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?
-
@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. -
@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.
In practice, the US doesn't need Nato to run bases in Greenland. They did so before without consent.
During WW2, US got permission to build bases in Greenland from a Danish diplomat. After the war, Denmark wanted the US to leave, but they simply didn't. 1951 Denmark joining Nato and these becoming Nato bases was a solution that saved face. And even then the US did build secret bases with Danish consent.
-
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 two things come to mind that I didn’t see in the comments, but maybe I missed them. 1) Spheres of Influence and 2) Every atrocity is a distraction from every other atrocity to overwhelm us, and perhaps to distract us from a complete takeover
-
@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 Further, it would continue the envelopment of Canada, which makes it easier to cut Canada off from external support from the other NATO powers, and give the US greater leverage over trade and shared resources like fisheries.
Now Trump isn't this strategic, but this is the sort of imperialist wetdream that you would expect from someone who played too many 4X games and got a policy position in the Trump regime.
-
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 he's a real estate developer. With the receding ice caps, he sees an opportunity to develop real estate
-
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'm pretty sure he's on-record about wanting to leave NATO. Presumably due to Putin whispering in his ear, and before that the Soviets. He's been a Russian asset since the 80s.
-
Probably extraction of minerals in a very harmful manner for the environment. Denmark and the EU does not give extractive industries free reign. @futurebird
@Oyvindbs @futurebird Bingo!
-
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.
Greenland has had the right to declare independence by a simple referendum since 2009, and it's been the stated goal of many Greenlandic governments since.
It would have to be formally accepted by the Danish parliament, but it would be just a rubber stamp provided that the referendum is legitimate and fair.
The main issue is facing an independent Greenland is economic - right now the nation gets about 40% of the state budget from Denmark.
The big question is if true independence is attainable, given the harsh conditions, the huge distances, and the small population. Whoever brings the money will have some sort of disproportionate influence, and the question is whether it's better to have this influence wielded by Denmark, the US, or some other power.
It's ultimately up to the Greenlanders what they want to do, but so far 85% say they don't want to associate with the US.
