Greenland USA

[Oldcarpy2]

Denmark's sterilization of natives 20 years ago betrays that they can't afford to manage and police the indigenous population of Greenland.  

That suggests they can't effectively secure the place from Chinese and Russian encroachment. 

A little pressure to economically develop the place with foreign investment would allow them to more effectively protect Greenland and treat the natives more humanely.   The US probably won't just invade unless there were genuine security risks and they could bring NATO on board. 

God forbid that the Danes' motives could be Viking pride and colonialism instead of lack of development capital, because it implies they could be secretly dealing with China and Russia behind the scenes in order to get a deal they like.

Really?

I don't think so.


Hello...NATO?

[Solvedit]

Really?
I don't think so.
Hello...NATO?

From The Daily Beast: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/tru...36963f6bff

Denmark’s military framed the presence of foreign troops as a meaningful boost to Greenland’s security and stressed that the exercise had nothing to do with Trump’s push to acquire the Arctic territory, Danish broadcaster TV2 reported.
“My focus is not toward the U.S., not at all. My focus is on Russia,” Denmark’s top military commander in the Arctic, Major General Søren Andersen, told Reuters last week.

So they took a different route than selling Greenland to the US but Denmark's top commander in the Arctic seems not to agree with your "I don't think so."

[Oldcarpy2]

From Al Jazeera:
So they took a different route than selling Greenland to the US but Denmark's top commander in the Arctic seems not to agree with your "I don't think so."

A link?

[CriticalStinker]

Denmark's sterilization of natives 20 years ago betrays that they can't afford to manage and police the indigenous population of Greenland.  

That suggests they can't effectively secure the place from Chinese and Russian encroachment. 

A little pressure to economically develop the place with foreign investment would allow them to more effectively protect Greenland and treat the natives more humanely.   The US probably won't just invade unless there were genuine security risks and they could bring NATO on board. 

God forbid that the Danes' motives could be Viking pride and colonialism instead of lack of development capital, because it implies they could be secretly dealing with China and Russia behind the scenes in order to get a deal they like.

Greenland has a path to sovereignty under Denmark. I can't imagine we'd keep that in place if we take over Greenland.

If they have sovereignty, they can decide what to do with their own resources, economy, and security. They could make deals with us to sell.

Us taking it from Denmark has nothing to do with altruism or the good of the people of Greenland. It has everything to do with the resources, and unrestricted decision making of what bases go where. Hell, miles away from where I live in the US, a private company got to express emanant domain to buy peoples land at market rate for an underground pipeline. They got to buy a sliver of land that would cut through their property, and it tanked the value of the land owners. They didn't get offered royalties, yearly payment, or even just buy all their land so they could move. Nope, a sliver, and they didn't get any say in the matter.

So let's be honest about what's happening. This is a pure play at "US interests", but that's not the interests of the average American, because the deal being floated right now is allegedly a trillion dollars. That's a trillion dollars we'll just print, and devalue the dollars we're all holding, after we've experienced a 10% drop in the USD in the last year. That's on top of calls for increasing the defense budget from 1t to 1.5t. We're looking at a proposed increase in spending over a trillion dollars all within the last month or two.

And if it's really about security, we're supposed to be the "good guy" and just normalizing land grabs under duress. No one going forward will have a leg to stand on if we try and call out China and Russia for doing the same thing. It becomes the wild west all over again.

What benefit did the American citizen get from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, ect? They're all still problems. Hell, we were protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan while the foundation of the opiate crisis was forming. They were the number one producer at the time. Where do you think it was going? But we're supposed to believe something is different because Trump tells us it is? Obama said he was going to do things different. What has Trump really done different? I'm all ears. He's been more honest about what he's doing (although it goes against his campaign platform). But debt is still going up at record amounts, he's likely going to have more under his two terms than the three terms of Obama and Biden. More people have been pardoned for corruption than have been charged for it. What's going on with the deep state? All the tech companies get invited to White House dinners, the same one he screamed bloody murder that were ruining the country. What about the cries about the Biden crime family? Jared Kushner gets to negotiate on behalf of the US government while coming in right behind as an investor. What about foreign influence? Do I really need to go down this road with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, ect? 

He's the same. He's the same as all of them except he says funny stuff and dunks on people while doing the EXACT. SAME. THINGS. There is no difference. He's just more blatant.

Everyone went from "he's the peace president, no more new wars, no more regime change" to celebrating it and expanding our borders. 

The average home buyer age is now 56-59. Average first time home buyer is 40 now. Insurance premiums are through the roof. People can't afford normal cost of living. And you can blame it on other presidents all you want, but it's not like he was drafted, he signed up for this... And it's not like he's the first president to inherit bullshit. Hell, his first term he helped make the record for one term debt and money printing.

[Oldcarpy2]

Interesting to see Trump fanatics claiming that Greenlanders "Hate" Denmark whilst pushing BS hate on Denmark whilst claiming, without evidence, that they speak for Greenlanders.

