Venezuela - President Nicolas Maduro & his wife "captured and flown out of country" by U.S. Army Delta Force during "large scale attack" - Jan 3, 2026

[LAborn]

Just a few examples from my link. The hypocrisy is glaring.

Sen. Chris Murphy​

• THEN: “If Trump cared about consistency, he would make the realist case for intervention in Venezuela (getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States) rather than trying to pretend his Administration all of the sudden cares about toppling anti-democratic regimes.” (1/23/19)
• NOW: “The invasion of Venezuela has nothing to do with American security. Venezuela is not a security threat to the U.S.” (1/4/26)

Sen. Tim Kaine​

• THEN: “This is a deeply concerning development for Venezuelans and for the entire region, since instability abroad impacts us here at home, too.” (9/2/24)
• NOW: “President Trump’s unauthorized military attack on Venezuela to arrest Maduro… is a sickening return to a day when the United States asserted the right to dominate the internal political affairs of all nations in the Western Hemisphere.” (1/3/26)

Misleading and out of context. The focus and heart of the problem is: US cannot take military action on foreign soil without congressional approval. US cannot kidnap people. US cannot steal resources from other countries. US can't take over other sovereign countries. This is against international law.

 

[Mo Thuairim]

People in the US are very often far too focused on domestic politics when it comes to discussing the US's 'adventures' abroad.

Non-Americans don't care what party your president is from. We just don't want you electing some madman who thinks annexing other countries is his god-given right.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Interesting .... News18 from India reported a year ago that under the 1917 agreement by which the US acquired then Danish colonies which became the USVI, the US recognised that Greenland was Danish in perpetuity.

And the agreement further provided that if ever Denmark wanted to dispose of the territory the UK would have first refusal.

https://www.news18.com/videos/world/uk-has-first-right-to-buy-greenland-from-denmark-a-1917-deal-trump-has-never-heard-of-says-9204389.html

This needs some digging into but is certainly an interesting new twist.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

This needs some digging into but is certainly an interesting new twist.

So this was also reported in various mainstream media outlets last January:

Sorry, Trump: this pact says Britain has first dibs on Greenland

The president is said to be raging at Denmark for the right to buy the strategic Arctic island. But a century-old document could stand in his way

www.thetimes.com

Access Restricted

Unfortunately they are behind paywalls but maybe someone else has access.

'Have to ask Britain!' Trump risks missing out on Greenland takeover as Danes give UK 'first dibs'

Copenhagen's former permanent representative to Greenland said the President would need Downing Street's approval

www.gbnews.com

Trump would have to ask UK for permission to take Greenland due to 108-year rule

Donald Trump's hopes to take Greenland for the US seem to be in Sir Keir Starmer's hands as a pact made more than a century ago in which Britain demanded the first right to buy it

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[PrairieWind]

So this was also reported in various mainstream media outlets last January:

Sorry, Trump: this pact says Britain has first dibs on Greenland

The president is said to be raging at Denmark for the right to buy the strategic Arctic island. But a century-old document could stand in his way

www.thetimes.com

Access Restricted

Unfortunately they are behind paywalls but maybe someone else has access.

'Have to ask Britain!' Trump risks missing out on Greenland takeover as Danes give UK 'first dibs'

Copenhagen's former permanent representative to Greenland said the President would need Downing Street's approval

www.gbnews.com

Trump would have to ask UK for permission to take Greenland due to 108-year rule

Donald Trump's hopes to take Greenland for the US seem to be in Sir Keir Starmer's hands as a pact made more than a century ago in which Britain demanded the first right to buy it

www.mirror.co.uk

Wouldn't the people of Greenland actually get the right to decide themselves?

 

[Sarahlou]

Absolutely, Greenland’s future should depend on Greenlanders themselves.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Wouldn't the people of Greenland actually get the right to decide themselves?

Of course. In 1917 nobody gave much thought to indigenous rights or interests, but today they would be a key consideration if not necessarily the final deciding factor. However, the agreement apparently states that if Denmark chooses to sell the territory it must first be offered to the UK.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I mean how would anybody feel if some leader from a foreign country decided they had the right to just take your country and all it's assets.

 

[waldojabba]

Of course. In 1917 nobody gave much thought to indigenous rights or interests, but today they would be a key consideration if not necessarily the final deciding factor. However, the agreement apparently states that if Denmark chooses to sell the territory it must first be offered to the UK.

It most likely would be litigated.

But it seems fairly straightforward - this is a legal document - like when you sign your mortgage or any other legal doc you become a party to.

You don't get to change it just bc you decide that you don't like it unless you favor everybody doing that -
If you want to modify a legal doc - there are processes and steps you follow. Just like with your mortgage.
It's the way things work.

IANAL.

Or <modsnip>, you do whatever you want legal or not, then sue whoever comes after you and come up with some poppycock and stall things in court by appeals, change of venues, shopping for a "friendly" judge ...any quasi legal means possible.

JMO

JMO

 

[PrairieWind]

Of course. In 1917 nobody gave much thought to indigenous rights or interests, but today they would be a key consideration if not necessarily the final deciding factor. However, the agreement apparently states that if Denmark chooses to sell the territory it must first be offered to the UK.

That just seems crazy to me. If you are a Greenlander, and you have been under the Danes for ever and now they say, well you are going to be under the UK. I think in today's world we would recognize that the people of Greenland are not agreeing to that, and that THEY are the final authority on what happens to them. Colonialism is supposed to be dead, and an agreement that the UK "gets them next" is just more colonialism. People should get to make their own decisions.

 

[waldojabba]

I mean how would anybody feel if some leader from a foreign country decided they had the right to just take your country and all it's assets.

Simplistically ...its like taking over your neighbor's house illegally, who you say is a drug dealer, by force.
And then claiming anything they owned in now yours.

