Guest ROTFLMFAO by David Middleton
I promise not to do this to Greenland! pic.twitter.com/03DdyVU6HA
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2019
No Joke: Trump Really Does Want To Buy Greenland
August 19, 2019President Trump on Sunday confirmed that his administration has discussed buying Greenland from Denmark, comparing the idea to “a large real estate deal” and suggesting the island would be of strategic value to the United States.
Speaking to reporters, the president confirmed reports that first appeared on Thursday in The Wall Street Journal that he had asked administration officials to look into the possibility of purchasing the self-governing Danish territory.
“It’s just something we’ve talked about,” he said. “Denmark essentially owns it. We’re very good allies with Denmark. We’ve protected Denmark like we protect large portions of the world, so the concept came up.”
[…]
Earlier Sunday, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told Fox News that the president had discussed the subject with his advisers.
“I don’t want to predict an outcome, I’m just saying the president — who knows a thing or two about buying real estate — wants to take a look at a Greenland purchase.”
[…]
Scott Neuman, NPR
While it’s impossible to determine if President Trump is serious about trying to pull off a “Greenland purchase,” the media meltdown has been hysterical!
Vox
The truth is that though it sounds kind of silly, it makes perfect sense if you happen to share Trump’s indifference to environmental issues and indigenous rights.
Greenland is believed to contain a lot of natural resource wealth that is difficult to exploit due to the large amounts of ice and permafrost in the way.
But the planet is getting warmer. A vision of American public policy that is neither interested in halting the warming process nor concerned about the environmental impact of exploring the resources would naturally want to acquire such a potentially rich land. Many Americans, of course, do not share that policy philosophy, but it is very much the Trump worldview.
Matthew Yglesias, Vox
The Grauniad
Greenland, and more specifically its purchase by the US, is being actively discussed in Donald Trump’s Oval Office. But what exactly is it that makes one of the world’s most desolate places such an attractive proposition?
For the president, it is the real estate deal of a lifetime, one that would secure a land mass a quarter the size of the US and cement his place in US history alongside President Andrew Johnson, who bought Alaska from Russia in 1867, and Thomas Jefferson, who secured Louisiana from the French in 1803.
Phillip Inman, The Grauniad
CNN
1. Why?
It makes sense to get the big one out of the way first, right? Why would the US President want to purchase an island that is 80% covered by an ice sheet and where less than 60,000 people actually live? Trump himself hasn’t said — yet — but there are a few obvious reasons.The first is because Greenland is widely believed to be hugely rich in natural resources — including iron ore, lead, zinc, diamonds, gold, rare earth elements, uranium and oil. And much of it is currently untapped, due to the fact that, well, 80% of the country is covered by an ice sheet. But due to global warming, that ice sheet is melting rapidly — this summer NASA scientists observed two of the largest melts in the history of Greenland — and that erosion of the ice sheet is expected to make the mining of Greenland’s natural resources more doable.
The second is for geopolitical reasons. The United States already has a foothold in the country — Thule Air Base — and, as The Wall Street Journal, which broke the Greenland purchase story, notes:
“Located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, it includes a radar station that is part of a U.S. ballistic missile early-warning system. The base is also used by the U.S. Air Force Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command.”
Third, Trump is a man very interested in his legacy in office. Buying Greenland would be a major bullet point on his presidential resume.
Chris Cillizza, CNN
The Washington Post
Trump’s musings over Greenland are part of his larger tendency to see territory as a tradable commodity, particularly in dealing with the Middle East. During the 2016 Republican presidential primary debates, candidate Marco Rubio chastised candidate Trump for treating Palestinian aspirations for statehood as a “real estate deal.” Jared Kushner’s plan for Middle East peace relies on territorial exchanges between the Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt. Trump’s March tweet recognizing Israel’s control over the Golan paid little attention to the symbolic claims at stake.
This is a dangerous approach to territorial conflict. As recent events in Kashmir make clear, nations are still prepared to shed blood and treasure to secure national claims. Understanding the symbolic value of territory is key to managing this and any future territorial disputes.
In other words, Trump’s real estate approach to Greenland may be the tip of the melting iceberg.
Stacie E. Goddard is a professor of political science and faculty director of the Madeleine K. Albright Institute of Global Affairs at Wellesley College. She is the author of “When Right Makes Might: Rising Powers and World Order.” Washington Post
Summary
In essence, the media and academia think that President Trump wants to buy Greenland because he:
- Hates the environment.
- Hates indigenous people.
- Wants to unfairly take advantage of climate change in his quest for American Energy Dominance.
- Views real estate as if it was a tradable commodity.
- Actually wants to put American interests ahead of every other nation’s.
Items #1 and #2 are lies and the next three are simply logical.
The Economics of the Greenland Purchase
Greenland is rich in natural resources.
However, a lack of infrastructure, harsh operating conditions and lack of a large skilled work force make development very challenging.
The 2008 USGS Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal estimated that Greenland’s oil & gas potential to be nearly 50 billion barrels of oil equivalent.
At current market prices, the oil & gas resources could be worth over $1.6 trillion.
Of course the cost of developing those resources would be huge, the actual recoverable oil & gas could be much more or much less than the resource potential and it would take 10-20 years to achieve meaningful production rates.
One estimate puts the purchase price at a bit over $500 billion.
While it is difficult to find comparable sections of the United States that could be used to create a valuation, the closest are in the Mountain States, where mineral and oil deposits have been only partially exploited, and then apply a discount for the Greenland risk of lack of exploration.
Any analysis has to rule out North Dakota because of the established value of shale. Wyoming has no established mineral or oil deposits of similar size to North Dakota’s. 24/7 Wall St. has estimated the value of Wyoming’s land is $97 billion. Wyoming covers 98,000 square miles. Based on it landmass, Greenland would be worth 5.5 times Wyoming’s worth, or $533 billion. That would make the amount almost the size of America’s annual military budget.
USA Today
Greenland is probably worth $533 billion, if it was for sale.
Seward’s Folly
Signing of the Alaska Treaty, 1867
Russia offered to sell Alaska to the United States in 1859, believing the United States would off-set the designs of Russia’s greatest rival in the Pacific, Great Britain. The looming U.S. Civil War delayed the sale, but after the war, Secretary of State William Seward quickly took up a renewed Russian offer and on March 30, 1867, agreed to a proposal from Russian Minister in Washington, Edouard de Stoeckl, to purchase Alaska for $7.2 million. The Senate approved the treaty of purchase on April 9; President Andrew Johnson signed the treaty on May 28, and Alaska was formally transferred to the United States on October 18, 1867. This purchase ended Russia’s presence in North America and ensured U.S. access to the Pacific northern rim.For three decades after its purchase the United States paid little attention to Alaska, which was governed under military, naval, or Treasury rule or, at times, no visible rule at all. Seeking a way to impose U.S. mining laws, the United States constituted a civil government in 1884. Skeptics had dubbed the purchase of Alaska “Seward’s Folly,” but the former Secretary of State was vindicated when a major gold deposit was discovered in the Yukon in 1896, and Alaska became the gateway to the Klondike gold fields. The strategic importance of Alaska was finally recognized in World War II. Alaska became a state on January 3, 1959.
