The Greenland Purchase

Guest ROTFLMFAO by David Middleton

No Joke: Trump Really Does Want To Buy Greenland

August 19, 2019

President 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!


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


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


In essence, the media and academia think that President Trump wants to buy Greenland because he:

  1. Hates the environment.
  2. Hates indigenous people.
  3. Wants to unfairly take advantage of climate change in his quest for American Energy Dominance.
  4. Views real estate as if it was a tradable commodity.
  5. 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.

Greenland general geology and selected mineral resources. (Brookings)
Greenland oil & gas concessions. (Brookings)

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]


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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 22, 2019 2:06 am

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.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 3:26 am

Money talks.

Reply to  Adam Gallon
August 22, 2019 12:54 pm

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.

Reply to  Greg
August 22, 2019 2:58 pm

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.

Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2019 10:25 pm

Not found, other than remnants from the dismantled previous program.

This is a science web site not a place where hoaxes get propagated

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2019 7:29 am

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.

Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2019 11:42 am

“Duker”… Exactly what would you call hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium and thousands of pounds of yellowcake? Snacks for children?

John Tillman
Reply to  Greg
August 22, 2019 5:50 pm

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.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 3:49 am

If Norway could “give” Greenland to Denmark, then logically it IS for sale to another country.

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 4:58 am

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.

Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 5:53 am

… by Scandinavians.
… by modern Scandinavians.

John Tillman
Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 6:18 am

Yup. The Norse settlers left or died out in the 15th century.

Scandinavians returned in 1721.

Tom Halla
Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 6:21 am

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”?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 22, 2019 6:49 am

Everything belongs to the first single-cell organisms.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 22, 2019 8:38 am

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 22, 2019 9:15 am

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.

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:

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 22, 2019 5:19 pm


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.

Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 6:02 am

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.

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 7:16 am

How do you explain the presence of Thule for hundreds of years when the Vikings were absent?

Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 8:35 am

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 9:31 am

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.

Norwegian and Danish ships did visit Greenland a few times in the 17th and possibly 16th centuries, but made no permanent settlement until 1721.

Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 10:14 am

Silversurfer August 22, 2019 at 8:35 am

The wiki page for Greenland is enlightening. The trajectory is for Greenland to become independent of the Scandinavians. Greenlandic is already the official language.

Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 12:42 pm

” 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.

John Tillman
Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 1:21 pm

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.

Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 8:22 pm

“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.)

John Tillman
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 12:45 pm

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.

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 5:47 am

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.

Reply to  J.H.
August 22, 2019 6:04 am

You must be delusional! :-))

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 7:35 am

Not delusional, just not following the news very well.

Both the Danish PM and the leader of Greenland have rejected the idea.

She (the Danish PM) told reporters the idea of selling the resource-rich Arctic island had “clearly been rejected” by its leader, Kim Kielsen, “a position I share of course”. link

Robert W Turner
Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 8:37 am

Surely they must speak for all Greenlanders.

Reply to  commieBob
August 22, 2019 12:32 pm

Robert W Turner August 22, 2019 at 8:37 am

Well, yes, that’s the point of representative democracy isn’t it.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 9:43 pm

Delusional: Greenland Has The World’s Highest Suicide Rate › 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. › …

Greenland’s high suicide rate hardly changed since 1980s – WikiTribune

· And while 2011 was a high year, Greenland’s suicide rate has … Problem amongst indigenous populations. › 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 …

Reply to  J.H.
August 22, 2019 8:32 am

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.

Reply to  Marty
August 22, 2019 9:32 am

Can’t imagine why.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  icisil
August 22, 2019 11:08 am

And that matters, why? Perhaps there’s an Obtuse Veto I’m not aware of?

Thomas Englert
Reply to  icisil
August 22, 2019 5:08 pm

Lack of a king, maybe? Or maybe a Bill of Rights.

Reply to  icisil
August 23, 2019 9:20 am

Free everything, at least that’s what the dopacraps promise, and the credulous believe.

Reply to  Marty
August 22, 2019 1:44 pm

Americans are so well informed that they imagine everyone in the world wants to be American.

Reply to  Roy
August 22, 2019 5:44 pm

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.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Roy
August 22, 2019 6:56 pm

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.

Reply to  Roy
August 22, 2019 7:07 pm


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.

Reply to  J.H.
August 22, 2019 11:37 am

Beats the crap out of no millions and Chinese citizenship, complete with panopticon social-credit surveillance. How cool if we could actually DO it!

Reply to  J.H.
August 22, 2019 8:12 pm

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  RoHa
August 24, 2019 2:49 pm

Alaskan Eskimos run their lives pretty much as they want.

Henning Nielsen
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 5:47 am

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.

Reply to  Henning Nielsen
August 22, 2019 9:03 am

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.

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 12:54 pm

Did the University of Tromsø publish that study?

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 5:49 am

Everything is for sale dude.

Luca Bartolozzi
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 5:57 am

What about Danish Virgin Islands, now US Virgin Islands, sold to USA by Denmark?

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Luca Bartolozzi
August 22, 2019 11:10 am


Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 6:49 am

“and is NOT for sale to anyone.”


Bjarne Bisballe
Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2019 11:35 am

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.

Reply to  Bjarne Bisballe
August 25, 2019 11:46 am

Trump knows this. He trolls. Danes not really, but the left.

John Endicott
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 7:30 am

“… 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!”

