It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which
he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As
a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital
globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up
to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland, it
would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which
he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As
a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it
is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom
there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would
require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices.
ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among
others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle
produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs.
To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of
them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up
to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential
part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian
missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the rCO21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland,
it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country
edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a
blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to
encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which
he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing
something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has >> controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de
facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7
billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As
a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was
expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year
speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to
rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it >> is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso,
Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom
there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing
proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine
(more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000
Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments,
including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would
require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs >> rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of
batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices.
ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,
gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among
others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe. >>
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 >> per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its
most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain
near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle
produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs. >> To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of
them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth
reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up
to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential
part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian
missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017,
Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores.
ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea
Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in >> East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
rCO21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland, >> it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street
investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United
States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country
edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a
blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to
encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which
he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing
something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has >> controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de
facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7
billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As
a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was
expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year
speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to
rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it >> is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso,
Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom
there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing
proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine
(more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000
Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments,
including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would
require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs >> rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of
batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices.
ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,
gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among
others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe. >>
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 >> per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its
most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain
near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle
produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs. >> To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of
them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth
reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up
to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential
part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian
missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017,
Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores.
ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea
Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in >> East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
rCO21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland, >> it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street
investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United
States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country
edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
On 1/6/2026 1:36 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a
blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to
encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which >>> he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing >>> something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has >>> controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de >>> facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7
billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As >>> a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was
expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year
speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to
rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it >>> is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, >>> Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom
there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing
proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine >>> (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 >>> Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments,
including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would
require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs >>> rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of
batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices.
ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,
gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among
others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 >>> per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its >>> most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain
near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle
produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs. >>> To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of
them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth >>> reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up >>> to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential >>> part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian
missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, >>> Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores. >>> ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea >>> Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in >>> East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
rCO21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland, >>> it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street
investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United
States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country
edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>> and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
A very good short documentary about the people who live there: https://youtu.be/d0rZDL4lL-4?si=8bj5-Q7jc88Pg0yY
On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a
blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to
encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which >>> he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing >>> something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has >>> controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de >>> facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7
billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As >>> a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was
expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year
speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to
rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it >>> is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, >>> Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom
there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing
proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine >>> (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 >>> Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments,
including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would
require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs >>> rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of
batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices.
ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,
gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among
others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 >>> per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its >>> most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain
near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle
produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs. >>> To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of
them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth >>> reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up >>> to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential >>> part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian
missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, >>> Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores. >>> ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea >>> Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in >>> East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
rCO21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland, >>> it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street
investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United
States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country
edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>> and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or China. If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
On Jan 6, 2026 at 3:34:51rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:Because several big wolves, and even cubs like Denmark,
On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a >>>> blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to >>>> encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which >>>> he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing >>>> something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has >>>> controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de >>>> facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7 >>>> billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As >>>> a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has >>>> been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was >>>> expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year >>>> speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to >>>> rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it >>>> is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, >>>> Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom >>>> there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing >>>> proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine >>>> (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 >>>> Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments, >>>> including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would
require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources >>>> are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs >>>> rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of >>>> batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices. >>>> ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,
gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among
others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 >>>> per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its >>>> most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain >>>> near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to >>>> be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle
produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs. >>>> To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of >>>> them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth >>>> reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo >>>> many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the >>>> US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the >>>> ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up >>>> to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential >>>> part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian
missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, >>>> Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly >>>> $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores. >>>> ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea >>>> Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in >>>> East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
rCO21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland, >>>> it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US >>>> and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of >>>> Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street >>>> investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones >>>> of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United >>>> States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony, >>>> an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country >>>> edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a >>>> way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If >>>> managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>>> and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders >>>> need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>> and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or >> China. If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in
mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
Reallykm none of those 3 for greenlanders. Why can't they just continue their move toward independence from Denmark and have their sovereignty respected.
On 06/01/2026 20:48, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 3:34:51rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>Because several big wolves, and even cubs like Denmark,
On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a >>>>> blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to >>>>> encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which >>>>> he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it >>>>> had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing >>>>> something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has
controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de >>>>> facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7 >>>>> billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As >>>>> a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has >>>>> been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was >>>>> expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year >>>>> speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to >>>>> rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders >>>>> themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it
is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, >>>>> Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom >>>>> there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing >>>>> proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine >>>>> (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 >>>>> Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments, >>>>> including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would >>>>> require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources >>>>> are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs
rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of >>>>> batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices. >>>>> ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide, >>>>> gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among >>>>> others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60
per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its >>>>> most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain >>>>> near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to >>>>> be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle >>>>> produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs.
To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of >>>>> them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth >>>>> reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo >>>>> many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the >>>>> US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the >>>>> ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo >>>>> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up >>>>> to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential >>>>> part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian >>>>> missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, >>>>> Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly >>>>> $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores. >>>>> ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea >>>>> Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in
East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
rCO21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland,
it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US >>>>> and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on >>>>> many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of >>>>> Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street >>>>> investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones >>>>> of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population, >>>>> while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United >>>>> States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony, >>>>> an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country >>>>> edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a >>>>> way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile >>>>> culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If >>>>> managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>>>> and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders >>>>> need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If >>>> managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>>> and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or >>> China. If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in >>> mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
Reallykm none of those 3 for greenlanders. Why can't they just continue their
move toward independence from Denmark and have their sovereignty respected.
have no reason to respect their sovereignty. The only
sovereignty they respect is one that can defend itself
and be a threat.
On Jan 6, 2026 at 3:34:51rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>> and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or >> China. If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in
mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
Reallykm none of those 3 for greenlanders. Why can't they just continue their move toward independence from Denmark and have their sovereignty respected. I won't even speculate what Canada would do because that would be the beginning of defeat. Canada will remain the flawed but great country it is - a sovereign
nation. How many choices did Britain have with Hitler?
On 1/6/2026 3:48 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 3:34:51rC>PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If >>>> managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>>> and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or >>> China. If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in >>> mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
Reallykm none of those 3 for greenlanders. Why can't they just continue their
move toward independence from Denmark and have their sovereignty respected. I
won't even speculate what Canada would do because that would be the beginning
of defeat. Canada will remain the flawed but great country it is - a sovereign
nation. How many choices did Britain have with Hitler?
