Going after Greenland

  • Thread starter Thread starter dukeman92
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 203
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

We've "done without it" for our entire history up to this point, but suddenly it's vital to our national interest, and perhaps survival? LOL. Right, right. But hey, let's just invade and take over an island controlled for centuries by a (former) ally and friendly nation that is no threat to us in any way and has consistently been on our side since WW2 and is a NATO ally. Not to mention that the people of Greenland have already made it very clear that they do not want to be owned and controlled by us at all. Again, this is literally insane - it is totally irrational, totally illogical, and is wildly self-destructive to our international image and reputation. Trump is acting like a mob boss - literally trying to bully Denmark into giving up the island. And of course Fox News and the usual suspects are cheering him on. Just Alice in Wonderland time.
 
Calheel said:
Why do I get the feeling that Jesse repeated the “We don’t need friends” line every Friday night during high school while he watched TV by himself.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he was not wanting for friends as a teenager. Teenagers are generally impulsive and emotional and cruel and thoughtless. He was likely very popular.

He just never grew out of it.
 
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, along with Denmark proper and the Faroe Islands. And Denmark is a member of NATO. If the U.S. (See:trump) literally uses military force to try to invade/overtake Greenland, then it would be incumbent upon NATO (Europe) to come to the defense.
 
StrangePackage said:
So has anyone from the administration explained, with specificity, the "need" for Greenland?
Click to expand...
One of the Pub posters made a post awhile back that on the surface seemed like actual thought was put into it. Something about the natural resources were needed to protect America from China or Russia. I didn’t agree with it, I was just surprised they had a reason other than because we want to.
 
Folks, let's look at this rationally. This is not a political problem, it's a math problem. The USofA already has an existing history of buying property from the Kingdom of Denmark -- the US Virgin Islands. We purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 for $25M. That's about $620M in 2025 dollars. The land area of the US Virgin Islands is about 134 square miles. That works out to about $4,630,000 per square mile. Greenland's size is about 837,000 square miles. So using the already established price that the US is willing to pay for Danish territory, this works out to be a paltry $3.9T. OK, now obviously the Danish negotiators are not fools and are not going to accept American dollars in payment and will demand gold. The current price for gold is $42.22 dollars per troy ounce, as set by law in 1973. $3.9T divided by $42.22 per troy ounce yields a paltry 92M troy ounces of gold to buy Greenland. There are 29,167 troy ounces in a US ton. Which means all we have to do to buy Greenland, using our existing course of dealing numbers, is to give Greenland a little less than 3.2 million tons of gold and Greenland is OURS! The only glitch I see in this plan is that we only have about 5,050 US tons of gold in Ft. Knox. Russia is a big gold producer, do you think they might lend us a few tons? Or, just think about it for a minute, was this St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago's plan all along -- destroy Russia by taking all their gold!

ETA1: Now I know what a lot of you are thinking - with Global Warming a lot of Greenland is going to melt and we shouldn't pay for that part. But, if a significant portion of Greenland does melt, then sea levels are going to rise and the US Virgin Islands are going to get a lot smaller. And any consideration of adjusting the purchase price of Greenland should take into account the impact on the inflation adjusted per square mile purchase price of what's left of the US Virgin Islands and should also take into account the relative contributions to Global Warming that the US and Denmark have made.

ETA2: If the US hesitates at participating in a deal that honors established historical precedents between the US and Denmark, then perhaps Denmark could "sweeten" the deal by giving the US a "break" on the cost of Ozempic.
 
Last edited:
05C40 said:
Folks, let's look at this rationally. This is not a political problem, it's a math problem. The USofA already has an existing history of buying property from the Kingdom of Denmark -- the US Virgin Islands. We purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 for $25M. That's about $620M in 2025 dollars. The land area of the US Virgin Islands is about 134 square miles. That works out to about $4,630,000 per square mile. Greenland's size is about 837,000 square miles. So using the already established price that the US is willing to pay for Danish territory, this works out to be a paltry $3.9T. OK, now obviously the Danish negotiators are not fools and are not going to accept American dollars in payment and will demand gold. The current price for gold is $42.22 dollars per troy ounce, as set by law in 1973. $3.9T divided by $42.22 per troy ounce yields a paltry 92M troy ounces of gold to buy Greenland. There are 29,167 troy ounces in a US ton. Which means all we have to do to buy Greenland, using our existing course of dealing numbers, is to give Greenland a little less than 3.2 million tons of gold and Greenland is OURS! The only glitch I see in this plan is that we only have about 5,050 US tons of gold in Ft. Knox. Russia is a big gold producer, do you think they might lend us a few tons? Or, just think about it for a minute, was this St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago's plan all along -- destroy Russia by taking all their gold!

ETA: Now I know what a lot of you are thinking - with Global Warming a lot of Greenland is going to melt and we shouldn't pay for that part. But, if a significant portion of Greenland does melt, then sea levels are going to rise and the US Virgin Islands are going to get a lot smaller. And any consideration of adjusting the purchase price of Greenland should take into account the impact on the inflation adjusted per square mile purchase price of what's left of the US Virgin Islands and should also take into account the relative contributions to Global Warming that the US and Denmark have made.
Click to expand...
The math checks out.
 
dukeman92 said:
It's still down the road... but we're headed straight for conflict. Either with the rest of the world, ourselves or both.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's what I have been afraid of since he was first elected in 2016, and with the way this term is already going I don't see any way that we avoid serious violence down the road, either overseas or here at home (or both) as you said. Does anyone believe that Hegseth and his other handpicked generals will be reluctant to attack American citizens if they feel it is necessary and Trump orders them to do so? One of the authors of Project 2025 said during last year's campaign something to the effect of "we're going to remake the country if the Left will let us do it" and implied that if they tried to resist that there would be violent consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top