Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: ‘Greenland Is Not for Sale’:

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2010


    Everything is for sale... How much would it take?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by cptmidnight View Post
    Everything is for sale... How much would it take?
    About $754 mill to 1 bill. I'm a bit short, can you spot me? Then I'll sell to Trump for $1.5 and split the gain with you.
    Europe used to have empires. They were run by emperors.
    Then we had kingdoms. They were run by kings.
    Now we have countries...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010


    Quote Originally Posted by merovingian View Post
    About $754 mill to 1 bill. I'm a bit short, can you spot me? Then I'll sell to Trump for $1.5 and split the gain with you.
    How about a $500M to the Denmark and $10k to each citizen of Greenland or about $561M for a total of just over a billion.

    ...of course the minute they become citizens each man, woman, and child become liable for their share of the national debt which equals about $400k per US citizen.

    On second thought maybe we should up the payout to 20k per person.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Partisan, Region 1: Occupied Territories


    Not such a bad idea. Greenland's rich in minerals. <--- something everyone's overlooking. Note the date of this article:
    The Greenland Gold Rush: Promise and Pitfalls of Greenland’s Energy and Mineral Resources

    Nota Bene: Apparently it was a "reporter" from the press pool who asked [in jest] if POTUS would purchase Greenland from the Netherlands.
    Still not a bad idea. The Russians are already scooping up vast areas around both poles for the mineral wealth there.
    We have no rights if we can't defend them.

    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    --- Frederic Bastait

    Everything I post is Fiction and should not be taken seriously by anyone....

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Fly-over country


    FACT CHECK: Did Harry Truman Really Try To Buy Greenland Back In The Day?

    August 22, 2019


    President Trump defended the idea of buying Greenlandderided by critics within the United States and rejected by Denmark, which controls it — in part by saying the idea first came from President Harry Truman.

    Is that so?

    The short answer:

    Yes — but it's complicated.

    The long answer:

    Trump's acknowledgment that he really has been talking about the United States buying Greenland — and that he was offended when Denmark's prime minister called the idea "absurd" —
    were the jaw-dropping coda from an Aug. 16 report in The Wall Street Journal.
    The newspaper reported that the Greenland idea has been a pet project of Trump's for some time. Once it broke into the open, Trump not only owned up to the
    idea, but said he was wounded when Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejected it as beneath consideration.

    "I thought the prime minister's statement ... was nasty," Trump said on Wednesday. "It was not a nice way of doing it. She could have just said 'no, we'd rather not do it' ... they can't say 'how absurd.' "

    Trump sought to make the case that his plan to buy Greenland was not, in fact, absurd, because he wasn't the first to come up with the idea.

    The administration of President Harry Truman pitched a sale to Copenhagen in 1946, in a
    story told in documents contained in the National Archives and revealed in 1991 by The Associated Press.

    But the Truman administration did so under Cold War secrecy and no one learned about it for decades. There was no open bid and rejection as with Trump's attempt.
    From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic

    The situation in Truman's time also was very different for other reasons.

    A dangerous chill was settling between the United States and the Soviet Union following the conclusion of
    war in Europe. Truman and his Soviet counterparts were arranging pieces on a strategic chessboard for what would become the Cold War.

    That's why, according to the AP's account of the National Archives papers, Truman's advisers prized the geographic advantage Greenland could afford to defend against Soviet strategic bombers that might fly over the Arctic Circle toward targets in North America.
    The United States opened negotiations with Denmark about using Greenland, and at one point, the American side proposed buying the island outright for $100 million in gold and the rights to a patch of Alaskan oil.

    All this took place in confidence but even then — as now — the idea shocked the Danes. Here's how the AP's W. Dale Nelson described the National Archive documents' account of the exchange:

    Ultimately, the U.S. and Danish governments agreed on other ways to incorporate Greenland into America's defenses.

    Washington's use of global diplomacy was able to get the access the Truman administration wanted without an outright sale, and Greenland remains a self-governing overseas territory of Denmark.

    NATO, Project Iceworm and the Thule Monitor

    One milestone was the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949, in which the United States and Denmark were founding allies. NATO's goal was for Western European countries to stand together with the United States against the Soviet Union; an attack on one would be considered an attack on them all.

    Another was with bilateral agreements between the United States and Denmark over access to Greenland.

    In the 1960s, the U.S. Army explored using glacial ice on the island as the base for strategic missiles aimed at the Soviet Union.

