Let's Buy Greenland

...Or just make it the 51st. state.

POPULATION: About 56,000 (LESS than the population as Springfield, Ohio).

Just makes sense for military, natural resources and trade reasons.
Denmark still claims it because of a handful of Vikings 1000 years ago...but the US basically already supports the huge island and the residents seem very willing to cut ties with Denmark.

Let's give each resident of Greenland $1M and get the strategic island for a cool $56B.

Sound good?

Canada can wait in line to become the 52nd. state.

Yes. Think about how new cities with Migrants could become manufacturing and mining boom towns! 😊

a reply to: CarlLaFong

I don’t see an issue if the majority of Greenland wants that move.

If it becomes a point of contention though, we start to look like Russia and Ukraine.

War is already a tricky moral ground. War to expand borders in the 2000’s is not acceptable for me or my country.

That said, I doubt anything gets to that.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I don’t see an issue if the majority of Greenland wants that move.

If it becomes a point of contention though, we start to look like Russia and Ukraine.

War is already a tricky moral ground. War to expand borders in the 2000’s is not acceptable for me or my country.

That said, I doubt anything gets to that.

Yea, there is a little distance between an offer to purchase, and war, but since it's Trump, it's probably war.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

The US has somehow managed to get by quite nicely for nearly 250 years without owning Greenland, turning into the most prosperous nation on the planet in the process.

What, exactly, is the problem that the US--in the last few weeks--has suddenly realized it has and for which ownership of Greenland turns out to be the obvious solution?

Anyone? Bueller?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I don’t see an issue if the majority of Greenland wants that move.

If it becomes a point of contention though, we start to look like Russia and Ukraine.

War is already a tricky moral ground. War to expand borders in the 2000’s is not acceptable for me or my country.

That said, I doubt anything gets to that.

Yea, there is a little distance between an offer to purchase, and war, but since it's Trump, it's probably war.

To be fair, I did note I myself doubt it gets to that.

But he did say military isn’t off the table for Greenland and the Panama Canal. Probably just hyperbole, but it’s worth touching on IMO.

I'm remembering when Obama referenced the 57 US states; did he know something we don't?

Sounds like a plan except for those $36 trillion US national debt.

I'm all for buying it if we can get it for 56 billion. Shoot, that's couch cushion change the way we spend money.

War is probably a horrible idea though, seeing as Denmark is a founding member of NATO, declaring war on them to steal Greenland would be a major problem.
Might as well just declare on NATO right off the bat and just take over Europe.
From there, we could go into a weekend Russia, then it's on to Asia. Muhhahah, let's take over the world!

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: CarlLaFong

The US has somehow managed to get by quite nicely for nearly 250 years without owning Greenland, turning into the most prosperous nation on the planet in the process.

So you would've been against the US buying Alaska from Russia in 1867?
That worked out pretty well for the most prosperous nation on the planet.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Yet almost every indication is Greenland isn’t for sale.

So how do you buy something that isn’t being sold?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Yet almost every indication is Greenland isn’t for sale.

So how do you buy something that isn’t being sold?

It isn't being sold...YET.
Trump does this sort of thing for a living.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Yet almost every indication is Greenland isn’t for sale.

So how do you buy something that isn’t being sold?

It isn't being sold...YET.
Trump does this sort of thing for a living.

I think comparing commercial real estate to buying parts of countries is a stretch.

But alas. If the odds were better, I’d bet 10k that Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal don’t become part of the US.

Trump is just doing Trump things and saying wildly hyperbolic statements. Why? Who knows.

I think most everyone is used to it, the only people who believe him are his supporters and the far left who is terrified of him.

Sad though, I thought he was walking into this term being a bit more refined. Doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. No skin of my nose though, not like there were any better options.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: CarlLaFong

The US has somehow managed to get by quite nicely for nearly 250 years without owning Greenland, turning into the most prosperous nation on the planet in the process.

So you would've been against the US buying Alaska from Russia in 1867?
That worked out pretty well for the most prosperous nation on the planet.

Nope.

Russia actively wanted to sell Alaska and the US wanted to buy it. A normal business deal. No coercion involved. No threats of war with an ally.

