Well howdy, Trump-cult kids, it's Socialism again and today's topic is the North Atlantic Treaty and WWIII

Given that your Orange Man-child of a false deity is making noises to the effect of turning the U.S. military on Greenland, it seems pertinent to examine the agreement that's been in place since 1949. To wit:; Article 5 The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. Mhmm... pretty straight-forward, that. Sooo... first off, let's look at the "okay, doomer" factor of your boy's weakly reasoned/thinly veiled threat to invade: NATO nations are treaty bound to stand against *any* country that attacks a member state... meaning that he *could* theoretically- move to take Greenland but that would incur the wrath of the rest of NATO -which, given that Canada's right next door, that places hostile opposition directly between the U.S. and Greenland, roadblocks any overland lines of supply (maybe look up what happens in the FAFO zone when Canadians unlimber). In other words, the rest of NATO isn't impressed by your boy's saber-rattling. And, while it'd be nice to be able to say that attacking a NATO ally is unlikely to happen, let's keep in mind how buddy-buddy Donny John is with Putin, how much it would benefit Russia if the U.S. was out of NATO. And that brings us to Point 2: Russia, China is held in check by the threat of having to deal with the combined forces of NATO powers (which is not to say that Russia or China necessarily has a likely expansionist interest in Greenland, resources notwithstanding, what with having their fingers all up in Africa's business; Greenland's been there this whole time and the entire world has been aware of its abundance of mineral wealth since the early 1800s) and Russia's already demon- strated it barely has the military wherewithal to go punchies with the guy across the fence, let alone the gang down the block. And China? See: Africa, fingers all up in its business. There's no point in burning thru treasure, hardware and personnel to acquire resources by force when they can be secured by easier means. See, that's the thing: it's not about strategic military importance; Pituffik Airbase has had that ground covered since the 1950s. Think about it: if the current reasoning isn't just a lame excuse to justify imperialist ambitions, why is Pituffik under operational control of [LOL] **Space Force**? (no offense, Space Force, but let's be honest here: extra- planetary warfare is at least 100 years away; y'all are the product of a make-work, create- the-illusion-of-action directive). I mean... the current "reasoning" is pretty much the same as asserting that the U.S. needs to take over Taiwan because if we don't China will -i.e. totally nerps on a dollar. And it's not even about securing access to their mineral wealth -not directly, no; Greenland's been *open for business this whole time*. Seriously, if you want the low-down on how obviously bullshit Trump's reasoning is, SEE: mining in Greenland, Lumina Corp, ownership. No, the catch is a mix of logistics relative to remoteness, environment and political issues -specifically that, in Greenland, mining companies are obligated to operate clean, not to poison the locals/locale and to prioritize economic & social benefit to the indigenous population. Mhmm... given those factors, it looks remarkably like Dear Leader wants possession of Greenland so he can impose a policy of "screw the environ- ment, screw the locals; there's [resource X] in them thar hills!!" in a replay of what happened to continental Indigenous Americans during the 1800s, early 1900s. And then there's the speculative prospect of Greenland's future potential as a stop- over hub. Global Warming is causing the Arctic Ocean to be ice-free for longer and longer periods and may well, in the not too distant future, bring about a reality of year- round shipping lanes. So Greenland stands to make a tidy profit simply by virtue of access leasing alone --which, given that someone else would be doing all the work to develop port infrastructure while Greenland kicks its feet up, counts money and pats itself on the back, it makes sense the Orange Slackanape would be keen on Jack Horner-ing that pie. Sooo, yeah... there it is. You can deny it, but when it comes right down to brass tacks, your boy is playing a game that risks turning the U.S. into the primary Axis Power of WWIII. And for all our sakes, let's hope he either goes TACO or Congress removes him from the board.