Reply to  John Endicott
August 22, 2019 12:50 pm

Maybe we could trade them Puerto Rico?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Brian
August 23, 2019 3:19 pm

What? Give up the flying nun? You must not be a Sally Fields admirer. 😍

t port
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 7:34 am

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).

Reply to  t port
August 22, 2019 8:40 am

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.

Reply to  t port
August 22, 2019 9:07 am

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?

t port
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 5:41 pm

You are correct. I added a zero that should not have been there.

John Tillman
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 5:54 pm

Maybe Tport meant fewer than 60,000.

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 8:28 am

Are you sure?

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”)

Reply to  UBrexitUPay4it
August 23, 2019 9:13 pm

Do you think they’d make good oil rig workers?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Silversurfer
August 22, 2019 9:50 am

“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.

John Tillman
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 22, 2019 10:50 am

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.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 22, 2019 10:33 pm

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  Duker
August 23, 2019 7:55 pm

Ancestors of the Inuit, please, not the Inuit. They were not yet Inuit when their ancestors left Alaska.

John Tillman
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 22, 2019 10:53 am

Yes. Greenland might have joined Canada when Newfoundland and Labrador did, ie 1949.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 22, 2019 11:59 pm

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

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 22, 2019 12:33 pm

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.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 22, 2019 4:23 pm

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.

Luca Bartolozzi
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 24, 2019 1:01 am

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

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 23, 2019 8:35 am

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.

Reply to  Silversurfer
August 24, 2019 9:48 am

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.

Rick Johnson
August 22, 2019 2:10 am

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

Bill Powers
Reply to  Rick Johnson
August 22, 2019 3:50 am

checkers is too advanced for our media. What they are playing resembles chutes and ladders.

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 22, 2019 5:02 am

That would require the ability to count and think. Too challenging for them.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  BlueCat49
August 22, 2019 12:39 pm

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. 🙂

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 22, 2019 5:04 am

That would require the ability to count and think. Too advanced for them.

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 22, 2019 9:30 am

Tic Tac Toe at best, and they still haven’t figured out how NOT to lose.

michael hart
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 22, 2019 9:32 pm

In the UK we call it Snakes & Ladders, which seems more appropriate in this case.

Reply to  Rick Johnson
August 22, 2019 5:05 am

I agree the primary interest is probably military related. Also would allow US to get nuke missiles much closer to both Russia and China.

Reply to  icisil
August 22, 2019 6:51 am

Closer than Alaska????

Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2019 7:18 am

Definitely closer to eastern Russia where most of their nuclear weapons are located.

James King
Reply to  icisil
August 22, 2019 8:54 am

I like it for the ability to get closer to it’s East Coast to track Russian boomers passing by Iceland.

Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2019 7:26 am

Oops I meant closer to western Russia. (I forgot to invert going over the N pole.)

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2019 7:36 am

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.

Reply to  icisil
August 22, 2019 9:04 am

Hmmm, what about Thule Air Base? The US is already there.


Reply to  Jim Masterson
August 22, 2019 11:34 am

Thule AB is also interesting because the runways are aligned true heading instead of magnetic heading like most other airfields.


Reply to  Jim Masterson
August 22, 2019 1:50 pm

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.


Reply to  Jim Masterson
August 22, 2019 5:12 pm

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.


Reply to  Rick Johnson
August 22, 2019 5:58 am

Correct Rick it gives a non NATO site closer to Western Russia and China.

Reply to  Rick Johnson
August 22, 2019 7:59 am


China, which is embroiled in a trade battle with the U.S., previously showed interest in developing a “Polar Silk Road” of trade through the North Atlantic shipping lanes. China proposed building new airports and mining facilities on Greenland in 2018, but eventually withdrew its bid. link

The thought makes my blood run cold.

Reply to  Rick Johnson
August 22, 2019 12:25 pm

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

August 22, 2019 2:12 am

1803, the Louisiana Purchase; 1867, the Alaska Purchase; it looks like 2019 is high time for another shopping expedition this time for Greenland.

Doug Huffman
August 22, 2019 2:19 am

Buy Greenland. Ease Danish debt support.

Joe E
Reply to  Doug Huffman
August 22, 2019 8:00 am

supposedly it costs the Danes 600 million/ year for upkeep so 700 million is a bargain to take it off their hand.

Mark Broderick
August 22, 2019 2:36 am

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 !


Dudley Horscroft
August 22, 2019 2:57 am

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?

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 22, 2019 3:41 am

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.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 22, 2019 4:24 am

You still haven’t answered his questions about Hawaii or the Philippines

John Tillman
Reply to  rapscallion
August 22, 2019 10:33 am

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.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 22, 2019 4:38 am


Being a Brit I do not claim to be an expert on the treaty, never having heard of it until you mentioned it

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?


D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  tonyb
August 22, 2019 6:21 am

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.

Tom Halla
Reply to  tonyb
August 22, 2019 6:29 am

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 24, 2019 2:46 pm

We wouldn’t have taken the whole country unless it were organized into an equal number of slave and free states.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 22, 2019 5:55 am

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.

Reply to  Nik
August 22, 2019 7:31 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  c1ue
August 22, 2019 9:33 am

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  c1ue
August 22, 2019 2:34 pm

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.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 22, 2019 6:55 am

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2019 12:19 pm

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.