US Department of State
Based on the historical inflation rate, $7.2 million in 1867 is worth about $125 million today. Invested at 3% compound interest, it would be worth about $644 million.
From 1981-2018, 15.7 billion bbl of crude oil were produced from Alaska North Slope oil fields at an average sales price of $24.58/bbl. That’s $386 billion in gross revenue.
If you think Seward’s Folly was a bargain… We could have had Greenland on the cheap…
American Imperialists Have Always Dreamed of Greenland
Trump’s reported hopes of buying the Danish island exemplify his 19th-century values.
BY PAUL MUSGRAVE | AUGUST 16, 2019, 12:17 PM
From his love of tariffs to his racial view of the world, Donald Trump is the nineteenth-century president America never had. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal offered another piece of evidence suggesting that the 45th president is a man out of time: the president, it turns out, has frequently mused aloud about buying Greenland from Denmark. (Greenland, although largely self-governing, is alongside Denmark and the Faroe Islands one of the three constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark.)Like Trump’s racism and trade policies, there’s a precedent for American officials trying to buy territory. Most Americans know, vaguely, that the United States acquired much of its territory by buying it. Some acquisitions, like the Louisiana Purchase, are well enough known to be the subject of TV ads. Others are more obscure, like when Secretary of War Jefferson Davis and other Southerners pressed for the purchase of enough of northern Mexico to support the construction of a Southern transcontinental railway.
In fact, buying Greenland has been tried seriously twice. But the changes in international relations since then make it a far worse idea than it was at the time.
The first time came during the administration of President Andrew Johnson. William Seward, a Lincoln holdover, used Johnson’s distraction over Reconstruction to pursue his longstanding goals of territorial expansion.
Seward made bids of varying intensity to wrest Canada from the British Empire and to buy or lease a naval base in the Caribbean. His buccaneering policy finally paid off with the Alaska Purchase, when the Russian Empire, seeking to divest itself of some underperforming assets, finally succeeded in persuading Seward to buy Russian North America. But it also included an attempt to buy Greenland and Iceland from Denmark, which then owned both.
Robert J. Walker, a former treasury secretary and influence-peddler in the mid-nineteenth century, learned that Denmark might be induced to sell the islands in 1867 as he negotiated the purchase of Denmark’s Caribbean colonies in the West Indies. Seward leapt at the chance and commissioned Walker to produce a gushing report on the resources of Greenland and Iceland.
Walker’s covering note to the report marveled at how buying the two islands could lead the United States to greatness. Although he admitted that basically nothing of Greenland’s north or interior was known, it nevertheless pounded what facts it could master, such as that Greenland was “the largest island in the world” and that it possessed “whale fisheries…of the value of $400,000.”
Seward’s hopes that the United States could make a bid for the islands came to naught when his deal to buy the Danish West Indies failed in the Senate, even though the treaty for purchasing them had been ratified by both the Danish parliament and a plebiscite in the islands. (They would be purchased fifty years later and became the US Virgin Islands.)
[…]
Foreign Policy
American Imperialists???
Paul Musgrave is an assistant professor of government at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and an expert in American foreign policy matters. He teaches courses in international relations theory, history and international relations, energy politics, U.S. foreign policy, and politics and science fiction.[1]
Wikipedia
Never had a real job. That explains the snot-nosed tone and “American Imperialists” horst schist.
A business man would have honed in on this:
Walker’s covering note to the report marveled at how buying the two islands could lead the United States to greatness. Although he admitted that basically nothing of Greenland’s north or interior was known, it nevertheless pounded what facts it could master, such as that Greenland was “the largest island in the world” and that it possessed “whale fisheries…of the value of $400,000.”
We could’ve had Greenland in 1867 for less than Joe Namath’s starting salary with the New York Jets in 1965.
MAGA!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Greenland has been viking land since it was discovered by the vikings 1000 years ago.
It belonged to Norway from its discovery till 1814, but was given to Denmark when Norway broke the union with Denmark and went into a union with Sweden that lasted till 1905. So it has been continuous Norwegian / Danish territory for 1000 years, and is NOT for sale to anyone.
Money talks.
Trump has just cancelled a visit to Denmark because of the rebuttal. He also thanked the danish FM for “saving him a lot of time and effort”. Clearly he was deluded enough to think he could “make an offer”.
The benefits are real enough, check out Camp Century. The strategic advantage of Greenland in threatening RF is obvious. There is also the battle for mineral rights in the ( soon to be ice free ) Arctic. Greenland nets a nice chuck of that global real estate.
Danmark needs to tread carefully, all Trump has to do is find some Inuits using Iranian oil to store their sardines declare them a “terrorist organization” and then storm the place with a few thousand US Marines to “restore democracy”.
Greenland is also the only place they have not looked for Saddam Husein’s WMD. Hell they must be somewhere.
They found Saddam’s WMDs years ago. I’m not surprised that you have prevented yourself from knowing that.
PS: Your fear and hatred of the US is so amusing. If we were half as evil as you believe us to be, you’d have been taken care of years ago.
WMD?
Not found, other than remnants from the dismantled previous program.
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/wmd/text/report.html
This is a science web site not a place where hoaxes get propagated
Some stockpiles did remain in Iraq, but most of Saddam’s chemical agents had been transported to Syria, from whence they’ve been used. Banned delivery systems were also found.
The main point however is that Saddam was in the process of bribing UN officials to lift the sanctions, so that he could resume his nuclear, biological and chemical warfare programs. He was also pressuring them by not spending the “Oil for Food” receipts on food for his opponents’ kids.
Hard to say whether the liberation was te right move, since we don’t know what would have happened in the region had Saddam stayed in power. With the Shia majority in power, the Iraqi government predictably became an Iranian puppet state, which led some Sunnis to support ISIS, after Obama’s precipitate withdrawal.
“Duker”… Exactly what would you call hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium and thousands of pounds of yellowcake? Snacks for children?
It would take millions of years warmer than now for the Arctic to be ice-free, as it was not even during the balmy Pliocene, when boreal forest ringed the Arctic Ocean.
If Norway could “give” Greenland to Denmark, then logically it IS for sale to another country.
1 – The Vikings lost Greenland to the Thule people. link The fact that Greenland had been settled by Vikings is irrelevant. It’s like saying that the rest of the world was settled by people who came from Africa, so the rest of the world should belong to Africa.
2 – The Vikings who settled Greenland came from Iceland. Greenland, therefore, should belong to Iceland.
3 – The Thule people who conquered Greenland came from what is now Canada. Greenland should belong to Canada.
IMHO, other than being a convenient excuse, the Vikings are irrelevant. What we have is a straight up taking of land from its Thule/eskimo/inuit inhabitants by Scandinavians.