Plus, the US got a really good deal (2 cents per acre) because the petroleum extraction industry wasn't a thing back then and nobody knew that there was a ton of oil in Alaska. Essentially, the deal went down without armed conflict because no one knew that there was anything in Alaska worth fighting over.

That would not be true in Greenland today. There has been mineral and petroleum exploration in and around Greenland to a fair extent and if there were to be serious negotiations about "buying" Greenland, the asking price would be consistent with placing something like a fair market value on those resources. If the US was willing to pay something like fair market value for the resources, then that would be more or less indistinguishable from simply forming partnerships with local companies and engaging in joint business ventures to extract and sell the resources on the global market. That's basically what the US did with Saudi Arabia after WWII when we formed the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO). That put US oil companies in the business of selling mideast oil for the reconstruction and growth of Europe ever since. And it didn't require a military takeover of mideastern countries, although it did require military protection (mostly naval) of the production and transportation infrastructure.

But that doesn't seem to be what Trump has in mind. I don't think he wants to pay fair market value for anything. He never has. He would much rather just take what he wants. He said as much on numerous occasions in his previous administration that when the US defeats another country militarily we should just steal their resources. That's called banditry and it's actually illegal under US and international law. Of course Trump doesn't personally care much about breaking the law, but the rest of the world does and that would undoubtedly lead to political isolation of and economic sanctions against the US--in addition to out of pocket costs of armed conflict and military occupation.

This idea is like most of Trump's brain fart schemes, he never engages in anything like a serious and honest cost-benefit analysis before putting his mouth in gear. He just has an idea for a concept for a plan and goes with his gut feeling. This is why he's been able to bankrupt casinos on multiple occasions--a seemingly impossible feat. As a US citizen I would rather he not repeat that experiment on a national level.

Greenland: what is China doing there and why?

a reply to: CarlLaFong

I say go for it. Pay each adult citizen that million, hell, pay em two. Meanwhile we pressure Panama and get back the canal. I also like The American Gulf idea or the North American Gulf, yeah that's better .

Trump is the most ''out of the box' thinking POTUS in my lifetime. He not only won the Electoral College but the popular vote of voting citizens. 'The party he runs now has control of all three branches of government and the Supreme Court as well. So,

Let's go for it. Push this United States of Trump and see how far it goes.

As far as I can tell Trump was elected on a ticket sold on setting the USA straight and concentrating on the USA. Those policies seemed to border on Isolationism.
All of a sudden its about blatant expansionism, to the point of even discounting using military force to achieve these goals.

I can't say I blame him for trying to get a better deal for the transit of US cargo etc through The Panama Canal, why wouldn't anyone at least try to do that?
But using force to regain control against the wishes of the Panama people and government?

Greenland quite obviously isn't for sale.
Nothing wrong with forging closer links and investing in the territory.....but some things simply aren't for sale.

Canada?
I think that's quite some way off at the moment.....and these big artificial, enforced Union's simply don't work. Look at the USSR & EU.
Closer links and a trade union? Why not, if that's what the people of BOTH nations want?

An artificial border?
Aren't most borders artificial in one way or another?

Just Trump being Trump I think....or should I say I hope.

You can call The Gulf of Mexico whatever you want, many places/seas/lands etc have different names in different countries.

a reply to: Freeborn

It’s a shame really.

The media, populace, and world seemed more receptive and prepared for a second term. Trump even seemed a bit more refined through this process.

Maybe this is a one off, but it seems we may be back to business as usual.

I could understand these types of tactics if we’re at war with someone, throw them off, be unpredictable, and negotiate.

I don’t think that’s the best approach when we’re dealing with allies and neighbors.

It also begs the question you raised. What happened to the more isolationist platform? This seems to be a huge pivot before he takes office. Ironically, it brings a question over to the immigration side as well. While I think the H1B visa hype was overblown, this carries implications of assimilating tens of millions of people in the case of Canada. It also just seems pretty comical considering Trump said imaginary borders, after running two campaigns where he championed being the toughest on borders.

Luckily, I imagine none of this happens, and this blows over. Just hyperbolic pot stirring.