Tweet
Originally posted by Northwestcoug
View Post
-
The Panama canal is awesome. Sure, why not, let's take it back. -
Oh brother. Laudable goal, but his whole "cause-effect" cycle is bonkers. This is the higher level thinking we need?
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."
Comment
-
He is a Curtis Yarvin acolyte. He shouldn't be viewed as sincere.Originally posted by myboynoah View PostComment
-
The Case for Greenland
These factors are compounded by Greenland’s rich bed of natural resources. Its graphite deposits, roughly six megatons, as well as its uranium, rare earth elements, and potential oil and gas reserves, may be critical to reducing reliance on Chinese supply chains. China’s near-monopoly on gallium, graphite, and other REEs presents a challenge for the United States as it looks to assert its self-sufficiency: the US maintains that there are fifty “critical minerals,” most of which are supplied by China (who just banned their export to America). Greenland’s Ilimaussaq intrusion alone has thirty.
While America does have an abundance of most REEs, and is limited more by regulatory barriers to refining than geographical access, certain in-demand materials (the US has less than 1% of the world’s graphite reserves) are unlikely to shed import reliance. In addition to housing two of the ten largest REE deposits in the world, many of Greenland’s reserves are also higher-grade than those in the US and contain high concentrations of valuable heavy rare earth elements (HREEs).
....
While calls to “buy” Greenland may come across as outlandish, they highlight a critical reality: the United States cannot afford to be passive about its Arctic strategy. Russia and China are aggressively pursuing dominance in the region, and the West must respond in kind to protect its trade, defense, and resource interests. Expansion does not need to be an ugly relic of the past; creative diplomatic solutions can mutually benefit America, Greenland, and Denmark, transforming the “absurd” into a model for productive 21st century international cooperation.Comment
-
Oh brother. Who is G.B. Rango?Originally posted by YOhio View Post
Case against Greenland: Why? Why can't U.S./Western firms go on in and exploit those natural resources right now without costing the U.S. trillions of dollars in purchase price?
I found this nutty:
China is aggressively dominance in the Arctic? How? Where? Russia is there because the Arctic represents its largest coastline, but cooperation with our NATO allies (Canada, Norway, Denmark, and now Sweden and Finland) is well enough to contain any Russian attempts at dominance when they are not iced in. Plus, they have existential issues to deal with in Ukraine. Again, spending trillions of dollars will not change this calculus.the United States cannot afford to be passive about its Arctic strategy. Russia and China are aggressively pursuing dominance in the region, and the West must respond in kind to protect its trade, defense, and resource interests.
With this and the Panama Canal push, it looks like Trump wants to try to do something big with our money.Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."Comment
-
Elon is not happy with Loomer, and not really that big of an advocate of free speech.
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."Comment
-
Rand had a good write up on this a couple years ago. Aggressive may be an overstatement of the current situation, but when it comes to China the placement of that adjective is usually a matter of if and not when.Originally posted by myboynoah View Post
“The threat should not be inflated,” said Stephanie Pezard, a senior political scientist at RAND who specializes in Arctic security. “But at the same time, they have a clear intent to not be excluded from Arctic developments as the region becomes more accessible. The real questions are, How much of a role do they want, and what does that mean for an Arctic nation like the United States?”
Conditions in the Arctic have always been so extreme, the distances so vast, that even rivals like the United States and Russia were forced to cooperate there. But the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on the planet. Sea routes that sailors and explorers have dreamed about for centuries are starting to open. The promise of Arctic riches—oil, minerals, trade routes, even fish—has started to draw interest from far outside the northern latitudes.
China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state,” a designation it invented to push for a greater role in Arctic governance. It has dispatched research expeditions, sought to establish mining and gas operations, and envisioned a network of shipping routes crossing the Arctic, a “silk road on ice.” It describes itself as an “active participant, builder, and contributor in Arctic affairs,” one that has “spared no efforts to contribute its wisdom to the development of the Arctic region.”Comment
-
I think that's consistent with the final paragraph of the piece.Originally posted by myboynoah View PostComment
-
Then who is G.B. Rango? A brilliant writer!Originally posted by YOhio View Post
I suspect that while the resources may exist in Greenland, it is currently cost prohibitive to extract them. Otherwise, Western firms would already be there in force. Although, I believe there is one of those reality shows about gold mining in Greenland.Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."Comment
-
I have no idea who he is. Why is it relevant?Originally posted by myboynoah View Post
I think you're probably right about the cost of REE extraction, though I imagine continued advances in automation is reducing that consideration.
I'm not saying I agree with it. Even if I did, my opinion on the topic is worthless. I don't know jack shit about Greenland other than what I saw in Vikings: Valhalla. I just thought it was a thoughtful article that raised some points I hadn't considered. It provides an argument that a stronger American presence in Greenland would counter Russian/Chinese presence in the Arctic and provide enhanced control of Arctic shipping lanes. In the most optimistic scenario it would provide a new source of REE that would break the global Chinese monopoly. These are good things! Whether that's necessary or realistic should be discussed, but discarding the idea just because Trump supports it seems silly.Comment
-
The idea is not silly because Trump supports it. It is silly because we already have a structure in place to realize any benefits Mr. Rango notes (NATO, a U.S. base on Greenland, Western firms that can exploit the resources when economically viable). The suggestion to purchase Greenland is silly on its own merits. That said, I applaud Mr. Rango for going through the thought experiment.Originally posted by YOhio View PostGive 'em Hell, Cougars!!!
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out still.
Not long ago an obituary appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune that said the recently departed had "died doing what he enjoyed most—watching BYU lose."Comment
-
Bro come on. The benefits are irrelevant. It's as silly as saying annex England. It seems you are trying to make it reasonable just because he's you're guyOriginally posted by YOhio View PostComment
-
The issue with Trump and his less crazy policy thoughts hasn't changed since day 1. No matter how sensible his policy proposals might be, he is incapable of articulating them in a rational way that would convince most people of the benefits. When he drops his tweets oozing with pwning libs normal people just reject them out of hand. And then when someone tries to sane wash what he says, even if it's coherent and is sensible, that person automatically gets ridiculed. Then you have the other Trump apologists who just go on TV and laugh it off with 'he is who he is', or 'can't you people take a joke?'. And then it gets forgotten. And then the next day of political theater starts with a new crazy tweet."...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
"You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
- SeattleUteComment
-
This is a bad faith response. 1- Benefits are always relevant. 2- Your strawman approach of comparing the discussion of expanding American presence in Greenland to the absurdity of annexing England misrepresents and oversimplifies the issue. 3- Dismissing the argument as silly without providing a rational counterargument contributes nothing. 4- Ad hominem dismissing anything I post without rebuttal due to the incorrect belief that Trump is 'my guy' is weak.Originally posted by Maximus View PostComment
-
Comment