… by Scandinavians.
… by modern Scandinavians.
Yup. The Norse settlers left or died out in the 15th century.
Scandinavians returned in 1721.
I am part Mexican, but Grandpa came from Oaxaca, which is south-central Mexico. This somehow is leveraged into Mexico having remaining rights in Texas, which the country ruled for all of 15 years before the revolt.
If anything, the Texians “stole” Texas from the Apache and the other warrior tribes, rather than the Mexico City government.
So, by progressive reasoning, England really belongs to the Welsh? or is it the Picts, whoever they were?
How old does a claim have to be to be “legitimate”?
Everything belongs to the first single-cell organisms.
After the fall of Rome all Tribes on the continent of europe moved from East to West. So we should all move back 500 miles east I guess.
The newly independent Mexican central regime was beset by secession movements, of which Tejas was just one. It still is, in Chiapas. The Yucatan also tried to break free again under Santana’s dictatorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Yucat%C3%A1n
Not just immigrants from the US, but local Mexicans supported Texan independence.
Seccession is making a comeback, thanks to the inability of the federal government to control murderous gangs:
https://mises.org/wire/secession-movements-mexico-challenge-federal-power
The Comanche by the early 19th century had already come down from the north to drive the Apaches out of west Texas. Their horsemen killed, tortured, maimed and raided without prejudice: other Indian tribes, Mexicans, Texicans, Americans; it didn’t matter. All got the same brutal treatment.
Jeff,
Except those organisms aren’t around any more.
But there are lots of Greeks who would like to have Thrace and coastal Anatolia back from the Turks. And Germans who’d like to reclaim the land on the Baltic which their ancestors took from the Latvian- and Lithuanian-related Prussians. Ditto Finns and Karelians their land seized by Stalin. Etc.
The vikings who settled Greenland primarily came from Norway, and it was also discovered by a Norwegian.
At the time of the settlement Iceland was still a very small community and was completely dependent on supplies of a number of goods from Norway. The same was even more the case for Greenland.
All the original settlers of Iceland came from the West coast of Norway after the battle of Hafrsfjord in 872, and they arrived there in 873 or 874 (we don’t have the exact time). Greenland was first discovered in 876 by a Norwegian who overran Iceland and ended up there, but he and the crew never settled at that time and managed to find the way back to Iceland.
It was never lost to the Thule people, but was part of the Danish /Norwegian kingdom. Iceland was the same. Before the union with Denmark both were part of the Norwegian kingdom.
How do you explain the presence of Thule for hundreds of years when the Vikings were absent?
The Inuits on Greenland only showed up there 250 years after the first settlement of the vikings, and it was a very small number that lived alongside the vikings. When the vikings settled Greenland it was completely uninhabited.
Because of the black plague, combined with a significant deterioration of in the climate which both disrupted supply lines back to Norway and made farming impossible, the last known norse person left Greenland in 1411 or 1412 at the latest. How many Inuits that managed to survive there, nobody knows.
Iceland was also impacted by the same factors as Greenland, but was in addition multiple times devastated by volcanic eruptions which weakened their society even further, so they did not have the resources to stay in Greenland.
The fact that the Danish/Norwegian kings did not actively manage Greenland between 1411 and the early 1700s is simply due to the fact there was nobody to manage and natural resources were too few or too hard to try and harvest in a sensible manner. It was only in the late 1700s that the Danish/Norwegian crown renewed their interest in managing the corner of their territory which was for all practical purposes was a barren ice desert.
The Thule people entered Greenland around AD 1200, ie some 215 years after the Norse. Greenland had been occupied twice before and abandoned.
After the end of Norse colonies in the early 15th century, the Inuit spread clear around the island. There were an estimated 8000 in the early 18th century, but European diseases killed them off, such that at most 6000 survived by c. 1780.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.23131
Norwegian and Danish ships did visit Greenland a few times in the 17th and possibly 16th centuries, but made no permanent settlement until 1721.
The wiki page for Greenland is enlightening. The trajectory is for Greenland to become independent of the Scandinavians. Greenlandic is already the official language.
” When the vikings settled Greenland it was completely uninhabited. ”
Yeah, they checked everywhere , right? Then they wrote on their goatskins underwear, in runes, that they had done a complete survey of all the coastal regions of Greenland and that there was no one there, it was theirs for the taking. We know that for a FACT.
The MWP was simple the most recent ( and coolest ) warm period since the Holocene optimum. Any trace of previous cultures will be hidden below tons of ice and will only be revealed “as the world warms due to climate change”.
So in ten years we may say ” hey, we’ve just found inuit settlements on the northwest coast of Greenland : further proof of unprecedentedly unprecedented warming which has not happened ( that often ) before.
The Norse did find evidence of prior habitation, but neither they nor subsequent archaeology found any sign of indigenous North American habitation c. AD 985.
“Can you name another country that needs a barrier to keep people OUT?”
Australia has a natural barrier, the sea. The RAN operates to enforce it. Preventing illegal immigration is a major concern in Australia.
Britain also had a sea barrier, but after the Chunnel was completed it had to set up other barriers on the French side. (With French co-operation, of course.)
Spain has huge fences to keep people out of Ceuta and Melilla.
Hungary has cunningly set up a border fence a few meters inside its border. (Illegal immigrants cannot enter easily but, when they get to the fence, are already on Hungarian soil and can be prosecuted under Hungarian law.)
Gunnbjörn Ulfsson, discoverer of Greenland, was born in Norway but had settled in Iceland at the time of his accidental discovery en route back to Iceland from a trip to Norway, possibly a century before Erik the Red, at least over 50 years.
Everything is for sale dude…. The indigenous population of Greenland are not particularly fond of Norway and most would probably be quite happy taking a few million in cash and American citizenship. I know I would.
You must be delusional! :-))
Not delusional, just not following the news very well.
Both the Danish PM and the leader of Greenland have rejected the idea.
Surely they must speak for all Greenlanders.
Well, yes, that’s the point of representative democracy isn’t it.
Delusional: Greenland Has The World’s Highest Suicide Rate
https://www.npr.org › 2016/04/21
Greenland Has The World’s Highest Suicide Rate, And Teenage Boys Are …
21.04.2016 · For more than 30 years, the suicide rate in Greenland has been …. In Greenland, the problem was only getting worse.
https://www.wikitribune.com › …
Greenland’s high suicide rate hardly changed since 1980s – WikiTribune
09.07.2018
· And while 2011 was a high year, Greenland’s suicide rate has … Problem amongst indigenous populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc
The Epidemiology of Suicide in Young Men in Greenland: A Systematic Review
von H Sargeant · 2018 ·
01.11.2018 · However, due to its territorial status, Greenland’s suicide ….. However, the problem of a lack of power will continue to be …
https://www.arctictoday.com/solving-greenlands-stubborn-suicide-statistics-starts-home-studies-suggest/
https://www.google.com/search?q=greenland+suicide+problem&oq=grenland+suicide&aqs=chrome.
