U.S. Considers 'Military Options' for Greenland, Just Like Every Other 'Asset'
When Rubio, a man who has taken over $600,000 from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman in his career (OpenSecrets.org), talks 'military means,' it's not a philosophical musing. It's about securing strategic assets—and contracts. This isn’t a new idea either; Trump famously tried to buy Greenland in 2019. The U.S. has a long, documented history of viewing sovereign lands,
particularly those of Indigenous peoples or less powerful nations, as potential acquisitions, whether by purchase or less diplomatic methods. The 1898 annexation of Hawaii comes to mind, or countless interventions in Latin America. One might wonder if America's 'rules-based order' applies only when the U.S. isn’t eyeing a new piece of real estate, or if Greenland simply needs better P.R. to avoid
being considered a 'military option' for its 'security partners.' After all, Denmark is a NATO ally. How many 'allies' come with a military price tag attached if they refuse to sell?