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

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#161

Post by toasterlovin » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 2:43 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #158

fit2rule wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Exactly. The counter factual to the world order that prevails now is not utopia. It is hegemony by some other superpower. The current candidate is China, a country ruled by a government that doesn’t even pretend to care about liberal values.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#162

Post by toasterlovin » Sun, Jul 07, 2019, 2:45 PM 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…

> 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.

I know. But peacetime can be brutal. As a superpower, America has not taken slaves, nor engaged in genocide, nor established colonies. In those ways it’s hegemony has been much less brutal than all the world superpowers who came before.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#163

Post by fit2rule » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 8:35 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #161

macspoofing wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly. The counter factual to the world order that prevails now is not utopia. It is hegemony by some other superpower. The current candidate is China, a country ruled by a government that doesn’t even pretend to care about liberal values.

Please let me know when China has demolished a sovereign state, at the same order of magnitude as America has in the last 20 years.

China isn't great, and has its low scores in many ways, but America is far, far worse in terms of its sheer destruction of sovereign states.

Just because the iron fist is wrapped in a velvet glove doesn't make it any better for those being smashed in the face by it, and there is a huge, huge pile of dead bodies behind the American smashing...

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#164

Post by toasterlovin » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #163

toasterlovin wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The counter factual to the world order that prevails now is not utopia. It is hegemony by some other superpower. The current candidate is China, a country ruled by a government that doesn’t even pretend to care about liberal values.

Please let me know when China has demolished a sovereign state, at the same order of magnitude as America has in the last 20 years. China isn't great, and has its low scores in many ways, but America is far, far worse in terms of its sheer destruction of sovereign states. Just because the iron fist is wrapped in a velvet glove doesn't make it any better for those being smashed in the face by it, and there is a huge,…

A counterfactual is something that has not happened, but could reasonably. The question is not what China has done, since China has not been a world superpower, but how they are likely to behave once they are a superpower. When you argue against the U.S., you have to compare it against what is likely to happen, not what you would like to happen. I think Russia, the last superpower, is probably a good example of how China will behave. And there the comparison makes the U.S. look somewhere between ambiguous to relatively benevolent, depending on how you weigh various wars and geopolitical maneuverings.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#165

Post by goto11 » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 6:45 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #151

goto11 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It is straightforward though: NATO is an organization for collective defense. The set of territories covered is well-defined, but does not include all territories claimed by each individual member states. For example Hawaii is not included, nor is the Falkland Islands, which is why NATO was not invoked in the Falklands War. But Greenland is included.

A response to an attack is decided on by the NATO council, not by the individual member states. So unless NATO is dissolved (which could of course happen one day but which is certainly not in the cards currently), Greenland is defended by the NATO alliance.

Taiwan is of course not a member of NATO so that example is irrelevant.