PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on January 07, 2025, 11:58:43 AM
-
WTF is this point?
-
one thought is that Greenland can be used for national security.... if you think the US is open to attack through that area of the world.
Another thought is that President Trump is doing the screw-with-a-cat-with-a-lasar thing...
(eidt: typo)
-
1. Greenland is a good strategic location. Between it and Alaska we are triangulating northern Russia. There are plans to open Arctic shipping lanes which would be beneficial and the U.S. would want to monitor if not control.
2. Greenland has mucho resources. Rare earth elements, minerals and metals and potential oil and gas.
It’s a fantastic idea and I hope we do it.
-
Security against who? Vikings?
-
Security against who? Vikings?
Russia. Biden is basically daring Russia to start throwing nukes around. Trump on the other hand engages in peace through strength. Build a strong defense all around the entire western hemisphere. Russia won’t dare mess with us. In fact, we should open up trade and normal relations with Russia, once Trump puts a stop to this Ukraine nonsense.
-
I like the idea of annexing Canada, Mexico, Greenland and taking back the Panama Canal.
But how far should we go to accomplish this? If we could do it diplomatically that would be fine. But as it is now, many people are already advocating for their states to secede from the USA. What do we have that would encourage such actions?
-
why annex when treaties could accomplish our goals without extra baggage?
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc.tenor.com%2FDqP5EpidFJgAAAAC%2Ffunny-animals-cats.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=cd8b780f2055d1430529245cba477303300b4d7fa2ea3fb425ba95338e4d05fe&ipo=images)
-
why annex when treaties could accomplish our goals without extra baggage?
How is that different from doing it diplomatically like I said? Are you disputing the way I asked the question or are you speaking against what Trump is trying to do?
Rather than nit-picking my word choice, how about answering the question about how far should we go in order to accomplish what Trump is talking about. What could we offer them to get them to sign a treaty? And what would that treaty do for both countries?
-
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc.tenor.com%2FDqP5EpidFJgAAAAC%2Ffunny-animals-cats.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=cd8b780f2055d1430529245cba477303300b4d7fa2ea3fb425ba95338e4d05fe&ipo=images)
He’s doing that with Canada but I think he’s serious about Greenland.
But I’m not sure if he’s serious about renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. He sounded serious! Haha!
-
How is that different from doing it diplomatically like I said? Are you disputing the way I asked the question or are you speaking against what Trump is trying to do?
Rather than nit-picking my word choice, how about answering the question about how far should we go in order to accomplish what Trump is talking about. What could we offer them to get them to sign a treaty? And what would that treaty do for both countries?
because I missed the "..diplomatically ..." part.
I wasn't nitpicking or cherrypicking.
-
Russia. Biden is basically daring Russia to start throwing nukes around. Trump on the other hand engages in peace through strength. Build a strong defense all around the entire western hemisphere. Russia won’t dare mess with us. In fact, we should open up trade and normal relations with Russia, once Trump puts a stop to this Ukraine nonsense.
The US already has a base in Greenland and can negotiate more such bases if there is such a pressing need. God knows the US has no shortage of such negotiated security bases around the globe.
Trump has proposed buying it, but the US can't afford to buy Greenland unless we basically steal it.
The US still has vast sources of untapped resources in the continental US - it doesn't need to buy land where the surface ground under which mineral resources lie is covered by an average of one mile of ice. Transportation networks exist in the continental US to deliver equipment to mineral and liquid deposits and to transport extracted resources. Practically no such networks exist to Greenland deposits.
If the Feds treat access to the Greenland resources like existing on-shore resources, taxpayers will pay a big up-front the bill for the purchase while mining companies take years to set up shop and pay modest fees to extract resources. Assuming it it isn't put off limits as a nature preserve or national monument then in a couple hundred years your great-great grandkids may finally see a positive payback. At least the ones that haven't emigrated to Mars and the asteroid belt.
-
perhaps it's a way to prevent other foreign powers from grabbing Greenland...
edit: I'm just tossing out brainstorming ideas. I don't have any idea what President Trump is thinking.
-
perhaps it's a way to prevent other foreign powers from grabbing Greenland...
edit: I'm just tossing out brainstorming ideas. I don't have any idea what President Trump is thinking.
So far you're doing good. Under no circumstances should you question Trump's thinking. Not on this forum anyway.
-
So far you're doing good. Under no circumstances should you question Trump's thinking. Not on this forum anyway.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61aCqCG7RML._SL1001_.jpg)
-
The US already has a base in Greenland and can negotiate more such bases if there is such a pressing need. God knows the US has no shortage of such negotiated security bases around the globe.
That’s not the same thing as having ultimate authority over it.
Trump has proposed buying it, but the US can't afford to buy Greenland unless we basically steal it.
We could pay for it with a fraction of the gold in Ft. Knox and it not needing to be in our budget at all. We’re not on the gold standard anyway.
The US still has vast sources of untapped resources in the continental US - it doesn't need to buy land where the surface ground under which mineral resources lie is covered by an average of one mile of ice. Transportation networks exist in the continental US to deliver equipment to mineral and liquid deposits and to transport extracted resources. Practically no such networks exist to Greenland deposits.
If the Feds treat access to the Greenland resources like existing on-shore resources, taxpayers will pay a big up-front the bill for the purchase while mining companies take years to set up shop and pay modest fees to extract resources. Assuming it it isn't put off limits as a nature preserve or national monument then in a couple hundred years your great-great grandkids may finally see a positive payback. At least the ones that haven't emigrated to Mars and the asteroid belt.
By your logic we shouldn’t have bought Alaska. Indeed it took generations to realize the great benefit and importance that purchase was. It was heavily criticized at the time of purchase.
Offshore oil drilling in the Arctic is an up and coming thing, despite the tantrums of the environmental, anti-oil wackos. Our dependence on oil is not going away anytime soon if ever. More cold water drilling is coming and the technology to access minerals under a mile of ice will also come. Owning Greenland will block any other potential enemy from obtaining it. We can’t trust Denmark to keep it forever no matter what they say and there is a growing push within Greenland to separate from Denmark. Although I admit I don’t know off hand the fraction for outright independence vs becoming a U.S. territory within Greenlanders’ sentiment.
But I will give you this: I have great reservations about expanding the U.S. “empire” as it were, by analogy to civilizations of the past which did so while simultaneously experiencing a native population collapse. Owning Greenland and the increased need for military, infrastructure and other resources might overstrain an already overstrained taxpayer and sheer numbers-of-people base. Uncontrolled immigration from the third world is NOT the answer, but if it is not, we need to get on the stick and start having our own babies again, and there are zero signs that’s going to happen.
This is a big problem and one which I’m not sure Trump understands. The decision to acquire Greenland needs to be made very thoughtfully. Having said that, at this time I lean toward doing it but that could change as I get new information.
-
perhaps it's a way to prevent other foreign powers from grabbing Greenland...
Yeah that. Although right now the chances of that happening are low. The usual suspects are Russia and China of course and neither of them are in great shape financially or militarily to make such a move, but you never know what surprises the future holds.
Remember the extreme anxiety we had when Russia eyed Cuba? Greenland isn’t as close as Cuba but it is in our hemisphere. We must adopt a very hard no compromise stance on defending the entire western hemisphere from encroachment from the east, after all the dominant feature of the eastern hemisphere in recent history has been communism; the most lethal form of human organization ever.
Having said that I recognize there is also a threat of insidious takeover from within (China buying farmland, Marxists in our universities, etc.) but the fact of that does not negate the need to secure the area - the whole hemisphere - from physical invasion.
-
If we can negotiate a deal where both sides agree on terms, then I'm for it.
But if we attempt to take it by force, then I will have to admit that I was wrong all those times I said we had the moral advantage over countries like Russia.
-
If we can negotiate a deal where both sides agree on terms, then I'm for it.
But if we attempt to take it by force, then I will have to admit that I was wrong all those times I said we had the moral advantage over countries like Russia.
Trump has already said we’re not taking it by force.
-
Always can count of Jim to tell us how anything and everything is a bad idea as long as it coincides with the media sound bite illiteracy.
-
Always can count of Jim to tell us how anything and everything is a bad idea as long as it coincides with the media sound bite illiteracy.
Jim can speak for himself but I’m assuming he’s coming from a place of libertarian “non-aggression” as a basic philosophy, although his arguments against acquiring Greenland are about economics and it not being worth it. When in doubt, don’t colonize, or something like that.
I confess I don’t know what the media sound bite position is because I pay no attention to legacy media anymore but because it’s Trump’s idea, I can bet my whole retirement account on them being against it. They’ll probably say things like it’s evil American exploitation, white colonialism, infringing on the indigenous, contaminating nature, etc., all the bad stuff, which is what you’re getting at. Of course if it had been Biden’s idea, the media would be all for it.
