(Radiance3 had written: "Great let US own islands from every corner of the earth.")

I agree with kemmer, and perhaps take the thought in a different, but still agreeable, direction.

Prior to 1898, according to the history we were taught in school, we could think of (for example) The Louisiana Purchase as a legitimate t***saction. But in more modern times, the idea of "buying" a huge tract of land on which people are already living seems more insulting.

Since about 1898 America has been divided on the question of empire.

This compares (a) "buying Greenland" with Radiance3's comment about (b) letting the US own islands from every corner of the earth and with (c) conquest and empire. There's a kind of similarity in the thinking. Of course "buying" is not the same as armed conquest. But historically they have been intertwined, as in the war against Mexico to get California and other Southwestern lands. (Reference: _A People's History of the United States_, by Howard Zinn) As shown in that source, historically, "buying" may sometimes have been a facade for conquest.

1898 was when the debate over conquests began to heat up (according to a book _The True F**g_ by Stephen Kinzer). Some argued morally against further conquests. They said that each people should have the same right to determine their own destiny, the same way the 13 colonies (which became the U.S.) determined their own destiny when they broke off from British rule. In this sense "the true" U.S. would be the ideal of self-determination! It was hoped that the U.S. would be an example to the world of holding to that ideal. But conquering other lands would dispel the notion that the U.S. really cares about this ideal. Further conquests of other peoples would show that the U.S. was just another conquering nation, not really caring about the ideal of self-determination for anybody but itself.

(As for me, I acknowledge conquest in the world might sometimes have been necessary for survival; but after needs of survival have been met, further conquest is probably immoral and unethical. In the Americas I'm not yet convinced _any_ of the conquests by European-Americans were necessary for survival. But that didn't seem so much of a public issue until 1898, I guess. After rounding out the region between the oceans (what's now the contiguous 48 states), it may have seem less natural to conquer non-contiguous lands.)

1898 was about the time Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines were being considered for conquest and the debate about it was public (and very heated) and lasted for years.

(Radiance3 had written: "Great let US own islands from every corner of the earth.")

I agree with kemmer, and perhaps take the thought in a different, but still agreeable, direction.

Prior to 1898, according to the history we were taught in school, we could think of (for example) The Louisiana Purchase as a legitimate t***saction. But in more modern times, the idea of "buying" a huge tract of land on which people are already living seems more insulting.

Since about 1898 America has been divided on the question of empire.

This compares (a) "buying Greenland" with Radiance3's comment about (b) letting the US own islands from every corner of the earth and with (c) conquest and empire. There's a kind of similarity in the thinking. Of course "buying" is not the same as armed conquest. But historically they have been intertwined, as in the war against Mexico to get California and other Southwestern lands. (Reference: _A People's History of the United States_, by Howard Zinn) As shown in that source, historically, "buying" may sometimes have been a facade for conquest.

1898 was when the debate over conquests began to heat up (according to a book _The True F**g_ by Stephen Kinzer). Some argued morally against further conquests. They said that each people should have the same right to determine their own destiny, the same way the 13 colonies (which became the U.S.) determined their own destiny when they broke off from British rule. In this sense "the true" U.S. would be the ideal of self-determination! It was hoped that the U.S. would be an example to the world of holding to that ideal. But conquering other lands would dispel the notion that the U.S. really cares about this ideal. Further conquests of other peoples would show that the U.S. was just another conquering nation, not really caring about the ideal of self-determination for anybody but itself.

(As for me, I acknowledge conquest in the world might sometimes have been necessary for survival; but after needs of survival have been met, further conquest is probably immoral and unethical. In the Americas I'm not yet convinced _any_ of the conquests by European-Americans were necessary for survival. But that didn't seem so much of a public issue until 1898, I guess. After rounding out the region between the oceans (what's now the contiguous 48 states), it may have seem less natural to conquer non-contiguous lands.)

1898 was about the time Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines were being considered for conquest and the debate about it was public (and very heated) and lasted for years.

It was forced. Granted that the U.S. might have done even worse (morally) by not compensating Mexico at all.

To convince itself is was "fair", the U.S. paid an amount of money. But this came after a war that the U.S. started (because it wanted the land) (by stationing troops where they weren't needed, right next to peaceful Mexican settlements, until something happened _because_ the troops were there -- imagine the shoe on the other foot: that any other country were to station its troops on the U.S. border and just waited there indefinitely; what do you think would happen?).

If there had been no war, then Mexico would (very likely -- I can't actually speak for them, but very likely they would have preferred to have nothing to do with such a t***saction in which they lose all that land) have preferred to just keep the land they had, with no money exchanged, just as before the war.

Why didn't the U.S. simply make the purchase offer up front, without stationing troops there in the first place?

It was forced. Granted that the U.S. might have done even worse (morally) by not compensating Mexico at all.

To convince itself is was "fair", the U.S. paid an amount of money. But this came after a war that the U.S. started (because it wanted the land) (by stationing troops where they weren't needed, right next to peaceful Mexican settlements, until something happened _because_ the troops were there -- imagine the shoe on the other foot: that any other country were to station its troops on the U.S. border and just waited there indefinitely; what do you think would happen?).

If there had been no war, then Mexico would (very likely -- I can't actually speak for them, but very likely they would have preferred to have nothing to do with such a t***saction in which they lose all that land) have preferred to just keep the land they had, with no money exchanged, just as before the war.

Why didn't the U.S. simply make the purchase offer up front, without stationing troops there in the first place?

Photographic History of the Spanish American War.
On April 25, 1898 the United States declared war on Spain following the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana harbor on February 15, 1898. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. As a result Spain lost its control over the remains of its overseas empire -- Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines Islands, Guam, and other islands.

History of the Philippines indicated that since 1521, Spain had taken over the Philippine island as a conquest to colonization for Christianity. For 377 years of conquest, Spain had ens***ed the people, without economic development, except 99% became Christians. History had written that the Philippine people revolted against Spain because of ens***ement. Many natives died during their civil war with Spain. The Phil. heroes who fought against Spain were executed by the Spaniards.

In 1898, the t***sfer of the Philippines to the US was not a conquest. It was due to the sinking of the Battleship Main that US and Spain had agreed to t***sfer the islands. The Philippines was perhaps lucky to be under the US, because it was that time when the country had moved forward both economically and in the education standards.

Currently in this modern times, US do not engage in any conquest. When we talk about Greenland, nothing is wrong if Greenland wants to sell and the US wants to buy. That is how sale t***saction is done. There must be a willing seller and a willing buyer to enter into a contract of sale. When both parties agree on an arms-length t***saction, then the sale is legal and valid. In the event that Greenland is offered for sale, US will put up a bid to buy. I would favor that.

So, what is wrong with US buying Greenland if in case they sell? I would advise US buys Greenland if they sell in the future.[/i]

If it were to happen that, say, all the people of Greenland and the government of Denmark agree to sell Greenland to the United States at some agreed price, then I would have to agree with you that the U.S. would have a legitimate option to buy it at that price.

Similarly some person or country might buy part of the United States; then that part would no longer be part of the United States. When it happens maybe it will even be the part that you live on.

As land, Greenland, or any other land mass that large, would be a valuable asset. I notice that Denmark and Greenland did not react favorably to Trump's suggestion to buy it. Such suggestions are rarer now than they were, say "80" years ago or earlier. It looked like some of the people in Greenland and/or Denmark felt insulted. That's probably partly because the sixty-thousand or so people on Greenland would lose much of their self-rule or self-determination, and partly because (here I'm guessing) Trump does not appear to them as the kind of leader who cares much about their self-rule or self-determination.

==============
Nobody in the right mind among the US government would sell any state of the US government.

All the 50 US states are embodied and protected by the Constitution. Separation as independent is not even possible, neither provided in the Federalist paper. I can't find anywhere in the Federalist paper, or in the constitution that a US state could govern itself away from the central power of Legislative, Executive and Judicial of the constitution.

In case of Greenland, it is actually a separate nation from the mainland Denmark. It has its own government.
So, they can decide to sell to the US if they wanted to.

=============
I believe Denmark has still a say over Greenland. But if the people of Greenland prefer to be under the US a possibility of sale could happen. Even China is eyeing Greenland. No way we allow China to have that. That's a white country and must belong to the White people.