You sound absolutely Canada First ;-)
On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a
blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to
encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which
he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing >>> something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I cannot >>> assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America has
controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de >>> facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7
billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As >>> a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was
expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act u
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year
speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an end to
athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it >>> is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, >>> Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom
there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing
proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine
(more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000
Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments,
including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would
require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for GreenlandAs
rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of
batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices.
ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,
gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among
others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 >>> per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its
most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain
near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle
produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanAs. >>> To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of
them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldAs total rare earth
reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 u
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters u Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up >>> to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential >>> part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian
missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, >>> Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs shores.
ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea
Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just possibly u in
East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
A21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US controlled Greenland,
it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street
investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United
States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country
edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism u but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>> and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism u but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or >China.
If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in--
mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
On 06/01/2026 20:48, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 3:34:51?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:have no reason to respect their sovereignty. The only
On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 1:21:59?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs >>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a >>>>> blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to >>>>> encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which >>>>> he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it >>>>> had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing >>>>> something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I cannot >>>>> assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America has >>>>> controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de >>>>> facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7 >>>>> billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As >>>>> a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has >>>>> been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was >>>>> expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act u
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year >>>>> speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an end to >>>>> athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it >>>>> is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, >>>>> Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom >>>>> there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing >>>>> proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine >>>>> (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 >>>>> Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments, >>>>> including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would >>>>> require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources >>>>> are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for GreenlandAs >>>>> rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of >>>>> batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices. >>>>> ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,
gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among >>>>> others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 >>>>> per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its >>>>> most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain >>>>> near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to >>>>> be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle >>>>> produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanAs. >>>>> To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of >>>>> them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldAs total rare earth >>>>> reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 u >>>>> many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters u Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the >>>>> US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the >>>>> ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up >>>>> to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>> GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential >>>>> part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian >>>>> missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, >>>>> Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly >>>>> $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs shores. >>>>> ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea >>>>> Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just possibly u in >>>>> East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
A21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US controlled Greenland, >>>>> it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US >>>>> and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on >>>>> many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of >>>>> Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street >>>>> investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u as >>>>> with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones >>>>> of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population, >>>>> while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United >>>>> States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony, >>>>> an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country >>>>> edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a >>>>> way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile >>>>> culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism u but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If >>>>> managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>>>> and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders >>>>> need them just as much?
James Gray
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism u but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>>> and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or >>> China. If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in >>> mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
Reallykm none of those 3 for greenlanders. Why can't they just continue their
move toward independence from Denmark and have their sovereignty respected. >Because several big wolves, and even cubs like Denmark,
sovereignty they respect is one that can defend itself
and be a threat.
On 1/6/2026 3:48 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jan 6, 2026 at 3:34:51?PM EST, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 06/01/2026 18:36, Tara wrote:
"Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism u but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If
managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only
prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction >>>> and indigenous self-determination."
And whatever the Greenlanders decide, it's their decision and no one else's!
Well it seems they have 3 choices. Be under the wing of the USA, Russia or >>> China. If Canada was in such a position which would you choose bearing in >>> mind Trump will be long gone before anything happens practically?
Reallykm none of those 3 for greenlanders. Why can't they just continue their
move toward independence from Denmark and have their sovereignty respected. I
won't even speculate what Canada would do because that would be the beginning
of defeat. Canada will remain the flawed but great country it is - a sovereign
nation. How many choices did Britain have with Hitler?
You sound absolutely Canada First ;-)
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which
he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I cannot
assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As
a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has
been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act rCo
legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland
could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.
Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources
are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the
production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital
globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to
be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical
minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 rCo
many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo Greenland lacks the
industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the
US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the
ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up
to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly
$4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled Greenland, it
would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US
and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on
many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of
Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo as
with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones
of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit population,
while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking colony,
an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between powers, a
wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, Greenland must find a
way to harness its vast resource wealth while preserving its fragile
culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be sacrificed to short-term
capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of sustainable extraction
and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a
blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze
to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote
corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which
he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it
had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America has >> controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a
de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy
Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7
billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an end >> to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by Greenlanders
themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would have
brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to control
the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of
its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to
invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps
encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain
near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want
to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric
vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters rCo >> Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo >> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs shores.
ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern
Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just possibly
rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the
rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US controlled
Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street
investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a way
to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming years
could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global model of
sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps Greenlanders
need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy >>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo >>> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs >>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>> if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a >>>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>> u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an
end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for
GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>> 60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u >>>> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs
shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just >>>> possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>> lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy >>>>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo >>>>> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw
GreenlandrCOs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered
island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit
on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this
bleak, icy and remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted
there if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy >>>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance
at their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes
clear. As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government
Act rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence,
foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic
constitution explicitly commits the island to independence; and in
his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede,
called for an end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future
shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in
perspective, it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on
the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the
mineral wealth Greenland could one day command in partnership with a
deep-pocketed ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China
and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would
leave Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US,
unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium,
cobalt and nickel, among others. He who controls their production
holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures
over 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per >>>> cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year >>>> rCo several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is
waking up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest
non- continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of
the GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It
also hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo
just possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called
Arctic sea- lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the >>>> US controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper
cooperation on many of these critical issues. While an outright
purchase may be politically impossible, other options exist. These
include a Compact of Free Association, similar to agreements the US
has with other strategically placed Pacific nations. These can
deliver economic and security benefits to both parties. Trillions of
dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely
follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy >>>>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo >>>>> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>>
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
On 1/7/26 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
i hope by the end of the next 50 we'll see the eradication of nation-
state borders
otherwise i seriously doubt we'll survive the next 500
On Jan 7, 2026 at 2:24:54rC>PM EST, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>>>
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
Canada has three coasts.
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However, Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
On 07/01/2026 19:33, Tara wrote:
On Jan 7, 2026 at 2:24:54rC>PM EST, "Dude" <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>>>>
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
Canada has three coasts.
