Trump vs reality; the Greenland episode
Discussion
JonChalk said:
gazza285 said:
Cantaloupe said:
Yes, it's the Trump haters now looking stupid, Greenland is a huge repository of much needed ores and minerals.
Perhaps that reserve of ores and minerals is exactly why the idea of Denmark selling Greenland appears absurd to the Danish Government.As the ice melts and recedes, judicious and even distribution of, and competition for, mining rights will see Denmark set for years financially.
Trump's just trying to ensure the ice melts and he gets all the rights in the next 6 years.
Pesty said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
I love how many people think that the Falkland Islands should be given to Argentina because it's closer to them than it is to use. And it's just a reminder of our colonial past. But the concept of America buying Greenland is crazy.
If Argentina had offered to buy the Falkland islands instead of forcefyul invading them. You never know they might have got somewhere.
Its another orange man bad story. If Barack Obama had suggested it it would have been a ambitious interesting idea.
We’ve got one here who can see.If Argentina had offered to buy the Falkland islands instead of forcefyul invading them. You never know they might have got somewhere.
Its another orange man bad story. If Barack Obama had suggested it it would have been a ambitious interesting idea.
He needs reprogramming.
Orange man bad.
You mean like when Obama and Clinton constantly said illegal immigrants had to go back but somehow weren’t racist or even made the news ? Or when Clinton was against gay marriage yet nobody made a fuss?
t, people assume that you’re a complete and utter tt ALL the time**, even on the rare occasion when you say something that sane people might agree with(** Not other t
ts. They’ll generally agree with you, regardless)Not-The-Messiah said:
Eric Mc said:
Aha - they want to be independent. That should be enough to send Trump a message.
Yes that's where Trumps as been a bit daft. But it's just as daft as the leader of Denmark saying its not for sale, it's not for them to sell its up to the people who live there. How about "totally imbecilic"?
The UK wanted to take over Greenland during the war, with the assistance of Canada. There was a large area in the middle of the Atlantic that was unprotected by aircover needed to protect convoys. The USA exerted political pressure to stop such an unprincipled actions. Once the USA entered the war, they set up a number of bases in Greenland, using the method that the UK and Canada did in Iceland.
The justification for taking over Iceland - it was just bases, very much in the same way that there were USA forces based in the UK - was that it was to stop the Germans doing the same. I doubt it was on their 'to do' list, at least not until Russia was subdued. It would have provided a useful base if Germany had won in Russia and then had to deal with a belligerent UK.
The justification for taking over Iceland - it was just bases, very much in the same way that there were USA forces based in the UK - was that it was to stop the Germans doing the same. I doubt it was on their 'to do' list, at least not until Russia was subdued. It would have provided a useful base if Germany had won in Russia and then had to deal with a belligerent UK.
JagLover said:
It isn't actually that ridiculous an idea.
The USA has purchased territory before, Louisiana from the French, Alaska from the Russians. Greenland costs Denmark a significant annual subsidy every year and the territory is worth more to the USA, due to strategic considerations, than it is to Denmark.
If the price were right it seems a sensible deal for Denmark, but no doubt dismissed out of hand because it is Trump proposing it.
Vertually verbatim what fox news said.The USA has purchased territory before, Louisiana from the French, Alaska from the Russians. Greenland costs Denmark a significant annual subsidy every year and the territory is worth more to the USA, due to strategic considerations, than it is to Denmark.
If the price were right it seems a sensible deal for Denmark, but no doubt dismissed out of hand because it is Trump proposing it.
Of course the real thing to take from this was not that trump thought in terms of land deals, but that someone in team trump leaked the story to the media in the first place, trying to embaress trump, knowing he'd defend the idea and make himself look stupid, especially just before the G7 meeting
And trump didn't ask Greenland, he just though he could ask Denmark. This isn't the past, when the United States bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, the people living in that region had no say. neither did the the 50,000 or so indigenous peoples in Alaska when the US bought it from Russia in 1867,
Greenland has its own Parliament and premier and control over most political matters, except those concerning foreign policy and national security.
