The irony that China expanding into Greenland=evil, U.S. insisting that Denmark entertain selling Greenland to the U.S.="no problem", is obviously lost on our friend @toc here. In case you don't follow U.S. military strategy, the "pivot" into Asia to contain China is a real doctrine we've been following for nearly the past decade. If you said the opposite, that China is going to "pivot" their military deployments to the countries around the U.S. to contain the U.S. we'd be flipping a lid. Not too unrealistic to expect that China would feel the same way about us doing it to them and would push back on that, no? Being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes is always a useful skill, even if you don't happen to like them much.
WSJ: Trump wants to buy Greenland
- Thread starter bone
- Start date
The fact remains that Greenland is for the Greenlanders and they probably do not want to become Americans. Just as most Americans probably would not want to become Greenlanders. I would welcome Greenland becoming part of the US but not against the wishes of the people there. We have military bases, that is enough for our strategic needs. How about maybe we don't piss those people off, and they will continue to be our friends? Mentioning the purchase of their country must surely have put them on guard against a powerful country that uses its power irresponsibly at times. At 99.9 percent of the times, that is.
Never said I want US ownership of Greenland. However, if given the only option between US and China, I would vote for US 10x over.
Don't really know what is this all about........military bases? given today's technology wonder an advanced country needs a full frontal breathing down the throat type military bases all over the world.
Were Greenland open territory, then just like Seward's Folly, we should jump on Trump's Bump with haste.
• Arctic-facing natural harbors
• Surrounded by friends (allows concentration on technology, not boots-on-ground)
• Crap-ton-loads of known and of suspected high-value mineral resources
• No radically-unfriendly populations
• Possibly 1,000 years of fresh water
• Oh, and Arctic-facing natural harbors (nicely framing AK for a protected Northwest Passage AND claim to all the shallow coastal resources nearby.
• Arctic-facing natural harbors
• Surrounded by friends (allows concentration on technology, not boots-on-ground)
• Crap-ton-loads of known and of suspected high-value mineral resources
• No radically-unfriendly populations
• Possibly 1,000 years of fresh water
• Oh, and Arctic-facing natural harbors (nicely framing AK for a protected Northwest Passage AND claim to all the shallow coastal resources nearby.
Given that I devoted 20+ years serving in the U.S. military and you devoted jack shit you're in no position to question my loyalty.
It turns out that the ability to understand why your opponent or someone you're negotiating with is thinking the way they are is a huge strategic advantage. I do understand that doesn't have the nice 5th grade mentality to it of "you commie, you bad" that appears to be the lense you see the world through, it's more the way successful adults interact in the world.
It's like you don't actually believe @lylec305 is in 5th grade.
The only counter-argument I have is that the US is the lesser of two evils. Reading what China is doing in West Philippines sea (or as you might know, South China Sea) is highly disturbing. There's news about Chinese incursions every day. This on top of Chinese shamelessly fishing without any restrictions in Philippines' waters.
If this was any other country China was dealing with, you'd see floating Chinese bodies arriving in shores.
Whoa whoa whoa.
There is a LOT more agreement in this thread than people apparently realize.
Mebbe it's time to reread the comments and take the fingie offen the mousie-clickie??
There is a LOT more agreement in this thread than people apparently realize.
Mebbe it's time to reread the comments and take the fingie offen the mousie-clickie??