@DBrodyReports "A bigger, permanent U.S. security footprint in Greenland" which the US already had.
"and a way to keep China and Russia out." they were already out.
So what are you celebrating?
It's like celebrating having a car you've already owned for a long time. That's stupid.
@ratlpolicy congratulations to you. US finally got access to some bases they already had permission for since 1951. π
it's like celebrating getting a new car you've already owned for many years. That's stupid.
but i don't expect retards like you to understand that
@nickshirleyy no you didn't get control of Greenland. Greenland is still part of the Danish kingdom. The US, on the other hand, was allowed to build bases which you have been allowed to do since 1951. but nice attempt at lying
@superchudlord@MattMorseTV no, you can't deny any agreements as that would be against the Danish constitution. and as for "extra permission" it has never existed. US already just had to say where they want a base and denmark/greenland will okay with that, so nothing new there.
@superchudlord@MattMorseTV greenland is still part of the kingdom of Denmark. nothing has changed. The us could build bases and gain access to resources
and if Greenland get independece the deal was still the same before the "new trump deal"
@BergqvistRene@RepJackKimble "severely limiting the sovereignty"
no, the USA cannot, as it would be contrary to the Danish constitution and Danish politicians have to follow the Danish constitution otherwise it would be illegal, but nice try with your lies
@MattMorseTV The Danish government cannot simply change the constitution, it will be a long process and will ultimately require a referendum before it can be changed.
@MattMorseTV "Trumpβs 2026 deal requires U.S. approval before foreign nations can invest in Greenland."
Good try with your lies. (and your followers will probably eat it raw) But that agreement cannot be done, as it would be in violation of the Danish constitution.
@legitbrittFLA@hrritho@OJoelsen nice try with your lies. But no: there is nothing new in the agreement. For example, your post says that the US should have a say in who Greenland trades with: that would be against the Danish constitution and therefore illegal.
@hrritho@OJoelsen now?
are you stupid or something? heard about the 1951 agreement between Denmark and the US?
no?
so let me tell you that Denmark has allowed the US to establish bases in Greenland since 1951, to defend the US and NATO. so nothing "new" in trump's "agreement"
@Timcast no you didn't πGreenland will still remain as a part of the danish kingdom. We have let you build bases as part of an agreement Denmark and US made in 1951.
@johannsen_tony@OJoelsen "NATO is not the United States." πyes it is, no matter how many times you try to lie about it.
"You are going to be very cold this winter." πno we dont.
"You are being invaded by 3rd world military aged men" 3rd world person like you? no, you are not going to invade anyone
@RedWaveSZN@OJoelsen I have no doubt that you can take Greenland in an hour.
I could also go up to a weak old lady and beat her up and steal her money. But I won't do that.
That's the difference between people like you and me: I have the morals to understand what's right and wrong, you don't.