Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
@futurebird
If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery. -
@futurebird
If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery. -
@futurebird set up weird slave cities for american billionaires
@depereo @futurebird they will use it to figure out how to oppress people on Mars. Reminds me of this song:
-
There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.
I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.
But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.
@futurebird that may be a factor in this
but we need to keep in mind that the set of people actually involved in trying to warmonger about Greenland is literally less than a dozen people. They've pushed away everyone who would have possibly pushed back on rank idiocy, they do not have the time in the day to come up with a coherent reasoning
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
@futurebird
The us wants to be able to be a free agent and so donald trump is cashing out all the us based international structure possible. I mean, its about a lot of stuff but also, Sometimes i think these idiots literally think like a big map game and want to get the continent bonus or some shit -
There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.
I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.
But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.
In Denmark we feel the US is trying to kick in an open door, the only thing I can think of RE mineral rights is that we probably have stricter environmental protection laws than the US.
But overall it's not economical to mine in Greenland, the Greenland government has been desperate for investments for decades and yet there are no major mining operations in place.
I think it's just because it would Look Cool to have a new territory added to the US.
That said, the Greenlanders should decide who to associate with. They might dislike Denmark - and for mostly good reasons - but I doubt they're gonna look at their kin in Alaska and think "they look like they're having a great time!".
-
In Denmark we feel the US is trying to kick in an open door, the only thing I can think of RE mineral rights is that we probably have stricter environmental protection laws than the US.
But overall it's not economical to mine in Greenland, the Greenland government has been desperate for investments for decades and yet there are no major mining operations in place.
I think it's just because it would Look Cool to have a new territory added to the US.
That said, the Greenlanders should decide who to associate with. They might dislike Denmark - and for mostly good reasons - but I doubt they're gonna look at their kin in Alaska and think "they look like they're having a great time!".
-
@futurebird @pthane Maybe they don't have a good sense of timescale so they think the ice would melt in a couple of years?
-
@futurebird @pthane Maybe they don't have a good sense of timescale so they think the ice would melt in a couple of years?
I think it's important to remember that you can know something is a bad idea even if you can't make sense of the motivations of the people trying to do it.
Because it's possible their motivations make no sense. No one can explain this to me sufficiently. It's a bad idea.
It's bad that it even is "an idea" it's not worth thinking about.
-
@futurebird
If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery.@pthane @futurebird can’t work like that though, it will still be hellishly dark in the winter months
-
There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.
I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.
But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.
@futurebird These are all good theories but I believe this is nothing more than Trump wanting to leave his mark. People supporting him in this affair are all just sucking up.
-
@futurebird
If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery.@pthane @futurebird whoever is pulling the strings just drops these ideas into his head and he gets fixated on them. Someone else is always doing the thinking here (not that they are intelligent, just ruthless).
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
@futurebird the Greenlanders have shitloads of resources. There is strong, almost universal opposition to extraction, due to the environmental costs. These costs are amplified by the weather conditions.
There is one (1) mine operational which extracts rare earth minerals. This mining corp refused a US buyout, and sold some minerals to a Chinese company, despite significant US diplomatic pressures.
The US doesn't want to have to compete for these resources, and they have a compliant idiot in the White House.
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
@futurebird They keep claiming it's about defence, but as pointed out by a former Danish minister on the radio the other day, they already have the right to station as many troops there as they want.
It's almost certainly about exploiting natural resources and / or Trump wanting to feel powerful. Most things he does seem to be about boosting his ego.
-
Everyone wants to be a little big man instead of actually doing amazing big things. The lack of imagination depresses me.
@futurebird @EugestShirley in many respects Russia’s wrecked and he doesn’t know or doesn’t want to know how to fix it. The geopolitical game continues; what is Russia to do?
Trump continues because Russia and China want him there, for very different reasons.
It _is_ depressing isn’t it. There’s so much to do.
-
There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.
I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.
But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.
@futurebird
Anyone in US government who is a Russian agent would feel very successful if they disrupted NATO. -
There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.
I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.
But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.
@futurebird I guess it's a bit of everything. Little Donni wants to be known as Donald the conqueror. Greenland has resources. Military presence even after the US breaks up with NATO. And also the end of NATO.
-
There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.
I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.
But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.
@futurebird as if we didn’t create this order and use it to great effect for self-serving ends, and then also oppose or abstain from some of the greatest things the order tried to do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_unratified_by_the_United_StatesThere doesn’t seem to be a dedicated page to just US vetoes on the UN Security Council, but a close reading of the list of all vetoes is probably depressing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions -
@futurebird the Greenlanders have shitloads of resources. There is strong, almost universal opposition to extraction, due to the environmental costs. These costs are amplified by the weather conditions.
There is one (1) mine operational which extracts rare earth minerals. This mining corp refused a US buyout, and sold some minerals to a Chinese company, despite significant US diplomatic pressures.
The US doesn't want to have to compete for these resources, and they have a compliant idiot in the White House.
I guess it's easy to forget that many people do not believe that "the people who live in a place should govern and control that place together"
Greenland should be governed and controlled by Greenlanders. They understand it best, they are impacted the most.
Of course by having a big army or a lot of money and a government you control someone could contraindicate this principle.
But I thought it was a "value" more people shared?
-
I guess it's easy to forget that many people do not believe that "the people who live in a place should govern and control that place together"
Greenland should be governed and controlled by Greenlanders. They understand it best, they are impacted the most.
Of course by having a big army or a lot of money and a government you control someone could contraindicate this principle.
But I thought it was a "value" more people shared?
The alternative to this value is that we are all ruled by warlords. Whoever has the most guns and thugs and shows up first gets to be in charge.
Obviously this is how it often works even as people try to entertain such fanciful notions as every human having a right to exist and have influence over the government of the place where they live.
Depressing to see people going along with dismantling it as if they have an army ... when they don't.
