As usual, the trumpettes bend over backwards to make yet another totally irrational "idea" by their orange overlord sound plausible.
The Louisiana Purchase, is not even remotely comparable. You won your War of Independence against the Brits with the help of France. As a consequence, France retained a huge swathe of land which ran through the middle of your newly formed nation. You couldn't fight them for it so, some twenty years later you paid them for it.
Alaska was settled by Russian merchants and fur trappers but, very few Russians actually lived there. Those in power in the British and French held territory which would ultimately become Canada didn't seem to care about Russian presence very much. You lot couldn't very well march through foreign territory to take it so, you bought Alaska from Russia. Again, not even remotely comparable to this latest nonsense from the orange moron.
But it gives you all a hard-on for the trumpster so.......🤷♂️
@room101 I am not a Trump supporter but the strategic position of Greenland would make it a desireable territory for the US. As the artic icecap melts the navigability of the arctic ocean creates a security problem. The purchase of Greenland is also not a new idea or attempt. Truman tried to buy it after WWII when he realized the strategic value of Alaska during the war. The US eneded up getting what they actually wanted at the time which was military access.
Just to set the record straight, the Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the new nation. That territory did not split our new nation in half as there was no nation west of that land, unless you want to talk of indigenous peoples. Jefferson took advantage of the French need for cash as they struggled for resources facing a war with England. They were already struggling to control their colonial territory and had been unable to supress an uprising in what is now Haiti. Napoleon took the cash. In a way the purchase of Alaska was similar in that the territory was more of a liablity to Russia than it was an asset. They feared the difficulty of defending it against any British aggression and so thought to profit in two ways at once. Dumo a property they hardly used and get a bunch of cash in the process. Alaska was purchsed by the US for resources of mineral kind. Seward at the time was greatly criticized but later vindicated for his vision.
But All that history and rational has nothing to do with Trump's real reason for this announcement. As with everything he does having a rational for this is only a way to support his real intention....DISTRACTION. Every time things close in on him he makes some outlandish statment, that he can sell to his base as shrewd thinking, and sends all those who should be focused on the threatened economy and the swamp of corruption he has in place, off in other directions that mean nothing.
@jackjjackson I've been pro-Israel all my life moron. You have nothing of value to say but persist in posting more and more crap shat out of your cult leaders arse.
@NodandaWink There was no record to set straight. As I said,
"....France retained a huge swathe of land...."
You gave a more nuanced assessment of both the Louisiana and the Alaska purchases but, the facts of the current ploy by trump are in your concluding paragraph. With which I agree wholeheartedly.
@room101 The record straightening was simply in correcting your statement that the Louisiana territory split the new nation. It did not. It bordered the United States then added new territory when purchased.
"As a consequence, France retained a huge swathe of land which ran through the middle of your newly formed nation. You couldn't fight them for it so, some twenty years later you paid them for it."
Although I didn't specifically say that the Louisiana territory split the new nation, it sure looks like it did.
@jackjjackson Given the volume of insults you routinely hurl at anybody and everybody who doesn't worship at the feet of your orange overlord, rubber or glue.........you're a lowlife trumpette.