Lets not forget he actually suggested swapping Puerto Rico, 3 million people he considers non americans (brown) for 50,000 white people
Edited by Byker28i on Sunday 25th August 21:07
Derek Smith said:
The justification for taking over Iceland - it was just bases, very much in the same way that there were USA forces based in the UK - was that it was to stop the Germans doing the same. I doubt it was on their 'to do' list, at least not until Russia was subdued. It would have provided a useful base if Germany had won in Russia and then had to deal with a belligerent UK.
However they did quite well out of WW2, and benefitted hugely from the post-war Marshall Plan while never
actually suffering any casualities in combat .
Eric Mc said:
He would have preferred to buy Norway but the best he could come up with was Greenland - white people, cold, no black or brown people - what's the difference?
Greenland pop is mostly inuit, so probably as brown as the Puerto Ricans.Derek Smith said:
The UK wanted to take over Greenland during the war, with the assistance of Canada. There was a large area in the middle of the Atlantic that was unprotected by aircover needed to protect convoys. The USA exerted political pressure to stop such an unprincipled actions. Once the USA entered the war, they set up a number of bases in Greenland, using the method that the UK and Canada did in Iceland.
The justification for taking over Iceland - it was just bases, very much in the same way that there were USA forces based in the UK - was that it was to stop the Germans doing the same. I doubt it was on their 'to do' list, at least not until Russia was subdued. It would have provided a useful base if Germany had won in Russia and then had to deal with a belligerent UK.
Aside from the strategic basing aspect Iceland was offered a tacit deal of "Look what the germans just did to Norway; let's avoid that happening to you", albeit delivered by a boatload of Royal Marines.The justification for taking over Iceland - it was just bases, very much in the same way that there were USA forces based in the UK - was that it was to stop the Germans doing the same. I doubt it was on their 'to do' list, at least not until Russia was subdued. It would have provided a useful base if Germany had won in Russia and then had to deal with a belligerent UK.
hidetheelephants said:
Eric Mc said:
He would have preferred to buy Norway but the best he could come up with was Greenland - white people, cold, no black or brown people - what's the difference?
Greenland pop is mostly inuit, so probably as brown as the Puerto Ricans.I know that.
Do you think Trump knows that?
Eric Mc said:
hidetheelephants said:
Eric Mc said:
He would have preferred to buy Norway but the best he could come up with was Greenland - white people, cold, no black or brown people - what's the difference?
Greenland pop is mostly inuit, so probably as brown as the Puerto Ricans.I know that.
Do you think Trump knows that?
I would think that if China got a foothold in Greenland the Yanks would view it as another Cuba.
The US already have a base in Greenland and are not popular with the locals for past displacements of the locals at very short notice so they could extend it, and also for for abandoning another base. By abandoning I mean that they simply upped and left with no attempt at clearance or restoration - think of the mess in your local park after the unwelcome have left, but on a massive scale.
The US already have a base in Greenland and are not popular with the locals for past displacements of the locals at very short notice so they could extend it, and also for for abandoning another base. By abandoning I mean that they simply upped and left with no attempt at clearance or restoration - think of the mess in your local park after the unwelcome have left, but on a massive scale.
Countdown said:
Dogwatch said:
I would think that if China got a foothold in Greenland the Yanks would view it as another Cuba.
Slightly O/T but the hypocrisy is astonishing. It's OK for the US to have bases wherever it likes but nobody else.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine is fascinating in that it means whatever the current president says it means. In fact for the first 80 odd years it was the British who effectively enforced it on behalf of the US.
In this case John Bolton has been clear that he regards it as a live policy.
If I were China I would tread very carefully.
It may reek of hypocrisy but it is also a reflection of actual vs theoretical power. The US will not allow China to establish a beach head in the artic, on an island 16 miles off the coast of Canada.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff