U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-21-2019, 02:49 PM
 
27,614 posts, read 19,387,552 times
Reputation: 14716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Why would you want more? What is the point? What are you getting out of it besides more land area and some place to travel to? What can you get from Greenland that you can't get from Alaska?
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Those reasons are not good enough for this country. I don't care about what you want. It isn't about you.
then why did you ask in the first place?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2019, 02:53 PM
 
49,033 posts, read 45,930,991 times
Reputation: 15571
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
Lots of rare earth metals like thorium used in superconductor research for alternative energy and other elements used in computer manufacturing and strategic metals like barium.

Its actually very rich in natural resources. They'd be expensive to mine, and need a high degree of technology, but could be history changing with proper research and application of newly developed technologies that could come from having a good source of material available.

Having unfettered access to the ice sheet could also provide valuable information on cyclic climate changes that the earth has always gone through to compare with any modern natural fluctuations we may be going through. Having a full time permanent research facility with US funding could have wide ranging impact.

Not to mention the strategic importance for protecting the sea lanes between the US and Europe.

Greenland is much more than a frozen rock in the North Atlantic.
I mentioned that there are mining resources in Greenland. I'm saying it isn't practical. The USA has resources. Rare earth metals are available in the USA. We can mine rare earth metals right here in America. The USA has far more thorium than Greenland. Besides, thorium is not in high demand.

Many of the minerals that can be found in Greenland, the USA has. We have iron, copper, platinum, thorium, uranium, aluminum, zinc, and titanium.

And I'm aware of scientific research being done in Greenland. Why would we need to buy Greenland to do that? We have a U.S. Air Force Base in Greenland.

This deal Trump is trying to work out, it isn't for practical reasons. And it isn't like Denmark is trying to sell it to anyone. This is for Trump's personal gain. I also suspect part of this is about trying to build an American Empire. And no one has asked this question: Do the residents of Greenland want to be part of the USA?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 02:54 PM
 
49,033 posts, read 45,930,991 times
Reputation: 15571
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
then why did you ask in the first place?
I wanted that person to come up with a better answer than selfish reasons.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 02:55 PM
 
49,033 posts, read 45,930,991 times
Reputation: 15571
Quote:
Originally Posted by carcrazy67 View Post
You are aware that Truman also tried to purchase Greenland....right?
Yes, and he didn't get to buy it. Truman didn't react like a petulant brat when the deal fell through. And I wouldn't have been on board with Truman doing it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 02:56 PM
 
32,970 posts, read 16,874,413 times
Reputation: 17820
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
All this angst, chest beating and hair pulling, I doubt there was much notice when we bought the US Virgin Islands, (the Danish West Indies), from Denmark in 1917.
Not that I blame anyone for not following the ins and outs of an obscure episode in history, but the reality is, you couldn't be more wrong.

It was an absolute mess, ended up taking 50 years. The first attempts were made in 1867, and failed in the US Senate. Another deal was very close to being inked in 1902, but fell through due to political shenanigans in Denmark. The parties that had worked out the deal lost an election and immediately sabotaged their own deal, to make life harder for the new government.

It took an actual world war for the US and Denmark to get back to the table, and even then, Denmark's opposition parties hated on the deal and insisted that it could not go forward without either a lower-chamber election (Denmark had a bicameral parliament in these days) or a plebiscite. To make matters worse, women and servants had just been given the vote, so no one knew what the new lower-chamber would look like. To make matters even worse yet, Denmark was neutral and the deal had to be settled before the US entered WWI, in order to not anger Germany. It took the King's intervention, addition of opposition ministers in government, a research commission and finally a plebiscite to finally get the deal done. To give an impression of the tone of the arguments, here's a contemporary caricature of the commission working:



"angst, chest beating and hair pulling" doesn't even begin to cover it.

As a footnote, part of the treaty saw the US acknowledge full Danish control over - Greenland.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 02:57 PM
 
27,614 posts, read 19,387,552 times
Reputation: 14716
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I wanted that person to come up with a better answer than selfish reasons.

that doesn't float. if that's really what you were looking for you wouldn't have used 'you' so specifically and so often - you would have asked how the US benefits.

but you didn't.

Quote:
Why would you want more? What is the point? What are you getting out of it besides more land area and some place to travel to? What can you get from Greenland that you can't get from Alaska?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 03:00 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
3,493 posts, read 2,383,215 times
Reputation: 4626
Greenland was never for sale for him to buy. Trump is the one that was bought. Buy the NRA.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 03:05 PM
 
49,033 posts, read 45,930,991 times
Reputation: 15571
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
that doesn't float. if that's really what you were looking for you wouldn't have used 'you' so specifically and so often - you would have asked how the US benefits.

but you didn't.
It may not float with you. Too bad. I asked said persons to come up with better reasons than selfish aspirations. Those selfish aspirations were "enough for him". My response was this. It is about this country, not about that person's selfish wants. You don't NEED to travel to Greenland without a passport (you still can't). I let that person know that I don't care and for this reason: It's about the country, not an individual's selfish needs. I drove the point home.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Where the mountains touch the sky
5,006 posts, read 5,872,240 times
Reputation: 8544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Not that I blame anyone for not following the ins and outs of an obscure episode in history, but the reality is, you couldn't be more wrong.

It was an absolute mess, ended up taking 50 years. The first attempts were made in 1867, and failed in the US Senate. Another deal was very close to being inked in 1902, but fell through due to political shenanigans in Denmark. The parties that had worked out the deal lost an election and immediately sabotaged their own deal, to make life harder for the new government.

It took an actual world war for the US and Denmark to get back to the table, and even then, Denmark's opposition parties hated on the deal and insisted that it could not go forward without either a lower-chamber election (Denmark had a bicameral parliament in these days) or a plebiscite. To make matters worse, women and servants had just been given the vote, so no one knew what the new lower-chamber would look like. To make matters even worse yet, Denmark was neutral and the deal had to be settled before the US entered WWI, in order to not anger Germany. It took the King's intervention, addition of opposition ministers in government, a research commission and finally a plebiscite to finally get the deal done. To give an impression of the tone of the arguments, here's a contemporary caricature of the commission working:



"angst, chest beating and hair pulling" doesn't even begin to cover it.

As a footnote, part of the treaty saw the US acknowledge full Danish control over - Greenland.
The original deal in 1867 fell through because of politics in the US senate fighting with President Johnson.

The US has never to my knowledge ever questioned Denmark's claim to Greenland, but back in the age of imperialism, I guess having that in writing was important to Denmark, so there it is in the 1917 treaty.

Counties used to sell territory back and forth all the time before the independence movements of African, Indian and Asian peoples in the 1940s-1970s with the breakup up the British Empire.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2019, 03:09 PM
 
49,033 posts, read 45,930,991 times
Reputation: 15571
Quote:
Originally Posted by RcHydro View Post
Greenland was never for sale for him to buy. Trump is the one that was bought. Buy the NRA.
President Trump isn't bought. This is what I see. He is a business man of a particular kind. He is all about the money. He thinks that he can just buy a country. He's used to being able to get whatever he wants, when he wants it. And this is bleeding into how he is running the country.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top