• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump postpones Denmark trip after Prime Minister refuses to discuss sale of Greenland

prometeus said:
No, it is actually very, very simple. Trump is a ****ing moron and his imbecile followers are falling over themselves kissing his ass and making excuses for his stupidity.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Q will come with proof that this is part of Trump's brilliant secret strategy.
 
akyron said:
Barack Obama faced embarrassment and criticism last night after his personal intervention failed to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago.

Seems like a phone call is much cheaper than dragging an entourage on flights across the world for nothing.

"As the US president flew home from Copenhagen, his unsuccessful attempt to convince the International Olympic Committee to choose his adopted home city was widely seen as a blow to his credibility.

Joined by his wife, Mr Obama gave an impassioned presentation – the first by a US president on behalf of a city bidding for the games – in which he hailed Chicago as "the most American of American cities".

There had been widespread expectations in the US that the president's star power would prove all-conquering, so there was shock when Chicago was the first city to be eliminated."

Seems more narcissistic to me to blow a ton of taxpayer money when a phone call will do.

You do know that this current move is not unprecedented right?

Purchase of the United States Virgin Islands, 1917

"Beginning in 1867, the United States made several attempts to expand its influence into the Caribbean by acquiring the Danish West Indies. However, due to a number of political difficulties in concluding and ratifying a treaty to govern this exchange, this collection of islands did not become a part of the United States until their formal transfer from Denmark on March 31, 1917. After the transfer, the United States Government changed the name of the islands to the Virgin Islands of the United States."

When looking at the facts of the matter, this current move seems exactly presidential in terms of American interests. Even if it was a racist democrat progressive hero that resurrected the defeated kkk that accomplished this last time.
Click to expand...

Whataboutism of the Week!:bravo:
 
TomFitz said:
No, how business works is that you ask the guy you’re thinking about doing business with what they think of an idea before you big foot them with an idiotic trial balloon. That way, you don’t make an international fool of yourself.

But Trump seems to have a knack for making a fool of himself.

Doing business in a normal way would have involved asking first.

Evidently you don’t seem to respect either the Danes or the people of Greenland enough to think that rudimentary consideration should have been extended.

It’s hard rationalizing the stupidity of Donald Trump......
Click to expand...

You seem unaware that Trump did not choose to float a trial balloon in public; it only became public because of a leak to the press by other(s) that he was making inquiries to staff on Greenland. After the press decided to make it public, the opportunity for discussion in private was precluded.

Doing business the normal way, especially with the MSM, is impossible. You are excoriating the wrong guy, in case you missed the obvious.
 
TomFitz said:
No, how business works is that you ask the guy you’re thinking about doing business with what they think of an idea before you big foot them with an idiotic trial balloon. That way, you don’t make an international fool of yourself.

But Trump seems to have a knack for making a fool of himself.

Doing business in a normal way would have involved asking first.

Evidently you don’t seem to respect either the Danes or the people of Greenland enough to think that rudimentary consideration should have been extended.

It’s hard rationalizing the stupidity of Donald Trump......
Click to expand...

First off,

No, that's not how business works,

Second, you realize this isn't the first time this has happened right?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Are we honestly going to act as though her calling an idea "absurd" is some huge insult? You're acting as though she told him to go suck a dick. Trump must be quite a whiny little bitch if he gets that butt hurt over "absurd".
Click to expand...

Trump is a whiny little fat bitch.
 
rocket88 said:
Denmark is a NATO ally of ours. I know they don't carry the prestige of Trump's BFF Kim Jong Un, but if you're going to cone out in favor of invading an ally, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

It actually is pretty much what Hitler did to Stalin. Interesting that our little band of Trumpets think this is a good idea.
 
akyron said:
Ummm Transactions are not colonialism..You looking to move to greenland?


You appear to fixate on a specific time when this was considered. This would be incorrect as well.

It is more like 4-6 times this transaction was proposed and for very good reason.

US Wants to Buy Greenland...again. TIME Reported Similar Plans in 1947

"News that President Donald Trump is interested in buying Greenland prompted mockery on Thursday when it was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

But it wouldn’t be the first time a President has sought to buy Arctic land from another country: In 1867, President Andrew Johnson bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million.

It wouldn’t even be the first time the U.S. has tried to bag Greenland. Back in 1946, officials offered Denmark $100 million in gold bars for the world’s largest island, a Danish autonomous territory. U.S. officials at the time thought it was a “military necessity.”

That 1946 offer was supposed to be a secret. (It was only widely revealed in 1991, when declassified documents were discovered by a Danish newspaper.) But in 1947, TIME caught a whiff of similar plans.

