Greenland - Yes or No? Where are the "we need more public land" people?

[Will_m]

I hate to be that guy, but the atrocious grammar in some of these posts makes it difficult to accept them as well-formed thoughts.

Damn. That’s checkmate.

 

[Idaboy]

It's a novel idea, very out of the box thinking. I think there needs to be a full explanation of what's to be gained/ lost by both sides. It's too early to say one way or another.

The idea is interesting. I'm not at all thinking they will be annexed into the US. Most likely, he's working on a trade deal of some type.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Novel idea? What is novel about it?

 

[ThorM465]

Of course you don't rule it out. That's diplomacy 101, talk softly but carry a big stick goes a long ways. That being said, not ruling it out and arguing for a military invasion are worlds apart. No reasonable person would argue otherwise in faith.

 

[CorbLand]

Would be pretty amazing to see Donald J. Trump add nearly 540,000,000 acres of public land and water to the united states. That is almost DOUBLING the amount of total federal land currently available to the public. Its interesting to see the same public land advocates who claim the trump administration would sell all public land now fighting tooth and nail to prevent him from add a vast expanse of wilderness to the us public land inventory.

A lot of people were against Teddy Roosevelt at the time too i suppose. If Trump buys greenland that might put Donald J Trump and Teddy Roosevelt as the greatest conservationist presidents in us history.

Oh yes, my favorite type of argument right behind strawman and red herring. Black and white.

One can be pro public lands while also being anti the expansion of them.

Same way that one can be pro logging while anti cutting every tree on earth down. One can be pro development while being anti every inch of earth needs a building. One can be pro hunting while being anti killing just to kill. One can be pro road access while also being anti a road to every hill top and meadow.

 

[displacedtexan]

Oh yes, my favorite type of argument right behind strawman and red herring. Black and white.

One can be pro public lands while also being anti the expansion of them.

Same way that one can be pro logging while anti cutting every tree on earth down. One can be pro development while being anti every inch of earth needs a building. One can be pro hunting while being anti killing just to kill. One can be pro road access while also being anti a road to every hill top and meadow.

See, your last paragraph is why I think I prefer a black and white argument to a red herring...

Maximum humor. And head shaking.

 

[CorbLand]

See, your last paragraph is why I think I prefer a black and white argument to a red herring...

Maximum humor. And head shaking.

What is wrong with my last paragraph? It was used to show how one doesn’t have to be completely pro and/or anti something.

 

[Broomd]

Don't you mean the Danes?

Yes! Mea culpa...not talking Holland here.

 

[stephen.mutchler]

Id hope it would make it more accessible to a broader crowd

 

[Dos Perros]

Yes! Mea culpa...not talking Holland here.

Haaland is actually Norwegian. Common mistake.

 

[displacedtexan]

What is wrong with my last paragraph? It was used to show how one doesn’t have to be completely pro and/or anti something.

No, I 100% agree with you.

But I'm personally very amused by the people who are "oh, you support logging? Why do you want to cut down all the trees?"

I was (well, trying to be) saying that you might be under selling how much fun people with black/white arguments are.

 

[CorbLand]

No, I 100% agree with you.

But I'm personally very amused by the people who are "oh, you support logging? Why do you want to cut down all the trees?"

I was (well, trying to be) saying that you might be under selling how much fun people with black/white arguments are.

I see. I thought you were saying “head shaking” at my last paragraph.

 

[displacedtexan]

I see. I thought you were saying “head shaking” at my last paragraph.

Ahhhhhh. I see how you got that now.

Nope, at them! With you.

 

[Fireflyfishing]

I voted yes. I’d like to hunt and fish there.

 

[ozyclint]

Can we do a poll of what to call it if it becomes part of the US? Greenland is so inaccurate.

Off the top of my head:

1. Redland (after Eric the Red)
2. Ice-Iceland
3. Really Iceland
4. Orangeland (obvious)

Instead of lower 48 maybe you could go with lower Greenland?

 

[Poser]

Do some of ya'll actually believe that there's any chance an annexation/territory situation is going to result in any hunting situation on Greenland that has improved benefits for a US citizen as opposed to hunting there as a non citizen? You actually think that wildlife there would be suddenly managed by USF&W or some sort of state agency would be installed and hunting Greenland will suddenly be akin to hunting any other state, including Alaska, as a NR?

The "I'd like to hunt Greenland so I approve of annexation" idea is laughable. Even if the country were annexed, the population isn't going to cede hunting and fishing rights, nor would they cede management. Why would they? and why would any government annexation deal be the least bit interested in pursuing recreational hunting and fishing access as an addendum to arctic security and resources? In fact, annexing Greenland may very well drive up the price of access to hunting and fishing due to sudden interest from people who never considered hunting Greenland before, couldn't previously find it on a map, but have $30,000 to spend on a Caribou hunt.

 

[Davyalabama]

1) Amazon and Bezos does not have a monopoly, anyone could take over the retail sector, just ask Sears. Walmart should not have let Am$%^& in, it was their fault for not being a visionary to see it.

2) Google took over because they offered something the others didn't, remember AOL and Netscape. I prefer DuckDuckGo.

3) You want to blame Microsoft and Bill Gates and Paul Allen? Hmm, anyone remember how the operating systems used to work, each computer business had their own operating systems, Radio Shack? Radio Shack is where now? Yep, they weren't visionaries to see how their operating system could have been farmed out. Gates and Allen filled a niche.

Now, how many of us have made money off Am$%^&, Google, and Microsoft?

"Your business does better than mine, you have a monopoly. Shut them down!" Oh cry me a river.

Want to get into the Federal Reserve? Nah, that would really derail this thread.

I don't see us invading Greenland at all. I don't see us invading Panama to take back the Canal, I wish we would, now we should have done it in 1904 and made them the 46th state at that time.

Can you see why Trump may want Greenland, it is to stop the Chinese. Denmark sends just enough money, and they provide just enough infrastructure to keep Greenland sorta happy. I'm not sure Greenland, by itself, can sustain itself on selling fish and an idol.

Now, let's see what happens on April 6th.

The long game, we better be watching China and trying to block them.

 

[Dos Perros]

Do some of ya'll actually believe that there's any chance an annexation/territory situation is going to result in any hunting situation on Greenland that has improved benefits for a US citizen as opposed to hunting there as a non citizen? You actually think that wildlife there would be suddenly managed by USF&W or some sort of state agency would be installed and hunting Greenland will suddenly be akin to hunting any other state, including Alaska, as a NR?

The "I'd like to hunt Greenland so I approve of annexation" idea is laughable. Even if the country were annexed, the population isn't going to cede hunting and fishing rights, nor would they cede management. Why would they? and why would any government annexation deal be the least bit interested in pursuing recreational hunting and fishing access as an addendum to arctic security and resources? In fact, annexing Greenland may very well drive up the price of access to hunting and fishing due to sudden interest from people who never considered hunting Greenland before, couldn't previously find it on a map, but have $30,000 to spend on a Caribou hunt.

If some dude is spending $30k to hunt caribou he otherwise wouldn't have, then he's less likely to be driving up the price for New Mexico or Colorado landowner tags. Any increase in utilized opportunity is a good thing, IMO.

I do think that for most of us leveraging the fishing/hunting opportunity to form an opinion on the matter is silly, but that doesn't mean if it were to happen there wouldn't be impacts, positive or negative (maybe both concurrently).