If you held an election in Greenland and let the people there freely decide, I wonder how they would vote? Just a guess – but I’d bet they would prefer American citizenship and American freedoms to Danish rule.
Can’t imagine why.
And that matters, why? Perhaps there’s an Obtuse Veto I’m not aware of?
Lack of a king, maybe? Or maybe a Bill of Rights.
Free everything, at least that’s what the dopacraps promise, and the credulous believe.
Americans are so well informed that they imagine everyone in the world wants to be American.
Can you name another country that needs a barrier to keep people OUT? All people don’t want to be an American, but it is certain many people from all corners of the world do.
And if they were offered the same deal Puerto Rico gets, they would be foolish to reject it.
If they don’t, why do they all listen to and play American music, wear American fashions, use American slang, watch American movies, and obsess about American politics? Why do they literally swarm over the border, or work for years to qualify to emigrate to America?
Maybe work at being better informed yourself instead of parroting stale 1980s tropes, Roy.
Roy,
Thanks for your comment. Like many comments by haters of the good old U S of A, you drove me to do some research on populations, immigration and emigration. Can’t argue regarding the ignorance of the newer generations of Americans, 50 years of “liberal” education will give you that.
What percentage of the US population is non-native? How does that compare with other nations worldwide? How does birthright citizenship effect those statistics since all European countries DO NOT have birthright citizenship so children born of foreigners are foreigners? 50 million non-native in the US but how many are counted as native when for years 300,000 or so per year are born to “unauthorized immigrants”, so add another 5 million when compared to European countries you know, apples to apples.
Your comment displays an ignorance of people voting with their FEET when it comes to which country is best to live in. Almost 50 million (+5 million) non-native residents in the US and only 1% to 3% of Americans are living elsewhere, many those US citizens born to non-citizens who then moved back home? The US economy, based on free enterprise, sure drives natives away, and inhibits others from coming here.
BTW, considering the number of military service members who see the world, 1% to 3% of the population (which includes the 1 million military service members as well as other government employees) living outside the US tells you something of an American’s decision to stay IN the US.
BTW#2, I have lived in Nevada since moving here at 21 years of age. Study after study lists Nevada as one of the worst states to live in. When I got there in 1977 there were roughly 700,000 residents, currently at over 3 million. 42 years and over 4 times the population. People voted with their feet to come to Nevada. All those articles and ratings were highly subjective, objectively Nevada must be a great place to live. So your subjective opinion or objective reality? I don’t think “everyone” wants to become an American but objectively many do.
Beats the crap out of no millions and Chinese citizenship, complete with panopticon social-credit surveillance. How cool if we could actually DO it!
A few million in cash, yes, but American citizenship rather than Danish, and have their country run in the American way rather than the Greenlandic/Danish way? Very doubtful.
Aside from anything else, US citizenship means that you have to pay US tax regardless of where you live.
Alaskan Eskimos run their lives pretty much as they want.
Norway did not break the union wirth Denmark in 1814, it was imposed on the “Twin Realms” by the peace treaty of Kiel. Sweden demanded Norway as a compensation for losing Finland to Russia in 1809 (and as a reward for joining the coalition against Napoleon, thus being allied with Russia). Norwegians did not accept this, and declared independence, made a constitution, formed a parliament and elected a new king. Big power pressure prevented full freedom, but Norway gained complete internal independence, only the king and the foreign policy was shared with Sweden.
The Danish negotiators in Kiel were clever enough to realise that European diplomats had very little knowledge and less interest in the North Atlantic islands, so they simply claimed that Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands had been Danish all along, although these terriories were Norwegian since the Middle Ages. Norway, of course, was not represented in Kiel.
Yes, you are right, but we in Norway usually refer to it as “gå ut av unionen med Danmark” which can be translated as break the union with Denmark without adding a lot of explanation to it.
Norway did have a territorial claim on the East coast of Greenland in the 1930s, but it was settled in international court it was Danish territory.
As a curiosity, because of this claim, the Norwegian Navy photographed a large section of the East coast in the late 1920s and 1930s. 4 years ago the University of Tromsø reviewed the photographs, and they found the inland ice was much further retracted from the shoreline than what it is now.
Did the University of Tromsø publish that study?
Everything is for sale dude.
What about Danish Virgin Islands, now US Virgin Islands, sold to USA by Denmark?
+1
“and is NOT for sale to anyone.”
Why?
Greenland and Faroe Islands share king/queen and foreing policy with Denmark, otherwise these two countries are independent, so Denmark does not owe Greenland. Greenland is free to skip all relation with Denmark any time if wished, so if USA has a good offer to give, USA should give it to the people of Greenland, not to the danisk government.
Trump knows this. He trolls. Danes not really, but the left.
“… and is NOT for sale to anyone.”
If the price is right it will sell, whether you like it or not. If the price isn’t right, there will be no sale, again like it or not. That’s the way the world works, if you believe otherwise it is you who “must be delusional!”
Maybe we could trade them Puerto Rico?
What? Give up the flying nun? You must not be a Sally Fields admirer. 😍
If you take nationalism and chauvinism out of it it makes no sense for Denmark, a nation of less than six million people, to subsidize the less than 600,000 Greenlanders to the tune of 700 million per year. Also, Denmark can not defend Greenland from China or Russia. They need the U.S. to do so. Greenland could definitely use the money from selling Greenland to upgrade its infrastructure to deal with the threat of climate change (apparently a sacred belief in that country).
So every person in Denmark pays $700 a year in extra taxes to subsidize Greenland. Including new born babies and the elderly. If I were a Danish tax payer I would rather see my taxes reduced by $700 a year or at least see the money spent in Denmark.
The population of Greenland was 55,877 (1 January 2018).
The population of Iceland in 2019 is 340,900
I have no idea where you take the 600,000 from?
You are correct. I added a zero that should not have been there.
Maybe Tport meant fewer than 60,000.
Are you sure?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit
Snip:
Approximately 89 percent of Greenland’s population of 57,695 is Greenlandic Inuit, or 51,349 people as of 2012.[9] Ethnographically, they consist of three major groups:
the Kalaallit of west Greenland, who speak Kalaallisut
the Tunumiit of Tunu (east Greenland), who speak Tunumiit oraasiat (“East Greenlandic”)
the Inughuit of north Greenland, who speak Inuktun (“Polar Eskimo”)
Do you think they’d make good oil rig workers?
“Greenland has been viking land since it was discovered by the vikings 1000 years ago. ”
It was Inuit land, and the Vikings showed up on their (traditionally owned, held in community of property) territory. To their surprise the Irish monks were already there (or maybe gone by then). The Irish monks were also in Iceland before the Vikings, who followed them after about a century (at least). So much for Eric the Red “discovering” things. The people living on the Faroes probably know about Iceland before the monks moved there (hundreds of them).