View attachment 67262302
R.M.Chapin, Jr./TIME

“This week, as U.S. strategists studied the azimuthal map of the Arctic,” TIME’s Jan. 27, 1947 issue reads, “Washington military men thought this might be as good a time as any to buy Greenland, if they could.”

The article is accompanied by a map titled “Arctic Circles,” which shows concentric circles emanating from both Alaska and Greenland––emphasizing Greenland’s proximity to European capitals including Moscow."

People buy and sell land as well as other properties all the time. It is a good buy for both parties if they agree such. If not then move on.
Click to expand...

Truman negotiated with Denmark and got a military base there instead. Our interests were satisfied and we didn't have to shell out 100 million dollars. I call that a win/win. I don't think Trump is concerned about the strategic value of Greenland. I think he wants to strip out its mineral resources. He thinks he can make a lot of money.
 
PeteEU said:
For the love of god. Calling this a transaction is beyond idiotic, racist and moronic.

1) Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
2) Greenland has its own government and self determination up to a point.
3) Greenlanders own land all over Greenland.

Denmark, nor the Greenland government can sell other peoples land even if they wanted too.

The fact that Trump and his people are arrogant and racist enough to think that the people of Greenland are not worthy of any respect and can be bought and sold like slaves of the 1700s, shows a lack of basic humanity and sanity in the 21st century. That people like you and others bring up the fact that Denmark has sold land before and the US has bought land before shows a total lack of understanding that we are not in the ****ing 1800s! When the US bought Alaska, stole Hawaii and bought the Danish West Indies, you still had slavery or/and racist policies that would easily have justified the buying and selling of people. You are trying to use that same justification in the 21st century and that is beyond shocking.

Lets put it in context... Denmark wants to buy one of your states, lets say Minnesota.. how much?
Click to expand...

Your post reeks of desperate and implausible indignation.

First, yes, Greenland is under the sovereign control of Denmark, and its 50-60K people are currently Danish citizens. But it is also has had a special status, essentially it is what remains of an overseas colony that has since been granted mostly home rule (not unlike the dissolution of the British empire outside of India). Should Denmark wish it, (or any Danish territory) the remaining Danish sovereignty can be transferred either to a fully freed Greenland OR transferred to another power by another act of Danish government.

Second, any transfer can be made conditional; e.g. a sale and transfer that maintains mostly home rule and/or provides American citizenship (or dual citizenship)...as would be almost certain anyway.

Third, who gives a hoot of Greenlanders own property? The US government is not interested in purchasing property but in purchasing political sovereignty over foreign affairs and defense. I realize Danes may have a different view of property than Americans, but I think the difference between political control over foreign policy and real property rights are obvious in Anglo-American law.

Four, there is nothing inherently racist or even necessarily arrogant in willingly transferring territorial sovereignty. Norway and Denmark broke their own union. And the same countries then went to court to fight over which of them "owned" Greenland and its people (Denmark won in 1931). Modern China reestablished conditional sovereignty over Hong Kong in a deal; the UN (and League of Nations) granted trusteeships of sovereign control on numerous occasions and circumstances (how shocking?). Denmark sold sovereignty over virgin islands to the US, which didn't seem to bother the Danes the least (and, by the way, they didn't have slavery in 1917 or 1931 "to justify it" did they?)

Five, their are only two routes to obtaining sovereignty. One is violence and the other is mutual agreement. Since WWII transfers have included Israel, India, Vietnam, Korea, Rhodesia, South Africa, African decolonialization, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific islands, Crimea, the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, etc. Of the two methods, don't you think mutual agreement is the best...if necessary by making a generous offer? Shouldn't have many of those prior often violent examples have been very lucky for both parties if such transfer could have been accomplished with little more than a purchase?

So please, cease the over-acting outrage over nation states territory by simple and mutually agreed transactions. Should Russia have obtained the Crimea an economic deal with the Ukraine most of the world (including those two countries) would have not been grandstanding about the "horror" of making deals in the 21st century...expect you, of course.
 
Last edited:
bearpoker said:
It actually is pretty much what Hitler did to Stalin. Interesting that our little band of Trumpets think this is a good idea.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to make an offer they can't refuse, and if they do, ya gotta do whatcha gotta do.
 
maxparrish said:
You seem unaware that Trump did not choose to float a trial balloon in public; it only became public because of a leak to the press by other(s) that he was making inquiries to staff on Greenland. After the press decided to make it public, the opportunity for discussion in private was precluded.

Doing business the normal way, especially with the MSM, is impossible. You are excoriating the wrong guy, in case you missed the obvious.
Click to expand...

