    Should not have been surprised over Venezuela, the US has been scheming on that oil for over two decades, but I'd be surprised if we don't take Greenland, with no real pretense.

  • source
  • parent