It’s not until you research that your “ally” Denmark has been lying since their pledge to spend 2% GDP on defense during the 2006 Riga NATO summit. The US taxpayers have been contributing past the 2% (giving more tax money) because Denmark only wants to pay between 1.2% to 1.4% each year despite making hundreds of millions to a billion in trade with the US each year. In short, they have been profiting off of the US in trade, and have been choosing (not failing due to inability) to skip out on their word of giving 2% GDP for defense. Also they tried getting China to dig up the minerals and put down infrastructure in Greenland even though they had other options to choose from, so not the most dependable ally. I mean, they aren’t even strategically important geographically speaking, only Greenland is yet both the Greenlander and Denmark residents say Denmark has been lazy about getting security for Greenland. I think “hands over strategically important location to the enemy” and “makes allie’s citizens pay billions and hundreds of millions in taxes because we are too selfish to contribute what we said we would” are a couple of good places to start. Where is my dad’s, mine, my brothers and sisters, my friends, and other US citizens tax money Denmark?
@@retrodripsupport7510 no, no. Try to explain the reasoning if you are capable of it. Anger is fine, but it must be justified with logic and reason. We spend more with US defense because our allies seem to lack the vigor to do so, meaning we have to make up for their shortcomings. Meaning we have to tax our citizens more and float our dollar more to compensate for their lack of zeal. If your allies are strong you won’t have to spend as much. As it stands, our European allies for nearly 20 years (2006 Riga NATO summit) chose deliberately not to. Some could not, and we understand for them. But those who could however and simply chose not to, we aren’t exactly peachy about.
There should be an auction and the sale shiuld be for gold. Solid gold. Highest bidder gets greenland. The gold shold be given immediately after the sale. No iou. Let us see who wins.
Let the bidding _war_ for Greenland begin! Auction it off. That way Greenland will get a better price than by accepting a direct offer from the USA. Which nation do you expect will win? The USA, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia?
How in the hell are things belonging to other countries considered in the interest of the US government
It’s not until you research that your “ally” Denmark has been lying since their pledge to spend 2% GDP on defense during the 2006 Riga NATO summit. The US taxpayers have been contributing past the 2% (giving more tax money) because Denmark only wants to pay between 1.2% to 1.4% each year despite making hundreds of millions to a billion in trade with the US each year.
In short, they have been profiting off of the US in trade, and have been choosing (not failing due to inability) to skip out on their word of giving 2% GDP for defense.
Also they tried getting China to dig up the minerals and put down infrastructure in Greenland even though they had other options to choose from, so not the most dependable ally. I mean, they aren’t even strategically important geographically speaking, only Greenland is yet both the Greenlander and Denmark residents say Denmark has been lazy about getting security for Greenland.
I think “hands over strategically important location to the enemy” and “makes allie’s citizens pay billions and hundreds of millions in taxes because we are too selfish to contribute what we said we would” are a couple of good places to start.
Where is my dad’s, mine, my brothers and sisters, my friends, and other US citizens tax money Denmark?
It's called being a Superpower.
durrrrrrr its not fair durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
@@retrodripsupport7510 no, no. Try to explain the reasoning if you are capable of it. Anger is fine, but it must be justified with logic and reason.
We spend more with US defense because our allies seem to lack the vigor to do so, meaning we have to make up for their shortcomings. Meaning we have to tax our citizens more and float our dollar more to compensate for their lack of zeal.
If your allies are strong you won’t have to spend as much. As it stands, our European allies for nearly 20 years (2006 Riga NATO summit) chose deliberately not to. Some could not, and we understand for them. But those who could however and simply chose not to, we aren’t exactly peachy about.
@ sir this is a TH-cam comment section, i'm not writing a dissertation to anons all day. No serious person spends this much time on YT comments.
Number 4: Greenland is not for sale! Can CNBC get some marginally smart people on the show?
Maybe there won't be a price.
There should be an auction and the sale shiuld be for gold. Solid gold. Highest bidder gets greenland. The gold shold be given immediately after the sale. No iou. Let us see who wins.
Let the bidding _war_ for Greenland begin! Auction it off. That way Greenland will get a better price than by accepting a direct offer from the USA. Which nation do you expect will win? The USA, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia?
Remember Japan starting a war for minerals? Didn't work out too well.
You mean the US imposed embargo against Japan.
@@jeffs4483 gov hates free trade and capitalism.
you are smooth-brained, apples and oranges dummy