Greenland USA

[CriticalStinker]

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.
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.
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.
There are two issues, economic investment and security.
Should we have bought Afghanistan to sell the opium? No, not the same.
Did Bush II try to buy Iraq? Was he negotiating with Saddam to buy Iraq?
Would you say giving Venezuela a little help in getting Cuban interference out of their politics is the same as a war?
Can it be closing the border is what the housing market needs?

Russia has struggled with a non peer neighbor who was given hand me downs. They don't have a working aircraft carrier. i don't think they're going to be able to project over here any time soon. As for China, they've projected with belt and road (soft power).

My whole point on the other comparisons was when has the US hostile foreign policy benefited the average American post WWII? And even if we weren't hostile here, we're talking about printing 1 trillion dollars to buy something that would only benefit the corporations who go out there. 

Not to mention, no one gets to vote on this. There was this premise at the beginning of Trump's presidency that he had a mandate because he won popular, electoral, congress and senate. Yet now he's going back on his original platform, and bypassing congress and senate on a lot of the policy even though that's their constitutional powers. 

Congress didn't vote on Iran, and you can say he can strike for 60 days, I don't see a vote while we position for another strike. Or how about Venezuela where we were doing strikes since the summer, and we went into the country without congressional approval. Oil companies were notified before congress.

All of this from a base who said small federal government, pro state rights, no new wars, no regime change. But we see not only a strong federal government, but close to absolute power in the executive branch. And while people may support him, and his ever changing platform, he is going to be gone soon, and there will be someone else. Do we feel comfortable creating such a centralized power for an unknown quantity down the road? Given our track record I sure as hell don't. 

Not to mention, he's losing a lot of independents who helped swing him the election. There is a good chance that the left get's congress in a year, and not because they have anyone compelling or inspiring, but simply because they'll be a protest vote. That's really dangerous, it's someone not earning power, but simply being the only other option. Then they can reverse tariffs without any plan for how to make up for that revenue. That's why it was so messed up he was allowed to do this in the first place without the power of codifying it and making long term goals that had to be followed through with. We massively cut revenue on a bet that tariffs would work. They haven't even fully offset the cuts we made as it is.

But if all of this isn't clear to people, nothing I say will make it more clear. This is just the Right's Obama. They found someone that was a lightning rod, and people could get behind, but ultimately just does the same exact reckless policies of more conflict and bad fiscal policy. But I think a lot of people don't care because they're older, and they won't have to pay the price for it. Young people will get the bill for all the debt.

[DBCowboy]

I say sccrew it.

Screw all the bickering, all the arguing, all the "debating".

Let's be fucking Vikings and take Greenland.

And drink mead and shit.

[Solvedit]

Russia has struggled with a non peer neighbor who was given hand me downs. They don't have a working aircraft carrier. i don't think they're going to be able to project over here any time soon. 

Vs. Denmark which seemingly can't afford to police Greenland's native population without forced sterilization.

My whole point on the other comparisons was when has the US hostile foreign policy benefited the average American post WWII? And even if we weren't hostile here, we're talking about printing 1 trillion dollars to buy something that would only benefit the corporations who go out there. 

The president mentioned using tariff money but not printing a trillion dollars.

How could this issue be all or mostly about the mineral wealth of Greenland if it's such a pointless expense?  You seem to think the money would be for nothing.  Large corporations pay taxes and their employees pay taxes, and the business they do generates taxes as well as jobs.

[chr0naut]

The US has one base in Greenland which is only there for reconnaissance and missile detection/early warning.
Really just a listening station more than anything else.

Harte

That base, during the cold war had 6,000 troops.

But also, technology has moved on since then.

No doubt as well as a listening post, it also houses electronic warfare equipment to disrupt communications, launch missiles from, and rail-guns and directed energy weapons to disrupt ballistic missiles and aircraft.

Hence it now being staffed by only 150 (and probably also being able to be operated remotely.

[UltraBudgie]

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

Well if you want to talk unfunny truths:

1. MI6 ain't the stone-cold WWII bastards they once were. They're not essential to US operations any more. Our expertise is world-wide.
2. UK/USA was based on a mutual you-spy-on-us and we-spy-on-you sharing dynamic. We have Silicon Valley for that now, and don't need it any more.
3. UK as a basis for diplomatically cloaking US goals as an 'international coalition' isn't necessary if we aren't playing that game any more.
4. Competent though they are, the UK military has basically been on a ride-along with the US for the last 20 years. There's nothing they do that we can't do ourselves.

