16 ms·

fun-fact: CIA is currently mucking around in Greenland trying to get rid of people against annexation this is not going to end well https://www.bbc.com/news/a

• idiotsecant 1y ago
  I don't think that's an accurate characterization of either of those articles. It sounds like they're trying to find groups who want to be independent, probably with the goal of artificially propping them up. It's still gross, but not as gross as hunting dissidents.
  • morkalork 1y ago
    >find groups who want to be independent, probably with the goal of artificially propping them up The same thing is happening in Alberta. It is unsettling and disturbing
    • a4isms 1y ago
      No different than the Russians hunting for American dissidents to prop up. Well, a little different in that the Russians hunted for them in the Senate chamber and golf clubs.
    • dismalaf 1y ago
      The Trudeau/Carney government is doing that all on their own. Just gonna drop this here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US-CA&start=2010 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location... Edit - for those who don't get it, Alberta derives most of its wealth from oil. Successive Liberal governments have both restricted our ability to sell oil while taking significant amounts of money from Alberta in transfer payments. Since Alberta has a border with the US, we have pipelines going south. All the while the Canadian economy has been severely under-performing relative to the US government. The last 2 points naturally push Alberta away from Canada towards the US, without any potential political interference.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • didibus 1y ago
        If you do the math, Alberta would donate even more money if it was a US state. It would owe more federal taxes, and since its population tends younger and well employed, it would get less of it back. You could say the "benefit" could be that getting approvals for pipelines and higher production of oil might be easier to get in the US. That's really just an "if" though. The Keystone XL pipeline was blocked twice by US government. What it should have done is adopt Norway's model. It would have half a trillion in savings already if it had, and wouldn't even need oil, as raw investment could finance its budget alone. But putting all that aside as well. Your average Albertan wouldn't be better off. They'd lose healthcare, education would be more expensive, they'd have a worse retirement fund, and so on. They'd have to pay more tax and get less benefit in return. Plus, there'd be a higher influx of immigrants low balling the jobs and lowering wages. But it’s not too late to change course. If Alberta seriously committed to a Norway style model now, it could still build a fund big enough to make oil dependence temporary. That alone could justify building pipelines to the coast, use it as a bridge until the Heritage Fund becomes a self-sustaining engine of prosperity. It's a convincing argument for the other provinces, and would be great for Canada overall.
        • dismalaf 1y ago
          > They'd lose healthcare You ever needed surgery? Ever tried to use healthcare for anything non trivial or not immediately urgent? I've lived in BC and Alberta. Things take years in BC, maybe a single year in Alberta, and days to weeks in Europe... We pay into Canadian healthcare but use EU healthcare (while paying more out of pocket)...
          • didibus 1y ago
            I mean, if you're rich, you can also cross the border and pay US prices. Or hop to Dubai and get it done same day. I've lived in both Canada and US and to be honest, I never found it was much better in the US for how much you pay, and for which so many people simply can't even afford it. With the exception being urgent care and routine things definitely have less wait time in the US. But most major thing seem comparable, like maybe a little faster in the US, but like I said not to the proportion of how much more you pay. And the treatment itself, quality, how you are cared for, basically the same. I'm glad to hear it's better in Europe!
  • ck2 1y ago
    There are less than 60,000 people in Greenland Not 6 million, only 60K It's like a small city population spread out much further Much easier to disappear opposition than try to recruit people pro-oppression This is not going to end well because it's not about the mineral rights It's about the northwest passage, which will then be another cold war with Canada I hope all these countries understand the vast majority of US population is not okay with this
    • crikeykangaroo 1y ago
      > I hope all these countries understand the vast majority of US population is not okay with this Where are the protests against the current regime in the US? I see more support rather than outrage. If the US in its current state was any other third-world shithole, you'd be invaded by 2003 US.
      • calmworm 1y ago
        But where do you see this support you speak of?
• danielscrubs 1y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising pieces.
  • tokai 1y ago
    Why is that inevitable?
    • tomrod 1y ago
      Sounds like Danish former colonies aren't the only thing three letter agencies are bumbling around in.
    • danielscrubs 1y ago
      Scandinavians are known for being quite naïve and Americans are quite good at psyops (historically). You might expect them to have christian values, but it would be a mistake…
  • impossiblefork 1y ago
    >I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) What would that even mean? Especially the use the word 'ownership'? I think there's zero chance of US long-term influence on Greenland. They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. I would place independence + EU membership as more probably than any association with the US, and I think them staying within Denmark is much more likely than them becoming independent.
    • WalterBright 1y ago
      > They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination The reason is they require subsidy to live there. The economy appears to run at a net deficit. The same reason the Vikings gave up on it.
      • impossiblefork 1y ago
• lifestyleguru 1y ago
  Oh god, this CIA meddling in never ends well for anyone. I mean afterwards Americans will make a Hollywood movie claiming that situation was complicated and their intentions were good, but it will end up with some sort of hell.
• gruez 1y ago
  >fun-fact: CIA is currently mucking around in Greenland trying to get rid of people against annexation That's a very misleading phrasing for what's essentially an influence operation. Your wording of "get rid of people ..." implies there's some assassinations/violence going on, but there's nothing to suggest that's happening. If Republicans/Democrats or even Russia was running an influence operation in the US, nobody would characterize that as "getting rid" of opponents or whatever.
  • krapp 1y ago
    Every "influence operation" of this type by the CIA inevitably involves assassinations and violence. That's what the CIA does.
    • gruez 1y ago
      Source that all/most CIA "influence campaigns" involved "assassinations and violence"? Moreover even if we take at face value that CIA always eventually resorts to assassinations/violence, it's dishonest to claim it's "currently" going on with no evidence of it. It's probably safe to say that most military campaigns involve civilian deaths, but it'd be irresponsible to claim right off the bat that the US military is "currently killing civilians" in the absence of a specific incident.
• sema4hacker 1y ago
  In spite of wanna-be-kings like Putin and Trump, the obvious historical trend is for larger empires and countries to break up into smaller independent ones.