JMO

 

[waldojabba]

Wouldn't the people of Greenland actually get the right to decide themselves?

Well in a perfect world that would seem logical but if there is a legal document that says otherwise that has been agreed to/is official, that has to be dealt with I am assuming.
I will leave that up to Greenland
JMO

 

[MelmothTheLost]

That just seems crazy to me. If you are a Greenlander, and you have been under the Danes for ever and now they say, well you are going to be under the UK. I think in today's world we would recognize that the people of Greenland are not agreeing to that, and that THEY are the final authority on what happens to them. Colonialism is supposed to be dead, and an agreement that the UK "gets them next" is just more colonialism. People should get to make their own decisions.

As I said, that agreement reflected the world of 1917. It does not reflect that of 2026.

Of course the wishes of the Greenlanders (all 58,000 of them) should be a major factor in the future of the territory, but there is also realpolitik involved. There's no point Denmark granting Greenland independence and everyone in the West agreeing to abide by that independence if in 2029 Russia invades and takes it and its resources over by force.

What is probably required is a treaty which recognises Greenland's independence (if that is what Greenlanders want) while also providing (a) a NATO security guarantee to the country (b) leases and licences to western companies to mine resources within certain areas and limits (c) that a wealth and development fund is set up from part of the proceeds of those resources to ensure the future of the Greenlanders and their descendants.

 

[PrairieWind]

It most likely would be litigated.

But it seems fairly straightforward - this is a legal document - like when you sign your mortgage or any other legal doc you become a party to.

You don't get to change it just bc you decide that you don't like it unless you favor everybody doing that -
If you want to modify a legal doc - there are processes and steps you follow. Just like with your mortgage.
It's the way things work.

IANAL.

Or <modsnip>, you do whatever you want legal or not, then sue whoever comes after you and come up with some poppycock and stall things in court by appeals, change of venues, shopping for a "friendly" judge ...any quasi legal means possible.

JMO

JMO

The people of Greenland sign this legal document?

 

[PrairieWind]

Well in a perfect world that would seem logical but if there is a legal document that says otherwise that has been agreed to/is official, that has to be dealt with I am assuming.
I will leave that up to Greenland
JMO

That is just the point, this needs to be up to the people of Greenland to decide. Do they want to be part of Denmark, the UK, or independent? Only they should decide.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

That is just the point, this needs to be up to the people of Greenland to decide. Do they want to be part of Denmark, the UK, or independent? Only they should decide.

Isn't this a bigger question than just the wishes of the Greenlanders, though? Is the US (and NATO) willing to risk Greenland becoming independent and finding 10 years down the line that it has ended up in Russian hands, bringing Russian bases and nukes thousands of miles closer to the Eastern Seaboard?

 

[dalsglen]

So this was also reported in various mainstream media outlets last January:

Sorry, Trump: this pact says Britain has first dibs on Greenland

The president is said to be raging at Denmark for the right to buy the strategic Arctic island. But a century-old document could stand in his way

www.thetimes.com

Access Restricted

Unfortunately they are behind paywalls but maybe someone else has access.

'Have to ask Britain!' Trump risks missing out on Greenland takeover as Danes give UK 'first dibs'

Copenhagen's former permanent representative to Greenland said the President would need Downing Street's approval

www.gbnews.com

Trump would have to ask UK for permission to take Greenland due to 108-year rule

Donald Trump's hopes to take Greenland for the US seem to be in Sir Keir Starmer's hands as a pact made more than a century ago in which Britain demanded the first right to buy it

www.mirror.co.uk

From archive.is

Times article https://archive.is/k0mFF

Second article (Telegraph) https://archive.is/3CrFx

GB news article https://archive.ph/jU5As

Last ones not archived ETA, it is now... https://archive.is/4oGGX

 

[waldojabba]

That is just the point, this needs to be up to the people of Greenland to decide. Do they want to be part of Denmark, the UK, or independent? Only they should decide.

Ah, but it seems you missed my point
There is the "little" matter of a legal document that says otherwise
Until that is dealt with it seems it is not legally their decision to make

Do you prospose they ignore the legal document or take legal steps to ammend / nullify etc? that document ?

JMO

The people of Greenland sign this legal document?

We would need to view the actual document but it seems those with legal authority to do so signed the document per what has been attached on these threads -

JMO

 

[Yellowbelly]

Interesting .... News18 from India reported a year ago that under the 1917 agreement by which the US acquired then Danish colonies which became the USVI, the US recognised that Greenland was Danish in perpetuity.

And the agreement further provided that if ever Denmark wanted to dispose of the territory the UK would have first refusal.

https://www.news18.com/videos/world/uk-has-first-right-to-buy-greenland-from-denmark-a-1917-deal-trump-has-never-heard-of-says-9204389.html

This needs some digging into but is certainly an interesting new twist.

Given Mr Trump's Anglophilia, Greenland becoming a British Overseas Territory wouldn't be the worst idea. Would he really risk war with the UK.

I should think the British Empire's right of first refusal has been inherited by Canada, though.

In any case, in this day and age, what happens to Greenland should be a matter for the Greenlanders and nobody else.

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Given Mr Trump's Anglophilia, Greenland becoming a British Overseas Territory wouldn't be the worst idea. Would he really risk war with the UK.

I should think the British Empire's right of first refusal has been inherited by Canada, though.

That right would not transfer unless the UK explicitly transferred it to Canada as part of Canadian independence. Also, the British Empire was not a legal entity in the way that the UK itself is. The UK had colonies, some of which became self-governing dominions and later independent, eg Canada, South Africa and Australia; colonies which became directly independent, eg Ghana, Jamaica and Belize; and others with a variety of legal statuses.