Greenland

[Arturo Bandini]

So the USA wants to buy Greenland.

Is there any oil there to finish to destroy everything and make some bucks out of this ?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-greenland/trump-has-privately-talked-about-u-s-purchase-of-greenland-sources-idUSKCN1V60AQ

[Vas Deferens]

I was concerned about the moron until I heard about the moron advisors seriously discussing moronic policy with the moron.

[Au165]

Did anyone tell him that Greenland is full of ice and Iceland is actually green?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-16-2019, 08:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: Did anyone tell him that Greenland is full of ice and Iceland is actually green?

Yeah they aren't looking for farmland.

[Au165]

(08-16-2019, 08:45 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah they aren't looking for farmland.

I figured he was looking for a location for a new golf course. 

I'm kidding by the way...I get the strategic importance in the arctic.

[*michaelsean*]

Except for the fact that it's not for sale, I don't know why this is considered crazy.

[Arturo Bandini]

(08-16-2019, 08:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Except for the fact that it's not for sale, I don't know why this is considered crazy.

Because it's a part of another country and we are not playing Monopoly ?

If it's just to make money out of oil and put the final nail in the climate's coffin to please some Exxon dudes, it's not crazy, it's irresponsible at its max.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-16-2019, 08:46 AM)Au165 Wrote: I figured he was looking for a location for a new golf course. 

I'm kidding by the way...I get the strategic importance in the arctic.

No emoji, then no joke.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-16-2019, 08:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: Did anyone tell him that Greenland is full of ice and Iceland is actually green?

Until global warming kicks in from backing out of the Paris Accord and Greenland thaws. Then it'll be beachfront properties and mai tais.

(08-16-2019, 08:56 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Because it's a part of another country and we are not playing Monopoly ?

If it's just to make money out of oil and put the final nail in the climate's coffin to please some Exxon dudes, it's not crazy, it's irresponsible at its max.

So was... 
Louisiana Purchase (France) 
Florida (Spain)
Mexican Cession (Mexico)
Gadsden Purchase (Mexico)
Alaska (Russia)
Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico (Spain)
Panama Canal Zone (Panama)
US Virgin Islands (Denmark)


Greenland has massive fishing waters, huge amounts of untapped minerals, an enormous supply of fresh water, has less than 56,000 people on it despite almost being the size of India, and is an important place for our navy. There's a reason why the US has tried to buy Greenland a couple times now.

Rarely is buying land a bad investment. The US didn't *need* an Alaska at the time, but that sure turned out pretty great.

[SunsetBengal]

(08-16-2019, 11:52 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Until global warming kicks in from backing out of the Paris Accord and Greenland thaws. Then it'll be beachfront properties and mai tais.




So was... 
Louisiana Purchase (France) 
Florida (Spain)
Mexican Cession (Mexico)
Gadsden Purchase (Mexico)
Alaska (Russia)
Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico (Spain)
Panama Canal Zone (Panama)
US Virgin Islands (Denmark)


Greenland has massive fishing waters, huge amounts of untapped minerals, an enormous supply of fresh water, has less than 56,000 people on it despite almost being the size of India, and is an important place for our navy. There's a reason why the US has tried to buy Greenland a couple times now.

Rarely is buying land a bad investment. The US didn't *need* an Alaska at the time, but that sure turned out pretty great.

Great, except for the poor polar bears, stuck on stranded ice floes.  (Not that they wouldn't do that anyway, just for fun)

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 08:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: Did anyone tell him that Greenland is full of ice and Iceland is actually green?

But . . .

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 11:52 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Until global warming kicks in from backing out of the Paris Accord and Greenland thaws. Then it'll be beachfront properties and mai tais.




So was... 
Louisiana Purchase (France) 
Florida (Spain)
Mexican Cession (Mexico)
Gadsden Purchase (Mexico)
Alaska (Russia)
Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico (Spain)
Panama Canal Zone (Panama)
US Virgin Islands (Denmark)


Greenland has massive fishing waters, huge amounts of untapped minerals, an enormous supply of fresh water, has less than 56,000 people on it despite almost being the size of India, and is an important place for our navy. There's a reason why the US has tried to buy Greenland a couple times now.

Rarely is buying land a bad investment. The US didn't *need* an Alaska at the time, but that sure turned out pretty great.

Did we buy the land ceded from Mexico, or the Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Panama Canal?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-16-2019, 11:57 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Great, except for the poor polar bears, stuck on stranded ice floes.  (Not that they wouldn't do that anyway, just for fun)

They had it coming. Those Polar Bears were getting a little too full of themselves with their fancy name. We have Brown Bears and Black Bears, but not White Bears... no, those are *Polar* Bears. Same with Panda Bears, those guys are so absorbed with themselves and their fancy name that they don't even bother to reproduce.   #BearEquality  #P&RThreadsThatNeedToBeMade

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-16-2019, 12:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Did we buy the land ceded from Mexico, or the Phillipines, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Panama Canal?

Yup.  

$15m + $3.25m in assumed claims for the Mexican Cession (It was a lot more money in 1848.)

Phillipines/PR/Guam, I can find that they purchased it, but I can't find the exact numbers on hand.

The US never technically "owned" the Panama Canal, but had basically an endless lease. They paid $10m up front, and $250k/yr until they gave the Canal back to Panama in 1999.

[Dill]

(08-16-2019, 12:10 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: $15m + $3.25m in assumed claims for the Mexican Cession (It was a lot more money in 1848.)

Phillipines/PR/Guam, I can find that they purchased it, but I can't find the exact numbers on hand.

The US never technically "owned" the Panama Canal, but had basically an endless lease. They paid $10m up front, and $250k/yr until they gave the Canal back to Panama in 1999.

Hmmm. As I understand it, the US conquered Mexico in the War of 1846-48; it was proposed to annex the entire country, but John C. Calhoun objected on grounds that it would incorporate a large non-white population into the US:

[We] have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race the free white race.  To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes.  I protest against such a union as that!  Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.  The great misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race….
https://herb.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1273.

Mexico had already raised the ire of Southerners by outlawing slavery. In any case, the US settled for the least populated areas most easily incorporated into the growing white nation.

Looks like the "purchase" ratified by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was "investing in land" at the point of a gun.

Same for Cuba, Guam and Puerto Rico after the Spanish-American War. Nothing paid for Cuba and Guam. The 20 million paid for the Phillipines was, again, at the point of a gun.

All this brings me to a small side point here: I don't regard the acquirement of these territories as "purchases" in the sense of Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase. In any case, even those purchases were really a purchase of rights vis-a-vis other national powers. To the native Americans living in those areas, the land still belonged to them (until the US Army explained otherwise).

Back in the days when countries just took land from others by force or purchase, keeping the people (e.g., Cuba, Hawaii and the Philippines) was less of a problem. Now, however, the 56,000 Danish Greenlanders living on Greenland would be a good-sized problem. Would they willingly move? Become US citizens?  Be accorded some special status as permanent foreigners on US soil?

We could, of course, just take the island and pay Denmark whatever WE felt was fair (see Mexico and Spain above). But then, Denmark is a NATO signatory. We would be in effect attacking Danish soil, triggering Article 5. Another big problem.

The US already has an airbase on Greenland. I'm sure the people of Greenland are ready to do all kinds of business with the US.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792

I'm with Arturo on this. I think the resources of Greenland will be better husbanded if they remain in Greenlanders' hands.  Who knows though? Exxon might make them a deal they can't refuse.

[Arturo Bandini]

This is not 1848 anymore, Denmark isn't a third world place and they know what's the point about this.

One thing is sure it would be depleted in 10 years for old sociopathic billionnaires who don't give a damn about the world when they will be dead.

[6andcounting]

The Green New Deal

[JustWinBaby]

(08-16-2019, 11:57 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Great, except for the poor polar bears, stuck on stranded ice floes.  (Not that they wouldn't do that anyway, just for fun)

That's a joke, right?  You guys do know that Polar Bears can swim for tens, possibly hundreds, of miles?

But, to be fair, it's entirely possible that stranded polar bear is Greta Thunberg's spirit animal.

[Arturo Bandini]

Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Just lol.

[*jason*]

(08-21-2019, 03:27 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote:

Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Just lol.

So he offered $300,000,000 less than the Los Angeles Clippers sold for a few years ago?