Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 395 posts

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#251

Post by fatbird »

ofrzeta wrote: post #134

What's next? Will he stamp on the ground like a five year old? I mean, there's this treaty between the US and Denmark that they can build military bases etc. "The U.S. has such a free hand in Greenland that it can pretty much do what it wants," said Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/world/europe/trump-greenl... So what…

Trump wants to brag, and be remembered, for adding Greenland to America, in the same way that Alaska was bought from Russia, or Louisiana from the French.

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#253

Post by mdhb »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #25
polotics wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully the supreme court comes to its senses and realize that if they don't stop the madness now, the American people are going back to king rule, and their legacy as well as survival of their institution has one big question mark on it.

If they do not step in when this admin is attacking America, they sure as hell are not going to step in when this admin attacks other countries.

Right… why do you think they spent so much time intentionally rigging the courts with illegitimate judges? They’ve been planning a non-democratic takeover of the country FOR A LONG FUCKING TIME. They are just more open about it now.

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#254

Post by zwirbl »

illiac786 wrote: post #240
Hamuko wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no NATO army either.

Just check for “NATO troops”. That’s a term that exists and mean something.

It means something, but doesn't imply the existence of a NATO rmy

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#255

Post by sebazzz »

tim333 wrote: post #203
palata wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under those conditions, one could wonder if NATO is still actually a thing.

NATO is 32 countries with a Dutch guy as the head. Without the US there'd still be a lot of armed forces - infographic: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/...

Mark Rutte is more of an administrator than truly the head of NATO. A spokesperson. NATO is a committee.

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#256

Post by bootsmann »

hermanzegerman wrote: post #112
bootsmann wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is NATO, a lot of the EU is reluctant to push back because at the end of the day the US guarantees that Russia cannot pursue the type of landgrab it is currently trying to do in Ukraine against other states. The risk that the US runs into when trying to take Greenland is that this argument loses weight instantly, so the expectation is that the EU will be much more willing to use its anti coercion tools if…

Russia already fails in Ukraine where they are fighting with our old junk, and the other EU States are kicking their defense industry in full gear. What makes you think they could win a full scale war against the EU

I don't think they could win at all, but Putin has proven that he can convince himself otherwise so an invasion might still happen.

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#257

Post by aebtebeten »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #183
aebtebeten wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arctic_Endurance how I believe the tripwire would legally work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46634146

And I think the Trump cabinet noticed, because they pivoted! (The actual analysis is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630190 btw) Edit: see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair_of_Epidamnus#The_Atheni...

For that matter, if we're still doing WTO, I doubt their pivot to economic extortion falls under the safe-harbour of "justified trade measures"...

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#258

Post by cudgy »

phs318u wrote: post #244
bigbadfeline wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bill was almost the same before the vote. A single vote or a single person decide nothing. The candidates were selected and the vote was driven where it had to be by those with real power over the the two parties, there was no real choice. What you see now would happen regardless of who the public voted for.

> What you see now would happen regardless of who the public voted for. No. If Biden had attempted even a tenth (or Obama a hundredth) of what Trump has done, he’d be facing Nixon-level approbation and possibly real jail time.

Biden caused much harm as well, but he was not as overt as Trump. Trump reveals it out loud while Biden (and most politicians) said it in secret chambers.

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#259

Post by illiac786 »

zwirbl wrote: post #254
illiac786 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just check for “NATO troops”. That’s a term that exists and mean something.

It means something, but doesn't imply the existence of a NATO rmy

ok, but now we’re nit-picking about the meaning of “army”. There are “NATO troops” while there aren’t “EU Troops”.

I would still like to understand why previous poster said the EU defense agreement was more robust, I am genuinely curious about what that agreement contains and how well it was respected in the past.

Re: Eight European countries face 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

#260

Post by eagle2com »

mindslight wrote: post #214
devsda wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what twisted imaginary world is saying that a serial killer was fair to all his victims by being equally brutal with all of them means killing was the desired ideal. I'm not sure who proposed going backwards or what it even means. Everyone is acknowledging the hypocrisy because it is hitting their bottom line this time. I would like to see links to your opinions where you pointed to the "longstanding normalized hy…

> In what twisted imaginary world is saying that a serial killer was fair Exactly this. One doesn't use the word "fair" to begin with. Being killed is decidedly not fair , period. > I would like to see links to your opinions where you pointed to the "longstanding normalized hypocrisy in the systen" as a problem before the tariff nonsense. Write a script go to back through my HN comments as far as you'd like? I don't…

How about in a cynical sarcastic context? Do you think "fair" still has no place in it?

That's how I interpreted the original message anyway. I guess I still have hope, maybe foolishly, that people don't mean it literally.

Post reply on HN