Redbrickbear said:By only imposing tariffs on only 8 European countries, Trump has left 2/3 of Europe unaffected. Those other European countries are far less likely to speak out against Trump's policy now. They want to avoid tariffs on themselves.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 17, 2026
President Trump has launched a divide and conquer… pic.twitter.com/2FUsR2mY8X
FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:By only imposing tariffs on only 8 European countries, Trump has left 2/3 of Europe unaffected. Those other European countries are far less likely to speak out against Trump's policy now. They want to avoid tariffs on themselves.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 17, 2026
President Trump has launched a divide and conquer… pic.twitter.com/2FUsR2mY8X
The EU is a single trade entity; we can't just pick out countries.
FLBear5630 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:FLBear5630 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:FLBear5630 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
Like I said. You are completely out of your depth here.
Greenland is on a pathway to independence, at which point it will be available to the highest bidder, because it is most certainly not a viable economic unit. Trump is merely trying to secure it before the bidding starts. That is eminently wise.
We made a mistake in giving it back to Denmark after WWII.
Denmark made a mistake putting Greenland on a pathway to independence.
Trump is fixing both problems.
Ok, let's say that is true and Denmark grants their Independence in the next 10 years, ballpark.
I don't think your strategy is having the effect you think. Greenland AND Denmark have gone from being staunch US allies and friends to hating us. As we, or I, have tried to discuss is once again with this group, it is not the what or the why, it is the how. Everything they are touching that SHOULD be huge positives are turning into negatives because of the heavy handed, authoritarian tactics. You won't discuss it, only defend it or deny it.
The one thing both Greenland AND Denmark AND the EU now agree on is not to letting the US and Trump have Greenland. Bravo, quite the achievement to get Greenland/Denmark and the EU agreeing.
The same as Immigration, they are turning positives to negatives. People, all people, will push back on heavy handed tactics. Or, you are going to have to break them. Is that where we are? We want to break people physically, financially or spiritually to get them to comply?
We must appease European liberal progressives. Apparently that is your mentality.
Anything that upsets an ally is our fault and should be avoided.
We don't like the trade deals with an ally - ally gets upset and actively works against us. We must appease.
Our allies are clearly only friends as long as we fund their lifestyle and defenses.
Let the appeasement gravy train continue! Long live the progressive globalists! Long live dystopia!
Lol
Yeah, let's not appease. We are taking Greenland, you can sell it or we Invade...
You really see nothing wrong with this?
I don't believe we will invade, so I reject that premise. But I absolutely do know that we cannot rely on a liberal progressive world order to defend the US. They will always work against American traditional values.
Additionally, the US must break the progressive control of Canada and Europe, because long term it is the only way for us to remain "close" allies - well that or we submit to them. Trump is fighting that war. He is trying to affect change in their progressive stranglehold on politics. The world is now better because of him. You are just afraid of change, you believe our allies care about us and would sacrifice for us. Delusional but that is public school programming. They won't at the end of the day.
I get you don't get it. But it's obvious for those looking long term, if we don't actively fight to weaken the globalists here and in Europe, it's over for US exceptionalism and liberty. Appeasing progressives never work. Relying on them to defend liberty never works.
I'm OK with the US applying whatever pressure is needed. I mean we should have earned some deference over the years.
We have a treaty now. We can put as much as we want there. During the Cold War had 5 times as many troops. It is not a problem.
The security thing is BS. There is something else driving this. If we are not going to invade, Trump and his minions need to stop saying we are.
Security is driving it, shipping lines, access to the arctic and Russia, and so are resources. I mean you are smart enough to know that operating in your own land allows you to keep top secret activities quite a bit more secure.
If Denmark or Canada was strong, then nobody would be having this conversation. But they are not.
But it isn't our land and they don't want to sell. So you say take our offer or we will invade????? That is Mafia *****
We have a treaty and have had up to 10,000 troops there during the Cold War. No issues. We want to improve our base, no issues. Put a Naval Base there, I am all for it. A Gitmo North. Sign a lease for perpetuity like we did in Cuba. There is no reason for this escalation and threats.
