Trump threatens 25% tariff on European allies until Denmark sells Greenland to US

rebornfree · Sunday at 5:43 PM

Landon Caeli said:
The poster who posted those words can correct you if he chooses. But in your post, it's marked as if I said it.

...In post #110, the third quote is not mine.

I'm so sorry. Thanks for pointing out my error. I've deleted it and added a note. .

Landon Caeli · Sunday at 7:27 PM

rebornfree said:
I'm so sorry. Thanks for pointing out my error. I've deleted it and added a note. .

No worries, and thanks!

Bradskii · Sunday at 8:38 PM

Landon Caeli said:
I'm debating the topic.

Please don't insult my intelligence. You've been making a case for Trump.

Palmfever · Sunday at 8:40 PM

Trogdor the Burninator said:
Trump threatens 25% tariff on European allies until Denmark sells Greenland to US

America must have her Lebensraum!

This reply is kind of about tarrifs.

https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/accident-fall-piers-morgan/2026/01/18/id/1242612/

7thKeeper · Sunday at 11:08 PM

Landon Caeli said:
You mean like we defended Ukraine. Greenland isn't a NATO member, just like Ukraine, and we see what happened to Ukraine.

... Yes it is.

Edit: well this was already pointed out.

MotoToTheMax · Sunday at 11:15 PM

Landon Caeli said:
You mean like we defended Ukraine. Greenland isn't a NATO member, just like Ukraine, and we see what happened to Ukraine.

Perpetual Student · Monday at 12:21 AM

Landon Caeli said:
What is the greater good? And entirely protected North America (and Greenland)..? Or angry Europeans?

Who really knows in the long run, but it's worth talking about.

Are you arguing for the greater good now?
Does this "greater good" only apply to Greenlanders or to other topics too? Is it acceptable to tax billionaires for the greater goods like education, health care, scientific research or does the "greater good" stops at the American shores?

Perpetual Student · Monday at 12:31 AM

Landon Caeli said:
Regardless of future "promises", Greenland is currently under the control of Danish imperialism. Facts are facts.

...The other half of the fact is that Greenland has *never* been willingly under Danish imperialism.

1) Greenland has a path to independence, under "Danish imperialism", which they currently chose not to take.
2) Switching from "Danish imperialism" to American imperialism (without quotation marks) is not a step forward toward independence.
3) By now the Greenlanders have made it very clear that they want things to stay as they are. And that should be the end of the discussion.

Perpetual Student · Monday at 12:32 AM

durangodawood said:
We captured Venezuela oil precisely so we could make our own Legos from it.

And siphon the money to a Qatari bank.

Hans Blaster · Monday at 12:49 AM

Landon Caeli said:
What about the security of 620 million people? Does that matter? Should it matter? These are valuable questions.

What would happen to Europe, if the United States became a crippled giant? I think it could be catastrophic.

It does matter and the principle threat in this whole scheme is from the destruction being generated by Trump and his ridiculous claims and threats viz a viz Greenland.

High Fidelity · Monday at 12:57 AM

Greenland is not about defence. The US essentially has unlimited access to the country for defence purposes so long as it doesn't impact the locals, and military presence has fallen by 90% or more since the end of the Cold War to a single base.

This is nothing more than a land grab for minerals and potentially more accessible oil as ice melting has made resources more accessible.

Absolute madness.

High Fidelity · Monday at 1:00 AM

Landon Caeli said:
What about the security of 620 million people? Does that matter? Should it matter? These are valuable questions.

What would happen to Europe, if the United States became a crippled giant? I think it could be catastrophic.

The US has free reign already in Greenland with very few restrictions.

This has nothing to do with defence. This is about land and resources.

I agree that a stronger presence there is good, but that can be achieved easily through existing agreements without impinging on sovereignty or needing access to local natural resources.

Stopped_lurking · Monday at 1:31 AM

Laodicean60 said:
Nope, not me i see morality differently. My morality lies with Americans and our survival. If our NATO ~~allies~~ are unable to secure the north, the USA will. NATO forces will have to build up a navy because, as it stands, they won't win against Russia's northern fleet.

