Why does this idiot have this shit behind him? How much more obviously can you show that you are 100% for sale?

As an American, I’m begging Canada: cut us off. Shut down the oil taps those 4 million barrels a day we suck down, 60% of our crude? Gone. I don’t care if gas hits $10 a gallon here I’ll eat it. 77 million of my countrymen just voted for a fascist jackass, and they won’t care until their lives collapse. So do it, slash the lumber, that’s 28% of our wood for houses. Kill the hydro power. Hoard the rare earths we need for our phones and fighter jets. We’re a nation of spoiled brats with a hostile government that doesn’t deserve your handouts. You’ve got the leverage to make us feel it housing crashes, blackouts, empty shelves. Use it. Punish us. Maybe then they’ll wake up.

Saab says Canada's air force could have Gripen fighter jets in as little as 3 years

CEO says manufacturing of fighters in Canada goes 'hand-in-hand' with buying them

Should Canada choose to fly the Swedish-built Gripen-E, the country’s air force could receive the first aircraft as quickly — or perhaps even sooner — than the long-awaited American-manufactured F-35, the CEO of Saab signalled Thursday.

Micael Johansson also said the defence giant is willing to set up not only an assembly factory in Canada, but a full-fledged manufacturing centre and a research and development hub.

He added, however, that the deal, which would include technology and intellectual property transfers, would be predicated on Canada deciding to purchase the fighter.

The two go "hand-in-hand," Johansson told CBC's Power & Politics host David Cochrane.

Johansson was part of a weeklong corporate, economic and political blitz, which included the Swedish royal family, to convince the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to partner with the Nordic country on a host defence and industrial initiatives, including fighter jets.

The Liberal government is reviewing whether to proceed with a full order of 88 F-35 fighters from U.S.-based Lockheed Martin. It has been suggested that Canada could accept the first batch of 16 stealth jets and then pivot to filling out the rest of the order with Saab Gripens — or some other aircraft.

Documents tabled in Parliament show the first Canadian F-35s will arrive at a U.S. air force base late next year where pilots and mechanics will begin training on them. It will be 2028 before the first U.S.-made jets arrive at Canadian bases.

Johansson said Canada could have its first Gripens at about the same time.

“We can start delivering across to Canada if they select a dual slate in three years time,” Johansson said.

If a Saab facility is stood up, the first Canadian-manufactured Gripens would be rolling off the assembly line in “roughly, between, three and five years depending on the setup,” he said.

During that build-up phase, Johansson reiterated that as many as 9,000 to 10,000 jobs could be created in Canada.

Deal could be a win for Bombardier

The company established an assembly facility in Brazil following that country’s decision to buy the Gripen. There were apparently promises of thousands of jobs, not dissimilar to the hype surrounding a possible Canadian deal.

Located at facilities in Gavião Peixoto, Brazil, the fighter jet line in that country employs about 200 people, according to Saab press release from the 2023 inauguration of the line.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saab-sweden-canada-fighters-f35-9.6987069

Whenever I hear people say that sentence, I know it’s a lie. When it comes to business, Donald Trump is a Potemkin Village. On the outside, he looks like a successful businessman, but his track record says otherwise. In the world of business, Trump did something extraordinary where the odds of doing so were extremely remote: he bankrupted multiple casinos. Bankrupting one casino can be brushed off as mismanagement. Bankrupting multiple casinos? That’s incompetence. Also damn near every business venture he put his name on went belly up. He ran a fraudulent college. His last administration had a 91% turnover rate. McDonald’s turnover rate isn’t that high! And his supporters think I’m about to believe that they voted for that piece of trash because of the economy? That’s like putting Dr. Eggman in charge of PETA and the Audubon Society. Trump might look like a successful businessman to those who hate research. But Eric Conn looked like a successful claims attorney. Too bad he was really bribing a judge for his victories.

I'm saying this as someone who used to say I'd never vote because there's a lot of misinformation out there. I didn't want to get involved. Because I was a kid.

I've been educating myself on politics now. I was taught government and world history by a libertarian teacher. We were required to memorize the info and take the 92 question citizenship test. I passed greatly.

MAGA are so willing to twist and rewrite amendments to suit their narrative. They should take a citizenship test, since apparently the meaning of citizenship is what they want it to be. Anything for them to avoid maturing, right?

In a whiplash-inducing U-turn, U.S. President Donald Trump suddenly dropped his insistence on taking control of Greenland, mere hours after laying out at great length his rationale for ownership of the Arctic island.