Richard Patton
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2019 1:54 pm

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.

John Tillman
Reply to  Richard Patton
August 24, 2019 2:41 pm

You’re right, but the government wanted too much for the lease.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 22, 2019 7:39 am

Sock puppet.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 22, 2019 8:53 am

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.

John Endicott
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 22, 2019 10:05 am

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”.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 22, 2019 12:09 pm

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.

mike the morlock
Reply to  mike the morlock
August 22, 2019 1:19 pm
John M. Ware
August 22, 2019 3:06 am

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.

Reply to  John M. Ware
August 22, 2019 6:28 am

“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.

Ron Long
August 22, 2019 3:15 am

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?

Reply to  Ron Long
August 22, 2019 5:26 am

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.

Reply to  Scissor
August 22, 2019 6:36 am


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.

John VC
Reply to  Ron Long
August 22, 2019 9:16 am

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.

Ron Long
Reply to  John VC
August 22, 2019 10:40 am

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?

John VC
Reply to  Ron Long
August 22, 2019 3:35 pm

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.

Lois Johnson
August 22, 2019 3:55 am

Thanks, that was fun, lol.

Len Werner
August 22, 2019 4:01 am

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?

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Len Werner
August 22, 2019 4:48 am

So- “buy Greenland” ? –with what?
Issue 50 year inverted yield curve bonds what else?? sarc/

Nick Werner
Reply to  Len Werner
August 22, 2019 7:53 am

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’ ]

August 22, 2019 4:01 am

The Truman Administration offered to buy Greenland in 1946 for $100 million in gold – what did MSM say then?

Bloke down the pub
August 22, 2019 4:04 am

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.

Uncle Max
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 22, 2019 10:33 am

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.

Uncle Max
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 22, 2019 10:37 am

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.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 22, 2019 1:58 pm

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.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 22, 2019 4:05 am

“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.

High Treason
August 22, 2019 4:09 am

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.

August 22, 2019 4:22 am

Denmark’s premier has clearly explained: Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.
Case closed.

Reply to  Bindidon
August 22, 2019 6:27 am

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.

Reply to  Bindidon
August 22, 2019 6:59 am

Hypocrisy at it’s liberal best.
If Denmark’s premier actually believed that, he would be proposing independence for Greenland.

Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2019 3:32 am


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.

Non Nomen
August 22, 2019 4:50 am

Just one out of many chapters oft DJT’s textbook “How to drive MSM mad”.

August 22, 2019 4:51 am

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.

Reply to  Loydo
August 22, 2019 6:59 am

Closer to 5000 years, but what the heck, numbers were never your thing.

John Tillman
Reply to  MarkW
August 22, 2019 12:32 pm

Longer even that to double the exposed area.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Loydo
August 22, 2019 1:26 pm

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.


Sam Capricci
August 22, 2019 4:54 am

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!

Reply to  Sam Capricci
August 22, 2019 5:31 am

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.

August 22, 2019 5:06 am

I still say this is a prompt to start a discussion about unproductive territories like most of America’s, especially Puerto Rico.

Reply to  BlueCat49
August 22, 2019 9:50 am

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?

Michael H Anderson
August 22, 2019 5:18 am

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 craphole the 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?”

Bruce Cobb
August 22, 2019 5:39 am

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.

August 22, 2019 6:01 am

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

August 22, 2019 6:14 am

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.

Reply to  BillP
August 22, 2019 9:25 am

More than likely the Chinese would like to stake a claim on a portion of the Arctic Sea for its resources.

August 22, 2019 6:14 am

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.

Tom Higley
August 22, 2019 6:31 am

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!

Reply to  Tom Higley
August 22, 2019 7:18 am

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.

August 22, 2019 6:31 am

Take an old Navy destroyer, park it off the coast of Greenland, blow it up, blame the Greenlander’s and invade the country. It worked in Cuba and it could work there.

August 22, 2019 6:46 am

“Views real estate as if it was a tradable commodity.”

You mean it isn’t?

“Actually wants to put American interests ahead of every other nation’s.”

Isn’t it the job of a country’s leader, to put that country’s interests ahead of other countries?

August 22, 2019 6:48 am

Once again the liberal assumes that anyone who disagrees with a liberal, must be evil. In this instance racist.

Steve Oregon
August 22, 2019 7:04 am

Of course Denmark would sell. There’s a price. And it’s not proportionate to any open land like Wyoming. Probably half that or so. $200 billion?
The people of Greenland would also enjoy becoming US citizens.
The media meltdown with those angry on CNN and MSNBC has been bizarre with the continued gang like attack on Trump being the only mission.
They way they explain Trump and his motives while spewing how crazy he has become cult chanting.

August 22, 2019 7:09 am

Yes, there is a very obvious mineral on Greenland.
Dihydrogen monoxide, and staggering amounts of it.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Bob Hoye
August 23, 2019 2:06 pm

Or dihydrous oxide (has a more scientific sound).

August 22, 2019 7:10 am

The fool who melted down was Trump, not the media.

You think it’s funny that a US POTUS seriously insulted one of our most loyal allies, Denmark, a nation that fought and died beside us in our recent foreign wars?

That is really sick and pathetic. The Trumpkin mentality is a disease that needs to be eradicated.