If you are not aware of the Irish monks and their role in establishing a European presence in Iceland before the Vikings, search on line for stories about the caves they carved into the rock on islands off the SW coast.
Wherever we go, we find people already there. Huh. How then to claim ownership? As Jordan Peterson says, “That’s complicated question.” Norway may have claimed ownership, but they owned nearly nothing of Greenland when they “gave it” to Denmark. It was already in the possession (by presence and prior occupancy) by the Inuit. This is clearly recognized under the current interpretations of native rights.
Before the Inuit there were other occupants who are barely traceable. But the Inuit have a decent claim to ownership after and investigation of the DNA of a man who died on the north shore of Greenland (4000 BC) was traced to the Inuit group originating from NE China (not Siberia, as has been often assumed). That group was a second wave (at least) of occupation from E Asia.
That find is further proof of the Minoan Warm Optimum because the north shore of Greenland was navigable in summer, which it is not, now, and occupied year-round, ditto.
In Greenland you can keep warm in winter burning biogas digested from the horse shist published in the Western Press. No doubt about it.
I am in Waterloo, Ontario, on land ceded by the British Imperialists to the Six Nations (First Nations groups) “six miles on each bank of the Grand River”, which the Six Nations previously took fair and square (by annihilation) from the Neutrals, who took it fair and square from the previous occupants – Hurons? – (and so on) back to the group that took it fair and square (by annihilation) from the Clovis people 10 or 20 thousand years ago – no one is sure exactly when. The “First Nations” were at least “Second Nations” but it is, of course, politically incorrect to say so.
It is interesting to read how the US and Trump are “imperialistic” when they are offering to buy it. Imperialistic Europeans never bought land, they just took it, otherwise known as “theft” or “conquest” or “declaration” (with menaces). The term “imperialist” seems to be thrown at people they don’t like, like “racist” and “capitalist”. In other words, 19th Century Commie propaganda stuff. My, how some people don’t change.
If Greenland is “self-governing” the population could vote to join the USA as a State, same as Puerto Rico. Given a free choice, they would prefer to join Canada. The Danes are fully aware of that, and went to some trouble to get them to speak Danish (including capture, expatriation and forced acculturation of young people) and many efforts to prevent contact between the Inuit populations of Greenland and Nunavut. In the 1970’s, it was still impossible to buy a plane ticket from Canada to Greenland. Travellers were forced to fly to Copenhagen, then back to Greenland. I personally know someone who had to do this in 1976. Denmark has hardly been benign in this matter.
The reason for isolation was Denmark’s fear that the very obvious racial, linguistic and cultural connections between the northern Inuit groups would force them (Denmark) at some point to hand Greenland over to Canada. This indirectly acknowledges the unreasonable seizure of both regions by European imperial powers.
The Inuit arrived about 200 years after the Norse, but then had the island to themselves for about 300 years before Scandinavians returned.
I’d appreciate evidence for Irish monks in Greenland. They probably did occupy caves on Iceland before the Norse, at least in summer, perhaps from as early as AD 600.
Yes. Inuit spread from Alaskan coast and used their superior technology to survive while the paleo- Eskimo or ‘Dorset’ people(named after Cape Dorset) who were from Siberian coast and a different ethnicity and had lower skills died out.
Ancestors of the Inuit, please, not the Inuit. They were not yet Inuit when their ancestors left Alaska.
Yes. Greenland might have joined Canada when Newfoundland and Labrador did, ie 1949.
Newfoundland was a British Dominion which had become bankrupt. Joining Canada was the only possible option
Greenland , as has been pointed out was Danish territory , more likely to tie in with Iceland but they have different ehtnicities
Mark Twain famously remarked that there is not a square foot of land still in possession by its original owners. Part of the reason for that is that many aboriginal people don’t have the cultural concept of private real estate, especially among nomads. The Indians that sold Manhattan for a “few trinkets” probably laughed all the way back to to their lodge because they had received something of value to them for something they didn’t believe they owned. They had tribal lands, and hunting grounds that they defended against other tribes, but the concept of private ownership was foreign to them. I’m sure the Inuits felt similarly.
Having had Irish nuns all the way through grammar school, I know why the Irish monks fled to Greenland. 🙂
In other news, it’s hard to rationalize assigning all of Greenland to a group that occupied a few hundred square miles of it.
I do like your answer and analysis. Well, even if I think Trump has been wild, smart and great to ask to “buy” Greenland, and Danish PM was just impolite and undiplomatic with her acid feminist answer, I agree that probably it has more anthropologic sense for Greenland to join Canada, but for a lot of reasons it makes more sense to become a territory of USA just like US Virgin Islands. Be part of USA would give Greenland a different status, strategically, politically, economically. Same time to be a territory, not a state, gives a status of semi indipendente, autonomy that Puerto Rico unfortunately used improperly to disaster. Simply said, some people shows to be self reliant, Puerto Rican shows to need a nanny to pay for their bad behaviour…
About imperialistic Denmark and Europe, you are right, totally
It’s irrelevant what Denmark thinks. Greenland is semi independent and can become fully independent by referendum or vote.
So it is just a matter of convincing 56,000 residents to vote for independence and becoming a US territory.
Hum…? How could one buy their vote? Would $5,000,000 in cash per person do it? A family of four would have 20 million bucks.
Some one in the internet floted that proposal, and makes good sense to me. Total ‘purchase’ price about 250 billion.
And probably number 1 cause for the offer was a warning: The Chinese are trying to buy ports in Greenland, like they are doing everywhere. Don’t let them. I bet the reminder of European sovereignty was understood, even though with a nasty flourish. President Trump tactfully concluded the interchange.
The real reason centers around China’s attempt to purchase or lease an abandoned military base. This would put China on our back porch.
The natural resources are secondary.
Trump is playing 4 D chess while the media is playing checkers
checkers is too advanced for our media. What they are playing resembles chutes and ladders.
That would require the ability to count and think. Too challenging for them.
Don’t be so hard on the Media! They can count and think — as long as they don’t try to do both at the same time! They also have to forego chewing gum or walking if they want to count or think. 🙂
That would require the ability to count and think. Too advanced for them.
Tic Tac Toe at best, and they still haven’t figured out how NOT to lose.
In the UK we call it Snakes & Ladders, which seems more appropriate in this case.
I agree the primary interest is probably military related. Also would allow US to get nuke missiles much closer to both Russia and China.
Closer than Alaska????
Definitely closer to eastern Russia where most of their nuclear weapons are located.
I like it for the ability to get closer to it’s East Coast to track Russian boomers passing by Iceland.
Oops I meant closer to western Russia. (I forgot to invert going over the N pole.)
While Alaska is the closer of the two to Beijing(China), Greenland would be the closer of the two to Moscow(Russia). Alaska being closer to Pevek or Ugol’nyy (for example) doesn’t carry the same weight as being closer to Moscow.
Hmmm, what about Thule Air Base? The US is already there.
