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 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.
-
@futurebird sounds about right. Impression I'm getting here and there is no one really asked for any of this outside the pres himself and his cronies looking to play modern day Alexander.
@naturepoker @futurebird same reason he wanted to change the name of the gulf of Mexico
-
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?
@futurebird not the Republican Party of the US, as presently constituted. Only one set of people get to decide anything, for everyone, and it's them.
-
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 breaking up NATO makes sense when you think that the EU will never be able to defend itself on its own - or if you think that European NATO countries get an unfair economic advantage by not spending so muchon their military (but get social security for that)
then you can put even more diplomatic pressure on them, to get security guarantees - but we know that's not how it works - IMO people at the helm have started to believe their own propaganda
-
@futurebird I've certainly seen claims that the natural resources are the significant thing (e.g. https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-resources-a-geologist-explains-why-273022), though I doubt it's quite so simple as having just one reason
@jamey @futurebird it could well be all of the above reasons, and more. Perhaps ICE want to send deportees there in the end too, as free labor would make mining more “economically viable”.
-
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?
Show on maps how they have made the USA "bigger".
-
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!".
I share your view of Trump.
Just not that last part.
Secessions shouldn't be done lightly, and never under push from an outside power.
This was done in preparation of the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. I think we should have learned our lessons by now.
Just like we might dream of the US coastal states leaving the US and joining Canada. But such a thing happening in reality? The potential for chaos and violence is huge.
-
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 I always think people forget to factor in the throbbing, infectious wound of DJT's pathology in all of this stuff.
With Greenland, at some point in his first term he tossed off a random brain fart about how it might be nice if the US bought Greenland. He was widely ridiculed for saying it. I think a huge part of his new push now is to undo that ridicule by making the Greenland takeover actually happen, to punish the ridiculers, and to heal himself from that shame.
-
Why can't they just do that now?
@futurebird
Because they don't write the laws.
@depereo -
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
Trump just told the New York Times that he has a "psychological need" to control it.Why? Dunno, maybe because it looks big on the map? Occam's kazoo applies: Trump acts for the stupidest of reasons....
-
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 @pthane Oh, yeah - I agree. It doesn't matter if they even have a motivation. It's a bad thing. End of. It's not worth trying to understand.
-
@futurebird
Trump just told the New York Times that he has a "psychological need" to control it.Why? Dunno, maybe because it looks big on the map? Occam's kazoo applies: Trump acts for the stupidest of reasons....
@futurebird
Alternative theory: Trump just said Russia or China would take it otherwise.Bullshit of course, but still: In the infamous Trump/Putin/Xi division of the world, Europe has no agency, so obviously can't control anything.
-
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 There is an old isolationist idea of Fortress America, that if you can control and dominate the entirety of the North American continent, an invasion becomes extremely difficult or even impossible, and adding a "Star Wars"-esque missile defense system on top of that would allow the US to completely isolate itself from the world. NATO is seen as superfluous in this sort of situation.
Now, there is an Imperialist variant of this idea that believes that once the homeland is secure like this, wars of imperialism can be waged with impunity to acquire both acquire resources and weaken the other imperial powers.
Now as for Greenland, I think this [page]((https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4650) makes it clear what is likely Trump's major interest.
On top of that, taking Greenland would give the US a major substantial claim on the arctic region.
-
@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
> By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean.In the first approximation, it cannot. The most catastrophic scenarios are warming by 4 or 5 degrees, and while such a rapid warming will totally destroy or decimate ecosystems, Greenland is nowhere near being just 4 or 5 degrees colder than Mediterranean.
In the second approximation, it can but not in the way you're implying. One of the possible consequences of global warming is Gulfstream stopping, which means Europe freezing to temperatures warranted by its latitude (e.g. the Azure coast is on the similar latitude to Halifax, Nova Scotia), even as the planet overall is getting hotter and less inhabitable.
But nobody knows what exactly the local consequences are going to be, so it makes no sense to plan for them and expect some good consequences in some specific regions. The only thing we know for sure is that the planet is rapidly getting hotter, and that the rapid change results in large amounts of extraordinary catastrophic local weather events and in changes of the current weather patterns.
