The BBC is taking it seriously. They're reporting it in depth (mentioning rare earth mineral deposits, ...& a 9 hole golf course).MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:57 pmfunny, of course you're right, that's what this is, just a way to distract.seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:55 pmIt is a waste of the Administration's time, or another shiny object with which to avoid the problems presented by income inequality, gun violence, climate change, racial division, the resurgence of public white supremacists and Modern Klan activities, and what to do when the steroidal juice of the tax changes run out of gas. So let's talk about buying Greenland. But keep it up; you're doing great!old salt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:39 pmseacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:51 amThe President is the sort of moron that muses about this sort of thing, which will never happen. The President's advisors appear to be toadying morons who not only think nothing of the President -- in his limited executive time -- musing about these sorts of idiotic things, they encourage it. It's like the President of the United States saying, "Gee, let's buy the Algarve." But you toady-up too, as if on cue, to normalize the musings of this knucklehead.Gillian Tett (of FT) today on MSNBC, in response to Andrea Mitchell calling Trump's Greenland purchase statement "crazy" :seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:46 pm C'mon now. Comparing the state of things now with the conditions of the world at the time of the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Folly is comparing apples to sea urchins, which you certainly know. My point -- which you also get, even if you don't agree with it -- is that these are the sort of silly, pointless things that take up the mind of our President, and are condoned and encouraged by the little yes-men with whom he has surrounded himself. The issue is where we are now and the likelihood that the purchase of Greenland is any more or less liable to happen in the 65 years since Harry Truman couldn't get the deal done. Tell me: how would you place a value on Greenland? What are the due diligence metrics? Etc., etc., etc.Andrea Mitchell was clearly not happy with this Brit Trumpist toady (from FT) pushing back on her TDS Resistance snarkfest.With all due respect, actually, I think the idea has been talked around quite a bit in recent months. People I've been speaking to in Washington have been talking about this. It's something that wasn't on the table at all a year ago, in fact the Americans were offered a chance to actually invest in air bases & things & ports & they actually turned some of that down. What I expect to see going forward is not so much a debate about whether the govt should buy Greenland as a whole, but whether you're going to start seeing American private equity companies & financial companies investing in hard assets & strategic assets, because quite apart from the mineral issue & the geopolitical issue to do with the Arctic Circle & the military aspect, there's also a big debate about climate change & Greenland is one of the places that you actually want to be in if you believe any of the climate change projection in the coming years are going to be true. There are people inside the US military right now who absolutely can see that equation. ...the military does believe in climate change & that's impacting the date in the WH.
They're airing a Danish journalist from Copenhagen who says the Danes are trying to find a balance, ...both govts in Copenhagen & Nuuk are trying to indicate clearly that they're not rejecting increased American interest. They'd like American investments. Even increased American military presence in Greenland, would probably be welcomed. When asked if it's being seen as a joke, he replied :
Too bad we have to look to the Brits for serious reporting.No, I wouldn't say that. ...there's a history here. The US tried to buy Greenland after WW II & in the 18th century, when they bought Alaska. ...the US has indicated clearly that the Arctic is now a strategic arena for the US. They have lambasted the militarization of the Russian Arctic & are looking very closely, with some trepidation, at China's inroads in the Arctic, which are not military, but political & economic. So here is a rivalry that the Americans have called very clearly. They're looking very closely & energetically on how they can increase their own presence, & their own footprint among military powers in the Arctic. Greenland stands out clearly since the US has already had a substantial military presence in Greenland since the 2nd WW at Thule AFB which is tremendously important for US missile defense. They have a standing deal with Denmark & Greenland that they can increase their presence there if they want, so this is a very easy call for the American President to say we want something there.