Something else is driving this...
boognish_bear said:Huge News! Today, I am proud to introduce the Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act, a bill that allows the President to find the means necessary to bring Greenland into the Union.
— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) January 12, 2026
Let me be clear, our adversaries are trying to establish a foothold in the Arctic, and we can’t… pic.twitter.com/h28sXU7LAU
TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:FLBear5630 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:FLBear5630 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:FLBear5630 said:TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
Like I said. You are completely out of your depth here.
Greenland is on a pathway to independence, at which point it will be available to the highest bidder, because it is most certainly not a viable economic unit. Trump is merely trying to secure it before the bidding starts. That is eminently wise.
We made a mistake in giving it back to Denmark after WWII.
Denmark made a mistake putting Greenland on a pathway to independence.
Trump is fixing both problems.
Ok, let's say that is true and Denmark grants their Independence in the next 10 years, ballpark.
I don't think your strategy is having the effect you think. Greenland AND Denmark have gone from being staunch US allies and friends to hating us. As we, or I, have tried to discuss is once again with this group, it is not the what or the why, it is the how. Everything they are touching that SHOULD be huge positives are turning into negatives because of the heavy handed, authoritarian tactics. You won't discuss it, only defend it or deny it.
The one thing both Greenland AND Denmark AND the EU now agree on is not to letting the US and Trump have Greenland. Bravo, quite the achievement to get Greenland/Denmark and the EU agreeing.
The same as Immigration, they are turning positives to negatives. People, all people, will push back on heavy handed tactics. Or, you are going to have to break them. Is that where we are? We want to break people physically, financially or spiritually to get them to comply?
We must appease European liberal progressives. Apparently that is your mentality.
Anything that upsets an ally is our fault and should be avoided.
We don't like the trade deals with an ally - ally gets upset and actively works against us. We must appease.
Our allies are clearly only friends as long as we fund their lifestyle and defenses.
Let the appeasement gravy train continue! Long live the progressive globalists! Long live dystopia!
Lol
Yeah, let's not appease. We are taking Greenland, you can sell it or we Invade...
You really see nothing wrong with this?
I don't believe we will invade, so I reject that premise. But I absolutely do know that we cannot rely on a liberal progressive world order to defend the US. They will always work against American traditional values.
Additionally, the US must break the progressive control of Canada and Europe, because long term it is the only way for us to remain "close" allies - well that or we submit to them. Trump is fighting that war. He is trying to affect change in their progressive stranglehold on politics. The world is now better because of him. You are just afraid of change, you believe our allies care about us and would sacrifice for us. Delusional but that is public school programming. They won't at the end of the day.
I get you don't get it. But it's obvious for those looking long term, if we don't actively fight to weaken the globalists here and in Europe, it's over for US exceptionalism and liberty. Appeasing progressives never work. Relying on them to defend liberty never works.
I'm OK with the US applying whatever pressure is needed. I mean we should have earned some deference over the years.
We have a treaty now. We can put as much as we want there. During the Cold War had 5 times as many troops. It is not a problem.
The security thing is BS. There is something else driving this. If we are not going to invade, Trump and his minions need to stop saying we are.
Security is driving it, shipping lines, access to the arctic and Russia, and so are resources. I mean you are smart enough to know that operating in your own land allows you to keep top secret activities quite a bit more secure.
If Denmark or Canada was strong, then nobody would be having this conversation. But they are not.
But it isn't our land and they don't want to sell. So you say take our offer or we will invade????? That is Mafia *****
We have a treaty and have had up to 10,000 troops there during the Cold War. No issues. We want to improve our base, no issues. Put a Naval Base there, I am all for it. A Gitmo North. Sign a lease for perpetuity like we did in Cuba. There is no reason for this escalation and threats.
Something else is driving this...
Sure, I agree, there may be more to it. Maybe things are more dire than we're lead to believe. Maybe war with China was closer than we thought. Maybe China was making moves to buy land or build industry, and Trump is done playing that game. So whatever the case, I do think security is the driver - economic or military or both.