The UK trumps that with four! :)
On 1/7/26 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs >>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>> if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a >>>>>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America >>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>> around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>> u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an >>>>>> end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up >>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for >>>>>> GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>> worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>> u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>> the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u >>>>>> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>> GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs
shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just >>>>>> possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>> lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>>
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u >>>>>> as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a >>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
i hope by the end of the next 50 we'll see the eradication of
nation-state borders
otherwise i seriously doubt we'll survive the next 500
On 1/7/26 10:27 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw
GreenlandAs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered
island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit
on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this
bleak, icy and remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted
there if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a >>>>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>> around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance
at their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes
clear. As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government
Act u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence,
foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic
constitution explicitly commits the island to independence; and in
his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede,
called for an end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future
shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up >>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in
perspective, it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on >>>>> the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the
mineral wealth Greenland could one day command in partnership with a >>>>> deep-pocketed ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China >>>>> and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would
leave Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US,
unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for >>>>> GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium,
cobalt and nickel, among others. He who controls their production
holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures
over 60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per >>>>> cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>> u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>> the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year >>>>> u several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is
waking up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest >>>>> non- continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of >>>>> the GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It
also hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs
shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u
just possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called
Arctic sea- lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the >>>>> US controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper
cooperation on many of these critical issues. While an outright
purchase may be politically impossible, other options exist. These
include a Compact of Free Association, similar to agreements the US >>>>> has with other strategically placed Pacific nations. These can
deliver economic and security benefits to both parties. Trillions of >>>>> dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely >>>>> follow.
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u >>>>> as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
i am american so yes,
the odd part is why did we ever give up the philippines???
freaking lame-duck congress become too overly concerned with their >particular positions of power over the US, instead of manifesting the
united state's destiny ...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:21:30 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>>>
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
i hope by the end of the next 50 we'll see the eradication of
nation-state borders
Doubful.
otherwise i seriously doubt we'll survive the next 500
There is more than one monster after our hides. 500 years is also
doubtful.
On 1/7/26 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:21:30 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs >>>>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>> securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America >>>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of >>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>>> u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an >>>>>>>> end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up >>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for >>>>>>>> GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>> computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>> TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>> worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>>> u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>> the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u >>>>>>>> several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>> GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs >>>>>>>> shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just >>>>>>>> possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>>>> lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well. >>>>>>>>
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u >>>>>>>> as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
i hope by the end of the next 50 we'll see the eradication of
nation-state borders
Doubful.
otherwise i seriously doubt we'll survive the next 500
There is more than one monster after our hides. 500 years is also
doubtful.
ya you would be a doubter judas
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 16:38:56 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:21:30 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable. >>>>> Maybe.
i hope by the end of the next 50 we'll see the eradication of
nation-state borders
Doubful.
otherwise i seriously doubt we'll survive the next 500
There is more than one monster after our hides. 500 years is also
doubtful.
ya you would be a doubter judas
In this case it is the believer that allows whatnot to happen. The
doubter seeks better outcomes than whatnot.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:24:20 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:27 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw
GreenlandrCOs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered >>>>>> island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit >>>>>> on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this >>>>>> bleak, icy and remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted
there if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance >>>>>> at their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes
clear. As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government
Act rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence,
foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic
constitution explicitly commits the island to independence; and in >>>>>> his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, >>>>>> called for an end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future >>>>>> shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in
perspective, it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on >>>>>> the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the
mineral wealth Greenland could one day command in partnership with a >>>>>> deep-pocketed ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China >>>>>> and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would
leave Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US,
unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium,
cobalt and nickel, among others. He who controls their production
holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures >>>>>> over 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per >>>>>> cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year >>>>>> rCo several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is >>>>>> waking up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest >>>>>> non- continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of >>>>>> the GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It
also hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo >>>>>> just possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called
Arctic sea- lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the >>>>>> US controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper
cooperation on many of these critical issues. While an outright
purchase may be politically impossible, other options exist. These >>>>>> include a Compact of Free Association, similar to agreements the US >>>>>> has with other strategically placed Pacific nations. These can
deliver economic and security benefits to both parties. Trillions of >>>>>> dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely >>>>>> follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
i am american so yes,
the odd part is why did we ever give up the philippines???
freaking lame-duck congress become too overly concerned with their
particular positions of power over the US, instead of manifesting the
united state's destiny ...
One of the things that brought rome down was that they had conquered
more territory than they could effectively manage. From russia to the
uk. And every bit of it adopted a latinate dialect of one sort or
another. Except uk got its latin language influence later by way of
france.
So should spain or the us attempt to govern the phillippines? Why
would they, other than pride of empire?
Manifesting the united states destiny? It appears that it was not the
us destiny to govern the pi. Manifest destiny is starting to look a
little shakey. In fact the distiny of the 50 current states is not so
clear at this point.
On 1/7/26 4:47 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 16:38:56 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 12:17 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:21:30 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>>>> securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America >>>>>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of >>>>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an >>>>>>>>>> end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up >>>>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for >>>>>>>>>> GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>>>> computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>> TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>>>> worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>>>>> u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>>>> the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>>>> GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs >>>>>>>>>> shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just
possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US >>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as well.
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u >>>>>>>>>> as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability. In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500. That much might be inevitable. >>>>>> Maybe.
i hope by the end of the next 50 we'll see the eradication of
nation-state borders
Doubful.
otherwise i seriously doubt we'll survive the next 500
There is more than one monster after our hides. 500 years is also
doubtful.
ya you would be a doubter judas
In this case it is the believer that allows whatnot to happen. The
doubter seeks better outcomes than whatnot.
lol, since when do you not doubt everything besides doing the same thing >more better?
On 1/7/26 12:57 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:24:20 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:27 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw
GreenlandAs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered >>>>>>> island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit >>>>>>> on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this >>>>>>> bleak, icy and remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted
there if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>> securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.a >>>>>>>
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America >>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of >>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance >>>>>>> at their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes >>>>>>> clear. As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government >>>>>>> Act u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence,
foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic
constitution explicitly commits the island to independence; and in >>>>>>> his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, >>>>>>> called for an end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future
shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up >>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in
perspective, it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on >>>>>>> the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the
mineral wealth Greenland could one day command in partnership with a >>>>>>> deep-pocketed ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China >>>>>>> and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would
leave Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US,
unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for >>>>>>> GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>> computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium,
cobalt and nickel, among others. He who controls their production >>>>>>> holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures >>>>>>> over 60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per >>>>>>> cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>> worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>> population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>> u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>> the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year >>>>>>> u several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is >>>>>>> waking up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest >>>>>>> non- continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of >>>>>>> the GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It >>>>>>> also hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs
shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u >>>>>>> just possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called
Arctic sea- lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the >>>>>>> US controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper
cooperation on many of these critical issues. While an outright
purchase may be politically impossible, other options exist. These >>>>>>> include a Compact of Free Association, similar to agreements the US >>>>>>> has with other strategically placed Pacific nations. These can
deliver economic and security benefits to both parties. Trillions of >>>>>>> dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely >>>>>>> follow.
