"The United States always secures our interests, economically, militarily, either by force or purchase. Louisiana purchase. Alaska. The Philippines. We even got the Marshall Islands after World War II. You don't even know where they are. We got the Moon. I think we own it. I know we own it. And when the world changes, we change. So globalism is dead."
"We have to protect our own supply lines, we have to protect ourselves from missiles coming in from China, and we're going to do it whether they like it or not. Denmark should take the offer. Denmark cannot defend or develop the island, and they're in violation of their NATO obligations because they are sworn to defend all of their territory and they cannot defend it. They live under our security umbrella. It is a big, beautiful umbrella."
"It's like when you find out your great-grandmother has this amazing piece of real estate right on the coast and some big fat developer comes over and makes an amazing offer, and you don't even go to the property. You've never even see the estate and you don't have enough money to even build on it, he said. So someone comes here, slaps a check down, and you're gonna say no?"
The United States is portrayed as seeking to secure Greenland through purchase or force, invoking historical acquisitions such as the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, the Philippines, the Marshall Islands, and the Moon. Arguments cite economic and military reasons, including protecting supply lines and defending against missiles from China. Denmark is characterized as unable to defend or develop Greenland and therefore allegedly violating NATO obligations by failing to defend all its territory. A property metaphor compares offering to buy Greenland to a developer buying an unused coastal estate from an elderly owner. The rhetoric predicts U.S. negotiations and pressure will result in acquisition.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]