Reply to  Duane
August 22, 2019 8:29 am

Calm down now Duane and take your meds. Trump is a stable genius. I wouldn’t be surprised if the native Greenlanders themselves have a referendum to completely break ties with Denmark, and assume a much deal with America. The bidding has just begun and this ain’t over til its over.

Reply to  Duane
August 22, 2019 8:35 am

In what clown world is offering to buy land from someone insulting them?

Reply to  BillP
August 22, 2019 12:04 pm

The real world of nations. And of leaders who are not condescending a-holes who attack their nations friends and allies while defending their nation’s enemies.

Imagine Russia going up to Trump and offering to buy the Red States from America, because they are already in the tank for Russia and their bought and paid for POTUS?

Perhaps some the blue states might be quite content to let them go .. but no, you and most Americans would be offended, and tell Putin to go do something to himself.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Duane
August 22, 2019 1:45 pm

Duane August 22, 2019 at 12:04 pm

Duane you are either having a blast play acting or nuts. Trump making an offer or opening a discussion is not insulting, the reply was. The Danes can forget me buying any of their cookies this Xmas.

Reply to  Duane
August 22, 2019 2:01 pm

So it is the clown world in which Russia won the election for Trump. So absolutely no connection with reality.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  Duane
August 23, 2019 7:52 am

Duane, I can always tell when someone who has completely lost all ability to be rational is posting or talking. They make some ignorant comment about how Russia helped DJT win the election. At this point I would make some comment to make an attempt to argue the point with you, but it is useless. You are so overcome by your overemotional, illogical, and ridiculous fantasy that no one could talk you out of it.
For the record, I am not pro-Trump, or at least I was not at the beginning. But constantly interacting with illogical demagogues like you quickly helped me to realize that the Democrat party is NOT the party my family always voted for. They are now clinically insane.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duane
August 22, 2019 10:17 am

“You think it’s funny that a US POTUS seriously insulted one of our most loyal allies, Denmark, a nation that fought and died beside us in our recent foreign wars?”

Well, when you insult Trump/United States you can expect to get an insulting reply back from Trump, and he doesn’t care who you are.

If the leader of Denmark had treated the offer as a joke, instead of insulting Trump by calling it “absurd”, then everyone would have had a good laugh, but the Danish leader had to allow her personal feelings against Trump to enter into the conversation. They slap Trump. Trump slaps back. Be governed accordingly.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Duane
August 22, 2019 10:20 am

“That is really sick and pathetic. The Trumpkin mentality is a disease that needs to be eradicated.”

No, it’s the Trump Derangement Syndrome that needs to be eradicated.

No one.
August 22, 2019 7:58 am

Be nice to the Greenlanders. The ones that wish to become American citizens won’t have to sail down to Mexico and cross the border to become Californians. No problem maintaining there superior lifestyle, at the very minimum pyschologically superior.

August 22, 2019 8:04 am

Subsidies. That’s how the island of Newfoundland ended up in Canada.
By the late 1940s, the Brits no longer wanted it. Most of the trade was with Maine, so it would have been a
“natural” to go to the US.
But Joey Smallwood, who became premier, campaign that Canada would provide more welfare.
And does—to this very day.

August 22, 2019 8:07 am

Years ago, I rewrote Paul Simon’s “Graceland” when the satellite data was published showing more ice from 1993-2003:

I’m Goin’ to Greenland (with apologies to Paul Simon)
The North Atlantic continent was
Shining like a National guitar
I am following the Gulf Stream
Up the seaway
Through the cradle of the Viking Shore

I’m going to Greenland
Frozen to the sea
I’m going to Greenland

Puffins and pilot whales with families
And we are going to Greenland

My global ice hypothesis is nine years old
It is the child of my politics
But I’ve reason to believe
It will find reprieve
In Greenland

Data comes to tell me “more ice”
I didn’t want to know that
I didn’t want to trust my own data
I can’t admit I noticed
The way the glaciers are building
And I feel losing this bet
Is like a hole in my idea
My hypothesis is blown apart
The satellites see the ice grow

I’m going to Greenland
Frozen to the sea
I’m going to Greenland
Puffins and pilot whales with families
And we are going to Greenland

And my working hypotheses
Are ghosts with bad predictions
I’m sticking with my convictions
But I’ve reason to believe
I will find reprieve
In Greenland

There is a man named Karl Popper
Who calls out when your idea’s falsified
And sometimes when I’m dodging, lying
And fudging to the media I say
Oh, so this is what he means
He means the ice is up in Greenland
And I feel losing this bet
Is like a hole in my idea
My hypothesis is blown apart
Everybody sees the ice grow

In Greenland, Greenland
I’m going to Greenland
The data I cannot explain
There’s some part of me wants to see
And I may be obliged to defend
Every statement, every conference
Or maybe there’s no global warming now
Maybe I’ve a reason to believe
We all will find reprieve
In Greenland

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle (@DeHavelle)
(I favor the purchase, as a “Seward’s Folly II”)

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Keith DeHavelle
August 22, 2019 11:01 am

Oh, Greenland is a dreadful place
It’s a land that’s never green
Where there’s ice and snow and the whalefishes blow
And daylight’s seldom seen, brave boys

Greenland Whale Fisheries (trad.)
The Weavers

August 22, 2019 8:44 am

Kopenhagen doesn’t ‘own’ Greenland anymore, the island is an autonomous region with an own government. The first instititution to ask if they want to be ‘sold’ is the autonomous parliament of Greenland. Given the huge implication thus would mean a constitutional change and hence a new election and a majority of two thirds of both parliaments (Greenland and Denmark) is needed.

