I've known some Danes. Many were pretty arrogant, some were not at all arrogant, but all could be turned to friends pretty easily, because they are a logical, rational , intelligent folk. I see no reason to insult them AND spend more money than necessary on Greenland when "the art of the deal" could be brought into play and they could be won over.
Now, Trump may be contemplating leaving NATO, and he may be of the opinion that could set the Danes off somewhat, but I believe even that could be accomplished, and the Danes kept on friendly terms in spite of it, with just a little work... and we could save the money we would have otherwise spent trying to buy a patch of their land.
I don't know how it came to be in possession of Denmark in the first place, but I'm guessing that had something to do with either religion or trade - it was not settled by Danes, it was settled by a Norwegian Viking who had been exiled first from Norway for bad behavior, and then again exiled from Iceland, also for allegedly bad behavior. Erik was exiled from Iceland for killing another man who had killed his slaves in an act of retribution. Whether you believe that to be "bad behavior" is a matter for your own conscience, but evidently the Icelanders considered it as such.
His only choice after that was to head west and find an unclaimed patch of land that he could claim for himself without fear of someone else exiling him from that, too.
Denmark came into possession of the land much later, I would hazard the guess that it was either a matter of religion or of trade. Whichever it was, or whether some other mechanism, once a Crown gets hold of a patch of land, even unproductive land such as Greenland, they are loathe to turn loose of it. Most of the Crowns of Europe have fought entire wars over less provocation.
Maybe Trump considers Panama to be a cautionary tale - we paid to build the canal AND paid to lease it thereafter, but dumbass Jimmy Carter just up and GAVE it away to our enemies and broke the lease early... and we never even got a refund for the balance unused. There is a chance Trump is leery of friendships, in case some fresh new dumbass comes along after him and endangers US interests like Carter did.
Now, there is little doubt that we could thump Denmark in a war, and provoke a crisis in NATO at the same time, but why do so - why make enemies when you can instead strengthen friendships by using just a tiny bit of art?
As they say in Old Blighty, "that just isn't Cricket!" Then again, I believe Trump prefers golf to cricket, so who the hell knows what wanders around in the echoing halls of his mind sometimes?
===============================
In the matter of NATO, I've been an advocate for some time in a US withdrawal from NATO. It no longer serves the purpose it was built for, and has not served that purpose in years. The conditions that created and sustained it no longer prevail - there is no USSR any more, there is no Warsaw Pact any more, and whomever runs the place got all manner of stupid and started inviting in members that had no business in NATO to begin with - members like Turkey, and members like former Warsaw Pact enemy nations. None of those have any business in NATO, and especially in the case of Turkey, are actually extremely counter-productive as members.
On top of that, the EU has been feeling it's oats, and has gone into compacts of it's own like the EU, so I think it's time to cut it loose from US apron strings and let it run and frolic freely on it's own to either sink or swim as it sees fit to do. That doesn't mean we have to be enemies of the EU, it just means our national interests have changed over time and in many areas diverged from one another.
For example, the EU likes poking bears with short sticks, and a couple of the nations are even discussing putting their own one and only lives on the line by sending troops into the Ukraine, into a fight that is not theirs to fight. Well, more power to 'em if they do, but why should the US allow them to drag US into a fight that is not ours just because they want to involve themselves in a fight that is not theirs either? It's like having a kid brother that picks fights just because he knows that if he gets into more than he can handle, his big brother is going to haul his fat out of the fire, every time. Big brothers sometimes get tired of that crap from bruising their own knuckles up just because the kid can't stay in his own damned lane.
It's not that we should never support Europe, it's just that we should not be obligated to save them if they pick a fight and then find out they bit off more than they can chew. Entering such a mess should be our decision, rather than an automatic obligation, especially when national interests are divergent, and there is no benefit in entering the fray.
So, yeah, I believe US involvement in NATO is way past it's sell-by date. We can always cut a deal individually with Denmark for a stake in Greenland without invoking NATO.
.
Now, Trump may be contemplating leaving NATO, and he may be of the opinion that could set the Danes off somewhat, but I believe even that could be accomplished, and the Danes kept on friendly terms in spite of it, with just a little work... and we could save the money we would have otherwise spent trying to buy a patch of their land.
I don't know how it came to be in possession of Denmark in the first place, but I'm guessing that had something to do with either religion or trade - it was not settled by Danes, it was settled by a Norwegian Viking who had been exiled first from Norway for bad behavior, and then again exiled from Iceland, also for allegedly bad behavior. Erik was exiled from Iceland for killing another man who had killed his slaves in an act of retribution. Whether you believe that to be "bad behavior" is a matter for your own conscience, but evidently the Icelanders considered it as such.
His only choice after that was to head west and find an unclaimed patch of land that he could claim for himself without fear of someone else exiling him from that, too.
Denmark came into possession of the land much later, I would hazard the guess that it was either a matter of religion or of trade. Whichever it was, or whether some other mechanism, once a Crown gets hold of a patch of land, even unproductive land such as Greenland, they are loathe to turn loose of it. Most of the Crowns of Europe have fought entire wars over less provocation.
Maybe Trump considers Panama to be a cautionary tale - we paid to build the canal AND paid to lease it thereafter, but dumbass Jimmy Carter just up and GAVE it away to our enemies and broke the lease early... and we never even got a refund for the balance unused. There is a chance Trump is leery of friendships, in case some fresh new dumbass comes along after him and endangers US interests like Carter did.
Now, there is little doubt that we could thump Denmark in a war, and provoke a crisis in NATO at the same time, but why do so - why make enemies when you can instead strengthen friendships by using just a tiny bit of art?
As they say in Old Blighty, "that just isn't Cricket!" Then again, I believe Trump prefers golf to cricket, so who the hell knows what wanders around in the echoing halls of his mind sometimes?
===============================
In the matter of NATO, I've been an advocate for some time in a US withdrawal from NATO. It no longer serves the purpose it was built for, and has not served that purpose in years. The conditions that created and sustained it no longer prevail - there is no USSR any more, there is no Warsaw Pact any more, and whomever runs the place got all manner of stupid and started inviting in members that had no business in NATO to begin with - members like Turkey, and members like former Warsaw Pact enemy nations. None of those have any business in NATO, and especially in the case of Turkey, are actually extremely counter-productive as members.
On top of that, the EU has been feeling it's oats, and has gone into compacts of it's own like the EU, so I think it's time to cut it loose from US apron strings and let it run and frolic freely on it's own to either sink or swim as it sees fit to do. That doesn't mean we have to be enemies of the EU, it just means our national interests have changed over time and in many areas diverged from one another.
For example, the EU likes poking bears with short sticks, and a couple of the nations are even discussing putting their own one and only lives on the line by sending troops into the Ukraine, into a fight that is not theirs to fight. Well, more power to 'em if they do, but why should the US allow them to drag US into a fight that is not ours just because they want to involve themselves in a fight that is not theirs either? It's like having a kid brother that picks fights just because he knows that if he gets into more than he can handle, his big brother is going to haul his fat out of the fire, every time. Big brothers sometimes get tired of that crap from bruising their own knuckles up just because the kid can't stay in his own damned lane.
It's not that we should never support Europe, it's just that we should not be obligated to save them if they pick a fight and then find out they bit off more than they can chew. Entering such a mess should be our decision, rather than an automatic obligation, especially when national interests are divergent, and there is no benefit in entering the fray.
So, yeah, I believe US involvement in NATO is way past it's sell-by date. We can always cut a deal individually with Denmark for a stake in Greenland without invoking NATO.
.
“Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake
― Gordon R. Dickson, Tactics of Mistake