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*

 

[Dos Perros]

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*

I think there was a dude here that posted a muskox hunt. That would be my main interest in Greenland (not that I'm excluded presently).

One thing I've noticed being here is that there is no shortage of dudes who are into all sorts of esoteric stuff.

 

[TaperPin]

I think there was a dude here that posted a muskox hunt. That would be my main interest in Greenland (not that I'm excluded presently).

It would be cool to go someplace not many folks get to see, let alone hunt.

 

[Poser]

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.

I saw this piece recently: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/11/business/trump-greenland-cost.html


Some estimates have shown the value of Greenland being values at about 1 trillion dollars, but this article suggests differently:

David Barker, a real estate developer and former economist at the New York Fed, helped us with the thought experiment. (Barker made waves in 2009 when he argued that the American purchase of Alaska in 1867, for less than 2 cents per acre, was a bad deal from a purely financial investment perspective.) Here’s his back-of-a-napkin math for valuing Greenland, which he estimated could be worth between $12.5 billion and $77 billion.

As far as the Panama Canal goes, I don't really get the conversation from the get-go. The canal comes with a population of around 4 million people and an untold amount of inherent problems. The US military already gets first priority when it comes to using the canal. From a strategic standpoint, what else matters? Of course Putin has warned the US not to mess with it, but what's he gonna do about it? Its not as if he can project power on the global high seas. Realistically, he's probably attempting to goad Trump into seizing it to justify his own expansion agenda and, well, Trump is particularly susceptible to goading, but there's not enough of a real threat to back up the goading in the this case.

Regardless of whether Greenland were purchased for 50 billion dollars or even 1 trillion dollars, or if it were annexed as a territory or even seized, you're not going to get DIY hunting access to it. Not now, not never. Stop pretending that anyone anywhere at any level that matters cares about your recreational hunting access or that hunting access were even a factor at play for adding Greenland as a US territory. If you want to hunt Greenland, book yourself a trip, its probably easier and cheaper right now than if it were to become a US territory.

 

[NDGuy]

no shortage of dudes who are into all sorts of esoteric stuff.

*Googles Esoteric*

Agree

 

[displacedtexan]

It would be cool to go someplace not many folks get to see, let alone hunt.

 

[MuleyFever]

I was at Huntin' Fool on Saturday and they have a full body Muskox in there. It was pretty cool. Really amazing animals.

 

[flathead#2]

I'd be in for a Muskox / Duck combo.
And let me get this in early: NO POINTS SYSTEM!!!

 

[Poser]

Dear President Trump, listen very carefully,” Vistisen said on Tuesday in European Parliament. “Greenland has been part of the Danish kingdom for 800 years. It’s an integrated part of our country. It is not for sale.”

Vistisen went on to use some profanity that got him in trouble with the rest of the European Parliament.

“Let me put it in words you might understand,” he said. “Mr. Trump, f–k off!”

 

[Dos Perros]

“Let me put it in words you might understand,” he said. “Mr. Trump, f–k off!”

Global diplomacy level: pro.

I bet if we turned off their F-35's we'd have a deal in less than 24 hours.