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u >>>>>>> as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
i am american so yes,
the odd part is why did we ever give up the philippines???
freaking lame-duck congress become too overly concerned with their
particular positions of power over the US, instead of manifesting the
united state's destiny ...
One of the things that brought rome down was that they had conquered
more territory than they could effectively manage. From russia to the
uk. And every bit of it adopted a latinate dialect of one sort or
another. Except uk got its latin language influence later by way of
france.
So should spain or the us attempt to govern the phillippines? Why
would they, other than pride of empire?
just arbitrarily comparing sizes of empires doesn't talk much substance.
the us govt is governing 300 mil people 5x that of rome. are we--
effective in doing so? perhaps for 19th-20th century issues, some of
which we're *still* bickering about. so idk about 21st century issues,
idk if any modern govt is effective in regards to 21st century issues
... but the united states has been hoodwinked by assholes trying to
maintain power. we capped our reps and so we don't get enough diversity
in our governing bodies. we should uncap our reps to make the fed govt
more robust. we should also consider replacing the president with an
elected executive council like the swiss has.
also the fed govt isn't supposed to be our *main* govt, it's supposed by >limited. states are supposed to be the main local govt, which is what
gives the united states it's robustness vs traditional strictly
hierarchical empires.
heck the filipino govt is governing 150 mil people. do you think the >filipino govt is "effective"??? ???
Manifesting the united states destiny? It appears that it was not the
us destiny to govern the pi. Manifest destiny is starting to look a
little shakey. In fact the distiny of the 50 current states is not so
clear at this point.
we still have free speech, we can change that
which i'm sure you'll continue to doubt ...
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw
GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy >>>>>>> and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted >>>>>>> there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a
glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes
clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government >>>>>>> Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence,
foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in
perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city >>>>>>> of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would >>>>>>> leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium,
cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures >>>>>>> over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per >>>>>>> year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is
waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It >>>>>>> also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo >>>>>>> just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic >>>>>>> sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper
cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
On 1/7/2026 11:52 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:You're making way too much sense, Nick!
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw
GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, >>>>>>>> and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, >>>>>>>> icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted >>>>>>>> there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously >>>>>>>> sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a
glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes >>>>>>>> clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-
Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, >>>>>>>> foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in
perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city >>>>>>>> of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would >>>>>>>> leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US,
unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust >>>>>>>> for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are
essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, >>>>>>>> boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, >>>>>>>> cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds >>>>>>>> the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures >>>>>>>> over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be
imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 >>>>>>>> or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and >>>>>>>> hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per >>>>>>>> year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is >>>>>>>> waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It >>>>>>>> also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo >>>>>>>> just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic >>>>>>>> sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, >>>>>>>> the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper
cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a
Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic >>>>>>>> and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even >>>>>>>> offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie >>>>>>>> the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial >>>>>>>> gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes >>>>>>>> next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny.
However, Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans
land from the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will
of their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
Apparently, after the US bought Alaska and Louisiana, the Canadians
bought up Western territories, so the US could not annex them.
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>> potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I >>>>>>> cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective, >>>>>>> it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over >>>>>>> 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just >>>>>>> possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea- >>>>>>> lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 17:05:49 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 12:57 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 11:24:20 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:27 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw
GreenlandrCOs potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered >>>>>>>> island, and in a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit >>>>>>>> on a wizard wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this >>>>>>>> bleak, icy and remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted >>>>>>>> there if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance >>>>>>>> at their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes >>>>>>>> clear. As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government >>>>>>>> Act rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence,
foreign affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic
constitution explicitly commits the island to independence; and in >>>>>>>> his 2025 New Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, >>>>>>>> called for an end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future >>>>>>>> shaped by Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in
perspective, it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on >>>>>>>> the city of El Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the >>>>>>>> mineral wealth Greenland could one day command in partnership with a >>>>>>>> deep-pocketed ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China >>>>>>>> and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would >>>>>>>> leave Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US,
unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, >>>>>>>> cobalt and nickel, among others. He who controls their production >>>>>>>> holds the key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures >>>>>>>> over 60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per >>>>>>>> cent of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year >>>>>>>> rCo several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is >>>>>>>> waking up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest >>>>>>>> non- continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of >>>>>>>> the GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It >>>>>>>> also hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo >>>>>>>> just possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called >>>>>>>> Arctic sea- lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the
US controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper
cooperation on many of these critical issues. While an outright >>>>>>>> purchase may be politically impossible, other options exist. These >>>>>>>> include a Compact of Free Association, similar to agreements the US >>>>>>>> has with other strategically placed Pacific nations. These can >>>>>>>> deliver economic and security benefits to both parties. Trillions of >>>>>>>> dollars of Wall Street investment in mineral extraction would surely >>>>>>>> follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
i am american so yes,
the odd part is why did we ever give up the philippines???
freaking lame-duck congress become too overly concerned with their
particular positions of power over the US, instead of manifesting the
united state's destiny ...
One of the things that brought rome down was that they had conquered
more territory than they could effectively manage. From russia to the
uk. And every bit of it adopted a latinate dialect of one sort or
another. Except uk got its latin language influence later by way of
france.
So should spain or the us attempt to govern the phillippines? Why
would they, other than pride of empire?
just arbitrarily comparing sizes of empires doesn't talk much substance.
Yes, modern communications makes the us potentially a better manager. Unfortunately we have thrown away much of our potential lately.
The question remains, what good is empire? Why would a nation
rationally want it?
heard it here first folks: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
#god
--
the us govt is governing 300 mil people 5x that of rome. are we
effective in doing so? perhaps for 19th-20th century issues, some of
which we're *still* bickering about. so idk about 21st century issues,
idk if any modern govt is effective in regards to 21st century issues
... but the united states has been hoodwinked by assholes trying to
maintain power. we capped our reps and so we don't get enough diversity
in our governing bodies. we should uncap our reps to make the fed govt
more robust. we should also consider replacing the president with an
elected executive council like the swiss has.
also the fed govt isn't supposed to be our *main* govt, it's supposed by
limited. states are supposed to be the main local govt, which is what
gives the united states it's robustness vs traditional strictly
hierarchical empires.
heck the filipino govt is governing 150 mil people. do you think the
filipino govt is "effective"??? ???
Manifesting the united states destiny? It appears that it was not the
us destiny to govern the pi. Manifest destiny is starting to look a
little shakey. In fact the distiny of the 50 current states is not so
clear at this point.
we still have free speech, we can change that
which i'm sure you'll continue to doubt ...
