"Drill, baby, drill!" in the US?

Greenland definitely has a tremendous strategic national defense value. That is certain. However I would suggest that we currently possess that strategic value now. Greenland a defacto NATO State,  and the U.S. has an active military base there.

 The idea that China or Russia would attempt a military take over of a NATO State with an active US military base seems unlikely. 

It is my suspicion that this is less about strategic defensive value and more about natural resource value. 

The business elites, and moneyed interests in the U.S. want the mineral rights.They are willing to use the military to do that. War is a racket. It is a story as old as time. 

Honestly, my ass. You've made several posts on this thread, most of them enthusiastically supporting Trump's takeover plans.

I can see why you weaseled away from Dealer1's question. Why don't you answer it with genuine honesty? Do we, or does any nation, have the right to invade/occupy/annex the territory of another sovereign nation, simply because it would benefit us?

Do we have the right to invade/occupy/annex Greenland even if it's made of solid gold encrusted with a rare and unique mineral that cures cancer and removes unsightly blemishes? That's the only question. Saying otherwise is like saying that theft and robbery is justified if what's stolen is really, really valuable.

Similarly, if the land of another nation has immense strategic value, can we say well, OK then, we should grab it?

Or should we trade and negotiate (not Trump-bully) for what we want? I kinda sorta think that if we wanted them rare earth mineral thingies, Denmark would be more than willing to sell them to us.

One thing I do know. We try to take them by force, we're never going to get them at all.

 What you say I have said is arguemenative. I prefer not to engage and will allow all who may wish to comment to express their opinions. I stand by what I have stated.

No we do not have such a right. Nor did my post imply such. 

You will continue to express your Trump-love by enthusiastically supporting everything he says or plans to do. I can well understand why you're dodging the question. To admit that you think that we have the right to conquer other nations for their resources or strategic value is to admit that you disrespect the values that our ancestors fought and died for. We lost a third of a million soldiers in WWII fighting the notion that might makes right.

My knowledge of history, my past acquaintances with veterans, and my belief in this country as a force for good--pre-Trump, anyway--are the sources of my present outrage at this blithe talk of conquest and the "justifications" for it.

If we want to know Mr. Miller's opinion, we have to ask Donald Trump.  He has lost the ability to think for himself.  

Didn't say that you did. My point was that whatever valuable resources or strategic value Greenland may have is utterly irrelevant. If we go down the rabbit hole of talking about Greenland's value, that obscures the issue of their sovereign rights as well as our treaty and moral obligations. 

I do think that if we invade Greenland, it should be with an army comprised of ICE agents. They need to chill out. (Rim shot.)

One interesting point. It may turn out that Greenland's most valuable resource is its immense supply of fresh water.

Miller is nothing but a conduit, or perhaps more accurately, a sewer pipe.

He may not even be aware that many of us, myself included, would genuinely like to hear his honest opinions. It would be nice if he abandoned his own-the-libs start-arguments persona once and for all. At present, it's like listening to a parrot.