As for caring, I don't care too much about the progressive countries. They will betray the US unless we follow their politics. Just who progressives are. You're still playing pretend on who these people are. Anyway, I'm good with paying them and applying pressure if it serves a real need. There is no one looking out for us, but us. I get that when your neighbor next door becomes a crack house, you call the cops, because you don't want that unsafe aspect next door. You're good with depriving that crack head of liberty because it's in your neighborhood and you have cops to call. Well there's no one we're going to be able to call when things get heated in the arctic, so positioning ourselves as best we can is the long term smart move. Nobody, not even Denmark believes we're going to invade ... but you have a hard time with anything that is not literal.
As for Denmark, it has done next to nothing for the people of Greenland. They are poor, they have a high crime rate, and they have the highest suicide rate. So Greenland will be better off - no one doubts that, the US can pay the 50,000 people piles of cash and bring jobs for their future. The free world will be better off as well, safer by all accounts. So I'm hopeful the US will be able to buy it outright or as some sort of protectorate or territory - whatever makes all sides reasonably taken care of.
FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:By only imposing tariffs on only 8 European countries, Trump has left 2/3 of Europe unaffected. Those other European countries are far less likely to speak out against Trump's policy now. They want to avoid tariffs on themselves.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 17, 2026
President Trump has launched a divide and conquer… pic.twitter.com/2FUsR2mY8X
The EU is a single trade entity; we can't just pick out countries.
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:By only imposing tariffs on only 8 European countries, Trump has left 2/3 of Europe unaffected. Those other European countries are far less likely to speak out against Trump's policy now. They want to avoid tariffs on themselves.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 17, 2026
President Trump has launched a divide and conquer… pic.twitter.com/2FUsR2mY8X
The EU is a single trade entity; we can't just pick out countries.
We can and we will
You think Hungary and Poland and others will go along with hurting their economies for the sake of Western Europe?
No….
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:
— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026
“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ
Troops from Denmark and other European countries are arriving in Greenland to help boost the territory's security after a meeting between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials ended without resolving "fundamental disagreements" over the strategically critical Arctic island. pic.twitter.com/briR9g0JYe
— DW News (@dwnews) January 15, 2026
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.
"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:
— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026
“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ
FLBear5630 said:
What the hell happened to you guys...
Realitybites said:FLBear5630 said:
What the hell happened to you guys...
Apparently after decades of pretending that the United States has transitioned from a representative republic to an empire run by its executive branch, the mask has been dropped.
This is the map of Greenland that matters most.
— Jason Miller (@JasonMiller) January 18, 2026
The Arctic is now a highly navigable shipping route, and the gateway to the Western Hemisphere.
.@POTUS @realDonaldTrump knows exactly what he’s doing. https://t.co/OiMytmeoJl pic.twitter.com/kacuQsxEj7
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.
"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:
— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026
“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ
Stephen Miller to back up your point?
We don't own it. You keep leaving out that little point. Russia wants Alaska back for their National Security. We going to sell?
So you are saying we are now to the point of taking what we want because we can? That is NOT what the US has stood for in the Modern Era. You think Reagan would be good with taking it because Denmark can't stop us? Or, extorting the EU with tariffs to get land?
What the hell happened to you guys...
GOP Sen. Rand Paul: I've heard no Republican support for Invading Greenland. Even the most hawkish members of our caucus won't support it. As far as trying to buy it peacefully, you don't get purchasers to come around by berating them pic.twitter.com/nTySYBUHAi
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) January 18, 2026
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.
"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:
— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026
“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ
Stephen Miller to back up your point?
We don't own it. You keep leaving out that little point. Russia wants Alaska back for their National Security. We going to sell?
So you are saying we are now to the point of taking what we want because we can? That is NOT what the US has stood for in the Modern Era. You think Reagan would be good with taking it because Denmark can't stop us? Or, extorting the EU with tariffs to get land?
What the hell happened to you guys...
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.
"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:
— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026
“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ
Stephen Miller to back up your point?
We don't own it. You keep leaving out that little point. Russia wants Alaska back for their National Security. We going to sell?