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America >>>>>>>> has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for >>>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, >>>>>>>> indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so >>>>>>>> critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters >>>>>>>> rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory.
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and >>>>>>>>> remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there >>>>>>>>> if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at >>>>>>>>> their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. >>>>>>>>> As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act >>>>>>>>> rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign >>>>>>>>> affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an >>>>>>>>> end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El >>>>>>>>> Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave >>>>>>>>> Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt >>>>>>>>> and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent >>>>>>>>> of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking >>>>>>>>> up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also >>>>>>>>> hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation >>>>>>>>> on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable. >>>>> Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However, >>>> Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from >>>> the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of >>> their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory.
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in >>>>>>>>>> a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US >>>>>>>>>> securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought >>>>>>>>>> to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up >>>>>>>>>> about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, >>>>>>>>>> blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential >>>>>>>>>> components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the >>>>>>>>>> key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, >>>>>>>>>> perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it >>>>>>>>>> would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine >>>>>>>>>> surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging >>>>>>>>>> Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the >>>>>>>>>> US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact >>>>>>>>>> of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and >>>>>>>>>> security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the >>>>>>>>>> bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains >>>>>>>>>> to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next, >>>>>>>>>> Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a >>>>>>>>>> way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps
Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight, >>>>>> there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable. >>>>>> Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However, >>>>> Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from >>>>> the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of >>>> their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which >>> feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory.
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCatrumps house.
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; >>>>>>>>>>> around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of >>>>>>>>>>> Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it >>>>>>>>>>> has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual >>>>>>>>>>> block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed >>>>>>>>>>> ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would >>>>>>>>>>> have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we >>>>>>>>>>> really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a >>>>>>>>>>> population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As >>>>>>>>>>> the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. >>>>>>>>>>> Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and >>>>>>>>>>> Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be >>>>>>>>>>> politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while >>>>>>>>>>> preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming >>>>>>>>>>> years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global >>>>>>>>>>> model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly >>>>>>>>>> large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen. >>>>>>>
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight, >>>>>>> there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable. >>>>>>> Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However, >>>>>> Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from >>>>>> the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of >>>>> their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which >>>> feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory.
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCatrumps house. >>
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that
you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause
we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would
be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the
founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually
some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ... wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh???
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, >>>>>>>>>>>> which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. >>>>>>>>>>>> This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New >>>>>>>>>>>> Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia. >>>>>>>>>>>>
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and >>>>>>>>>>>> electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the >>>>>>>>>>>> worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these >>>>>>>>>>>> minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non- >>>>>>>>>>>> continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the >>>>>>>>>>>> GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades >>>>>>>>>>>> recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination. >>>>>>>>>>>>
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen. >>>>>>>>
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight, >>>>>>>> there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable. >>>>>>>> Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However, >>>>>>> Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from >>>>>>> the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of >>>>>> their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which >>>>> feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory.
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCatrumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt
would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that
you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like
heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause
we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would
be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the
founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually
some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big
private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ...
wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh???
YourCOll never understand why we would never want to be like you or part of you. seriously, you wonrCOt understand because you think you are rCLthe bestrCY,the biggestrCY rCLthe greatest country in the worldrCY. YourCOve been told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand on your heart. But nevermind you donrCOt need to be enlightened, you just need to accept that we donrCOt want to be American! Not ever. Efye ok?
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive >>>>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern >>>>>>>>>>>>> computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between >>>>>>>>>>>>> powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen. >>>>>>>>>
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight, >>>>>>>>> there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>>>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable. >>>>>>>>> Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However, >>>>>>>> Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from >>>>>>>> the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which >>>>>> feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory.
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCatrumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt >>> would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that >>> you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like >>> heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause >>> we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would
be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the
founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually
some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big
private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ... >>> wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh??? >>>
YourCOll never understand why we would never want to be like you or part of >> you. seriously, you wonrCOt understand because you think you are rCLthe
bestrCY,the biggestrCY rCLthe greatest country in the worldrCY. YourCOve been told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand on your
heart. But nevermind you donrCOt need to be enlightened, you just need to
accept that we donrCOt want to be American! Not ever. Efye ok?
We know you - yourCOre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But your ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but predictability is that you really believe that you know what you donrCOt know at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth is that overall, yourCOre rather dumb. EfOe
can't make this shit up!
#god
On 1/7/26 8:41 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:u haven't actually give a reason other than ur apparently too
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen. >>>>>>>>>>
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight, >>>>>>>>>> there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next >>>>>>>>>> 500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory.
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCatrumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt >>>> would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that >>>> you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like >>>> heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause >>>> we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would >>>> be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the
founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually
some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big >>>> private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ... >>>> wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh??? >>>>
YourCOll never understand why we would never want to be like you or part of >>> you. seriously, you wonrCOt understand because you think you are rCLthe >>> bestrCY,the biggestrCY rCLthe greatest country in the worldrCY. YourCOve been told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand on your >>> heart. But nevermind you donrCOt need to be enlightened, you just need to >>> accept that we donrCOt want to be American! Not ever. Efye ok?
We know you - yourCOre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But your >> ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but
predictability is that you really believe that you know what you donrCOt know
at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth is that >> overall, yourCOre rather dumb. EfOe
ethnocentric to work within the us??
can't make this shit up!
#god
and everyone knows ur politeness is just a facade EfyeEfyeEfye, at least americans will tell u what they think to ur face, and not just behind ur back like a two-faced cunt
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:41 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:u haven't actually give a reason other than ur apparently too
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen. >>>>>>>>>>>
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight, >>>>>>>>>>> there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown >>>>>>>>>
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory. >>>>>>>>
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCatrumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt >>>>> would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that >>>>> you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like >>>>> heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause >>>>> we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would >>>>> be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the
founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually >>>>> some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big >>>>> private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ... >>>>> wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh??? >>>>>
YourCOll never understand why we would never want to be like you or part of
you. seriously, you wonrCOt understand because you think you are rCLthe >>>> bestrCY,the biggestrCY rCLthe greatest country in the worldrCY. YourCOve been told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand on your >>>> heart. But nevermind you donrCOt need to be enlightened, you just need to >>>> accept that we donrCOt want to be American! Not ever. Efye ok?
We know you - yourCOre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But your >>> ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but
predictability is that you really believe that you know what you donrCOt know
at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth is that >>> overall, yourCOre rather dumb. EfOe
ethnocentric to work within the us??
can't make this shit up!