This is just surreal.

The anti Danish propaganda machine seems to be in overdrive.

[putnam6]

AI companies got a seat at the table. Trump has been just as active in military action than Obama and Bush. He wants to increase the defense budget to 1.5t.

How is tech and MIC losing?

Where did I say suggest or infer Trump wasnt active in military action...

CT suggested in 20 years we will have a technocratic monarchy? 

I believe the MIC's domination will continue; it's more mature and entrenched. AI is still in its infancy and has a decent-sized segment of people opposed to all things AI. 



 

cherokeetroy Wrote:

=#171717Who cares?

Doesn't matter 

It will be a technocratic monarchy either way

My comments 

Why would the MIC relinquish its long-held position of power?

Sure, other corporations and industries wield influence, but control over the MIC is doubtful

Not in 20 years, maybe 30 ... highly unlikely before we have that kind of political tectonic plate shift, there will be war, and if there isn't a war, the GP will likely wish there was one. 

What's the hidden PTB incentive to PUBLICALLY install a technocratic monarchy?

Are you suggesting we have some techno dweeb as President, or is the President just owned by the technocratic monarchy?

Why would the MIC relinquish its long-held position of power?

Sure, other corporations and industries wield influence, but control over the MIC is doubtful

[UltraBudgie]

anti Danish propaganda machine

I'm sorry, we call them "Freedom Pastries" now.

[Oldcarpy2]

I'm sorry, we call them "Freedom Pastries" now.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...30b985.jpg]

When we are talking about your Country taking a wrecking ball to it's Western allies and destroying NATO,  that's not funny.

I believe there is another thread that it might be more appropriate to post such hilarity

[Solvedit]

Greenland has a path to sovereignty under Denmark. I can't imagine we'd keep that in place if we take over Greenland.

If they have sovereignty, they can decide what to do with their own resources, economy, and security. They could make deals with us to sell.

Whether they want it may depend on how much economic support they need. Hypothetically they could lose their country while trying to attract enough investment to move away from a fishing-based economy.

Us taking it from Denmark has nothing to do with altruism or the good of the people of Greenland. It has everything to do with the resources, and unrestricted decision making of what bases go where.

It may also have a little to do with security, even Denmark's top general in the Arctic seems to think something needs to be done. But can it be the natives are so against mining because no one made them a good enough deal? The Alaskan natives accepted oil drilling. Maybe US management could significantly improve the natives' economic situation.

So let's be honest about what's happening. This is a pure play at "US interests", but that's not the interests of the average American, because the deal being floated right now is allegedly a trillion dollars.

If they were willing to sell, Greenland would likely pay as well as cost. It is also likely to be good for all concerned: the Danish Greenlanders and the natives.

And if it's really about security,

There are two issues, economic investment and security.

What benefit did the American citizen get from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, ect?

Should we have bought Afghanistan to sell the opium? No, not the same.

He's the same. He's the same as all of them except he says funny stuff and dunks on people while doing the EXACT. SAME. THINGS. There is no difference. He's just more blatant.

Did Bush II try to buy Iraq? Was he negotiating with Saddam to buy Iraq?

Everyone went from "he's the peace president, no more new wars, no more regime change" to celebrating it and expanding our borders. 

Would you say giving Venezuela a little help in getting Cuban interference out of their politics is the same as a war?

The average home buyer age is now 56-59. Average first time home buyer is 40 now. Insurance premiums are through the roof. People can't afford normal cost of living. And you can blame it on other presidents all you want, but it's not like he was drafted, he signed up for this... And it's not like he's the first president to inherit bullshit. Hell, his first term he helped make the record for one term debt and money printing.

Can it be closing the border is what the housing market needs?

[CriticalStinker]

Where did I say suggest or infer Trump wasnt active in military action...

CT suggested in 20 years we will have a technocratic monarchy? 

I believe the MIC's domination will continue; it's more mature and entrenched. AI is still in its infancy and has a decent-sized segment of people opposed to all things AI. 

You didn't, but I was just saying they don't have to for both to exist. 

It's no different than 30 years ago, you had the forth branch (the media) who were almost pro war. Before Trump's campaign to make mainstream disdain against institutional media, we had Noam Chomsky with Manufactured Consent. Whatever your opinions on his politics, that book/documentary was spot on.

AI/tech companies are the new media. They control the algorithms, sources, and content. 

Plenty of "left" wing outlets still fed into the recent conflicts. And it's because they have one ideology above their claimed polar one, and that is ratings and money. If it bleeds it leads. The mistake is to think that these entities are somehow principled organizations. They're not, they're opportunists. War is great for viewers, the same is true of social media platforms seeking engagement.

Some of these AI companies have more than just a proxy interest in events, some of them are a little more direct because they have defense contracts. They also have a treasure trove of data on people.

All of that is to say the tech oligarchs and MIC can coexist, because they're symbiotic. And again, that isn't new. They've just adapted to the times.