Reply to  Hans Erren
August 22, 2019 9:20 am

Can’t imagine what the US has to offer Greenlanders that they would agree to such a thing.

John Tillman
Reply to  icisil
August 22, 2019 10:42 am

The subsidies which Denmark no longer wants to pay, as per Indian reservations and Alaskan communities. Massive construction jobs. A diversified economy with more tourism, mining, ranching and indoor farming. More connections with the outside world. Learning the international language rather than Danish.

But besides that, what?

August 22, 2019 8:51 am

I presume Greenlanders would prefer to join Canada over USA.

August 22, 2019 8:58 am

The Prime Minister of Denmark is just behaving like a teenage girl rebuffing a date from a boy she really likes so she appears to be playing hard to get just to see how interested the boy really is. Hence the ‘absurd’ remark. ‘I would never go out with you.’ This is just the opening volley of an attraction between USA and Denmark to ensure that the price for Greenland is respectable. Something tells me this isn’t the end of this story, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see further developments of some type.

But seriously, this is to ensure with 100% certainty that neither Russia or China gain access to the strategic location and resources of Greenland, and/or to the North West Passage through Canada, which coincidently is also on the table today with the visit by Pompeo to Ottawa today.

John Tillman
Reply to  Earthling2
August 22, 2019 10:38 am

IMO $500 billion is too much.

Most of Wyoming is not under a thick ice sheet. There should be a substantial icy discount.

The ice sheet is not going anywhere soon. The Eemian was warmer than and lasted 5000 years longer than the Holocene has so far. The GIS’ southern dome melted perhaps 25% more by the end of that interglacial than it has so far in this one. The northern dome, not so much, as in, probably not at all.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
August 22, 2019 9:26 pm

True, but lots of proven fossil fuel reserves, already being mined at economic rates.

John Tillman
Reply to  Earthling2
August 22, 2019 1:57 pm

Early 21st-century Eskimo population estimates range from more than 135,000 to 170,000. Of the lower guess, some 85,000 Yupik, Inupiat and Inuit people live in North America, 50,000 Inuit in Greenland, and the remainder Yupik in Siberia. In Alaska, Yupik mainly live on the Bering Sea and Inupiat on the Arctic Ocean, next to their kin in western Canada. Inuit of course occupy eastern Canada and Greenland.

There is no Eskimo word for Eskimo, so we’re stuck with the name given these groups as a whole. IMO Greenlanders might well vote to unite with their kinfolk in Canada, whence their ancestors came, although originally from Alaska and Siberia.

August 22, 2019 9:04 am

Does Trump want to buy the UK? If so, I expect the Tories would sell it to him. They have already sold most UK utilities to foreign companies.

Robert of Texas
August 22, 2019 9:11 am

Put on display is the difference between political systems. Russia would have just invaded (assuming they had the capability and the U.S. would have let them). The U.S. tries to buy it through a negotiation. Strange the world cannot see the difference.

Mark Lee
August 22, 2019 9:25 am

Everyone that borders the Arctic Ocean has been making assertions about control of the resources adjacent to their coast lines. IIRC, the economic zone is 200 miles from the coast. At the present time, the coast of Alaska is only a small part of the Arctic shoreline when compared to Russia and Canada. So acquiring Greenland would give us resource rights deep into the Arctic Ocean. Plus, if we ever lose the right to base military forces in Iceland, our ability to track and intercept Russian submarines is compromised. Greenland would help to offset that vulnerability.

Or, there is a crashed alien spacecraft under a glacier, and Trump wants it. If you want a sensationalist answer, go with this one.

Walter Sobchak
August 22, 2019 9:34 am

The US should not buy Greenland for its natural resources, because the EPA and the federal Judiciary will block any mining or drilling because they6 do not want to inflict pain on Gaia.

August 22, 2019 9:34 am

How about a simple trade, Puerto Rico for Greenland. Recent upgrades included.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 22, 2019 11:16 am

I the Danes go for the Puerto Rico trade for Greenland we can also offer them a paint and carpet allowance!!

August 22, 2019 11:16 am

If the Danes go for the Puerto Rico trade for Greenland we can also offer them a paint and carpet allowance!!

Reply to  Bob72270
August 22, 2019 2:45 pm

Why not California and New York? A much better deal for the U.S.

Jeff Id
August 22, 2019 11:50 am
John Tillman
Reply to  Jeff Id
August 22, 2019 2:15 pm

The Truman Administration’s attempt wasn’t the first. Around the same time that Secretary of State Seward purchased Alaska from Russia, 1867, he also tried unsuccessfully to acquire Greenland and Iceland from Denmark.

August 22, 2019 12:14 pm

In essence, the media and academia think that President Trump wants to buy Greenland because he:

“Hates the environment.”
No… he just doesn’t value it. He sees it as a tradeable commodity.
“Hates indigenous people.”
Again he probably sees them as an asset. Or… doesn’t have an opinion if they are not on his $$$ radar.
“Wants to unfairly take advantage of climate change…..”
He has done that before. See
“Views real estate as if it was a tradable commodity.”
I don’t think there is any doubt about that.
“Actually wants to put American interests ahead of every other nation’s.”
You can do that without being an insulting twat. Well most politicians can.