#god
and everyone knows ur politeness is just a facade EfyeEfyeEfye, at least
americans will tell u what they think to ur face, and not just behind ur
back like a two-faced cunt
It can almost be too easy to have onerCOs points validated so quickly. But satisfying, nonetheless. .
On 1/7/26 10:14 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:41 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:u haven't actually give a reason other than ur apparently too
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, DudeIf there is one thing we can count on it's change.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and two
international airports. These would require capital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even
offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the
predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to >>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In >>>>>>>>>>>> foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in >>>>>>>>>>>> the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be >>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. >>>>>>>>>>> However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans >>>>>>>>>>> land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no >>>>>>>>>> real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown >>>>>>>>>>
The transfer was-a made under pressure from the British
government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory. >>>>>>>>>
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCa >>>>>>> trumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US
federal govt
would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of
policy that
you support
is there anything really better about canada other than
healthcare? like
heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america >>>>>> cause
we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it
would
be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the >>>>>> founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually >>>>>> some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on >>>>>> big
private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a
sense ...
wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, >>>>>> eh???
YourCOll never understand why we would never want to be like you or >>>>> part of
you. seriously, you wonrCOt-a understand because you think you are rCLthe >>>>> bestrCY,the biggestrCY rCLthe greatest country in the worldrCY. YourCOve been
told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand
on your
heart. But nevermind you donrCOt need to be enlightened, you just
need to
accept that we donrCOt want to be American!-a Not ever. Efye ok?
We know you - yourCOre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But >>>> your
ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but
predictability is that you really believe that you know what you
donrCOt know
at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth
is that
overall, yourCOre rather dumb. EfOe
ethnocentric to work within the us??
can't make this shit up!
#god
and everyone knows ur politeness is just a facade EfyeEfyeEfye, at least >>> americans will tell u what they think to ur face, and not just behind ur >>> back like a two-faced cunt
It can almost be too easy to have onerCOs points validated so quickly. But >> satisfying, nonetheless. .
uhuh, it's really bizarre that ur only objection to having a direct vote
on who controls the most powerful military on the planet, including the
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
is that u just "prefer" the label canadian over american, and that i
just can't ever understand why u wouldn't want to partake in the vote???
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On 1/7/26 10:14 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:41 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:u haven't actually give a reason other than ur apparently too
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coercion.a
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an
end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for
GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just
possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.a In foresight, >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown >>>>>>>>>>
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory. >>>>>>>>>
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? ???
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. Correctionatrumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt >>>>>> would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that >>>>>> you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like >>>>>> heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause >>>>>> we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would >>>>>> be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the >>>>>> founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually >>>>>> some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big >>>>>> private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ... >>>>>> wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh??? >>>>>>
YouAll never understand why we would never want to be like you or part of >>>>> you. seriously, you wonAt understand because you think you are othe >>>>> besto,the biggesto othe greatest country in the worldo. YouAve been told >>>>> that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand on your >>>>> heart. But nevermind you donAt need to be enlightened, you just need to >>>>> accept that we donAt want to be American! Not ever. ? ok?
We know you - youAre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But your >>>> ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but
predictability is that you really believe that you know what you donAt know
at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth is that >>>> overall, youAre rather dumb. ?
ethnocentric to work within the us??
can't make this shit up!
#god
and everyone knows ur politeness is just a facade ???, at least
americans will tell u what they think to ur face, and not just behind ur >>> back like a two-faced cunt
It can almost be too easy to have oneAs points validated so quickly. But
satisfying, nonetheless. .
uhuh, it's really bizarre that ur only objection to having a direct vote
on who controls the most powerful military on the planet, including the
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
is that u just "prefer" the label canadian over american, and that i
just can't ever understand why u wouldn't want to partake in the vote???
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a >degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,--
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On 1/7/26 10:14 PM, Tara wrote:Waiting for the vote count to break 50% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_Room_%28photograph%29
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:41 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:u haven't actually give a reason other than ur apparently too
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, DudeIf there is one thing we can count on it's change.
<punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economic
coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and two
international airports. These would require capital >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrated
quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow.
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even
offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the
predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to >>>>>>>>>>>> happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In >>>>>>>>>>>> foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in >>>>>>>>>>>> the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be >>>>>>>>>>>> inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. >>>>>>>>>>> However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans >>>>>>>>>>> land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no >>>>>>>>>> real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown >>>>>>>>>>
The transfer was-a made under pressure from the British
government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory. >>>>>>>>>
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? EfyeEfyeEfye
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCa >>>>>>> trumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US
federal govt
would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of
policy that
you support
is there anything really better about canada other than
healthcare? like
heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america >>>>>> cause
we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it
would
be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the >>>>>> founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually >>>>>> some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on >>>>>> big
private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a
sense ...
wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, >>>>>> eh???
YourCOll never understand why we would never want to be like you or >>>>> part of
you. seriously, you wonrCOt-a understand because you think you are rCLthe >>>>> bestrCY,the biggestrCY rCLthe greatest country in the worldrCY. YourCOve been
told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand
on your
heart. But nevermind you donrCOt need to be enlightened, you just
need to
accept that we donrCOt want to be American!-a Not ever. Efye ok?
We know you - yourCOre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But >>>> your
ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but
predictability is that you really believe that you know what you
donrCOt know
at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth
is that
overall, yourCOre rather dumb. EfOe
ethnocentric to work within the us??
can't make this shit up!
#god
and everyone knows ur politeness is just a facade EfyeEfyeEfye, at least >>> americans will tell u what they think to ur face, and not just behind ur >>> back like a two-faced cunt
It can almost be too easy to have onerCOs points validated so quickly. But >> satisfying, nonetheless. .
uhuh, it's really bizarre that ur only objection to having a direct vote
on who controls the most powerful military on the planet, including the
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 22:40:13 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:14 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:41 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:u haven't actually give a reason other than ur apparently too
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandrCOs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
rCyIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.rCy
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
rCyItrCOs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securityrCa and economic securityrCa ItrCOs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coercion.rCy
That may sound outlandish. But TrumprCOs ambition isnrCOt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayrCOs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkrCOs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
rCo legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandrCOs prime minister, M||te Egede, called for an
end to rCythe shackles of colonialismrCO and a future shaped by
Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly -u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandrCOs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (-u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandrCOs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources are a big reason why. The great powersrCO unashamed lust for
GreenlandrCOs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItrCOs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itrCOs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldrCOs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumprCOs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanrCOs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldrCOs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 rCo many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
rCo Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts rCo at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year rCo
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlandrCoIcelandrCoUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (-u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandrCOs
shores. ThererCOs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or rCo just
possibly rCo in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the rCO21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.rCO If the US
controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandrCOs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TrumprCOs call to rCybuyrCO Greenland sounds outlandish rCo even offensive rCo
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism rCo but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.-a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.-a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown >>>>>>>>>>>
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory. >>>>>>>>>>
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? ???
