Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#151

Post by macspoofing » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

goto11 wrote: post #148

macspoofing wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims Or to out it another way, NATO partners don't respect Canada's sovereignty claims because the Northwest Passage is too valuable and Canada can't enforce its claim. Contrast that to Taiwan, a nation that should be independent, (and is not 'international waters') but no major country is willing to recognize it as such. Greenland woul…

> Greenland would be the same way. No, because Greenland is part of NATO and none of the member states disputes that.

We're going in circles now.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#152

Post by macspoofing » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 11:41 PM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #150

fit2rule wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things can get a lot, lot better than what America has to offer the world. Don't lose hope.

My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal. The sun never sets on the British empire, as they say. For all of its faults, and there are many, America has been a relatively benign superpower.

>My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal.

Huh??? That's the opposite of what happened. Ages with empires are characterized by peace, trade, and cultural and scientific development. War was the default state in the interim time between empires.

And yes, the American empire (if you want to call it that), has been the most prosperous and benign in history.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#153

Post by jopsen » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 11:49 PM UTC

daniel_iversen wrote: post #44

jopsen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially following WWII, in which Denmark offered no resistance.

Maybe that statement is a bit ambiguous and probably by a lot of views incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_resistance_movement

Okay, fair point, we can then say little resistance.

My point was that few Danes we're proud of this, and had something to prove. Thus, selling Greenland was off the table.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#154

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 5:30 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #59

elliotec wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Greenland is 836,300 mi², while Denmark is 16,577 mi². Imagine the effects of climate change in 200+ years - Greenland could be VERY valuable and important then.

The issue is that if Greenland was valuable, Denmark wouldn't be able to hold it.

[deleted]

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#155

Post by ErotemeObelus » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 6:28 AM UTC

m12k wrote: post #89

I think the answer isn't that Denmark is hanging on to its colonialism, but rather that we've gotten over it more so than most other countries, and feel remorse. I think we feel an obligation to the native Inuit people - we smashed their culture and introduced them to alcohol, which - much like many other indigenous people around the world - they haven't evolved the same tolerance toward as Europeans have, making the…

It would have been a violation of human rights to cede Greenland to the United States.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#156

Post by fit2rule » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 7:26 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #149

fit2rule wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things can get a lot, lot better than what America has to offer the world. Don't lose hope.

In what way. The way I see it if America pulls back, the alternative is either China picking up the mantle of a superpower and enforcing its world view ... or anarchy where local despots enforce a regional order as they see fit. Did you ever wonder why there was/is a proliferation of democracies and the lack of regional wars between local despots? I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present Ameri…

>I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order.

The present American world order requires: a) utter ignorance of its war crimes by its people, b) endless debt to pay for war and war machines, c) invalidation of sovereignty of foreign nations according to American political expediency, d) the pretence of a society governed by systems of democracy while factually being run by a cabal of oligarchs, e) more spent on war per week than on health care for its citizens per year, f) the continued degradation of cultures deemed inferior by the ruling cabal.

I'd be happier if the major world power was actually democratic and used its powers to increase peoples health and well-being rather than the wholesale destruction of, and mass interference with, states not towing the American line ..

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#157

Post by fit2rule » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 7:28 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #152

toasterlovin wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal. The sun never sets on the British empire, as they say. For all of its faults, and there are many, America has been a relatively benign superpower.

>My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal. Huh??? That's the opposite of what happened. Ages with empires are characterized by peace, trade, and cultural and scientific development. War was the default state in the interim time between empires. And yes, the American empire (if you want to call it that), has been the most prosperous and benign in hist…

How many innocent people has America murdered in illegal wars since 2003?

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#158

Post by macspoofing » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 8:19 AM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #156

macspoofing wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way. The way I see it if America pulls back, the alternative is either China picking up the mantle of a superpower and enforcing its world view ... or anarchy where local despots enforce a regional order as they see fit. Did you ever wonder why there was/is a proliferation of democracies and the lack of regional wars between local despots? I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present Ameri…

>I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order. The present American world order requires: a) utter ignorance of its war crimes by its people, b) endless debt to pay for war and war machines, c) invalidation of sovereignty of foreign nations according to American political expediency, d) the pretence of a society governed by systems of democracy while factually being run by a c…

You're very good at pointing all the things that you hate about America and you're very good at wishing for an Utopia. Guess what! So is everyone else. Every human is a little arm-chair general about everything. What's hard is building something in a complex, gray world.

So I ask again, what do you think will ACTUALLY happen if America collapses or pulls back to only concern itself with what happens within its border?

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#159

Post by macspoofing » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 8:29 AM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #157

macspoofing wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal. Huh??? That's the opposite of what happened. Ages with empires are characterized by peace, trade, and cultural and scientific development. War was the default state in the interim time between empires. And yes, the American empire (if you want to call it that), has been the most prosperous and benign in hist…

How many innocent people has America murdered in illegal wars since 2003?

Illegal? To have something be illegal, means there are a set of laws and a body to enforce them. There is no supernational government. There is the UN, a loose confederation of nations to provide a platform to discuss and solve issues on a volunteer basis. This is why it tolerates the existence of authoritarian and autocratic governments as members and why powerful nations even bother with it at all.

Maybe you wish there was a democratic global government, but that isn't the world we exist it and it will not be a world we live in any time soon.

Game of Thrones has a nice metaphor of "summer born", people like you and me who have been born in a time of peace and prosperity - an outlier period in human history - but who think this is the default state of the world.

//

One more point ... Do you disagree that the American 'Empire' has been the most prosperous and peaceful in human history? If so, which one was better?

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#160

Post by fit2rule » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 11:12 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #159

fit2rule wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many innocent people has America murdered in illegal wars since 2003?

Illegal? To have something be illegal, means there are a set of laws and a body to enforce them. There is no supernational government. There is the UN, a loose confederation of nations to provide a platform to discuss and solve issues on a volunteer basis. This is why it tolerates the existence of authoritarian and autocratic governments as members and why powerful nations even bother with it at all. Maybe you wish t…

American wars are illegal even by American law standards.

There is no declaration of war that makes what America is doing in Niger legal, by American legal standards. There certainly isn't any legal cover for America's illegal occupation of Syria. Not to mention, support for genocide in Yemen is absolutely illegal.

Its just that the people remain ignorant of this fact - and its politicians - choose not to enforce those laws for their own purposes (war profit, intolerance, hatred, etc.)