May 17, 2001

10:49 PM

The U.S. Should buy GreenlandI often wonder why politicians and bureaucrats don't act on the ideas of columnists. Maybe because it would be, in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, "courageous" of them to do so.
posted by youthbc1 (24 comments total)

I often wonder why politicians and bureaucrats don't act on the ideas of columnists.

Hmmm...maybe because "columnists" most often present oversimplistic, popularist, badly-thought-out pulp. The less influence the media has on politics the better.

As for the US buying Greenland...do we REALLY need the US controlling more space on the planet? I find this columnists comment about "Why should Norway have so much influence when it's population is so small?" somewhat ironic...after all, in the whole scheme of things, the US has a very small population. About 4% of the population of the world, I think I read. Why the hell should the US have as much influence as it does, and what right does it have to force other countries to support it's missile defence (read: proliferation) shield?
posted by Jimbob at 11:54 PM on May 17, 2001

I think we should buy Taiwan.
posted by Loudmax at 12:04 AM on May 18, 2001

Um. Bwhahahahaha!
posted by lia at 12:42 AM on May 18, 2001

America needs more interesting neighbors.

The US should divvy up the State of Mississippi for chunks of Russia, China, Iran, DR Congo, and Libya.

Residents of Mississippi (and their counterparts in the other nations) would have the option to change nationalities, move, or become foreigners where they grew up. No weapons allowed in these areas, not even pointy sticks or dirty looks.
posted by pracowity at 2:04 AM on May 18, 2001

When I read the article I pictured a military installation on a glacier in Greenland slowly shifting toward the sea. Just after the installation falls into the sea as the part of the glacier it rests on breaks apart, an ICBM flies over toward the States.

Also, despite the effects being so catastrophic, have you noticed how easily created a pointy stick can be?
posted by DyRE at 2:23 AM on May 18, 2001

"It's troubling that a country whose entire population is comparable to that in the state of Wisconsin might hold so much sway." That's a pretty frightening statement, IMHO. Right there you've got a capsule summary of US foreign policy attitudes that make the rest of the world pretty cautious about the US administration.
posted by jackelder at 2:50 AM on May 18, 2001

Where's the "for sale" sign? Who said they're selling?
posted by talos at 3:12 AM on May 18, 2001

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read! I mean, where do we start here?

It's troubling that a country whose entire population is comparable to that in the state of Wisconsin might hold so much sway.

And I take it, a nation whose great deeds are by no means comparable to those good ole Wisonsinites.....

Greenland has a population of about 60,000 people, who have the island's 840,000 square miles all to themselves.

How selfish!

They acquired home rule in 1979, so these folks probably would have to sign off on the sale in some capacity, too. Perhaps Mr. Bush could promise them a big tax cut.

Hang on a sec.....

And if this global warming business turns out to be worse than expected, at least Americans will have somewhere to live.

.......this is a joke!

If your interested, here is a bit more info on Sir Humphrey.
posted by davehat at 3:19 AM on May 18, 2001

Eh, Jimbob... Greenland is not Norwegian, but Danish - so far. The Greenlanders may want independence one day, but at the moment it seems to be a far shot.
posted by palnatoke at 4:09 AM on May 18, 2001

The population of the state of Wisconsin is quite a bit higher than that of Greenland (3,000,000 vs. 60,000). Did this columnist's fact-checker suffer a fatal brain fart shortly before deadline?
posted by MrBaliHai at 4:57 AM on May 18, 2001

If Greenland, why not Canada?

Think back to Wall Streets leveraged buyouts (I lived through the "Barbarians at the Gate" buy-out of RJR Nabisco as an employee) of the late 80's. A few hundred thousand per person (that's US $, not Canadian) could be paid off by leveraging the oil and coal. Plus a lot of space for missles.

Energy and defense, plus a medical system that can't be much worse than what we've got down here. Two for the Republicans and one for the Dems.

Can't lose.

;-)
posted by fpatrick at 5:53 AM on May 18, 2001

Mrbalihai -- The Wisconsin population comment was propbaly refering to Denmark.
posted by fpatrick at 5:54 AM on May 18, 2001

Buy Greenland? Is there oil there?
posted by aaron at 6:03 AM on May 18, 2001

I think it's a swell idea. But why spend that kind of dough? Let's have a trade instead. Denmark gives us Greenland, and we give them Texas.
posted by anapestic at 6:37 AM on May 18, 2001

> If Greenland, why not Canada?

We own Canada now. If we're going to buy something, let's get real estate that isn't already part of the US, like Cuba or Massachusetts.
posted by jfuller at 6:43 AM on May 18, 2001

A lot of missile shots coming toward North America from Russia would fly right over it, or at least near it.

i thought that Russia was no longer considered a threat, justs various "rogue nations." isn't that the rationale given for scrapping the ABM treaty?
posted by tolkhan at 7:26 AM on May 18, 2001

Mrbalihai -- The Wisconsin population comment was propbaly refering to Denmark.

I think you're right, but the article is so poorly written that it's not easy to tell for certain.
posted by MrBaliHai at 7:40 AM on May 18, 2001

How about Baja instead? I'm kinda priced out of beachfront property in California. I don't think I could get into ice-fishing and clubbing baby seals even for a cheap condo in Greenland.

For that matter, why not buy Nepal too? Comes with a great Army.
posted by steve_high at 7:49 AM on May 18, 2001

Buy Greenland? Is there oil there?

You betcha, aaron. Why should we let Denmark become a major oil producer?

(tee hee.)
posted by iceberg273 at 9:29 AM on May 18, 2001

Oh man, where is clavdivs when you need him? This thread screams for his brand of commentary.
posted by lia at 10:34 AM on May 18, 2001

Denmark gives us Greenland, and we give them Texas.

OK we'll take Texas as long as you keep Bush.
posted by Armarius at 11:07 AM on May 18, 2001

Denmark gives us Greenland, and we give them Texas.

But then Denmark becomes a major oil producer instantly. :)
posted by iceberg273 at 11:42 AM on May 18, 2001

Let US cities and states buy themselves from the US government.
posted by pracowity at 2:17 AM on May 19, 2001

we are in communication with a dutch cheese baron on this matter. We need a testing site for the latest rage:"The worlds most ridiculous bombs" Currently, the Milwaukee line has to much low-gamma coverage from an airburst of 900' The sausage launcher seems to overshoot its target and this constitutes a violation of British airspace plus a beef export nightmare you would not believe. The CO.is exploring Greenland as the 'dummy corporation' link of the month. The bottom-line buzz is that this little parcel; can be had for 23Million HK$ or 48% of the market on U.S. Mercury head dimes.
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 PM on May 29, 2001