What do you mean with win in this scenario? Holding off a naval landing on Greenland? Yes, NATO without the US can do that. We have friendly airports in the area and anti-ship missile capable aircrafts. In addition to naval resources.

If open hostilities occur between NATO and Russia even sans the US, my guess is Russia is not winning that war (and why would Russia want to try to invade?) without going nuclear. And then it's not about winning but losing less badly.

Laodicean60 said:
Is Australia's navy ready for China?

Robban · Monday at 1:34 AM

High Fidelity said:
Greenland is not about defence. The US essentially has unlimited access to the country for defence purposes so long as it doesn't impact the locals, and military presence has fallen by 90% or more since the end of the Cold War to a single base.

This is nothing more than a land grab for minerals and potentially more accessible oil as ice melting has made resources more accessible.

Absolute madness.

Nothing "just happens", WW2, in the beginning the USA could only give limited support, like providing escort to convoys a certain distance.

It did not want to get too involved, then, Pearl harbour, the rest is well known.
,
Admiral Dönitz told Hitler, give me 300 u-boats and we will starve Britain into surrender, food is the most importanr resource.

And so on and so on, but thinking things just happen of their own ackord is the hallmark od carelessness.

Perpetual Student · Monday at 1:58 AM

Landon Caeli said:
We're not talking about "taking" though. This isn't so much about ownership either, as nobody is going to bulldoze people's homes, and rebuild...It's just a shift in governance.

As to your question on some other government taking over the U.S., it would depend on a lot of things, whether I would be OK with it or not.

Yes governement officials are exactly speaking about taking. By force and against the will of the Greenlanders (and the Danes, for that matter). Haven't you heard Trump speaking? I will post his quote again:

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/12/business/greenland-trump-venezuela-mining

“We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not. If we don’t do it the easy way, we’ll do it the hard way,”
And Stephen Miller:

Trump aide Miller says no one would fight US over Greenland's future

European leaders defend Greenland's sovereignty after US presidential aide Stephen Miller ramps up Trump threat to annex autonomous Danish territory.

www.euronews.com

"Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland," he said.
There aren't many other interpretations possible.

Perpetual Student · Monday at 2:04 AM

Landon Caeli said:
You mean like we defended Ukraine. Greenland isn't a NATO member, just like Ukraine, and we see what happened to Ukraine.

As part of Denmark, Greenland is part of NATO.

Trogdor the Burninator · Monday at 3:42 AM

Perpetual Student said:
Are you arguing for the greater good now?
Does this "greater good" only apply to Greenlanders or to other topics too? Is it acceptable to tax billionaires for the greater goods like education, health care, scientific research or does the "greater good" stops at the American shores?

For the greater good, the government should requisition a hundred billion or so from Elon Musk for use in the US defence industry’s manufacturing program. Then they can move to Trump - oh no wait he’s bankrupt.

Larniavc · Monday at 4:12 AM

Aryeh Jay said:
Somehow I knew Germany had something to do with the war Ukraine started against Russia.

Definitely. Half of Germany used to live in Russia so it should come as no surprise.

The only thing that ruined Russia’s equal and peaceful alliance with Germany was David Hasslehoff (the patron saint of West Germany) pulling down the wall with his two own hands.

People really should know more about history.

Larniavc · Monday at 4:15 AM

Laodicean60 said:
But we can build the same infrastructure in a more politically cooperative country.

Which country would that be? America has burnt so much of it’s goodwill recently; that’s why Trump is resorting to threats to motivate co-operation.

Laodicean60 · Monday at 6:49 AM

Larniavc said:
America has burnt so much of it’s goodwill recently

I think the EU has burnt the goodwill a while ago. Political Ideology has ruined our relationship with other countries just like it ruins relations at the kitchen table at Thanksgiving.
Have you ever wondered how many names someone has to be called before they become your enemy?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Trump threatens 25% tariff on European allies until Denmark sells Greenland to US

Senior Veteran

Taking it back

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

Well-Known Member