Jim
Thule AB is also interesting because the runways are aligned true heading instead of magnetic heading like most other airfields.
Jim
Whilst I don’t know the reason for the True North alignment, I suspect it may be related to the [local] speed of change of variation [the angle between True North and Magnetic North], due to the movement of the Magnetic North Pole, which looks as if it has recently taken the Putin Shilling, or Rouble, as it has accelerated across the Arctic (and now may be in East Longitudes).
Per the Wikithingy, that we can all edit: – “As of 2019, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic to 86.448°N 175.346°E.”
A projection, note.
Auto
>>
Whilst I don’t know the reason for the True North alignment . . . .
<<
It’s not necessarily true north. Most runways are numbered according to their magnetic heading. Runway 09 has a mag heading of approximately 090. The other end is pointing in the opposite direction or 270 mag–that end of the runway is numbered 27. Airfields in Northern Greenland have a magnetic variation of almost 90 degrees. The Earth’s magnetic north pole is almost due west of Greenland. With that much variation, true headings and numbering for runways probably makes more sense. Also many airplane heading systems are usually switched into true mode that far north anyway.
Jim
Correct Rick it gives a non NATO site closer to Western Russia and China.
Close.
The thought makes my blood run cold.
If neocon Cotton is urging Trump to buy Greenland, it’s fall-off-the-wall obvious the purpose is military in nature.
Tom Cotton Advised Trump to Buy Greenland Months Ago
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/22/tom-cotton-advised-trump-to-buy-greenland-months-ago/
1803, the Louisiana Purchase; 1867, the Alaska Purchase; it looks like 2019 is high time for another shopping expedition this time for Greenland.
Buy Greenland. Ease Danish debt support.
supposedly it costs the Danes 600 million/ year for upkeep so 700 million is a bargain to take it off their hand.
If Trump personally discovered a cure for cancer, the “Fake News” media would be whining about all the cancer specialists that would lose their jobs ! ….D’OH !
MAGA !
Definitely American Imperialists. Remember seizing Southern California and New Mexico from Spain, plus annexing the Republic of Texas, plus annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii.
When you put that together with trying to get western Canada, trying to separate Quebec, trying to conquer Canada (who burnt Toronto?) I reckon “Imperialists” is just about right.
And you complained about the UK as being colonialists! Philippines, anyone?
The United States purchased Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California and western Colorado from Mexico for $15 million, in the Treaty of Hidalgo. There was no seizure involved. Get it straight, Dud.
You still haven’t answered his questions about Hawaii or the Philippines
Hawaii was annexed in 1898 after a coup overthrew the queen in 1893, replacing the monarchy with a republic. President Harrison supported the coup, but Cleveland didn’t want to annex the new republic. McKinley did.
The US captured the Philippines in the Spanish-American War, but paid Spain an indemnity for the islands, with the intention of liberating them around the time we actually did, ie 1946.
The Philippines would not have been able to survive as an independent republic without Spanish or American protection. The islanders would have been dominated by the Brunei Sultanate, to be Islamized or enslaved. Had the Sultan not captured the islands, then a Chinese warlord, the Dutch, French, British or Japanese would have. Possibly all of the above.
And some of those empires wouldn’t have granted independence right after the war to our Filipino allies in WWII.
Michael
Being a Brit I do not claim to be an expert on the treaty, never having heard of it until you mentioned it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
Surely the US did annex Texas and the result was war and the transfer of those territories mentioned largely came as a result of the US defeating Mexico who then had to come to terms.
History is complicated and messy but seizure and purchased are words that need looking at in this context.
Whatever, the idea of purchasing Greenland was surely intended as a joke that has got way out of hand?
tonyb
The US did NOT annex Texas. Repeat that within earshot of a bunch of Texans, you can expect to have a very bad day. Texas was first an independent republic for nine years after seceding from Mexico and before joining the Union. There is a myth running around that Texas reserved the right to secede in the joint resolution that made it a state. What it did get is the right to subdivide itself into as many as 4 additional states.
Had it not been for a political dispute in the US, largely over slavery, the US would have annexed the whole country. Instead, the US found a provisional government in Mexico (the previous government had dissolved when they lost the war with the US), and “negotiated” the treaty.
To be cynical, The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was self-dealing by the US, but it did make all Mexican citizens in the area transferred US citizens, and they retained any existing property rights.
We wouldn’t have taken the whole country unless it were organized into an equal number of slave and free states.
Michael is correct about the purchase of the areas that are now US States along the southern border (plus Utah & Nevada), which were once Mexican territory (which were earlier seized by the Spanish from the various native tribes).
Texas was an independent republic for ~ 10 years after its war of independence with Mexico (ruled by the dictator Santa Ana). Mexico continued to raid the border areas of the Republic of Texas and sought help from the US. (The Republic of TX had an ambassador to Court of Saint James, BTW). So, Texas joined the US by treaty in 1845. Continued raids by Mexico resulted in a war from 1846-1848, which the US won. Mexico (re-) agreed that the Rio Grande was the border with TX and ceded most of what became NM, AZ, UT, NV, and CA, but the US PAID MEXICO $15M for that territory. In 1854, the US paid Mexico an additional $10M for narrow strips of territory along the borders of what are now AZ and NM, to make US-MX border we have today.
Regardless of ethnicity, the people living in TX, CA, etc., at the time of these events were not deprived of their property, nor were they required to leave. If they chose to stay, they became citizens of the US.
What you said is true, however, I would note that the “First Texans” were colonialists in the literal sense.
The land that is now Texas, along with parts of surrounding states, was sovereign Spanish territory for a long time including defeat of an early American backed attempt at independence from Spain. After Spain exited Mexico, the Mexican army wasn’t strong enough to defeat the next wave of American transplants.
Ironically, the right of secession was perfectly ok for Texas independence – but not for Southern independence some 20 years later.
What’s Ironic about it? Texas independence wasn’t Texas seceding from the United States (in which case you could indeed seek to find some irony), it was Texas seceding from a different country (Mexico), as such the US and it’s rules don’t apply – at all. 20 years later the “Southern independence” was an attempt to secede from the United States, not from Mexico, as such what did or did not happen between Mexico and it’s former territory are irrelevant as the US rules, and only the US rules, would apply. so the two things are apples and oranges. If there’s any irony to be found here it is in your misuse of the word ironically.
The Spanish hold on Las Tejas was very tenuous throughout the 18th century. Abortive attempts to plant sustainable missions and presidios to guard against French encroachment repeatedly failed. Many natives were hostile, too.
In the decades before Mexican independence, Spain was struggling to keep parts of Texas occupied. It was one of the least populated regions of New Spain in the late 18th century, with fewer than two inhabitants per square league (three Spanish or 2.6 English miles). The population was stagnant, growing from 3103 in 1777 to 3169 individuals in 1790. Over half this figure was classified as Spaniards, with settled Indians next most numerous group. Blacks, mostly slaves, made up less than one percent of the population in 1777, and only 2.2% of the 1793 census.