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. CorrectionrCatrumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt
would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that
you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like
heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause
we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would >>>>>>> be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the >>>>>>> founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually >>>>>>> some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big >>>>>>> private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ...
wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh???
YourCOll never understand why we would never want to be like you or part of
you. seriously, you wonrCOt understand because you think you are rCLthe >>>>>> bestrCY,the biggestrCY rCLthe greatest country in the worldrCY. YourCOve been told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand on your
heart. But nevermind you donrCOt need to be enlightened, you just need to
accept that we donrCOt want to be American! Not ever. ? ok?
We know you - yourCOre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But your
ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but >>>>> predictability is that you really believe that you know what you donrCOt know
at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth is that
overall, yourCOre rather dumb. ?
ethnocentric to work within the us??
can't make this shit up!
#god
and everyone knows ur politeness is just a facade ???, at least
americans will tell u what they think to ur face, and not just behind ur >>>> back like a two-faced cunt
It can almost be too easy to have onerCOs points validated so quickly. But >>> satisfying, nonetheless. .
uhuh, it's really bizarre that ur only objection to having a direct vote
on who controls the most powerful military on the planet, including the
As if your stinking military excused your failings. As she said many americans are arrogant to the point of stupidity, which is the only
real explanation necessary for an aberration president like himbo. As
if any nation might want to join the us. As if we have no pride.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
--is that u just "prefer" the label canadian over american, and that i
just can't ever understand why u wouldn't want to partake in the vote???
There it is. You don't understand. Stop right there.
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a
degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 22:40:13 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 10:14 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 8:41 PM, Tara wrote:
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:u haven't actually give a reason other than ur apparently too
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:49 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 6:27 PM, Tara wrote:
dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/7/26 11:24 AM, Dude wrote:
On 1/7/2026 10:55 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:27:51 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:If there is one thing we can count on it's change.
On 1/6/2026 6:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 6:53 PM, dart200 wrote:Have you ever heard of "Manifest Destiny"?
On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:
It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw GreenlandAs
potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in
a blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard
wheeze to encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and
remote corner of the unknown world:
aIn the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found,
which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there
if it had a favourable name.a
More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is
proposing something similar.
aItAs a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US
securitya and economic securitya ItAs an absolute necessity and I
cannot assure you that we would not use military or economic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coercion.a
That may sound outlandish. But TrumpAs ambition isnAt new. America
has controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it
became a de facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought
to buy Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion;
around $7 billion in todayAs money.
For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But DenmarkAs ownership of
Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at
their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear.
As a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.
Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it
has been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979.
This was expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act
u legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare
independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign
affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution
explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New
Year speech, GreenlandAs prime minister, M.te Egede, called for an
end to athe shackles of colonialismA and a future shaped by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders themselves.
The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual
block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly u410 million), making up
about 19 per cent of GreenlandAs GDP. But to put that in perspective,
it is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El
Paso, Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth
Greenland could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed
ally, of whom there are at least three: America, China and Russia.
China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point,
Beijing proposed a $2.5 billion (u1.8 billion) investment in a
Greenlandic mine (more than the islandAs entire GDP), which would
have brought in 5,000 Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive
infrastructure investments, including a deep-sea port and two
international airports. These would require capital which would leave
Greenland beholden for all time. Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly,
blocked these plans.
So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural
resources are a big reason why. The great powersA unashamed lust for
GreenlandAs rare earths is but one element of a global race to
control the production of the strategic minerals which are essential
components of batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern
computing devices. ItAs about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron,
indium phosphide, gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt
and nickel, among others. He who controls their production holds the
key to the digital globe.
Odd as it may sound, itAs also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over
60 per cent of the worldAs semiconductors and more than 90 per cent
of its most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its
threat to invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent,
perhaps encouraged by Donald TrumpAs daring raid on Venezuela), it
would gain near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we
really want to be dependent on China for every phone, computer and
electric vehicle produced in the West?
The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to
TaiwanAs. To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so
critical minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantities of 30 of them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the
worldAs total rare earth reserves. But the reality is that with a
population of just 57,000 u many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters
u Greenland lacks the industrial infrastructure to extract these
minerals. Both China and the US would be keen to fill that gap.
Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As
the ice melts u at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year u
several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking
up to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest non-
continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the
GreenlanduIcelanduUK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine
surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also
hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an
essential part of US air defence and missile early warning systems.
Any Russian missile strike on the US would pass directly over
Greenland. Since 2017, Thule has housed a key ballistic missile
detection system, with nearly $4 billion (u3 billion) in upgrades
recently approved.
The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts GreenlandAs
shores. ThereAs even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging
Northern Sea Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or u just
possibly u in East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-
lanes the A21st- century Suez and Panama Canals.A If the US >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled Greenland, it would control access to these routes as
well.
So yes: GreenlandAs strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and
Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the
US and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation
on many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be
politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact
of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other
strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and
security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall
Street investment in mineral extraction would surely follow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TrumpAs call to abuyA Greenland sounds outlandish u even offensive u
as with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the
bones of a deal: one that could benefit the predominantly Inuit
population, while delivering enormous strategic and commercial gains
to the United States.
In its 1,000-year recorded history, Greenland has been a Viking
colony, an abandoned Inuit wilderness, a territory traded between
powers, a wartime protectorate, a Danish province, and now an
autonomous country edging towards independence. Whatever comes next,
Greenland must find a way to harness its vast resource wealth while
preserving its fragile culture and ecology. Greenland cannot be
sacrificed to short-term capitalism u but it can, and must, find a
way to benefit from it. If managed with wisdom and care, the coming
years could bring not only prosperity to Greenlanders, but a global
model of sustainable extraction and indigenous self-determination.
America, China and Russia may want Greenland. But perhaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenlanders need them just as much?
James Gray
mineral rights when the ice melts??? idk the us already had a fairly
large base there...
canada's looking pretty nice too tbh, ehh????
A confusing word combination that interprets as, bound to happen.
In hindsight, it is easy to imagine inevitability.a In foresight,
there is no such room.
What I imagine is that the world map will change as much in the next
500 years as it has in the last 500.a That much might be inevitable.
Maybe.
Apparently, Canada did not have a notion of manifest destiny. However,
Canada is the second largest country on the planet and spans land from
the Atlantic to pacific.
The question is, why did Canada expand westward?
because they saw the americans do it and just copied us. no real will of
their own tbh, related to why they still recognize the crown >>>>>>>>>>>>
The transfer was made under pressure from the British government, which
feared the United States might purchase or annex the territory. >>>>>>>>>>>
i mean, we might still do that ehh???? ???
We might burn down your White House again ehh???. Correctionatrumps house.
i still dunno why ur antagonistic about the proposal
think about it: adding a bunch of canadian states to the US federal govt
would be a massive shakeup ... almost definitely in favor of policy that
you support
is there anything really better about canada other than healthcare? like
heck keep the ur healthcare system and lets expand that to america cause
we desperately need it. instead of it being a federal entity, it would >>>>>>>> be a state-level govt coop. canadian states would start off as the >>>>>>>> founding members ... followed by us blue states, and maybe eventually >>>>>>>> some red states might want to stop stupidly blowing their money on big >>>>>>>> private healthcare...
u already rely on us for defense, a lot of the world does in a sense ...
wouldn't you like an actual vote on who's controlling that system, eh???
YouAll never understand why we would never want to be like you or part of
you. seriously, you wonAt understand because you think you are othe >>>>>>> besto,the biggesto othe greatest country in the worldo. YouAve been told
that since you were old enough to be indoctrinated with your hand on your
heart. But nevermind you donAt need to be enlightened, you just need to >>>>>>> accept that we donAt want to be American! Not ever. ? ok?
We know you - youAre below us and are so loud, how could we not. But your
ethnocentricity prevents you from knowing us or anyone. The irony but >>>>>> predictability is that you really believe that you know what you donAt know
at all. And you, I should be polite (cdn, you know), but the truth is that
overall, youAre rather dumb. ?
ethnocentric to work within the us??
can't make this shit up!
#god
and everyone knows ur politeness is just a facade ???, at least
americans will tell u what they think to ur face, and not just behind ur >>>>> back like a two-faced cunt
It can almost be too easy to have oneAs points validated so quickly. But >>>> satisfying, nonetheless. .
uhuh, it's really bizarre that ur only objection to having a direct vote >>> on who controls the most powerful military on the planet, including the
As if your stinking military excused your failings. As she said many
americans are arrogant to the point of stupidity, which is the only
real explanation necessary for an aberration president like himbo. As
if any nation might want to join the us. As if we have no pride.
so much pride u'd rather just let it happen again vs actively work to >prevent it by directly voting on it??? because mUh lABeLs???
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?--
is that u just "prefer" the label canadian over american, and that i
just can't ever understand why u wouldn't want to partake in the vote???
There it is. You don't understand. Stop right there.
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a >>> degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a >>> degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericaAs, and EuropeAs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it
to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
Next, Mars?--
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a >>>> degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericarCOs, and EuroperCOs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it
to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and
Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
--Next, Mars?
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a >>>>> degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericarCOs, and EuroperCOs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it
to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and
Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
On 1/8/26 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericarCOs, and EuroperCOs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it >>> to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >>> Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
so instead of engaging and diffusing the situation by voting out the "dictator"...
u want to disengage and build more nukes???
seriously, is the entire planet just idiots standing on retards???
On 1/8/26 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericaAs, and EuropeAs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it >>> to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >>> Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
so instead of engaging and diffusing the situation by voting out the >"dictator"...
u want to disengage and build more nukes???
seriously, is the entire planet just idiots standing on retards???--
Next, Mars?
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a >>>>>> degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On 1/8/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck
gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericaAs, and EuropeAs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it >>> to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >>> Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
So, I'm not sure you've thought this through.
A golden dome on whose dime?
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:14:12 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/8/26 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck >>>>> gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericarCOs, and EuroperCOs, security in the >>>> region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it >>>> to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >>>> Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
so instead of engaging and diffusing the situation by voting out the
"dictator"...
It is not canada's job to vote out your dictator, if that were
possible.
--u want to disengage and build more nukes???
Canada will not be building any nukes.
seriously, is the entire planet just idiots standing on retards???
Next, Mars?
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a
degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:27:40 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through.
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck >>>>> gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericarCOs, and EuroperCOs, security in the >>>> region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it >>>> to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >>>> Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
A golden dome on whose dime?
I said it would be my interest. Not that you can understand how it
would be feasible.
On 1/8/26 11:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:27:40 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through.
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck >>>>>> gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericarCOs, and EuroperCOs, security in the >>>>> region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he
expects it
to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against
Russian and
Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
A golden dome on whose dime?
I said it would be my interest.-a Not that you can understand how it
would be feasible.
in others words: noah has fuck-all idea how it would be funded
that's a wrap dude!
On 1/8/26 11:42 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:27:40 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through.
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck >>>>>> gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericaAs, and EuropeAs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it >>>>> to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >>>>> Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
A golden dome on whose dime?
I said it would be my interest. Not that you can understand how it
would be feasible.
in others words: noah has fuck-all idea how it would be funded
that's a wrap dude!--
On 1/8/26 11:40 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 11:14:12 -0800, dart200
<user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 1/8/26 10:31 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 10:29:45 -0800, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/2026 10:02 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/8/26 5:58 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:You know a nice tidy sum will change hands over Greenland.
only major nuclear arsenal that supports the free world...
That no longer gives a shit about the free world...
so abandoning the most powerful global military for whoever the fuck >>>>>> gets in the charge is the answer???
my god r boomers just like retarded?
Greenland is essential to AmericaAs, and EuropeAs, security in the
region. It looks like Trump has written off Europe because he expects it >>>>> to go Islamist. Trump could give some face-saving tokens.
The main thing is to fortify North and South America against Russian and >>>>> Chinese aggression with a nice golden dome for self defense. The US
already rules the oceans and the skies.
I would be more interested to see the world build a golden dome to
protect against us aggression.
so instead of engaging and diffusing the situation by voting out the
"dictator"...
It is not canada's job to vote out your dictator, if that were
possible.
i'm sorry, who's job is it to ensure the most powerful military on the >planet does not fall into the hands of a dictator???
--
u want to disengage and build more nukes???
Canada will not be building any nukes.
seriously, is the entire planet just idiots standing on retards???
Next, Mars?
there was absolutely nothing of substance in ur response, to such high a
degree that ur gunna feel validated by any response i give,
maybe u deserve to be annexed by trump smh
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:31:30 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |