535
'It Would Be The Dumbest War In History': Danish MP Hits Back At Trump's Greenland Threats
(www.huffingtonpost.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
535 points (99.4% liked)
politics
27262 readers
3060 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are dumber ideas.
Invading Mexico or Columbia ranks higher. You know countries with people who have experience fighting guerrilla wars and have existing relationships with arms dealers.
Invading China probably takes top spot though. Don’t start land wars in Asia, especially with a peer state who has most of the world’s manufacturing capacity.
No, Greenland ranks higher than Mexico or Colombia I'm pretty sure. Because even if the US wins, there's nothing to gain strategically, only lose. Greenland being part of Denmark which is part of NATO, the US can literally just ask Denmark "hey can we build military bases on your kewl island" and Denmark likely would've been like "ok sure" before all the recent shenanigans. The stated goals are literally achievable without declaring war on allies.
I don't think Trump will invade China - or if he does, I don't think that the rest of the chain of command would listen to him anymore. THAT would indeed be the stupidest thing he could do. Everybody will lose if that happens, but especially the US.
Even dumber because if we asked Denmark to build a base there they'd respond by asking if we really need another one
Not really. They'd ask if you'd not prefer to move back into one of the many bases that you have abandoned in Greenland and save some money.
How is it dumber to exercise militiary actions, in countries that are already busy in the CIA schedule and does drug operations on a weakly basis, than attacking a god damn ally which hasn't done US any harm what so ever?
The US has been conducting military actions in both countries for nearly a century. How many times do you have to bomb a place before you're officially counted as "at war" with them?
We really really really don't want China to regain control of Taiwan. I think it is very possible we get into a shooting war if a Chinese friendly government ever wins an election on the island.
If Taiwan itself elects a China-friendly government, it's game over. Ain't nobody changing that if the locals themselves willingly join China. If China invades Taiwan, I could very much see the US helping Taiwan though.
Venezuela elected a China-friendly government and we responded by kidnapping the President.
The US will describe any propaganda campaign or business arbitrage as an "invasion" and respond with lethal force. In US terms, any influence China has over the island's public is a de facto invasion, because it threatens the US sphere of influence.
Venezuela didn't join China though. In Taiwan, an actually China-friendly government would mean Taiwan becoming part of China and thus having Chinese protection from the US military. Short of reuniting the Chinas, there can be no mainland-china-friendly government in Taiwan because mainland China doesn't want any relations that aren't direct ownership of Taiwan.
They dramatically increased business with China to evade our sanctions. We responded by tightening controls over the Panama Canal and encircling the Venezuelan coastline to halt sea trade.
That's simply not true. The current government in Beijing is happy with any thawing of tension and increase in trade/travel between Taiwan and the mainland, particularly with an eye towards increased private mainland investment in the island and high tech exports to mainland industries.
Improving the flow of trade between the island and the coast means predicating more of Taiwan's economy on friendly relations with mainland industry. And that creates the kind of political gravity Beijing bureaucrats used to rope in Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. Incidentally, its a salty subject for North Koreans, as Kim's Juche philosophy staunchly rejects critical utilities and resources coming from outside the sovereign territory.
But the old line "China thinks in centuries" holds here. All Xi is working towards is reconciliation. The hand wringing about "Imminent Chinese Invasion!" is US bluster intended to justify severing civilian trade and travel with the island preemptively. Americans need Taiwanese residents to be terrified of Chinese incursion in order to alienate the island from Chinese business and culture. Because that's the real long term play.