Spain didn’t want to increase this sparse settlement with non-Spanish immigrants, but Mexico eventually allowed Americans in, hoping to develop its northern territories.
Phillipines? That would be the country that recently decided to not renew the lease on one of our biggest naval bases, and all the US did was pack up and leave.
Not exactly colonialist.
Despite what you have been conditioned to believe, the US is not evil.
The Republic of Texas broke away from Mexico primarily due to neglect and poor management on the part of Mexico. It later requested to join the US. No annexing there.
No sooner did we leave Subic Bay, than did Mt. Pinatubo erupt. The PI regime begged us to come back. Which for humanitarian relief, we of course did. Then left again.
Mt. Pinatubo was first, then we decided that it wasn’t worth the price the Filipino government wanted considering how much Subic and Clark would cost to clean up. If Pinatubo hadn’t erupted, a deal probably could have been negotiated.
You’re right, but the government wanted too much for the lease.
Sock puppet.
Dudley, your history is defective. At the invitation of the Mexican government Texas was settled by Americans. Americans were the majority of the population. Then a dictator took over in Mexico and reneged on the political and religious rights that the previous Mexican government had guaranteed the American settlers. The settlers rebelled, fought a war of independence and won and established Texas as an independent republic. Later the government of independent Texas asked to join the American union as a state. As for California, Arizona and New Mexico, they were empty unsettled land that the United States annexed after the Mexican War. The Mexican provoked the Mexican War in an attempt to conquer back Texas. And for your information the Mexican army was committing atrocities and mass murder in Texas before the war for Texas independence.
Wow Dudley, your grasp of American History (as pointed out by others) is very poor indeed .
1) America did not Annex Texas from Mexico or anyone else. Texas Seceded, all on its own, from Mexico a decade *prior* to deciding to join the United States.
2) Mexico’s raids on the border areas of the Republic of Texas lead to Texas seeking to join the US and those continued raids after Texas joined resulted in war (1846-1848) between the two nations
3) Mexico lost the war that their constant raids started. Being the looser of a war has consequences. The consequences of loosing that war was loosing territory to the victor, Mexico only has itself to blame for that loss, not “American Imperialists”.
hello everyone.
Where to begin? after the U.S. war of independence the new nation inherited the claims to the territory to its west.
Of coarse several other nations had claims on the same area. Prior to the U.S. Mexican war the U.S. had been trying to purchase what we now call the southwest. The U.S. was also negotiating the north west border with the UK. Texas joining the U.S. was what caused Mexico to go to war.
They moved an army to the border of Texas, and the U.S. moved an army to the Texas/Mex border.
Now a note to all, The Mexican army was well trained and equipped with good generals. The problem for them was while they invested in cavalry we invested in artillery.
The first battle At Palo Alto (Texas) showed the results of these purchase choices. The Mexicans tried to flank the U.S. right flank with cavalry, knowing the Americans might form square they sent two cannon to shoot up the square. The U.S. seeing this called for their own artillery .
So the U.S Light Artillery arrived setup and blew the Mex artillery away before they could set up.
Then the finest artillery in the new world introduced itself to the finest cavalry in the new world, the latter did relish the new acquaintance.
the following link covers the events well.
https://www.thoughtco.com/mexican-american-war-battle-palo-alto-2361049
sorry oops
Trump is right: real estate (land, improvements) is the ultimate tradable commodity. We read about real estate sales in the Bible and in countless ancient and modern sources. A real estate transaction is based on the willingness of the seller to sell and of the buyer to buy, with terms and conditions (including price) on a contract of sale. Greenland would be a big purchase, requiring a carefully thought-out contract. Probably the thorniest problem would be defining and justifying the inclusion of the parties to the document, including Greenland’s current population.
Gaining property by means of a purchase agreed to by the parties is infinitely preferable to gaining it by conquest or trickery–ask the people of the Crimea or Afghanistan, whose property is at the least being blocked for certain uses by its citizens on account of the actions of a foreign power. Trump’s interest is out in the open, available for negotiation, not simply up for the taking.
“Gaining property by means of a purchase agreed to by the parties is infinitely preferable to gaining it by conquest or trickery–ask the people of the Crimea”
You must be referring to Khrushchev’s illegal transfer of Crimea to Ukraine in 1954.
Go get the Naysayers, David! Although I am in total agreement of the Natural Resource potential of Greenland, it appears that the USA is interested in Greenland to counter the rapid advancement of Russia into the frozen north. Whether this means Russia thinks CAGW is real or not I don’t know, but they say it is not real. President Trump cancelled his visit to Denmark because their Prime Minister was unnecessarily insulting when rejecting the idea of purchasing Greenland.
Wait a minute, “Greenland”? Vikings growing things and calling it “Greenland”, suggesting warmer times than now? And now CAGW will kick in and vacation condos on the beaches will be for sale? Or not?
I’m excited by the whale fisheries for renewable lamp oil production and biofuel for private jets. We’re going to need these when fossil fuels are outlawed and the grid goes down.
scissor
Shame on you!
Your need for lighting is frivolous whereas celebrities desperately need their private jets so they can fly round the globe and evangelise on climate change. anyway they emit celebrity co2 which actually cools the planet not warms it.
Ron, If I recall correctly, a nations economic zone in the Arctic is determined by continental shelf extent. Alaska gives the US very little arctic continental shelf, hence very limited control compared to Russia. Greenland would add to the US control considerably.
John, I think you recall correctly, and it sounds like you think its a good addition to the potential natural resource area of the USA. Would you like to go up to the Arctic and get started on those Natural Resources and I will, of course, catch up later?
Not at all interested in either the addition, nor a trip up there. Ended my time in the natural resource exploitation business summer of 67, although buying lots of quarried and milled stone over the last 40-45 years could be considered exploitation also. Personally, I don’t believe the USG needs any more of the world, and letting go of much of what we think of as “ours” would probably be helpful. We need less conflict, not more, and the Arctic region could provide an opportunity for more. I say, let Greenland alone –it’s sort of a buffer between us and those pesky Russians in the race for Arctic riches and dominance.
MAGA!
Thanks, that was fun, lol.
Last I checked–2 minutes ago–the US national debt was $22.5 trillion and climbing rapidly–which means the US government has to first stop spending more than it takes in, then repay $22.5 trillion ‘just to have nothing’, to quote Mark Steyn when speaking before Congress.
When I graduated from university the first time–that debt figure was $0.3 trillion. I can’t find a year in the list that it didn’t go up, and that was without buying any international real-estate.
So–‘buy Greenland’?–with what?
Len:
So- “buy Greenland” ? –with what?
Issue 50 year inverted yield curve bonds what else?? sarc/
The Danes are very enthusiastic about renewable energy. Maybe they will trade Greenland for some second hand solar panels.