For weeks, Trump stuck firmly to a take-it-or-leave-it position on Greenland, insisting that nothing short of the U.S. owning the Danish territory would address his national security concerns. 

Then, barely four hours after leaving the stage, Trump demolished any shred of validity to his claims. 

The president posted on social media that he “had formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region” as a result of a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that lasted less than an hour.  

Who says Rome wasn’t built in a day?

U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly turned to the issue of Greenland in a lengthy speech at the World Economic Forum, saying the 'big, beautiful piece of ice' is key to U.S. national security. (Excerpts from Jan. 21, 2026, Davos speech)

While few specifics have emerged about the “framework,” it’s clear it does not include Denmark handing Greenland over to the U.S. 

Trump also wrote that he will not impose the tariffs he had previously threatened to levy on Denmark and seven other European NATO allies who backed its refusal to give up Greenland by sending small contingents of troops to the Arctic island. 

• Trump nixes tariff threat in push for U.S. control of Greenland

'A lot of lies about the Arctic'

Trump’s capitulation on U.S. ownership followed his declaration during the Davos speech that he will not use military force to take control of Greenland.

Anders Vistisen, a Danish member of the European Parliament, says after ruling out military action, Trump’s remaining arguments for U.S. control were exposed as weak. 

“All that’s left is false rhetoric and basically a lot of lies about the Arctic area and Greenland,”  Vistisen told CBC News Network in an interview after Trump’s speech, but before his social media post.  

• Trump reiterates desire to acquire Greenland, criticizes Europe, Carney, Biden in Davos speech

Vistisen said Trump “could not deliver on why he should have Greenland and what he needs it for."

Henri-Paul Normandin, a former Canadian diplomat, says Trump must have realized Europe’s resolve in opposing his ambitions for Greenland and was left looking for a way to claim some sort of victory.

Essentially he is backing off to some extent because Europe is reacting so strongly,” Normandin told CBC News Network. 

• Trump threatens 200% tariffs on French wines to get Macron on 'Board of Peace'

Normandin says Europe has until recently been trying a strategy of appeasement with Trump.

“When you deal with a bully, whether it’s in the schoolyard or the international arena, if you’re bowing to his demands he will just go for more,” he said. 

“This time around, Europe is saying, ‘Whoa, you’re about to cross a red line, that of sovereignty and territorial integrity.'"

Alan Leventhal, a former U.S. ambassador to Denmark, says the U.S. has legitimate national security concerns related to Greenland, but all of them can be addressed through a long-standing military co-operation treaty. 

“It gives us [Americans] the right to build many more bases across Greenland,” Leventhal told CBC News Network on Wednesday. 

“What I don’t understand is this whole notion that we have to own Greenland in terms of getting the security arrangements we want,” Leventhal said. 

Speech littered with contradictions

A catalogue of grievances about NATO seemed to underpin much of Trump’s demands for control of Greenland. 

"The United States is treated very unfairly by NATO,” Trump said.  

He said previous administrations had spent “trillions and trillions of dollars on NATO and gotten absolutely nothing in return. We've never asked for anything.

Yet NATO’s collective defence provision – a clause that treats an attack against one member as an attack against all — has only been invoked once in the alliance’s 75-year history: after the al-Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, against the U.S.

Denmark, the U.K. and Canada were among the many NATO members who contributed troops to the subsequent war in Afghanistan.  

• Trump ties his threat to take Greenland to being snubbed for the Nobel Peace Prize

Trump’s speech was littered with such contradictions, revealing some of the holes in his arguments even before he caved on his push for ownership. 

He minimized the significance of his demand for Greenland as "a very small ask" for a territory he dismissed as "a piece of ice," yet maximized the importance of owning the Arctic island for U.S. national security. 

He described Russia as a threat to Greenland, despite scant evidence that’s true, while downplaying the Russian threat to Europe, despite Vladimir Putin’s actual invasion of Ukraine. 

And while he backed down from using military force to seize Greenland, he continued to threaten economic force to get his way. 

There was also the veiled threat contained in what was arguably the most ominous line in Trump’s speech.  

"You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no, and we will remember," Trump said. 

Later Wednesday, a reporter asked Trump what he meant, and what the consequences of saying no would be.

"You'll have to figure that out for yourself," Trump responded.

Mike Crawley is a correspondent for CBC News, based in Washington. He began his career as a newspaper reporter in B.C., spent six years as a freelance journalist in various parts of Africa, then joined the CBC in 2005. Mike reported on Ontario politics for 15 years. He was born and raised in Saint John, N.B.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-greenland-nato-agreement-analysis-9.7055250