    Although it ultimately didn't deploy any missiles, the Army did build a
    top secret, nuclear-powered base on the ice pack as part of that project. The base, Camp Century, was abandoned and sank and one day it could be in danger of being exposed by melting ice.

    Strategic Air Command also used Thule Air Base, on the northwest side of the island, as an important outpost in the strategic contest with the Soviets.

    The base not only hosted nuclear-armed strategic bombers
    , it also served as a high-stakes tripwire.

    American commanders' expectation was that Thule's proximity might make it the first base that Soviet forces would attack in a war. So America's strategic posture within the continental United States was positioned to go on high alert if contact was lost with the remote station.

    In the 1960s, B-52 Stratofortress bombers armed with thermonuclear weapons flew a nonstop orbit near the base — as the "Thule Monitor" — poised to race toward the Soviet Union in case of an attack on the station.

    That was until 1968, when the aircraft serving as the Thule Monitor developed a cockpit fire, prompting its crew to bail out. The bomber crashed into the Arctic glaciers and spread radioactive material from the weapons it was carrying; American taxpayers paid tens of millions of dollars to try to remediate the contamination.

    Although that incident helped prompt American commanders to change their practices with live nuclear weapons, Thule has remained an important installation for the U.S. Air Force.

    Today it's the home to ballistic missile and space warning sensors and the world's northernmost
    deep water port, the Air Force says.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Fly-over country


    Denmark Offers to Buy U.S.
    By Andy Borowitz
    August 16, 2019

    • COPENHAGEN (The Borowitz Report)—After rebuffing Donald J. Trump’s hypothetical proposal to purchase Greenland, the government of Denmark has announced that it would be interested in buying the United States instead.

    • “As we have stated, Greenland is not for sale,” a spokesperson for the Danish government said on Friday. “We have noted, however, that during the Trump regime pretty much everything in the United States, including its government, has most definitely been for sale.”

    • “Denmark would be interested in purchasing the United States in its entirety, with the exception of its government,” the spokesperson added.

    • A key provision of the purchase offer, the spokesperson said, would be the relocation of Donald Trump to another country “to be determined,” with Russia and North Korea cited as possible destinations.

    • If Denmark’s bid for the United States is accepted, the Scandinavian nation has ambitious plans for its new acquisition. “We believe that, by giving the U.S. an educational system and national health care, it could be transformed from a
      vast land mass into a great nation,” the spokesperson said.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2017


    Trump might like another "Louisiana Purchase" on his resume.

    Jefferson bought a huge part of middle America from Napoleon for 15 million dollars !

    See map at link

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2017


    Or... Trump could be like Putin in Crimea and militarily take Greenland.

    Recently I saw a news video of Trump advocating Russia rejoin the G-7 [after being thrown out after Putin took Crimea.]

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Fly-over country


    Sure, Trump Can Buy Greenland. But Why Does He Think It’s Up to Denmark?

    It’s not 1850 anymore. Here’s how a land purchase might work today.

    August 23, 2019
    Over the past week, President Donald Trump’s apparently serious interest in purchasing Greenland has gone from a widespread Twitter joke to a diplomatic spat with the Danish prime minister.

    In the first phase of this ridiculous news cycle, the internet critics got something wrong: Conceptually speaking
    ,a purchase of sovereign territory isn’t all that outlandish. (Sovereign here meaning any land tied to a government; not necessarily self-governing.) As a historical matter, such transfers were a regular occurrence up to around World War I. In fact, the last of these was a purchase by the United States from Denmark: that of the U.S. Virgin Islands, for $25 million in 1917.

    In the second phase, Trump got something wrong when he picked a fight with Denmark, canceling a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen because of her dismissal of the idea. If Trump wanted to purchase Greenland, Denmark wouldn’t be the most important party—the people of Greenland would be.

    Trump seems to be under the impression that sovereign purchases work as they did in the 1800s. When the United States bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, the people living in that region had no say. When the United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867, there was no referendum among the 50,000 or so indigenous peoples living there. But this is 2019.

    What’s more, the relationship between Greenland and Denmark is not as simple as that between colony and colonizer.

    Especially since a 2008 referendum, Greenland has a far greater measure of autonomy than earlier in its colonial history. The country has its own Parliament and premier and control over most political matters, except those concerning foreign policy and national security.

    Sure, Trump’s Greenland fantasy is a long way off from realization. But if it were to happen, it would be through a process that Trump has yet to invoke: one that depends on
    approval of the transferred territory itself, ideally through a popular referendum or legislative vote.

