Mighty_Zuk Posted January 9 Posted January 9 23 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: so leverage to reduce Chinese control of rare earth minerals. I can get behind that. Even if Greenland does become part of the US, it can also be designated an autonomous region and live exactly as they lived before.
RETAC21 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 31 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: so leverage to reduce Chinese control of rare earth minerals. I can get behind that. The rare earth minerals are not rare at all, the Chinese control them because of environmental regulation elsewhere they don't GAS about.
RETAC21 Posted January 9 Posted January 9 13 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Even if Greenland does become part of the US, it can also be designated an autonomous region and live exactly as they lived before. Given how sensitive USians are to having regions living from handouts (see Puerto Rico), taking on Greenland may not be what they expect.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 9 Posted January 9 37 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said: so leverage to reduce Chinese control of rare earth minerals. I can get behind that. You realise when we and France were doing things like that you were calling it Imperialism, right? Its not about sustaining the US Economy. Its about sustaining Musks economic dominance, nothing else. If you were really worried about those materials, do a sweet deal with Denmark to gain access for the next 100 years. There, job done, and no hissy fits needed.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 9 Posted January 9 6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: You realise when we and France were doing things like that you were calling it Imperialism, right? Its not about sustaining the US Economy. Its about sustaining Musks economic dominance, nothing else. If you were really worried about those materials, do a sweet deal with Denmark to gain access for the next 100 years. There, job done, and no hissy fits needed. Imperialism is a good thing.
Tim the Tank Nut Posted January 9 Author Posted January 9 I didn't call it imperialism. Further, I would have sent air support to the Suez if I'd been in charge. The need for a little imperialism comes from the Chinese expansion. While it is distasteful to a degree becoming a Hong Kong is more distasteful.
Roman Alymov Posted January 9 Posted January 9 2 hours ago, RETAC21 said: The rare earth minerals are not rare at all, the Chinese control them because of environmental regulation elsewhere they don't GAS about. +1, "rare earth elements are not rare in terms of raw material reserves, they exceed lead by 10 times, molybdenum by 50 times, and tungsten by 165 times in total abundance." China do not "control" rare earth elements - they dominate production of them because of good (or it is bad?) envirionment policy. Turn Greenland into China - it will become rare earth mining region, turn Greenland into US - and it will be national park....
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Imperialism is a good thing. Nobody said that when WE were doing it, not least you guys.
urbanoid Posted January 9 Posted January 9 29 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Nobody said that when WE were doing it, not least you guys. I think they were specifically saying that it's very bad and acted accordingly.
rmgill Posted January 9 Posted January 9 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Nobody said that when WE were doing it, not least you guys. OH yeah. Residents of the Levant NEVER had any complaints from Jews or Arabs in the region when it was run by the British. 🙄
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 10 Posted January 10 (edited) 13 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Nobody said that when WE were doing it, not least you guys. British imperialism was net good. Yes, the Israelis resisted it and succeeded, because that's how the world works. If you can occupy a land and provide technological advancements and efficiency - good. If the locals resist and expel the colonialist and set up a better system - good. Not EVERY colonial project is good. But it is net good. I value hard work and progress above all. Edited January 10 by Mighty_Zuk
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10 Posted January 10 1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said: British imperialism was net good. Yes, the Israelis resisted it and succeeded, because that's how the world works. If you can occupy a land and provide technological advancements and efficiency - good. If the locals resist and expel the colonialist and set up a better system - good. Not EVERY colonial project is good. But it is net good. I value hard work and progress above all. Far easier to define that era as having past, and we are beyond all such silliness. But now seemingly we have Russia, China, and lattelry the US, all stating intent to revive such efforts. Like all colonial efforts, eventually they end up costing much more than they are worth, so why anyone wants to revisit such efforts is beyond me. Even the French have finally called time on their African campaign. That should really tell everyone something.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 10 Posted January 10 20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Far easier to define that era as having past, and we are beyond all such silliness. But now seemingly we have Russia, China, and lattelry the US, all stating intent to revive such efforts. Like all colonial efforts, eventually they end up costing much more than they are worth, so why anyone wants to revisit such efforts is beyond me. Even the French have finally called time on their African campaign. That should really tell everyone something. The Russian colonial effort is not good, and the west should invest in resisting it. Why is it not good? Because Russia is a loser state. Why is it a loser state? Because it brings nothing of value to those it seeks to dominate. It only brings corruption, hence it's losing. But if a progressive power like the US were to launch an expedition to the moon or mars and set up permanent basing there - what's the harm in that? I can only see it advancing science.
ink Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Is there an image of a sad Puerto Rico ball to represent the islands residents for when Greenland becomes a state before they do?
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10 Posted January 10 Just now, Mighty_Zuk said: The Russian colonial effort is not good, and the west should invest in resisting it. Why is it not good? Because Russia is a loser state. Why is it a loser state? Because it brings nothing of value to those it seeks to dominate. It only brings corruption, hence it's losing. But if a progressive power like the US were to launch an expedition to the moon or mars and set up permanent basing there - what's the harm in that? I can only see it advancing science. Its also the mores and customs its exporting too. Much as the Soviet empire did, all Russia exports these days are violence, intimidation, corruption, inefficiency, decay. We spent 45 years fighting against the latent possiblity they might want to export that system to Europe, and so help me, I dont see any reason to capitulate in that effort now, just because we have convinced themselves they are vaguely Capitalistic. Capitalisti or Communist, its still precisely the same idiots running the ship of fools, making discussion about what their ideology is somewhat moot. Progressive? I dont view America as progressive right now. I hate saying that, but I dont. 40 years ago, yes. Now they argue about whether Puerto Rico should receive statehood, not because they dont deserve it, but because they are upset about changing the political balance in congress. In the interim, it hardly thrives, because nobody is investing it it. Also, whenever there is a national disaster, rather than funding it as Americans, they bitch and whine about what state is paying its share. Covid was a prime example of this, with one other state (I forget which one, it had received funding assistance from New York during one disaster) refusing to help New York during the crisis. No, I dont see Greenland thriving in the current political environment in the US. Why not leave it with Denmark? They are hardly likely to go and sell it to the Russians or Chinese, so I cant see what the hell the problem is.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10 Posted January 10 4 minutes ago, ink said: Is there an image of a sad Puerto Rico ball to represent the islands residents for when Greenland becomes a state before they do? Yes, the thought had occurred to me too.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 10 Posted January 10 3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Progressive? I dont view America as progressive right now. I hate saying that, but I dont. 40 years ago, yes. Now they argue about whether Puerto Rico should receive statehood, not because they dont deserve it, but because they are upset about changing the political balance in congress. In the interim, it hardly thrives, because nobody is investing it it. Also, whenever there is a national disaster, rather than funding it as Americans, they bitch and whine about what state is paying its share. Covid was a prime example of this, with one other state (I forget which one, it had received funding assistance from New York during one disaster) refusing to help New York during the crisis. When I say progressive I don't mean "socially progressive". Rather, technologically and scientifically progressive. I should have been more clear on that. Sorry.
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10 Posted January 10 1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said: When I say progressive I don't mean "socially progressive". Rather, technologically and scientifically progressive. I should have been more clear on that. Sorry. Heck, if you want progressive, Denmark should sell it to South Korea. About time they had an Empire...
urbanoid Posted January 10 Posted January 10 How realistic is the prospect of Greenland becoming independent from Denmark? Apart from obnoxious, insufferable, pompous, allies-alientating style of Trump's politics, there might be fear in the US that Greenland goes independent and lets the Chinese/Russkies in. Similarly Panama Canal debacle seems to be mainly about Chynah. Or am I reading too much into it?
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10 Posted January 10 There is apparently the potential there for independence, but thats been there for decades apparently, and doesnt seem currently to be very serious. Besides, if the Chinese or the Russians ever walked in, they can then always invade it and 'correct' the administration. Its what they have always done in Central America, and I dont see this would be any different.
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 10 Posted January 10 58 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Heck, if you want progressive, Denmark should sell it to South Korea. About time they had an Empire... They and what army (they have a huge demographic crisis)?
urbanoid Posted January 10 Posted January 10 21 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: They and what army (they have a huge demographic crisis)? Ok, so maybe Israel - think the haredim would like Greenland?
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 10 Posted January 10 25 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: They and what army (they have a huge demographic crisis)? Well, so does Russia, and they invaded Ukraine.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now