It’s pretty arrogant/petulant/spoilt childish to cancel a meeting because the party tells you one of it’s “not for sale” pieces of land is … well… not for sale. In fact he is being a bully with it. “If I don’t get what I want I’ wont play with you till I do.”

John Tillman
August 22, 2019 1:19 pm

Surprising that England didn’t claim Greenland during the ~300-year interval between the Norse demise and Danish colonization.

Neapolitan John Cabot, sailing for King Henry VII, on his second voyage in 1498 visited Greenland, both east and west coasts; he also explored Baffin Land and Newfoundland.

In 1576, Sir Martin Frobisher sighted the east coast of Greenland while searching for a NW passage. On the same mission, John Davis also sailed there by the same route from the Shetlands in 1583.

Britain ended up with a claim to the Canadian Arctic islands as a result of these and Henry Hudson’s (died in the eponymous Bay in 1611) voyages, but apparently wasn’t interested in Greenland. Thus it was available for Danish exploitation over a century later.

The ethnic, linguistic and cultural relatedness of Greenland and eastern Canadian Inuit, plus geographic proximity and geological similarity, do indeed argue for Canadian affiliation.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
August 22, 2019 6:42 pm

Danish maladministration of Greenland has been disastrous for 300 years.

British or Dutch, and later Canadian or American, administration couldn’t have been worse and almost certainly would have been better.

Jake J
August 22, 2019 1:20 pm

A simple idea.

Offer $550 billion, payable directly to Greenland’s adult residents of record as of August 1, 2019. Call for a referendum, and if the residents don’t want to accept $15 million per adult to fly a different flag, then walk away. You know, that whole “democracy” thing that the Democrats are always going on about?

John Tillman
Reply to  Jake J
August 22, 2019 5:52 pm

Good concept, but Greenlanders might accept $150,000 per adult, plus promises of good jobs, improved infrastructure and more contact with the outside world.

Wiliam Haas
August 22, 2019 1:48 pm

The federal government is deep in debt and is losing huge amounts of money each year. Before the federal government can consider buying anything, they need to stop losing money and pay off their debts. As the federal government’s CEO, the President needs to present to the American people a plan for making the federal government profitable again and for paying off all of the federal government’s debts.

August 22, 2019 1:52 pm

Let the Greenlanders decide with a referendum. Prime Minister Kim Kielsen should feel out the 57,713 citizen’s of Greenland and ask them if they want a referendum on the subject of remaining serfs in a “Kingdom” or join with America for their long term democratic security and growth. English is already a functioning language in Greenland just like it already is in greater Scandinavia. Maybe we just give the negotiated sale price directly to the Greenlanders and skip anything more to do with Denmark since they are so rude, and everyone in Greenland will be substantially wealthy for life.

The population of Greenland is 88% Inuit and 12% Scandinavian descent, which is far more in line with the populations of Inuit in Canada or Alaska. The Inuit have far more in common with North America than Daneland and if they look/see how well the Inuit have it in NA, it should be obvious they would rather be with USA than Europe. Anyways, Greenland is already geologically part of North America and on this side of the Atlantic. We look forward soon to welcoming the Greenlanders to the USA. #MakeGreenlandGreenAgain

John Tillman
Reply to  Earthling2
August 22, 2019 5:13 pm

Sorry, but no Inuit in USA. Alaskan Eskimos are either Iñupiat on the north coast or Yupik on the west. Iñupiat are distantly related to Inuit, but their languages aren’t very mutually intelligible, and culture differs in important ways. The Iñupiat of western Canada can communicate fairly well with both their Alaskan kin and eastern Canadian Inuit neighbors. Yupik is not mutually intelligible with Inuit either of Canada or Greenland.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 22, 2019 8:53 pm

Yes, you are right John, but I think they prefer being called Inuit rather than Eskimo, which is now considered a slur, at least to all of them. While the local Alaskan might know them as Iñupiat, not everyone in the lower 48 would know that so they are got grouped in with the largest modern ethnic group to the east and are often referred to as in the Inuit native family. They did share the relatively recent common ancestor, the Thule, just 1000-2000 years ago so genetically they are nearly the exact same peoples. They are also very distinct from the native indigenous Indians or First Nations peoples and the Metis, being relatively recent immigrants from Siberia. In the case of Greenland Inuit, the Norse actually preceded them so shows how recent human migrations have been. Now they are considered indigenous as having been here since time immemorial while the European settlers are referred to as…settlers. But now I digress.

From Wiki: “The Iñupiat (or Inupiaq) are a group of Alaska Natives, whose traditional territory roughly spans northeast from Norton Sound on the Bering Sea to the northernmost part of the Canada–United States border. By cultural and linguistic origin, they are an Inuit people.”

“According to the 2000 United States Census there were a total of 16,581 Inuit/Inupiat living throughout the country. The majority, about 14,718, live in the state of Alaska.”

John Tillman
Reply to  Earthling2
August 22, 2019 9:34 pm

Alaskan Eskimos do not like being called Inuit, because they aren’t.

Inuit of Canada object to “Eskimo”, but American Eskimos embrace it.

Eskimo communities in Alaska use it, just American Indians are OK with “Indian”. Americans don’t have to adopt Canadian PC terminology when it doesn’t correspond to our linguistic and cultural reality.