    To understand why the Greenlandic people—or at least their government—are necessary
    in acquiring the territory, it helps to know a bit about the history of sovereign land transactions, and, crucially, how changes in international law and practice would require them to look different in 2019 than they did in 1800.

    As we have written at some length (admittedly never expecting our work to become relevant in such bizarre circumstances), the core idea of purchasing sovereign territory is hardly unprecedented. But until the early 20th century, transfers of sovereign territory required the consent of only the two nations
    involved, and notthat of the people living on the territory itself. Under the old rules, nations could essentially treat their sovereign territory like property; Trump’s real estate model would have been quite appropriate.

    Things are no longer so simple. Beginning especially in the wake of World War I and peaking in the era of decolonization, international law and practice have begun to give greater recognition to the principle of self-determination—the notion that peoples should be able to choose their sovereignty, rather than have it assigned to them. Like many rules of international law, the principle of self-determination is not the result of a single treaty or written document, but a series of documentary references combined with a course of regular practice followed out of a sense of obligation. Although the origins and scope of the principle are heavily debated, it is broadly agreed to have
    special strength in the context of former colonies, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s it was repeatedly invoked by colonies seeking independence.

    Self-determination is the fly in Trump’s buttermilk. As we argued in our earlier work, and as some commentators have noted in the past week, this proposed deal wouldn’t be permissible even if Denmark did want to sell, because respect for the principle of self-determination would require that the people of Greenland agree as well. As the Danish prime minister succinctly put it:
    ““Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland.”

    In fact, respect for that principle might help explain (along with various other factors) why the market for sovereign territory seems to have dried up: It was easier to buy and sell territory when the people living on that territory could be treated as fixtures, rather than as necessary parties to the deal.

    But—and this is where Trump’s critics sometimes go too far—the right of self-determination does not prohibit sales of territory. It simply specifies who the relevant seller is. Specifically, it suggests that the right to sell and buy sovereign control lies with the people of the territory.

    This is how you might go about buying Greenland in 2019. First, negotiations would need to involve at least the United States, Denmark
    and Greenland, rather than the first two alone. (If Greenland were to first become independent, then Denmark would largely drop out of the conversation.) Second, terms would have to be proposed that would satisfy all of the interested parties. Those terms might be largely financial, but not exclusively so: The people of Greenland might want U.S. citizenship, or even statehood (so as to avoid Puerto Rico’s fate). Third, approval would have to be secured—most importantly, from the people of Greenland. Ideally, this could be done through something like a referendum, perhaps with a supermajority requirement, given the importance of the question.

    Admittedly, we are sketching on a blank slate here. Although we are confident that the best reading of modern international law requires popular approval for transfers, this kind of thing has not been attempted outright in a long while, which means that we do not have a template. And that—more than the consummation of the deal itself—seems like an important opportunity. Trump’s off-the-wall idea creates a chance to clarify the scope of self-determination, which is important above and beyond his particular proposal.

    Of course, none of this means that the people of Greenland should consider putting their country up for sale. We see no indication that they have any interest in becoming part of the United States. The point is that if they wanted to consider a deal—$10 million for each Greenlander, a house on the beach in Santa Monica, plus a U.S. passport?—international law would not prohibit it.

    If that still seems like uncomfortable commodification, reframe it in more humanitarian terms, and make the seller the offeror. Imagine a scenario in which people of a war-torn nation rich in natural
    resources seeks bids from the United States, Canada, Japan and other nations—sovereign control over their territory in exchange for citizenship, peace and personal cash payments. If we take self-determination seriously, those people should have that option.

    To be clear, we are talking in hypotheticals. History shows that even “voluntary” deals can be coercive and corrosive. Attention would have to be paid to ensuring that the bargaining process is fair, as with any treaty. But to rule out such transactions entirely is, we think, too rigid of an approach in a world in which so many people are straining against the artificial limitations that borders create.

    To bring our argument back to the present moment: Trump’s legal error (one of them, anyway) is not in suggesting that Greenland could theoretically be purchased, but in saying that “Denmark essentially owns it.” Ownership arguably isn’t even the right concept—again with the real estate framing—but even if were, Denmark doesn’t possess it.

    If the conversation about sovereign territory sales is ever to get started again, it must begin by focusing on the relevant sellers—the people.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008


    Ask the people in Crimea how that "self-determination" is working out.

    Life really hasn't changed that much since the 1800's.

    I'm not really for 'buying' Greenland. It'd be tax dollars stolen from us that they do it with, and then we're not going to get any of the proceeds from all the strip mining that would then go on. It would essentially just be a free handout to the natural resource companies.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts