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

[Ozarkansas]

The argument is that annexation is not going to gain you any additional hunting privileges that you do not already have in the country of Greenland. Consider, for example, the hunting access you have (or, rather do not have) in the Philippines which is a US territory.

Actually the Philippines used to be a territory but was granted independence. But yeah I agree, there’s no guarantee that we’d have more opportunities in Greenland.

Also, by @CJ19 ‘s logic, public lands advocates should support any and all expansionism, because it gives with more lands to hunt.

 

[Dos Perros]

That's already more than doable.

So although agree with your points, I'm not sure how significant it is.

It's not significant at all, which is precisely my larger point: on it's face, from a purely fishing/hunting perspective, most of us should welcome annexation. But from any other perspective we should form careful opinions with an order of magnitude more weight, so much more weight that the hunting/fishing becomes irrelevant.

 

[Trial153]

We need Greenland like we need a hole in our head. The fact that this conversation is taking place because of the ramblings of this nitwit shows how dysfunctional american politics are at this point.

 

[Dos Perros]

We need Greenland like we need a hole in our head. The fact that this conversation is taking place because of the ramblings of this nitwit shows how dysfunctional american politics are at this point.

"We need Alaska like we need a hole in our head." - @Trial153 had he been alive in 1867

 

[OMF]

I haven't read through this whole thread but has anyone asked the question, are Greenland women hot? If so, get that deal done!!

 

[wyosam]

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.

I thinks it’s too early to call that “public land”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dos Perros]

I haven't read through this whole thread but has anyone asked the question, are Greenland women hot? If so, get that deal done!!

No one thought my Haaland / Holland joke was funny, so currently my confidence is shot, else I certainly would have asked your most pertinent question.

 

[Bmoore]

"We need Alaska like we need a hole in our head." - @Trial153 had he been alive in 1867

Can we stop pretending that buying Alaska (or the Louisiana Purchase 50 years earlier, or the taking of California and the New Mexico territories in 1840s) is anywhere near comparable to the modern geopolitical landscape. It’s not the age of western expansionism and Manifest destiny anymore. It’s not the era of colonial expansionism. Since WW2 the geopolitical landscape has changed drastically. So regardless of how you feel about Greenland, to compare anything currently happening to the land acquisitions of the 1800s is naive and historically inaccurate at best or intentionally misleading to gain debate points at worst.

As others have said, if you think because Greenland has critters and you like to hunt, we should take Greenland so maybe one day you can get a tag there is potentially the very worst reason to consider trying to take Greenland into the American system.

And lastly, “military pressure” does in fact mean that invasion is on the table. You don’t point guns at other people unless you plan on using them if need be. It might not be the next step or even the 200th step, but eventually, if your serious and don’t expect this all to be a bluff, the threat of military pressure means that the military would at some point be used to enforce the agenda. The eventual end of military pressure means force, or else the threat of military pressure is just a pointless bluff. Isn’t one of the first rules of gun safety don’t point at anything you don’t intend to shoot?

 

[Trial153]

Can we stop pretending that buying Alaska (or the Louisiana Purchase 50 years earlier, or the taking of California and the New Mexico territories in 1840s) is anywhere near comparable to the modern geopolitical landscape. It’s not the age of western expansionism and Manifest destiny anymore. It’s not the era of colonial expansionism. Since WW2 the geopolitical landscape has changed drastically. So regardless of how you feel about Greenland, to compare anything currently happening to the land acquisitions of the 1800s is naive and historically inaccurate at best or intentionally misleading to gain debate points at worst.

As others have said, if you think because Greenland has critters and you like to hunt, we should take Greenland so maybe one day you can get a tag there is potentially the very worst reason to consider trying to take Greenland into the American system.

And lastly, “military pressure” does in fact mean that invasion is on the table. You don’t point guns at other people unless you plan on using them if need be. It might not be the next step or even the 200th step, but eventually, if your serious and don’t expect this all to be a bluff, the threat of military pressure means that the military would at some point be used to enforce the agenda. The eventual end of military pressure means force, or else the threat of military pressure is just a pointless bluff. Isn’t one of the first rules of gun safety don’t point at anything you don’t intend to shoot?

Thanks for saving me trouble of typing. Well said.

 

[Dos Perros]

Can we stop pretending that buying Alaska (or the Louisiana Purchase 50 years earlier, or the taking of California and the New Mexico territories in 1840s) is anywhere near comparable to the modern geopolitical landscape. It’s not the age of western expansionism and Manifest destiny anymore. It’s not the era of colonial expansionism. Since WW2 the geopolitical landscape has changed drastically. So regardless of how you feel about Greenland, to compare anything currently happening to the land acquisitions of the 1800s is naive and historically inaccurate at best or intentionally misleading to gain debate points at worst.

As others have said, if you think because Greenland has critters and you like to hunt, we should take Greenland so maybe one day you can get a tag there is potentially the very worst reason to consider trying to take Greenland into the American system.

And lastly, “military pressure” does in fact mean that invasion is on the table. You don’t point guns at other people unless you plan on using them if need be. It might not be the next step or even the 200th step, but eventually, if your serious and don’t expect this all to be a bluff, the threat of military pressure means that the military would at some point be used to enforce the agenda. The eventual end of military pressure means force, or else the threat of military pressure is just a pointless bluff. Isn’t one of the first rules of gun safety don’t point at anything you don’t intend to shoot?

My reference to Seward's Folly was only to point out that the merits of a decision aren't always immediately clear or known.

I do believe the world will be a different place in 50 or 100 years, and it is likely that Greenland's significance in the world over that time is likely to grow. Will it be worth the price? Tough to say without knowing the price.

 

[TaperPin]

I keep trying to ever remember any conversations where hunting buddies were saying, “You know what, it would be cool to spend more money to fly farther than Canada, to hunt in a country that doesn’t speak English.” I can’t even remember a hunting article on Greenland. *chuckle*