John Tillman
Reply to  Earthling2
August 22, 2019 9:38 pm

Yes, the Iñupiat are distantly related to the Inuit, but the Yupik are even less so. Why should eastern Canadians apply their group name to all peoples in their language family?

The closest to a PC term for Eskimo would be Thule, but the problem there is that Thule is at the end, not the beginning of the Eskimo migration from Siberia and Alaska across the Neo-Arctic.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Earthling2
August 22, 2019 8:45 pm

If Greenland were going to join with another country then Canada would appear to be a better choice for them then the USA. Just look at a map of the World.

August 22, 2019 2:12 pm

Maybe other countries out there already thinking and aiming at getting Greenland, makes USA to consider being the first to put the bid up.

You see, maybe China or Russia already seriously considering the same.

Which it means that USA under the circumstances, for strategical purposes must get first and very strongly engaged at such as affair… for its own best position.

Not strange to really consider that Greenland might have a very significant geographical territory position in strategical meaning, especially these later days…
(maybe not so much when Europe considered, no much loss or gain for Europe there,
but on the other hand quite significant for other “big players”, like China or Russia)

Oh, just maybe… only just maybe.


John Tillman
Reply to  whiten
August 22, 2019 6:29 pm

Greenland and part of Iceland lie on the North American Plate. Geologically, geographically, ethnically and culturally, Greenland belongs with North America.

Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2019 2:28 pm

Thanks John,
for caring to reply to me.

But to be fair my point put forward in my above comment is not much related in consideration of natural geology, geography or ethnicity or cultural merit, as simply as put.

Simply happens to be considered within plain strategical relations, within the next probable future economical competition of the strongest capital economies of this world, so to speak.

Consider the last meeting between Macron and Putin.
Very much orientated on the point that Russia indisputably is and happens to be european, and therefore it belongs and must belong and must be part of Europe as a nation,
where as it straightly comes from the “horses mouth”, this will result and conclude with the Europe’s geographical expansion reaching from Atlantic to Vladivostok.

Making the Greenland affair look really like small patato in comparison… at the first look of it.

Europe, by the looks of it is already aiming far higher, within the consideration of such an angle… and it does not look like a joke;
in contrary it looks more like a quite pretty serious affair.

Again, Macron, in behalf of EU, “aggressively” has already invited and offered to Russia a real chance to be part of EU (bought in to it),
when in the same time clearly stating the main point of beneficial outcome…. EU’s geographical expansion reaching as far as Vladivostok.

Ok, this may very well be just one of this weird and very bizarre coincidences there.

Again, just saying.

Thanks, John.


John Tillman
Reply to  whiten
August 23, 2019 7:59 pm

Nato already offered to let Russia join, but the Rodina wasn’t interested.

Yapper Yeffen
August 22, 2019 6:24 pm

What I note about Dr. Jordan Peterson, a being for each individual is now not completely identifiable because influences outside the

control of humankind are derived outside human consciousness; this is not easy to comprehend or accept, although, the premise is

directly in line with psychoanalytic thought in its deeper unconscious (human) properties, whatever those properties (unconscious)

may be… if you review, Jordan Peterson Explains Psychoanalytic Theory, 5:00… you begin to understand.

Postmodernism and identity politics

Look! Unimaginably, we should not buy Greenland; instead, we should trade Wyoming for a part of Greenland… the idiot [P(-murt) ~.~ maybe Ann Coulter was right] doesn’t know the truth about this negotiation… the need is for the type integration by this form of governing new populace in intelligence age. (Simply Amaxxing!)

Also, should we find out if Greenlander4 loves this Trump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Abbott
August 22, 2019 6:29 pm

Here is an interesting item about buyng Greenland:

“Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., revealed he had suggested to President Donald Trump months ago that the U.S. consider buying Greenland.

Cotton said he even met with the Danish ambassador to talk about a potential sale.”

end excerpt

So Trump throws out an offer, and the Danish leader snarls an “absurd! back. Apparently, this desire to buy Greenland was not a surprise to at least some in the Danish government.

Anyway, the Danish leader took her turn at taking a political shot at Trump, and got slapped down for her efforts.

Senator Tom Cotton would make a good future president for the United States. Perhaps a Pence/Cotton ticket in 2024 and then a Cotton/Unkown ticket in 2032. 🙂

There are several young conservatives that are making a case for their being Cotton’s running mate. I wouldn’t want to single one of them out now. Let’s see how they do in the future. But I would be very confident in having Cotton at the helm.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 22, 2019 9:28 pm

Haley/Cotton in 2024.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Tillman
August 23, 2019 10:15 am

At first I was drawing a blank when you suggested Haley, and then it dawned on me: Nicky Haley!

I would have a lot of confidence in Nicky Haley, too. She sees the world situation clearly, imo. Like Trump and Cotton.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 23, 2019 7:47 pm

Pence is senior to Nikki Haley, but she is senior to Cotton. The GOP seems to respect seniority.

So maybe Pence/Haley, the Haley/Cotton. Cotton however is best suited to serve as CinC, the main presidential function, despite his lack of seniority.

Maybe Haley/James in 2024 should another veteran join the senate.

Would be good to have a Midwesterner on the ticket. If not Pence, then those with military service, such as James or Ernst.

John Tillman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 23, 2019 7:49 pm

James however is only 38, four years younger than Cotton, but older than his neighbor B-boy from IN.

August 22, 2019 11:24 pm

In 1946, Harry Truman offered the Danes $100 million in gold for Greenland. Obviously, they said no.

August 23, 2019 12:32 am

The reason the media have been covering this thing (it’s not a meltdown when the media covers something stupid/insane/ignorant that #OneTermTrump does or says – it’s normal, and happens almost every day) is because he’s an odious, immature coiffured buffoon that sees the world as spoil, and the vast majority can see him for what he is. Trying to retcon his actions and pronouncements as if it’s all part of a carefully thought-out strategy is laughable. The days are ticking by… 515 days and counting…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Adrian Mann
August 23, 2019 4:45 am

Can you say “TDS”?

It’s amazing how blind to reality some people can be. The truth is out there, but they can’t seem to find it.

I have a feeling people like Adrian are going to be very disappointed come Nov. 2020.

August 23, 2019 5:02 am

The speculation as to Trump’s motives is silly, he wants to buy Greenland because He Is The Chosen One, and he said so.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andrew_W
August 23, 2019 10:27 am

“he wants to buy Greenland because He Is The Chosen One, and he said so.”

I saw Trump look to the sky, and you know he is smiling to himself as he looks up knowing how may Democrat heads are going to be exploding over what he said! Trump is the master troll of the Left! He knows they are going to blow anything he says out of proportion so occasionally he gives them some help and then laughs at them when they take the bait.

TDS is epidemic among the Left. They really are suffering a mental illness. A version of mass hysteria exascerbated by our mass communications world, and the nefarious purposes to which it is put to use such as propagating lies, half-truths, distortions and confusion to the general public in an effort to win political power and keep political power.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 23, 2019 5:20 pm

TDS. Trump sure has it alright. What on earth is he doing picking a trade war with China? He seems to be the only one who doesn’t understand that everyone loses in a trade war. It is just a question of how much. Sure the Chinese may loose more in the end but so will the farmers and consumers in the US

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  David Middleton
August 23, 2019 6:33 pm

Investors in the stock market vote with their money. Trump is getting kicked in the @$$ by the stock market with his moronic trade war with China.

Reply to  David Middleton
August 24, 2019 12:18 am

And what is with this “chosen one” BS? He’s not the messiah on any level. He is loosing it. Seriously as he drops in the polls he is doing crazy stuff and I for one am worried he is going to do something really stupid.

John Tillman
August 23, 2019 7:22 am

Make America Grow Again!

The Inuit and Inupiat parts of Canada might want to unite with their kin in AK and Greenland if we can persuade Greenlanders to join the US.

Doubt that Putin would let Siberian Yupiks join up, however.

August 23, 2019 1:47 pm

The backstory to this is that President Trump had very good reasons for considering buying Greenland. Greenland was pursuing infrastructure loans from China that would have come with a catch.
Iceland: Money from China

President Trump rightfully wants to prevent China from getting a foothold in the Atlantic.

John Tillman
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 23, 2019 8:02 pm

As African and Asian states are discovering, loans from China buy you a room in Hotel California.

August 23, 2019 3:34 pm

Why buy an island that is supposed to be just a melting away ?
AOC and Prince Chuck claim everything is hooped in less than 12 years any way
unless of course we return to be cave dwellers . Will prince Chuck give up his castles I
wonder ? Might need those big walls to keep out the millions starving in the UK .
But at least everyone can feel pretentious about saving the planet .

Mexico may be a better buy anyways . Just offer everyone free USA citizenship and the place will empty .

August 24, 2019 7:38 am

Sorry, my above comments about China making loans to Greenland included a link to China Making Loans to Iceland. It looks like they are after both Countries. Here is the Link to China Loans to Greenland.

How the Pentagon Countered China’s Designs on Greenland
Washington urged Denmark to finance airports that Chinese aimed to build on North America’s doorstep

August 24, 2019 8:34 am

I can’t imagine what use Trump could possibly expect to get out of Greenland. But if he wants it badly enough, he should be willing to name an amount that the present owners would accept.

August 24, 2019 7:10 pm

“Musgrave … teaches courses in international relations theory, history and international relations, energy politics, U.S. foreign policy, and politics and SCIENCE FICTION.” Emphasis added.

I wonder if the fiction he teaches is drifting over into other areas of “expertise.”

Mikkel Kaastrup
August 25, 2019 1:03 pm

As a citizen of Denmark, I am deeply saddened by my prime minister’s speedy refusal of President Trump’s generous offer of buying Greenland. Greenland is a self-governing Danish territory, and although selling is might be difficult for legal reasons (For instance because of the UN treaty guaranteeing the rights of indigious people), if would be possible – if all else fails, Denmark could opt out of said treaty.
Greenland creates a yearly deficit in the Danish state budget, which must be filled out by tax payers from “south Denmark”, and it is debateable whether the beautiful scenery in summer, or the increase in national pride added by the possession of the world’s largest island, is worth all those expenses.
So, if the US were willing to buy the island, we would not only be freed of the yearly benefit, we would also get a HUGE one-time payment, which could be used for many useful things.

Personally, though, I am more inclined to propose a land swap: The US gets Greenland, and we get California, or alternatively Texas. Those areas are far smaller, and will soon become inhabitably due to global warming, while Greenland will soon have a nice, temperate climate. Any takers?

John Tillman
September 1, 2019 10:31 am