In as much as the Trump White House leaks like a sieve, as did the Trump campaign, you would think that the fool would be smart enough to contain the knowledge of this scheme to a small need to know group.

Which is not the way the Trump White House has operated.

More to the point is the fact that there is no one smart enough among the collection of hangers on, sycophants, and bag men around Trump to tell the fool that this is a hair brained scheme in the first place.

Of course, once it got out, he could have laughed it off as a joke.

But Trump himself stepped on that narrative, setting the Danes up to have to publicly dismiss the notion.

Then, the fool cancels a state visit that he invited himself to in the first place.

You don’t get much more rude than that.

Trump never had any class at all. He’s a vulgar, small minded little man child.

And the entire world is watching.
 
maxparrish said:
Your post reeks of desperate and implausible indignation.

First, yes, Greenland is under the sovereign control of Denmark, and its 50-60K people are currently Danish citizens. But it is also has had a special status, essentially it is what remains of an overseas colony that has since been granted mostly home rule (not unlike the dissolution of the British empire outside of India). Should Denmark wish it, (or any Danish territory) the remaining Danish sovereignty can be transferred either to a fully freed Greenland OR transferred to another power by another act of Danish government.

Second, any transfer can be made conditional; e.g. a sale and transfer that maintains mostly home rule and/or provides American citizenship (or dual citizenship)...as would be almost certain anyway.

Third, who gives a hoot of Greenlanders own property? The US government is not interested in purchasing property but in purchasing political sovereignty over foreign affairs and defense. I realize Danes may have a different view of property than Americans, but I think the difference between political control over foreign policy and real property rights are obvious in Anglo-American law.

Four, there is nothing inherently racist or even necessarily arrogant in willingly transferring territorial sovereignty. Norway and Denmark broke their own union. And the same countries then went to court to fight over which of them "owned" Greenland and its people (Denmark won in 1931). Modern China reestablished conditional sovereignty over Hong Kong in a deal; the UN (and League of Nations) granted trusteeships of sovereign control on numerous occasions and circumstances (how shocking?). Denmark sold sovereignty over virgin islands to the US, which didn't seem to bother the Danes the least (and, by the way, they didn't have slavery in 1917 or 1931 "to justify it" did they?)

Five, their are only two routes to obtaining sovereignty. One is violence and the other is mutual agreement. Since WWII transfers have included Israel, India, Vietnam, Korea, Rhodesia, South Africa, African decolonialization, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific islands, Crimea, the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, etc. Of the two methods, don't you think mutual agreement is the best...if necessary by making a generous offer? Shouldn't have many of those prior often violent examples have been very lucky for both parties if such transfer could have been accomplished with little more than a purchase?

So please, cease the over-acting outrage over nation states territory by simple and mutually agreed transactions. Should Russia have obtained the Crimea an economic deal with the Ukraine most of the world (including those two countries) would have not been grandstanding about the "horror" of making deals in the 21st century...expect you, of course.
Click to expand...

And you know what? IT'S NOT FOR SALE. Trump, being the child he is, is having a temper tantrum about it. And you are cheering him on!
 
rocket88 said:
And you know what? IT'S NOT FOR SALE. Trump, being the child he is, is having a temper tantrum about it. And you are cheering him on!
Click to expand...

It’s the kind of chauvinistic arrogance that lends credence to the “Ugly American” stereotype.
 
You can’t buy countries! Wrong century, you dumb orange baby.
 
maxparrish said:
On the other hand, if one prefers the old fashioned way that can be arranged. If China continues its claim of "near arctic" interests some good old US gunboat diplomacy, revival of a neo-Monroe doctrine and military interventionism may be the ticket. No point in playing badminton when the nation's enemies are playing football; a few aircraft carriers, a division of marines, and the taking of its couple of airports ought to do it. Then buy off the whiners with lavish aide, and invite the oil companies and mining combines to develop resources.

PAX Americana - the new empire. I like the "ring" of it. ;)
Click to expand...

you won't just be fighting the Greenlanders and the Danes you'll be fighting all of the EU and European Nato members ... keep in mind you have over 50,000 troops in Europe ... they would be wiped out in jig time and your bases over run


that's how stupid your comments are the EU's stands for f**k with one of us and you f**k with all of us!!
 
Visbek said:
To be fair... Most NATO countries are behind, and few are expected to meet the 2023/2024 target.
Click to expand...

And to be even more fair, the 2% is an idiotic metric to follow. Americans dont realize how big a military that Germany would have if it went for 2%+ of GDP... That would mean that Germany would be spending 76 billion dollars and only beaten by the US and China. You really want a strong military in Germany again? Or do you want Germany to spend (like all countries) their military budget in places that make sense for NATO and Europe? Same goes for Denmark. Boosting our military spending to 2% would create a massive military machine that we dont need and would be a waste of money. We need to spend better.. like dumping the F35.
 
maxparrish said:
Your post reeks of desperate and implausible indignation.

First, yes, Greenland is under the sovereign control of Denmark, and its 50-60K people are currently Danish citizens. But it is also has had a special status, essentially it is what remains of an overseas colony that has since been granted mostly home rule (not unlike the dissolution of the British empire outside of India). Should Denmark wish it, (or any Danish territory) the remaining Danish sovereignty can be transferred either to a fully freed Greenland OR transferred to another power by another act of Danish government.
Click to expand...

You mean like should the US wish to sell of Hawaii or Maine, then they could do it?

Second, any transfer can be made conditional; e.g. a sale and transfer that maintains mostly home rule and/or provides American citizenship (or dual citizenship)...as would be almost certain anyway.
Click to expand...

LOL given the US history on this, I highly doubt it. Your lot dont even think that the people of Puerto Rico are American citizens..

Third, who gives a hoot of Greenlanders own property? The US government is not interested in purchasing property but in purchasing political sovereignty over foreign affairs and defense. I realize Danes may have a different view of property than Americans, but I think the difference between political control over foreign policy and real property rights are obvious in Anglo-American law.
Click to expand...

You are the ones who want to "buy Greenland", which means the property rights as well. Are you seriously going to buy Greenland and allow the Greenlanders remain as owners of the land including the mineral rights? Highly unlikely considering the American history on keeping to treaties with indigenous populations of America, of which Greenlanders are part off.

Four, there is nothing inherently racist or even necessarily arrogant in willingly transferring territorial sovereignty.
Click to expand...

In the 21st century? Of course it is. You are fully disregarding the wishes of the people who live there.

Norway and Denmark broke their own union.
Click to expand...

Yes and when they did, slavery was still legal in the US and there was only 18 US states.

And the same countries then went to court to fight over which of them "owned" Greenland and its people (Denmark won in 1931). Modern China reestablished conditional sovereignty over Hong Kong in a deal; the UN (and League of Nations) granted trusteeships of sovereign control on numerous occasions and circumstances (how shocking?). Denmark sold sovereignty over virgin islands to the US, which didn't seem to bother the Danes the least (and, by the way, they didn't have slavery in 1917 or 1931 "to justify it" did they?)
Click to expand...

Again this was over 80+ years ago. Normal civilized peoples dont do this **** anymore.

Five, their are only two routes to obtaining sovereignty. One is violence and the other is mutual agreement. Since WWII transfers have included Israel, India, Vietnam, Korea, Rhodesia, South Africa, African decolonialization, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific islands, Crimea, the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, etc. Of the two methods, don't you think mutual agreement is the best...if necessary by making a generous offer? Shouldn't have many of those prior often violent examples have been very lucky for both parties if such transfer could have been accomplished with little more than a purchase?
Click to expand...

Greenlanders dont want to be Americans or slaves of the American empire. If you want Greenland, then you will have to attack a NATO country and explain why American boys and girls have to die for a bit of frozen land.

So please, cease the over-acting outrage over nation states territory by simple and mutually agreed transactions. Should Russia have obtained the Crimea an economic deal with the Ukraine most of the world (including those two countries) would have not been grandstanding about the "horror" of making deals in the 21st century...expect you, of course.
Click to expand...

The only one over-acting outrage is Trump and his stupid immoral supporters that continue to take this seriously. YOU CAN NOT BUY NATIONS... if so, can we buy Florida? We got 6 billion to piss about..
 
nitroexpress said:
Most Olympics leave behind rotting and unused complexes. Has there ever been an Olympics that has not been a net loss to the host Country/Town? I would never want to see an Olympics come to the US.
Click to expand...

Are you under 20? Because we have hosted 3 in my lifetime, with the last one in 2002.
 
TomFitz said:
What a pathetic joke!

Trump shops a truly hair brained scheme in public, without bothering to ask the people on the other side of the table about it.

He makes a fool of himself and insults an ally.

And Trumpsters are so parochial that they make up screeds about “misinformed unhinged......” to excuse their hero’s arrogant stupidity.
Click to expand...

We bought Denmarks Virgin Islands for around 25 million a while back. Trump thinking out of the box is nothing new
& neither is buying land in the western hemisphere from Denmark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom