(I also think that Greenland is just fine where it currently is, but if Trump's silly territorial ambitions derail the rest of his #MAGA program, I'm going to root for a long drawn-out process.)
The more I learn about Carter, the better he seems. He made quite a few of the decisions that benefitted Reagan and gets the blame for a lot of problems created by his predecessors. He wasn’t a great president, but he was a very good man.
As to Greenland, it won’t happen and I’m not even sure why we should want it.
I got interested in the Spanish-American War last year and read “Empire By Default” by Ivan Musicant. It’s a great read on the subject.
I think Cuba only escaped becoming a territory because the entire effort had been predicated on Cuban independence.
Agree with your point about Cuba: “Cuba won its independence from a U.S. takeover only by dint of the fact that so many Cubans were residents of the United States. I believe had there not been such a great lobby from Cuban-Americans we would be vacationing in Havana under the U.S. flag to this day.”
The question isn’t why we should want it (the obvious answer is for the rare earth mining, but even that is a stretch and a mercantilist attitude), the question is should Greenlanders decide their own fate or let Denmark decide?
Minor correction - there are French islands (I.e a department of the Republic of France) inhabited by French citizens off the coast of Canada in North America: Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
Sorry, but just because Carter has now died, doesn't mean we should rewrite his legacy. He was, and always will be, one of America's worst Presidents, and no amount of revisionist history will change my mind.
That’s your right. But most of Carter’s worst errors happened after he left office. The Carter Center is not a good example of how presidents should conduct themselves. Carter became a meddler, a fly in the ointment. But in office, let me know what he did so wrong besides not being an effective liar.
"I’d make this a cause of national liberation, of self-determination, of throwing off the yoke of colonialism, of breaking ties with old European kings, and enjoying the freedoms of American style democracy."
Were I in a position to determine Greenland's future, merging with the US anytime in the near future would be far from my consideration. The US is perilously close to establishing as an oligarchic authoritarian state. Those "freedoms of American style democracy" are eroding at an escalating pace.
Regarding "throwing off the yoke of colonialism," did we REALLY do that? It seems we switched to whom that yoke was attached as we pursued our own colonialism/imperialism. After all, we have established 750 military bases across 81 countries, colonies, or territories on every continent with the exception of Antarctica doubling the number of bases since 1989 from 40 to 81.
New bases have been proposed for the Pacific Islands of Palau, Tinian, and Yap.
Chalmers Johnson likened it to an "800-pound gorilla in the American living room," writing in 2009, "our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union."
A strong USA presence in Greenland in the future is essential. What form it takes can vary. Control is best but partnerships and treaties with allies and the native population could work.
Are you sure of that? Don’t include the Faroe Islands in your calculations. Here’s what ChatGPT answered:
The shortest distance between Greenland and the United States is approximately 1,226 miles (1,973 kilometers), measured between their closest borders. 
In comparison, the straight-line distance from Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, to Copenhagen, Denmark, is about 2,205 miles (3,549 kilometers). 
Therefore, the closest point in Greenland to the United States is nearer than Nuuk is to Copenhagen by approximately 979 miles (1,576 kilometers).
Also: from ChatGPT: The distance as the crow flies from the closest point in Greenland (Cape Farewell) to the closest point on mainland Denmark (Blåvandshuk) is approximately 3,061 kilometers (1,902 miles). 
A better analogy is if you called the guy living half a mile away your neighbor and asked to use his hot tub, versus the guy across the street. Greenland is in North America, not Europe.
You made the original comment. I suppose it's also not fair the U.S. is much bigger than Denmark, or that the Atlantic Ocean is so big. We could call it fair to measure from Nuuk to Los Angeles and yes, Denmark is much closer. Fair? No, but that's how it works.
You were using two different location types in said comment - so it's relevant. If you're going to use the capital of one country, use the capital of the other too: otherwise you're skewing the result.
You also haven't stated what that "closest point" for the US is: is it a state border, or something else? Does ChatGPT actually know, or is it hallucinating again?
I imagine that Greenlanders are savvy enough to hold out for a better deal than what Puerto Rico is getting. Full statehood or no deal.
(I also think that Greenland is just fine where it currently is, but if Trump's silly territorial ambitions derail the rest of his #MAGA program, I'm going to root for a long drawn-out process.)
:)
The more I learn about Carter, the better he seems. He made quite a few of the decisions that benefitted Reagan and gets the blame for a lot of problems created by his predecessors. He wasn’t a great president, but he was a very good man.
As to Greenland, it won’t happen and I’m not even sure why we should want it.
I got interested in the Spanish-American War last year and read “Empire By Default” by Ivan Musicant. It’s a great read on the subject.
