Trump: Empire Builder?

Quote: Gandler

I mean Trump is not President yet, so we can only go off what he said he will do. But, you can't defend him for not doing something when he is not in a position to try yet. And, I also said it's not even about Trump himself.

But, yes I fully believe Trump would like to expand the U.S. As I said in the other thread, I don't think (again it's not off the table,) Trump will use force to annex, but his followers certainly want him too which is more terrifying. The GOP is essentially calling for an American Empire, which is the polar opposite of what American values are. Which means the next candidate will be more aggressive than Trump (as hard as that is to believe.)

I believe we are entering a period where the right will want to expand American borders. They were defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine for this very reason, this was not coincidental.

His supporters like that he did not get us into a war last time he was in office, yet you think they want a war over Greenland? In what world does this make sense?

I hate to break it to you, but we have had an American Empire since 1899 and we have expanded it at every step. We expanded it in 1944 with Bretton Woods, and in 1974 with the Petrodollar. We expanded it in the 1990s after the Gulf War. No idea who is defending Russia, saying we should not be involved is not defending them.

Quote: AZDuffman

His supporters like that he did not get us into a war last time he was in office, yet you think they want a war over Greenland? In what world does this make sense?

I hate to break it to you, but we have had an American Empire since 1899 and we have expanded it at every step. We expanded it in 1944 with Bretton Woods, and in 1974 with the Petrodollar. We expanded it in the 1990s after the Gulf War. No idea who is defending Russia, saying we should not be involved is not defending them.

You sound like the left on this, except you are pushing the opposite conclusion.

1899 presumably refers to the Spanish American War. America liberated multiple countries from the Spanish Empire so they can form to their local country (we did not annex them after removing the Spanish.)

Your next two points, I am not going to get into the history of, but these are international economic policies which benefit all nations, this is not Empire (not my definition.)

As for the Gulf War, we also liberated a country, and established military bases to defend from future attacks. Iraq (not unlike Russia,) was trying to annex a tiny neighborhor and they thought they could roll right through, and they probably would have been right if America did not respond.

America does not seize land by military force, most major land acquisitions were negotiated and purchased (in most cases the seller was eager to sell and though the U.S. was an idiot for buying.) The one exception would be some land near the current Southern border, but this is complicated, as Texas was kind of its own country, and Mexico was at War, and at some point it became part of America and then Mexico was at War with the U.S. so it's kind of a cluster, so let's set that aside, this was also the 1840s....

Quote: Gandler

You sound like the left on this, except you are pushing the opposite conclusion.

1899 presumably refers to the Spanish American War. America liberated multiple countries from the Spanish Empire so they can form to their local country (we did not annex them after removing the Spanish.)

We didn't? Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico don't count?

Quote:

Your next two points, I am not going to get into the history of, but these are international economic policies which benefit all nations, this is not Empire (not my definition.)

You seem to think "empire" means just physically occupying. We use the USD system to keep other nations under our thumb. We can lock nations not doing as we like out of the international financial system almost at will. That is empire.

Quote:

As for the Gulf War, we also liberated a country, and established military bases to defend from future attacks. Iraq (not unlike Russia,) was trying to annex a tiny neighborhor and they thought they could roll right through, and they probably would have been right if America did not respond.

And for our trouble we pushed our military might even further around the world. That is empire.

Quote:

America does not seize land by military force, most major land acquisitions were negotiated and purchased (in most cases the seller was eager to sell and though the U.S. was an idiot for buying.) The one exception would be some land near the current Southern border, but this is complicated, as Texas was kind of its own country, and Mexico was at War, and at some point it became part of America and then Mexico was at War with the U.S. so it's kind of a cluster, so let's set that aside, this was also the 1840s....

Doesn't matter how you build it, empire is empire. Greenland will be a nice addition.

Quote: AZDuffman

Doesn't matter how you build it, empire is empire. Greenland will be a nice addition.

Imitating typical Republican

We don't need to be throwing money at Greenland when Trump says we have so many issues here to fix.

Quote: rxwine

Imitating typical Republican

We don't need to be throwing money at Greenland when Trump says we have so many issues here to fix.

Let's put aside the ethics and philosophy. What is even the benefit of Greenland? The economy is nothing (potentially/likely will drain American resources,) and has zero tactical importance.

I feel like some people think more land for the sake of land is inherently good.

If you don't want (not you personally,) want a North American Empire, what is the benefit of Greenland? An obscure and dying tourist economy?

We will pay a ton of money to aquire it, and then have to dump all kinds of money into "Americanizing" it for literally zero benefit....

Quote: AZDuffman

We didn't? Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico don't count?



You seem to think "empire" means just physically occupying. We use the USD system to keep other nations under our thumb. We can lock nations not doing as we like out of the international financial system almost at will. That is empire.



And for our trouble we pushed our military might even further around the world. That is empire.



Doesn't matter how you build it, empire is empire. Greenland will be a nice addition.

Empire is having land under the same state by definition. I don't accept the whole neo-liberal empire definition of meaning financing/trade domination. We are not an imperial power because we sell popular cars or whatever.

And, no having assistance bases in allied countries who are under threat is not Empire. Now, if we annexed this countries after liberating them, I would agree with you.

How will Greenland be a nice addition? I still have not received a single post explaining the benefits of Greenland?

Greenland was originally sold as a big scam by a savvy viking (hence the name Greenland being used to sell the land to people living in "Iceland" despite being a block of ice and worse than Iceland in every conceivable way.) I feel that is what is happening now, except we all have smartphones and PCs, and people should be able to take 5 seconds to look at the Greenland wiki to know how much a waste of money this is.

Quote: Gandler

Empire is having land under the same state by definition. I don't accept the whole neo-liberal empire definition of meaning financing/trade domination. We are not an imperial power because we sell popular cars or whatever.

And, no having assistance bases in allied countries who are under threat is not Empire. Now, if we annexed this countries after liberating them, I would agree with you.

Uh, no. Smart empires know when it is better to get the benefits without the costs. Examples are USA and Cuba, USSR and Mongolia. You need to read "The Prince."

Quote:

How will Greenland be a nice addition? I still have not received a single post explaining the benefits of Greenland?

There have been several here. Minerals in Greenland itself and claim on the Arctic. Strategic location. Why do you think we have tried to buy it 6 different times already?

The Financial Times suggested Greenland and full access to its resources approaches 1 trillion dollars. President Musk will need to get a big loan, if that's the case.

I'd assume that's extraction of resources over time.

Quote: rxwine

The Financial Times suggested Greenland and full access to its resources approaches 1 trillion dollars. President Musk will need to get a big loan, if that's the case.

I'd assume that's extraction of resources over time.

I'm not sure I believe that, but even if true does not mean easily extractable any time soon (if ever.) Greenland's only export is fish, and their economy is basically around fish and a bit of tourism. Not too strong.

Quote: Gandler

I'm not sure I believe that, but even if true does not mean easily extractable any time soon (if ever.) Greenland's only export is fish, and their economy is basically around fish and a bit of tourism. Not too strong.

I think it is probably a lot of drill, dig, and mine.