So you are saying we are now to the point of taking what we want because we can? That is NOT what the US has stood for in the Modern Era. You think Reagan would be good with taking it because Denmark can't stop us? Or, extorting the EU with tariffs to get land?
What the hell happened to you guys...
Plumb goofy response.
Greenland is on a pathway to independence. It's a non-viable economic unit with great proximity to North America and an array of strategic minerals. It WILL have a foreign benefactor. Do you think it wiser to cut a deal to control it now or wait and start a bidding war against Russia and China?
I mean, seriously. The studious obtusity of suggesting that the status quo is maintainable is completely unserious. We didnt create this crisis. Feckless Daniah political leadership did.
“There’s no emergency with Greenland. That’s ridiculous,” @RandPaul told Welker. “And the idea by [@SecScottBessent]
— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) January 18, 2026
that, ‘Oh, this is to prevent an emergency.’ Now we’re declaring emergencies to prevent emergencies?” @SenRandPaul is 100% right here. https://t.co/oxHaCeOSVV
CBS Poll: 86% of Americans Oppose Military Force to Take Greenland; 70% Oppose Using Federal Funds to Buy It
— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) January 18, 2026
🚨BREAKING: Italy’s PM Meloni says President Trump was open to dialogue on Greenland, but Europe sent mixed signals that looked anti-American
— Inevitable West (@Inevitablewest) January 18, 2026
She wants to remind everyone that the US is not a threat or an enemy.
She is the European voice of reason. pic.twitter.com/moIbTLEjBS
Buying land is not new for the U.S. It’s how it became a superpower. pic.twitter.com/V0J89tZ6Zs
— Xavi Ruiz (@xruiztru) January 18, 2026
NATO Begs U.S. For Emergency Funding So They Can Defend Greenland From U.S. https://t.co/saBR4rH7T9 pic.twitter.com/9CEaF8Hyiq
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 15, 2026
A “might makes right” philosophy is dangerous one. Russia and China like this. https://t.co/2OvK2DqQWe
— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) January 18, 2026
whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:J.R. said:
This will NEVER happen, NEVER. Sheep R's would buck 1 think fat boy proposed.The United States is about to grow by 22%. The biggest real estate deal ever. https://t.co/UKOFwN7vYy
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) January 16, 2026
Not only will this not happen, but it is causing harm to our alliances and international relationships.
The question is what does he really want? If it is the security and mineral rights that is doable without "taking" Greenland and totally destroying the one alliance that has pretty much kept us out of war in Europe for 70 years.
If it is getting in the History books like Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase or Seward's Alaska deal, that is more problematic. We would have to invade, that would end NATO. It would basically make us the same as Russia and China taking what we want or believe is ours.
unerring bad analysis.
the problem is that our alliance is harming itself by not adequately addressing our valid concerns (feckless Danish administration of Greenland). Move Greenland to USA responsibility and Nato is strengthened, not harmed.
Whatever shortcomings in Defense are fixable within existing treaties and alliances we do not have to take it from an ally. So, that is not the reason.
There is something else driving this and it is not security.
Bad analysis? Bad analysis is that the US taking Greenland is going to strengthen NATO! What color is the sky in your world? Talk about delusional. You have a better chance of it prompting a combined European Armed Forces to go with the EU market than NATO staying together with the US happily with Greenland.
Trump may be the catalyst for a peer size competitor in Europe.
(sigh)..... We are paying to defend it. We should own it.
"Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. So they want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars defending a territory for them that is 25% bigger than Alaska at a hundred percent American expense, but they say while we do this, it belongs 100% to Denmark. It's a raw deal. It's an unfair deal."Stephen Miller argues Greenland is central to the next era of polar competition, calling it a “raw and unfair deal” for America to defend a massive territory at full cost while Denmark keeps full control:
— Sean Hannity 🇺🇸 (@seanhannity) January 17, 2026
“Greenland is not essential for America’s national security. The new… pic.twitter.com/T3RZXQrMIJ
🚨 Canada’s PM Mark Carney confirms high-level talks with Xi Jinping, saying they found “strong alignment” on Arctic and Greenland issues.pic.twitter.com/yosGYpQOeA
— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) January 18, 2026
