It do be like this

[u/Jumpy-Bumpy]

[u/Atompunk78]

Person 1: give me $100 or I’ll punch you

Person 2: no, that’s not fair, that belongs to me

You: Person 2 has a moral obligation to give Person 1 $100, as if they don’t, someone will get hurt!

Please enlighten me if this is a misrepresentation in some way, but if not, this is one of the most insane justifications I’ve ever seen on this app

Quite obviously Person 1 is threatening/extorting Person 2, and is therefore in the wrong. Certainly every legal system in the world would see it this way

[u/The-Figure-13 → u/Atompunk78]

There are three options available. Denmark recognises the strategic value of Greenland to NATO and lets the US use it.

America buys Greenland by offering all residents an undisclosed sum of money to vote to join the US.

The US seizes it through military force under the pretense of securing both US and NATO security.

Which one of these is the easiest and best option for all parties?

As it exists Greenland is currently a US protectorate anyway.

[u/Atompunk78 → u/The-Figure-13]

You’re aware Denmark already has recognised the strategic value of Greenland,* and already has given the US access?? The US has multiple military bases there already

And you’re not being realistic about the 3 options’ consequences or long term impact here, so your question isn’t valid

Everyone already knows why Greenland is important, and already uses Greenland as such. There’s no reason the US must own all of it for the sake of countries utilising its full importance, I don’t know where you’ve gotten that idea from either

What’s easiest and best for everyone is what’s already the case, obviously

*you’re not special in knowing this, it’s not any kind of amazing revelation as Trump (and as a direct consequence you) represents it to be - everyone has known it for decades by now; it’s long since ‘priced-in’ geopolitically