A Facebook Friend recently posted the following:
The Mayor of Cleveland wants to close the lakefront airport to use the land for development. Hearings are scheduled with City Council, local stakeholders, and the FAA to review and discuss pros and cons, what will be done with the land, at what cost, and for what benefit. What will the city lose with closure of the airport? The process will take years.
President Trump want to own Greenland. There is no apparent congressional involvement, no discussion on what it will cost and what will be the benefit…just a wild hair idea from one person, or a small isolated group of yes-people.
The former is called democratic governance
I see similar sentiment being promoted on mainstream media and virtually every other “history deficient” source. Yet another clear, unwarranted attack on President Trump. My response was as follows:
The idea of the U.S. acquiring Greenland isn’t bizarre or unprecedented. For over 150 years, American administrations have viewed Greenland as strategically vital to North American defense. Trump didn’t invent the idea – he expressed publicly what has periodically been considered and previously attempted. Truman explicitly offered $100 million in 1946. While acquisition today would require Greenlandic consent and complex diplomacy, dismissing the concept outright as a “wild hair idea from one person” ignores a long, documented history of U.S. Arctic strategy.
I went to a Catholic High School with the original poster. I presume we had similar formative years (could be way wrong). It’s interesting to see how different we are now 40+ years later. How did that happen? What sort of “influences” did we encounter to guide our respective worldviews?