This is only the cold calculus. None of this means that we can't be allies, trade partners, and friendly nations to each other. So act like it, and don't get a bug up your butt about Greenland.

[CriticalStinker]

Vs. Denmark which seemingly can't afford to police Greenland's native population without forced sterilization.
The president mentioned using tariff money but not printing a trillion dollars.

How could this issue be all or mostly about the mineral wealth of Greenland if it's such a pointless expense?  You seem to think the money would be for nothing.  Large corporations pay taxes and their employees pay taxes, and the business they do generates taxes as well as jobs.

We did forced sterilizations of Indian's up through the 70's. So did Canada, it's really messed up, but they aren't unique in that. There are still issues with all three of those countries as well.

How much total tariffs have we pulled in since Trump got in office? Not even that much. Plus he's talking about giving everyone a 2,000 dollar check and 500b added to the defense budget. The math ain't mathin'. Not like this dude has a track record of fiscal responsibility. His first term got almost as much debt as Obama's two terms. And you can blame COVID all you want, look up the first two years with congress and senate under the right. He hasn't had a good year when it comes to debt, what makes you think he starts now?

[putnam6]

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.

Yeah, I didn't say suggest or infer they couldn't coexist either.... I think we will still be MIC-dominated even if we have a heavy dose of AI.

At some point, with all the AI companies will be 2-3 dominant ones, and the others will be 

My point was that the use of America being an out in the open technocratic monarchy in 20 years is an ambitious schedule

FWIW, if a corporation is in the defense and space sector, I consider it MIC.

For example, Raytheon may have an excellent AI division, MIC monies developed and supported it, aka it's MIC and not technocratic

IN 20 years, I could see a technocratic democratic republic, not a monarchy.  If we still have Congress, no matter how crooked, it's still a democratic republic on the surface, atleast and thats not going anywhere, certainly not in 20 years without major upheaval. 

Which brings me to this thought, and I'll run it by you because I believe you are a thinker and a ponderer.

What if our leaders have been using AI for a while now, and every move has already been calculated by AI, advanced AI may have been used in an advisory position for a while, surely that is as possible as the US invading 

Could have sworn the Hungarian government admitted it was using AI for its decision-making 4-5 years ago.

Frankly, if AI's going to be running things in 20 years, I could definitely see someone kicking the tires and figuring out its capabilities politically right now. 

In some of the fringier sites suggest COVID was AI'S answer to our population issues... 

FAWK Elon's advanced Grok AI is suggesting the US is in peril, and we must acquire Greenland, or there is a high probability missiles targeting DC will be flying overhead. 

As we saw with Israel, if there's enough advance notice and assets in the area intercepting the inbound missiles, even outside the atmosphere is possible

[Solvedit]

We did forced sterilizations of Indian's up through the 70's. So did Canada, it's really messed up, but they aren't unique in that. There are still issues with all three of those countries as well.

It was far less acceptable and less concealable in the early 2000s.  The attitudes of the world had evolved by the early 2000s.  The US wasn't far removed from segregation in the early 1970s.  I don't think Greenland would have done it if it were capable of managing and getting along with their native population.

The US did not depend on fishing for its income.  What the USA may have done would be morally wrong but not indicative that they were having trouble managing or keeping up their NATO obligations.  

If most Greenland Danes depend on fishing as their economic prime mover, they may be concerned about being left behind and gentrified if Greenland starts to develop.  Addressing this concern may change minds.  There probably aren't too many good places to live in Greenland.  

The fact that the natives have been resistant to things like mining suggests the Danes can't afford to cut them a good enough deal with the capital they have available to develop Greenland.

[cherokeetroy]

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

MIC won't have to relinquish power
AI and military won't compete because AI will be integrated 

It won't take 20 years to adopt
WWW was released in 1993
The Dot.com crash happened in 2000

That was internet
AI is different

[Vermilion]

Trump Disguises Himself As Muslim Migrant So Europe Will Let Him Invade Greenland

https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/2013682081180557627