Christ_empowered
Member
politics in the US have just gone...crazy. let's pray for US leaders. 
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[__ Prayer __] buy Greenland?!?!
- Thread starter Christ_empowered
- Start date
Christ_empowered
Member
lol. i should have linked to some news articles to explain this one...
www.theguardian.com
sorry about that. i was just....wow. taken aback, I guess is the best phrase?
Why does Donald Trump want to buy Greenland?
The US president’s talk of a ‘large real estate deal’ says a lot about his view of the world
www.theguardian.com
sorry about that. i was just....wow. taken aback, I guess is the best phrase?
Bull of the Woods
Member
I imagine it's a relatively pristine land mass with only 50,000 people, if I correctly recall that figure.
A Trump administration would want it for mineral rights and probably fisheries. Maybe some tourists development. I think I'd just as soon see it remain less developed, less dug up, and less touristy.
Anyway, I tend to believe the days of buying giant land masses ended with the purchase of Alaska.
This seems like a whacky idea that the President got while watching TV or was fed him by an "advisor" or aide of some type.
A Trump administration would want it for mineral rights and probably fisheries. Maybe some tourists development. I think I'd just as soon see it remain less developed, less dug up, and less touristy.
Anyway, I tend to believe the days of buying giant land masses ended with the purchase of Alaska.
This seems like a whacky idea that the President got while watching TV or was fed him by an "advisor" or aide of some type.
We purchased Alaska,part of arizona and all of the states west of missippi river thar weren't Russian or British claimed or in Spanish control .politics in the US have just gone...crazy. let's pray for US leaders.
Alaska was considered folly to buy .yet well go and see
Bull of the Woods
Member
We didn't buy those Western lands. We took them by force in a war of conquest that we instigated. Largely influenced by the hunger of the slave powers for more territory to expand.
We did purchase land basically east of Texas and northward from Louisiana.
We did purchase land basically east of Texas and northward from Louisiana.
I was talking Louisiana purchase and Alaska ,of course the indian purchase is another but new Orleans its self was in Spanish control in 1803.it came to us via the Adam onis treaty in,1821.
Arizona,new Mexico ,Texas and California were Spanish .oregon and washington were claimed but not largely able to be controlled by brittain or Russia later on,when we went to nearly a third war over fur trade we settled our north boundary with Canada with brittian.
Old florida maps pre 1821 and bit after will show east and west Florida and have new Orleans in it.Metairie and the west side of missippi never left French hands ,new Orleans moved from,Spain to France and brittian
Truthfrees
Member
trump is concerned about security in all it's permutations - imo it is a good idea - and he only suggested it when he heard denmark was having trouble affording to take care of greenlandlol. i should have linked to some news articles to explain this one...
Why does Donald Trump want to buy Greenland?
The US president’s talk of a ‘large real estate deal’ says a lot about his view of the world
sorry about that. i was just....wow. taken aback, I guess is the best phrase?
china and russia are also interested in buying greenland - better for us if usa buys greenland first - america's northern early warning base at thule is important - if china or russia bought greenland north america would be unsafe
Don't be me going on tbe peaceful innocent native amerucan myth ,my,wife is Seminole ,they owned slaves ,black and other Indians .my,wife's great grandmother remembered those times and it was mentioned to her .the noles didn't surrender they went into,hiding and nor did they sign any treaty to be moved into,a reservation .the reservations they are on where theirs in,tbr first place but they had outposts ,one being near yeehaw.the lands they had towns in .
Miconapy,miccosukee,brightson,Miami area.
Miconapy,miccosukee,brightson,Miami area.
Bull of the Woods
Member
Yea....Let's have a one party system.
No problems there.
Back when the US bought land from Spain and France, no one bothered to ask the native American Indians dwelling there whether or not they wanted their homeland to be sold. No one bothered to ask them if they even thought Spain owned them. Nowadays, Greenland residents would probably hold a vote to find out whether they wanted to become the 51st American state. Forcibly putting uncooperative Greenland residents on a reservation is not likely to fly in modern times. The US rich don't want to pay anyone for Greenland anyway, they want another tax trim instead.
Yes, China is very interested in Greenland, as part of their belt and road initiative. China is building infrastructure around the world in return for minerals. China offered to build them an airport. China is repairing oil facilities in Venezuela, building vast infrastructure in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, etc... They have a long run strategic plan to secure global natural resources for their factories.
The US has not come up with an organized response to the belt and road initiative. No similar offers to build infrastructure in return for mineral rights. US zippo national savings rate can't compete with China's 50% savings rate, when it comes to generating capital for foreign infrastructure projects. China has already become #1 in PPP GDP.
Last edited:
the Chinese rich you mean, that sends their kids to our colleges pilots learn and live while learning to fly in my city and other parts of the state and country. all the while the socialists elites decry the u.s.
next you think that china actually can build things? my suspicions of useless and often repaired cars and electronic car and robot parts stems from experience. Chinese dry wall was banned in my state for that reason of say toxic emmissions. pay for something cheap, they will be cheap and worthless.
china spies and controls its population and also that population isn't recovering from its imbalance per se. im not buying the Chinese will like the Japanese rule the world.
Of course. The poor don't save much of anything.
Quality control is erratic. However, starving people in third world countries are not going to care. Offer them food and shelter, and they will let you mine their minerals. Even if the shelter does not meet US building codes.
Yes, that is true. They don't put up with Islamic terrorists rebelling. They are put in reeducation camps. They will relocate every single Hong Kong citizen in remote desert reeducation camps before they allow independence from China. They don't mess around.
The male/female ratio imbalance from Mao's disastrous one child policy is still affecting them.
Of course not. Their goal is to be an East Asian hegemon, not rule the world. For centuries, they have wanted to control countries along their border, to improve their security. They also want Taiwan back, and fish/oil from nearby areas.
Japan similarly wanted to be an East Asian hegemon in WWII. Hitler wanted back what Germany controlled in WWI, plus a bit extra for his trouble. Neither one had any plans to rule the world, and neither does China. However, China is far more militarily formidable than Japan was. The PLA fought US troops to a standstill in Korea, and their proxies won in Nam.
Last edited:
hitler wanted to attack the u.s. and didn't trust the Japanese nor Italians . the Russians you mean since we fought them pilots as well in both, we repaid that favor with Afghanistan. having been there I can attest to all the left behind relics of ussr stuff. the Chinese used these in t54,t55 and also predecessors, and the mig 15 mig 17 were engaging us those were Russian pilots. we also didn't want to win the nam war, how does one bomb the enemy and force him out of the north and then give him all that he wants. the hippies that protested that run this nation and we wonder why its left. ask any nam vet about the vc and not some bias history of well superior armed vc book, they weren't stupid but we did decimate that nation
Yes, that is true. They were there.
It was a mistake to draft hippies, train them for a few weeks, and then try to fight a remote guerilla war with them. They didn't know what they were doing, and didn't want to be there. No one bothered to try and make them believe in the mission. Conscripts are often effective when defending their homes, but not usually far from home.
I've talked to quite a few Nam vets. The US could have won the war by simply allowing Ngo Dinh Diem continue to run the show, instead of replacing him. No US troops needed. He was winning. Even after Ngo was replaced, victory would have been possible with an effective battle plan.
Yes, that's true. Estimates range from 1,450,000 to 3,595,000 Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laos citizens between the North and South. Attrition warfare didn't work. They needed a better battle plan than that.
The US could have won with a well designed plan, and professional troops. However, someone chose an ineffective attrition strategy fought by unwilling amateurs instead instead. It wasn't the hippies who were responsible, it was the overall strategists. Helicoptering inadequately trained conscripts behind enemy lines, forcing them to fight their way back in the hopes that they would attrition the enemy into surrender, was a nonsensical strategy.
Last edited: