21st Century Louisana Purchase

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

The Lousiana Purchase. A cash purchase of real estate that more than doubled the area of the United States. Probably the first time in history that a nation has acquired territory by other than military means.

Alaska. Purchased from Czarist Russia, mocked as "Seward's Folly", it has proved to be a treasure-trove of minerals, fuel, timber & resources.

Both bought at bargan prices. Totally non-violent teritorial gain, at least in principle. This qualifier added for the nit-pickers in the peanut gallery.

Why not do it again? Why not now?

The USA is very rich. There are some countries that are in need of capital investment funds to develop their infrastructure. Said infrastructure developement would boost the world economy.

Let's buy us a new state or three!

Where?


How about the Kamchacka Penninsula?

Part of Russia, this penninsula is remote, with poor or unusable transportation connections to the rest of Russia.

On the flip side, it has mineral, agricultural, & timber resources. Also tigers!
we obviouly need tigers.

Russia needs funds to catch up with the industrialized West, & has little to get these funds with except land.

Good idea?

If not suggest other parts of the world this could work in.

[Soup_du_jour]

I say buy Zimbabwe. Mugabe would certainly sell out, and we could improve the conditions there! Everyone's a winner!

[Guinastasia]

Let's buy the Holy Land. It's not like the people there are doing anything constructive.

[BobT]

We pay a country for its sovereign territory when you can just dominate it economically and militarily?

[Guinastasia]

Because that takes too much time and money and lives. If we buy it, we don't have any hard work ahead of us!

[DPWhite]

Greenland. Denmark owns it, isn't using it, and it's just a big ice cube for the next 100 years, whereupon the ice will melt and be good land for who knows what. Not many people will be displaced or offended. Enough ice for everyone.

[Lumpy]

We need areas that are at least potentially valuable, sparsely populated, and owned by someone willing to sell.

Could we buy out all rival claimants to Antarctica? A whole continent with a unique circumpolar location, lotsa fresh water ice, and plenty of room for penal colonies. (The phrase "get put on ice" could replace "get sent up the river". )

[BobT]

Originally posted by DPWhite
Greenland. Denmark owns it, isn't using it, and it's just a big ice cube for the next 100 years, whereupon the ice will melt and be good land for who knows what. Not many people will be displaced or offended. Enough ice for everyone.

We've already got a military presence there. Buying it would just mean that the U.S. would have to pay the welfare tab for the inhabitants.

Of course, we could find oil there and then everyone would change their mind.

[Urban Ranger]

Who says the US is rich? You got no money in your treasury. Look at this deficit budget of yours

[Pjen]

And I thought Globalization was 'purchase' without having to hand over the money; in fact getting the money from the country for allowing the take-over.

[Fern Forest]

Originally posted by DPWhite
Greenland. Denmark owns it, isn't using it, and it's just a big ice cube for the next 100 years, whereupon the ice will melt and be good land for who knows what. Not many people will be displaced or offended. Enough ice for everyone.

Uno problemo. Most of the land that sits under the ice would sit under the ocean if it melted. I believe leaving a ring of islands around the edges and a couple others as well. But I'm all for more icy land, good for eco-tourist stuff. Some pristine snow, a couple igloos here and there and orcas, people love the orcas, we'd make a bundle.

Buy Baja California. The nice beaches will make up for the embarassment of the Gadsden purchase. Imagine buying all that land so close to the sea and getting only saguaros!

[Fern Forest]

Oh, and if we buy Baja California then we can have 2 wangs!