The Truman-Trump Connection
-
Expanding on his remarks, Trump later added, “I look forward to going, but I thought that the Prime Minister’s statement that it was absurd that wasn’t — it was an absurd idea, was nasty. I thought it was an inappropriate statement. All she had to do is say, ‘no, we wouldn’t be interested.’ But we can’t treat the United States of America the way they treated us under President Obama. I thought it was a very not nice way of saying something.”
The Danish PM was just being “occasionally impolite”. Danes are, for the most part, consistently polite and statesmanlike, quite unlike brash NY real estate tycoons. No wonder that Trump didn’t understand that and took offense.
-
Expanding on his remarks, Trump later added, “I look forward to going, but I thought that the Prime Minister’s statement that it was absurd that wasn’t — it was an absurd idea, was nasty. I thought it was an inappropriate statement. All she had to do is say, ‘no, we wouldn’t be interested.’ But we can’t treat the United States of America the way they treated us under President Obama. I thought it was a very not nice way of saying something.”
The Danish PM was just being “occasionally impolite”. Danes are, for the most part, consistently polite and statesmanlike, quite unlike brash NY real estate tycoons. No wonder that Trump didn’t understand that and took offense.
-
OTOH, the biggest money maker is seafood.
BTW, we've bought stuff from the Danes before. The Virgin Islands.
@Jolly said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
OTOH, the biggest money maker is seafood.
BTW, we've bought stuff from the Danes before. The Virgin Islands.
Just as Greenland doesn't have much in the way of greenery.....
-
@Jolly said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
OTOH, the biggest money maker is seafood.
BTW, we've bought stuff from the Danes before. The Virgin Islands.
Just as Greenland doesn't have much in the way of greenery.....
But the American Moses wants their walrus blubber and muktuk.
-
It would be. We all know Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and that Alaska was Seward’s Folly.
But does the country have a reason to do this? Besides to stroke Trump’s ego?
-
It would be. We all know Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and that Alaska was Seward’s Folly.
But does the country have a reason to do this? Besides to stroke Trump’s ego?
@jon-nyc said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Alaska was Seward’s Folly.
The first time the U.S. thought about buying Greenland was in 1867 when Secretary of State William Seward, under President Andrew Johnson, proposed buying it and Iceland from Denmark for $5.5 million in gold, or about $117.2 million in today’s money. The offer was never made to Denmark however. That same year, Seward negotiated the Alaska Purchase from Russia for $7.2 million ($129 million today).
-
The talk is independence not union with or purchase/annexation by the USA.
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/what-would-greenlands-independence-mean-arctic
-
You didn’t but Trump has.
The article I linked tells that Greenland is looking for some form of independence/sovereignty from Denmark. They are not looking to becoming Americans. Trump continues to promote a policy that would result in Denmark giving consideration to sell the island to the USA. The wishes of the inhabitants of Greenland would be sidelined in any ensuing negotiations.
I get it that Washington would want Greenland. The US already maintains total political and military control over the Alaskan Western Arctic entrance/exit to the Northwest Passage. It also militarily controls the Eastern entrance of the passage through USN command of the sea. It currently must share political control over eastern NW passage with its NATO allies Denmark and Canada. It would like to have complete control. Obtaining Greenland would be a strategic step towards that reaching that goal. Not necessary but politically desirable.
-
You didn’t but Trump has.
The article I linked tells that Greenland is looking for some form of independence/sovereignty from Denmark. They are not looking to becoming Americans. Trump continues to promote a policy that would result in Denmark giving consideration to sell the island to the USA. The wishes of the inhabitants of Greenland would be sidelined in any ensuing negotiations.
I get it that Washington would want Greenland. The US already maintains total political and military control over the Alaskan Western Arctic entrance/exit to the Northwest Passage. It also militarily controls the Eastern entrance of the passage through USN command of the sea. It currently must share political control over eastern NW passage with its NATO allies Denmark and Canada. It would like to have complete control. Obtaining Greenland would be a strategic step towards that reaching that goal. Not necessary but politically desirable.
@Renauda said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Not necessary but politically desirable.
You mean stategically desirable.
-
@Renauda said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Not necessary but politically desirable.
You mean stategically desirable.
@George-K said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
@Renauda said in The Truman-Trump Connection:
Not necessary but politically desirable.
You mean stategically desirable.
Not at all. The desirable (and almost uncontested) strategic advantage is already held by the US and the Nato alliance. It has been so since at least 1949.
What I meant was the political desirability of de jure ownership of the eastern territorial gateway to the Northwest passage. Similar to the Turk owning and controlling the Dardanelle entrance to the Black Sea.
