There is literally no scenario in which it could possibly be "necessary" to invade Greenland.
How long are people going to continue to pretend that the US is not being governed by malicious lunatics?
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
27 points (90.9% liked)
BoycottUnitedStates
483 readers
352 users here now
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
It always has been. They're just going full mask off now.
Actually there is, and the plans most likely predate Trump's first term. The US military has all kinds of plans to invade every square foot of land on earth.
The military had a shitload of plans on how to respond to Soviet military advances, including occupying strategically important locations like Greenland (for a forward base) and Panama (to disrupt shipping/commerce). The US Space Force (ugh) has a base on Greenland already, because it is a strategic location. If the USSR was able to occupy it first, it would be necessary to retake the area and they spent decades coming up with all kinds of plans for different scenarios!
So this is 100% Pete using something that already existed and promoting it as something the current administration came up with and mischaracterizing the reason that it exists in the first place.
Greenland would always more likely ask to be 'strategically occupied' than risk being invaded by Sovjet forces. I think that still holds true today. Since you can only be invaded against your will, i don't really agree that the scenario you mention can be considered 'a necessary invasion' because the scenario in which you are invited by the host country is very very different to the scenario when you're going there uninvited.
The US would see it as necessary for US interests, not for the residents of Greenland.
Mr. Binge n' Leaks couldn't have made it any more clearer, they will invade Greenland once Greenland does not concede to their rule.
Admittedly, most countries have wild plans; a family friend helped update Canada's plans to counter attack America a few years back.
Having a defensive contingency plan is not the same as an offensive contingency plan.
That seems perfectly reasonable to plan for.
How is this 'defence'?
Europe needs to get rid of US dependencies. If a war were to start, their army would be helpless after the US shuts it off remotely. The entire economy of the EU would can also just be turned off by presidential order.
If this is true, why hasn't it leaked on signal yet?
Developed plans?
What's that?
Just "invasion" written in crayon on a map over probably the wrong countries?
I don’t condone alcoholism, but this loser can go drown in a barrel of bottom shelf bourbon.