Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases.
I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me.
> it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US
I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere.
Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.
Because I thought some kind of curious conversation would be possible with the reply you made. The two other examples you posted are devoid of anything interesting; hopeless cases.
I should have consulted your posting history however, which consists mainly of short, combative and indignant responses like the one you just directed at me.
> it would be incredibly economically beneficial to the US
I fail to see how this is the case. The US and US companies have always been welcome to bid on mining concessions (at least, until recently), but the reality is that it's hardly profitable to do so, as there are ample cheaper opportunities available elsewhere.
Also, "assuming control" seems to be a euphemism for "invading" as the US buying Greenland is squarely out of the question. Invading is hardly humble, indeed, and you seem to be all too confident that such invading will allow for a republic and not lead to autocracy.