Ironically, Jim suggests if we buy it we might end up declaring it a natural preserve and therefore do the exact opposite of what I’m alleging the media warns we will do with it.
-
That’s not the same thing as having ultimate authority over it.
I just discovered that a 1951 treaty between US and Denmark already gives the US control over Greenland's defense; here's the treaty:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp)
We could pay for it with a fraction of the gold in Ft. Knox and it not needing to be in our budget at all. We’re not on the gold standard anyway.
Looks to be 147.3 million ounces of gold in Ft. Knox.
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox (https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox)
Current price of gold is around $2,679.60/ounce.
How much is Greenland worth? Most valuable areas are populated towns and already mined areas.
-
I just discovered that a 1951 treaty between US and Denmark already gives the US control over Greenland's defense; here's the treaty:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp)
I did not know that. Good!
Looks to be 147.3 million ounces of gold in Ft. Knox.
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox (https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox)
Current price of gold is around $2,679.60/ounce.
How much is Greenland worth? Most valuable areas are populated towns and already mined areas.
How much is it “worth” would be whatever price is settled on.
I should clarify that I only favor doing this if the majority of the inhabitants of Greenland want it. Self determination trumps most other considerations. Maybe they should hold a vote.
-
Trump has already said we’re not taking it by force.
I'd like to believe that, but I am unable to substantiate it. Probably because the anti-Trump MSM (including Foxnews) dominates the search results. All I can find is where they say "Trump refuses to rule out military force to take over Greenland".
Perhaps you can help find a link.
-
Of course if they ask the question in such a way that they can interpret the answer any way they want the media can make up any shit they like… and often do.
-
I'd like to believe that, but I am unable to substantiate it. Probably because the anti-Trump MSM (including Foxnews) dominates the search results. All I can find is where they say "Trump refuses to rule out military force to take over Greenland".
Perhaps you can help find a link.
In the clip I saw earlier this morning the reporter asked if Trump would rule out taking Greenland or Panama by either military or economic force and he said no he wouldn't rule it out. The "or economic" seems to be something the MSM left out and that's a big difference. No I can't link it! I was scrolling through X and now I'm busy as hell with work. There was also some other clip where Trump said, no he's not going to invade Greenland with military force but that was yesterday so very low odds I'll find it again.
I believe Trump's intention is to try to negotiate purchasing Greenland, and maybe using "economic force" to pressure the deal. However I believe he WOULD use military force to take back the Panama Canal. So in that presser the way the question was worded, throwing those four scenarios all in one quesion, was ripe for media twisting.
Here is what I believe, from broader context, are Trump's intentions about the 4 scenarios:
1. Greenland by military force: No
2. Greenland by economic force: Possibly
3. Panama by military force: Possibly
4. Panama by economic force: Very likely
You see what I mean about how that question was phrased? Left it wide open for mis-reporting, misunderstanding, or confusion.
-
Of course if they ask the question in such a way that they can interpret the answer any way they want the media can make up any suit they like… and often do.
Ha ha! Another case of a man saying in one short sentence what I took several paragraphs and a numbered list to say.
-
I just discovered that a 1951 treaty between US and Denmark already gives the US control over Greenland's defense; here's the treaty:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp)
Looks to be 147.3 million ounces of gold in Ft. Knox.
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox (https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox)
Current price of gold is around $2,679.60/ounce.
How much is Greenland worth? Most valuable areas are populated towns and already mined areas.
That's only 9.2M lbs
-
Or $394,705,080,000
Which isn't really much to buy a country with.
-
So far you're doing good. Under no circumstances should you question Trump's thinking. Not on this forum anyway.
Please share which policies of Trump's you didn't like his first term.
-
Please stare which policies of Trump's you didn't like his first term.
If I do, will something happen?
(I'm kidding)
-
Please stare which policies of Trump's you didn't like his first term.
I never had any serious objections to his first term proposed policies nor do I recall seriously questioning them on this forum.
-
I don’t always agree with Trump. For example, his suggestion to rename the Gulf of Mexico. I’m sick of things being renamed. The left does too much of that, the right doesn’t need to be doing it too.
-
Please stare which policies of Trump's you didn't like his first term.
Any policy lies about the policy supported by the President that the lame stream could lie about and easily repeat in a sound bite.
-
Any policy lies about by the lame stream and easily repeated in a sound bite.
How about "Gulf of the Americas"? After all, there are two continents called "... America".
-
Looks to be 147.3 million ounces of gold in Ft. Knox.
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox (https://www.usmint.gov/learn/tours-and-locations/fort-knox)
Current price of gold is around $2,679.60/ounce.
How much is Greenland worth? Most valuable areas are populated towns and already mined areas.
That works out to less than Elon's net worth.
-
I don’t always agree with Trump. For example, his suggestion to rename the Gulf of Mexico. I’m sick of things being renamed. The left does too much of that, the right doesn’t need to be doing it too.
"Trump Gulf"
-
"Trump Gulf"
Gulf of Trump. ;D
-
I don’t always agree with Trump. For example, his suggestion to rename the Gulf of Mexico. I’m sick of things being renamed. The left does too much of that, the right doesn’t need to be doing it too.
I would like to see things renamed BACK to celebrating America instead of assholery liberal bullshit, like quanza, and indigenous peoples day.
-
Greenland? Meh, let's get what we want through diplomatic means.
The canal? We should never have given a strategic thing like this away. Thanks, Jimmeh >:(
-
I don’t always agree with Trump. For example, his suggestion to rename the Gulf of Mexico. I’m sick of things being renamed. The left does too much of that, the right doesn’t need to be doing it too.
I think he may be just poking the bear a little (Mexico)
-
I think he may be just poking the bear a little (Mexico)
Ever since all of this came up I've been wondering if Greenland, Canada, Gulf of America, etc. is just running up the flagpole to see who salutes and who shoots at it. Or is it to deflect our attention from what else is going on...
-
Charlie Kirk, after he and Don Jr. visited....
https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1877113645584601292
-
I would like to see things renamed BACK to celebrating America instead of assholery liberal bullshit, like quanza, and indigenous peoples day.
Like renaming Mt McKinley whatever indigenous bullshit it is now.
-
Charlie Kirk, after he and Don Jr. visited....
https://x.com/BehizyTweets/status/1877113645584601292
Grok told me almost 70% of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark according to a recent poll but there are no polls about how they feel about joining the U.S.
-
Like renaming Mt McKinley whatever indigenous bullshit it is now.
you mean whatever name is was originally*?
What's wrong with using original names?
*for values of "originally"
-
I dislike naming streets, buildings, government installations etc after people. Trump has stated he’s going to chance all the military installations back to what they were before Club Biden changed them.
-
you mean whatever name is was originally*?
What's wrong with using original names?
*for values of "originally"
The definition of “originally” means when I was a young’un and learned it.
-
think about how many different names the Hoover Dam had... and it's less than 100 years old.
-
Grok told me almost 70% of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark according to a recent poll but there are no polls about how they feel about joining the U.S.
The estimated population of Greenland is under 60,000. If Trump wants Greenland he can buy their votes: promise $1 million to each person who was a Greenland citizen as of, say, January 1, 2025 if Greenlanders vote to make Greenland a part of the US. I bet the vote would overwhelmingly favor becoming part of the US. Cost to US would be $60 billion. Of course creating 60,000 non-citizen millionaires with taxpayer money might not go over so well here in the states.
-
The estimated population of Greenland is under 60,000. If Trump wants Greenland he can buy their votes: promise $1 million to each person who was a Greenland citizen as of, say, January 1, 2025 if Greenlanders vote to make Greenland a part of the US. I bet the vote would overwhelmingly favor becoming part of the US. Cost to US would be $60 billion. Of course creating 60,000 non-citizen millionaires with taxpayer money might not go over so well here in the states.
I’d vote for Trump if he gave me a million dollars. Of course I voted for him when he gave me nothing so there’s that.
-
I think he may be just poking the bear a little (Mexico)
poking the chihuahua
-
I don’t always agree with Trump. For example, his suggestion to rename the Gulf of Mexico. I’m sick of things being renamed. The left does too much of that, the right doesn’t need to be doing it too.
3-D chess.
Biden put a ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, not the Gulf of America. ;)
-
3-D chess.
Biden put a ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, not the Gulf of America. ;)
🤣🤣🤣🤣
-
We should annex Greenland to get at all the military planes that crashed there.
-
Why we need Greenland.