I think Cuba only escaped becoming a territory because the entire effort had been predicated on Cuban independence.
Agree with your point about Cuba: “Cuba won its independence from a U.S. takeover only by dint of the fact that so many Cubans were residents of the United States. I believe had there not been such a great lobby from Cuban-Americans we would be vacationing in Havana under the U.S. flag to this day.”
The question isn’t why we should want it (the obvious answer is for the rare earth mining, but even that is a stretch and a mercantilist attitude), the question is should Greenlanders decide their own fate or let Denmark decide?
Minor correction - there are French islands (I.e a department of the Republic of France) inhabited by French citizens off the coast of Canada in North America: Saint Pierre and Miquelon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon
Yeah, I did account for those a few sentences later: “…everywhere else in our hemisphere, apart from a few small islands…”
Sorry, but just because Carter has now died, doesn't mean we should rewrite his legacy. He was, and always will be, one of America's worst Presidents, and no amount of revisionist history will change my mind.
That’s your right. But most of Carter’s worst errors happened after he left office. The Carter Center is not a good example of how presidents should conduct themselves. Carter became a meddler, a fly in the ointment. But in office, let me know what he did so wrong besides not being an effective liar.
I guess Can doesn't like deregulation and attempting to cut pork projects.
"I’d make this a cause of national liberation, of self-determination, of throwing off the yoke of colonialism, of breaking ties with old European kings, and enjoying the freedoms of American style democracy."
Were I in a position to determine Greenland's future, merging with the US anytime in the near future would be far from my consideration. The US is perilously close to establishing as an oligarchic authoritarian state. Those "freedoms of American style democracy" are eroding at an escalating pace.
Regarding "throwing off the yoke of colonialism," did we REALLY do that? It seems we switched to whom that yoke was attached as we pursued our own colonialism/imperialism. After all, we have established 750 military bases across 81 countries, colonies, or territories on every continent with the exception of Antarctica doubling the number of bases since 1989 from 40 to 81.
We are not done. We are constructing Camp Blaz on Guam which is the first Marine base to be constructed in the Pacific Islands since 1952.
https://www.guampdn.com/news/local/construction-of-marine-corps-base-marches-on-concerns-about-shpo-still-being-raised/article_2526ad01-fb56-5b5d-b5b2-ba6e1bc04aa3.html
New bases have been proposed for the Pacific Islands of Palau, Tinian, and Yap.
Chalmers Johnson likened it to an "800-pound gorilla in the American living room," writing in 2009, "our longstanding reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union."
A strong USA presence in Greenland in the future is essential. What form it takes can vary. Control is best but partnerships and treaties with allies and the native population could work.
Just to note: Greenland is physically closer to Denmark than it is to the USA.
We can play rock, scissors and paper with Denmark for the treasures of Greenland.
I wonder, if it was up to Greenland who would they choose?
My guess: either they'd stick with Denmark or join Canada.
Not like they have made a request to join us.
Are you sure of that? Don’t include the Faroe Islands in your calculations. Here’s what ChatGPT answered:
The shortest distance between Greenland and the United States is approximately 1,226 miles (1,973 kilometers), measured between their closest borders. 
In comparison, the straight-line distance from Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, to Copenhagen, Denmark, is about 2,205 miles (3,549 kilometers). 
Therefore, the closest point in Greenland to the United States is nearer than Nuuk is to Copenhagen by approximately 979 miles (1,576 kilometers).
Also: from ChatGPT: The distance as the crow flies from the closest point in Greenland (Cape Farewell) to the closest point on mainland Denmark (Blåvandshuk) is approximately 3,061 kilometers (1,902 miles). 
Google has 2920km from Greenland to Denmark, and 3263km from Greenland to Maine.
My neighbor’s hot tube is closer to my shed than his front door. Maybe I should tell him it belongs to me because I would like to use it.
A better analogy is if you called the guy living half a mile away your neighbor and asked to use his hot tub, versus the guy across the street. Greenland is in North America, not Europe.
Matters not where something is if it does not belong to you
Well is that a fair comparison? Go capital to capital and it's hands-down Denmark.
You made the original comment. I suppose it's also not fair the U.S. is much bigger than Denmark, or that the Atlantic Ocean is so big. We could call it fair to measure from Nuuk to Los Angeles and yes, Denmark is much closer. Fair? No, but that's how it works.
You were using two different location types in said comment - so it's relevant. If you're going to use the capital of one country, use the capital of the other too: otherwise you're skewing the result.
You also haven't stated what that "closest point" for the US is: is it a state border, or something else? Does ChatGPT actually know, or is it hallucinating again?