And I just happen to know a source* for 250** rooftops worth of rooftop solar panels…
[ Full disclosure: * – Lawsuit pending; ** – 7 may have some ‘smoke damage’ ]
The Truman Administration offered to buy Greenland in 1946 for $100 million in gold – what did MSM say then?
If the UK and Russia had got on better at the time, Alaska becoming part of Canada would’ve made more sense. Has to be said of course that the UK tended to pick up territory for less than the asking price.
I don’t think the UK ” paid ” for much of any of the land they took control of, and there’s the problem. Not slamming on the UK, but Russia needed cash… and I don’t think the crown in England has had money to spend on anything since Waterloo.
The problem; The UK didn’t ” pay ” for much of anything. Russia needed the cash, badly. And if not for that window in time, it would probably not have been sold at all.
Russia was not very friendly with Britain for two reasons. One was the Crimean War. The other was rivalry in Central Asia. Therefore the Russians proffered to sell Alaska to the Americans instead of the British.
“Greenland is probably worth $533 billion, if it was for sale.”
Sssshhhhhhhhhhh, David! You don’t want to give that away! I would proceed as follows:
The counter tops in Qaahaqq are straight out of The Brady Bunch, so seventies. And that whole wall in Maniitsoq has to go! As for Nuuk…well, I think just calling it Nuuk Nuuk Nuuk would be enough. A swimming pool in Narsaq would be strategically good. And really just upgrading the windows and drapes in Nanortalik would elevate it to at least Micrortalik or higher. Then Illoqqortoormiut…well, doing anything just to shorten the name would be a plus.
I figure we could get in here for $100 billion or less, and with some granite counter tops, a few windows and drapes – oh, and new bathroom fixtures, my gawd! – we could flip this place for $25 trillion, and get out of national debt.
I would like to buy some shares in Greenland. It has fabulous untapped mineral resources that the socialist Danes want locked up. Just who are they saving the minerals for?
There could well be a biding war – China would alas win because they have the money. Perhaps though, the crooked Federal Reserve can be fined tens of trillions for plundering the wealth of America. These fines could be used to both pay off the debt and buy Greenland.
Denmark’s premier has clearly explained: Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.
Case closed.
So make an offer direct to the Greenlanders.
That will not cost anything in purchase costs, they just become part of the USA.
Current subsidy from Denmark is about 500 million USD, promise to increase that and throw in a few other benefits.
Hypocrisy at it’s liberal best.
If Denmark’s premier actually believed that, he would be proposing independence for Greenland.
MarkW
I understand your point.
But you in turn should understand that your proposal is completely pointlress, as the Greenlanders lack all what is necessary to become independent.
Thus again: she is right when saying “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders”.
No dishonesty here: just realism.
Just one out of many chapters oft DJT’s textbook “How to drive MSM mad”.
Would have been a great deal: at the rate the ice sheet is melting there’d be twice as much real estate in ten years time. Trump knows a thing or two about global warming afterall.
Closer to 5000 years, but what the heck, numbers were never your thing.
Longer even that to double the exposed area.
Loydo August 22, 2019 at 4:51 am
Well we could cut Yuge blocks of ice off and sell them to the Mid-East countries and with the coming cooling there will be an endless supply!
See you were right about Trump after all,, just not way you expected.
michael
Third, Trump is a man very interested in his legacy in office. Buying Greenland would be a major bullet point on his presidential resume.
That one made me laugh. So Trump is worried about adding a bullet point to his resume? What job do they think he might apply for next? I’d say just becoming president of the US is a MAJOR BULLET POINT on your resume that you probably don’t need to hand out any longer. Morons!
Resume, resume. I heard the mayors of LA, SF and Seattle in particular could use the slogan, “If you like your sh_thole, you can keep your sh_thole.” It would work for Baltimore and a few other progressive run cities also.
I still say this is a prompt to start a discussion about unproductive territories like most of America’s, especially Puerto Rico.
Give them their independence NOW before providing hundreds of millions more for hurricane repairs. Revoke all Puerto Rico born peoples US citizenship immediately, and send those living in the US home.
See how they like standing on their own two feet. They would need to compete with other Caribbean island nations for US tourist dollars, I wonder how they would do?
You forgot:
6. To the Washington Post’s obvious dismay, he has the temerity to believe Jews are entitled to a secure homeland of their own – a little snag that will no doubt get fixed once and for all by the next Democrat administration.
Yesterday afternoon I had to help my wife with her laptop, and I was inadvertently exposed to CNN’s stupidity (the only way that happens now) as it was streaming in the background. Some pond life droned on endlessly about how Trump’s offer was “un-American” and how maybe there was a chance to repair the “shattered relationship” with Denmark, one of the USA’s “strongest allies” (wut?) when
America’s Rightful Rulers restart their agenda to turn the USA into a third world crapholethe Democrats oust him.It was nauseating, pathological propaganda of the worst sort, but she killed the volume when she realized my body language meant, “this is how you repay me for helping you?”
It’s a terrible idea, even if it were for sale (which it isn’t). If we were serious about it, the people we’d need to talk to would be the Greenlanders, not Denmark. But it would still be a bad idea. First, the idea that “Greenland ice is melting” is laughably wrong, as is the idea that the Arctic is melting, or that it “will be” in the future. Sure, sea ice did recede, but it has done that before. But we could be seeing Arctic sea ice rebound in coming decades. This would make such a purchase even more of a foolish one. The investment required in infrastructure alone would be huge.
mineral deposits that are expensive to extract even as we may be entering a post mineral wealth era
a population that produces little and gets food and medical subsidies and is expensive to supply
lets Denmark keep it
The basic idea seems perfectly sensible to me.
The USA has expanded by purchase many times in the past, and those areas had populations as well.
There have been at least 2 previous attempts, by the USA, to buy Greenland, and probably many more vague enquiries.
Geographically it makes a lot more sense for Greenland to be part of the USA than somewhere on the other side of the Atlantic.
I suspect there are concerns about the Chinese moving in to exploit the minerals, they are doing it everywhere else and the USA really does not want a Chinese presence that close.
More than likely the Chinese would like to stake a claim on a portion of the Arctic Sea for its resources.
Buy it? That’s silly. As a self governing territory we just need to “ convince” them. It costs Denmark $700 million annually to subsidize the frozen isle. Denmark and any going to have a say here. So. We tell the Thales that we will double the subsidy and give a one time bonus of $100,000 for every vote in a referendum that’s approves US status. That’s about $5 billion in the first year and a declining $2b thereafter. Easy peasy. We don’t have to lease the base anymore. The Chicomms are thwarted. And we all get a free bag of exotic glacial ice cubes for our gin and tonics.
When talking to a Danish friend of mine, he suggested the following:
Greenland…well there shouldn’t be money between friends. My suggestion will be we trade Greenland for Hawaii. In reality Hawaii is just a big volcano so it is a good deal for you guys.
I thought it was a great comeback!
Months before President Trump reportedly joked with aides and floated the idea of trading Puerto Rico for the Danish territory in a meeting last year, The New York Times reports.