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

291–300 of 395 posts

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

#291

Post by microtonal »

Calavar wrote: post #64
OutOfHere wrote: post #21

As a American, given what the US is becoming now, also given that Denmark actually has reliable public healthcare and the US canceled it for its own people, Greenland is better off staying with Denmark than with the US. If Russia were to invade, NATO still holds. This is about more oil mining, about Trump appeasing to his oil friends, considering Greenland very likely has a substantial quantity of it.

I don't think any oil execs are interested in this, just like they weren't interested in investing in Venezuela after Maduro's ouster (at least if you believe the Financial Times). Rather these invasions appear to be the pet projects of neo-imperialist advisors in the government who see national growth as a zero sum game, a Starcraft-esque race for a finite set of resources where powerful countries can generate wealt…

I think it's even simpler than that. Trump wants accolades next to his name - one of the few presidents to have won the Nobel Peace Prize and one of the few presidents that added land to the US.

Instead he will soon be remembered as the worst US president ever - even after his first term he was already third-worst in most rankings and his second term is orders of magnitude worse.

He will be remembered as the president that destroyed the constitution, destroyed America's formidable power projection, the president that destroyed 60 year long alliances, the president that was unimaginably corrupt. I just hope that American school books will also contain the verdict.

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

#292

Post by cudgy »

palata wrote: post #53
jonkoops wrote: post #29

Since the only thing Trump understands is force, I am looking forward to the retaliation from and military positioning of EU member states to defend Greenland. Perhaps it is what is needed to finally impeach.

Impeaching has to come from inside the US. Doesn't really look like there is much opposition from inside, is there?

Trump has already been impeached … twice … from within the US.

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

#293

Post by cudgy »

saubeidl wrote: post #107
tpm wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU is not a military/security alliance (yet).

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/treaty/teu_2016/art_42/oj/eng

“by all the means in their power” … “sorry we don’t have the means to destroy ourselves by attacking the US”

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

#294

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

defrost wrote: post #289
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two party system is such a mess. I blame two party system more than anything. When you reduce everything to two party, its so reductive and this is the mess you are gonna have to face because of it.

A key point is that it's an electoral system from hundreds of years past that was never intended to be a two party system, one set up by founders who in the large wre not even fans of party politics (one, two, or more). It is a system that by it's design is more or less doomed to iterate into a Hotelling's law quagmire of two nose to nose opposing sides neither of which represents any kind of majority or popular view…

I agree but trust me when I say this, its not gonna happen.

I see people so entrenched in American politics who cant believe that there can be independents atleast in how the current voting works

They probably need better voting mechanisms... but for which they are gonna have to vote and no republican or democrat is gonna propose this ( i really don't think so) and the people can probably only vote for republican or democrat (independents very few) in the current system...

So its doomed and this is the reason why. A lot of American politics in the end feels like this or that, not knowing the nuances and polarization (in some sense) from both parties while still bieng the same (corruption stemming from lobbyists)

It's just really sad to see because to me its like not just Trump being a hostile takeover (which he is) but rather that both parties and the system failed the people so that someone like trump could spin up in the first place and now this is even happening.

If I were to tell you even 2 years ago all the things happening in America, you would believe we are in a black mirror episode or Its a bad dream but its reality now & we (non Americans) just gotta deal with America impeaching on other countries sovereignity trying to buy things outright and all escalations and the final one remaining is war and they haven't put it off the table as well

Like, I just want to take a moment here man

Like what the fuck is happening.

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

#295

Post by defrost »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #294
defrost wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A key point is that it's an electoral system from hundreds of years past that was never intended to be a two party system, one set up by founders who in the large wre not even fans of party politics (one, two, or more). It is a system that by it's design is more or less doomed to iterate into a Hotelling's law quagmire of two nose to nose opposing sides neither of which represents any kind of majority or popular view…

I agree but trust me when I say this, its not gonna happen. I see people so entrenched in American politics who cant believe that there can be independents atleast in how the current voting works They probably need better voting mechanisms... but for which they are gonna have to vote and no republican or democrat is gonna propose this ( i really don't think so) and the people can probably only vote for republican or…

As a non American you have a semi reasonable chance of being to sit back, take a beat, and watch (maybe) Trump implode and self destruct within the US system and maybe some following rebuilding of the system "as intended" with better safeguards.

  Trump’s triumphant narrative is not working at home, either. A new CNN poll released Friday shows that fifty-eight percent of Americans believe that Trump’s first year in office has been a failure. Americans worry most about the economy, but concerns about democracy come in second. The numbers beyond that continue to be bad for Trump. Sixty-six percent of Americans think Trump doesn’t care about people like them. Fifty-three percent think he doesn’t have the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively as president.

  Sixty-five percent of Americans say Trump is not someone they are proud to have as president.
~ Jan 17th, 2026 - https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-17-2026

See also: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-16-2026 etc.

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

#296

Post by devsda »

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…

you are hung up on the usage of the word "fair" with no room for alternate interpretation but want others to let bygones be bygones because it is normalized and maintains the status quo.

That's a really convenient position to take.

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

#297

Post by devsda »

eagle2com wrote: post #260
mindslight wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Thanks. It took 6 levels of comments to point the obvious sarcasm. May be I give too much credit to average HN'er skills at recognizing sarcasm without an explicit /s :)

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

#298

Post by tim333 »

palata wrote: post #248
tim333 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/...

If a NATO country invades another NATO country, what do the other 30 countries do?

That's a bit outside the design of NATO I think. The rules say NATO countries should be nice to each other but the present situation wasn't planned for.

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

#299

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

phs318u wrote: post #243
mrtksn wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are terrified that there will be unpredictable and turbulent times for the major industries? Just look at the public opinion polls, EU citizens are ready to take on Americans and even the most pro-US countries are barely on the green in public opinion towards US. The problems is that the old guard, the establishment is fanatically pro-US and pro stability. Which means that the current politicians are in…

Except that increasingly, pro-US is looking a lot less like pro-stability. People forget that nationalism doesn’t have to have a right-wing flavour.

Nations (even left wing) need the ability of sovereignty to apply their ideas/iterate on them.

Make the existence of their sovereignty a threat and all factions will stand united setting their differences aside (usually).

Like its one of the most effective ways to unite a complete nation against a cause, in this case its against America and its calling the wrath of not just the danish people but the whole EU as it feels not just a threat on Greeland but EU itself.

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

#300

Post by anal_reactor »

cudgy wrote: post #281
anal_reactor wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe cant afford to have enemies on both sides Neither can the US. Imagine Europe supporting China in exchange for China backstabbing Russia - entire Ukraine and Belarus and maybe even Kaliningrad suddenly are up for grabs for EU while China gets Russian territories that it has historical claims to. Then China gets access to European technology (ASML and Airbus) which means that the US stops having massive techno…

Seems you forgot about these things called nuclear missiles.

No I didn't. Nuclear missles are only relevant when the existence of the country itself is at stake. But when the war is at the edges of the country, then losing territory is preferable over nuclear war.

Think about it - in case shit hits the fan, would you rather cede some territory like Alaska or Guam, or would you start nuclear war which results in complete annihilation of all major US cities?

Post reply on HN