General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGreenland's Prime Minister Egede has responded to Donald Trump's threat.
The orange dolt is such a POS.
Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom, Egede said in a written comment.
https://newrepublic.com/post/189641/greenland-reaction-trump-threat
Matthew28
(1,832 posts)because it took less then a month to take over iraq. Iraq has 35 million people...Compared to 80k in all of greenland. Trump certainly will have the power to attack and take over the snow island if he chooses.
paleotn
(19,515 posts)Celerity
(46,857 posts)with military force, Nato's Article 5 would kick in, regardless of the US being in Nato itself.
Collective defence and Article 5
https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_110496.htm
The principle of collective defence is at the very heart of NATOs founding treaty. It remains a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.
A cornerstone of the Alliance: Article 5
In 1949, the primary aim of the North Atlantic Treaty NATOs founding treaty was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent. Every participating country agreed that this form of solidarity was at the heart of the Treaty, effectively making Article 5 on collective defence a key component of the Alliance. Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.
This article is complemented by Article 6, which stipulates:
Diraven
(1,092 posts)Putin gave Trump this idea.
Matthew28
(1,832 posts)All other members nations of nato vrs the United states. Who would win?
Celerity
(46,857 posts)military coup d'état that removed him from power.
I have faith that the US military would not allow Trump to drag the US into a (potentially nuclear) war with Nato.
Perhaps it is blind faith, but faith I have.
I simply am not going to go down the rabbit hole to scenarios of probable world (whether full or semi) destruction.
state of stupid
(29 posts)I do not think that it will come to that though, but if it did, I would hope that is what the military
would do. No President has the power to declare war only Congress can do that. No President
can claim Greenland or Panama is a national threat. Any issues with them would diplomatic.
While I have little faith in the RINO party, I cannot believe even they would be that stupid. Time
will tell if it is bluster and BS or a distraction to divert our attention to the new shiny and stop
looking at the real threats. I hear fire-hose of lies all the time. Personally, I consider it a flame
thrower of lies. The way to battle it is not with fire-hose truth, but fire-hoses of truth just like
fire fighters battle fire. Do not hit one day with abortion hit every day with abortion. Make him
and his ahole friends and buddies defend every statement and policy everyday all day. Make the
RINOS in Congress do the same. Make the MAGATs(MINDLESS AMERICANS GROVELING AROUND
TRUMP' S SHIT) do the same. Keep ridiculing his EGO(Edging God Out). Be the itch he cannot scratch
to get relief. While I have said before I am agnostic, I did read and study the book on my own with a
Strong's Companion. Pride cometh before the fall. That is his weakness pride and vanity. Keep him
puffing up his pride he will destroy himself. Anyway, just a rant take it for what it is. Your right to
choose, not my right to dictate. I love this site because I see so many like-minded people that that
are far smarter than I am and even at 70 I still want to learn. Have great holiday. Rant over.
paleotn
(19,515 posts)and precludes following unlawful orders in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Attacking a NATO ally simply because we want their land, like some 16th century tyrant, is more than a little unlawful. This is all crazy talk.
paleotn
(19,515 posts)Are we going to start "FEMA camp" mania like the rightwing, rabbit hole divers back during Obama's tenure as well?
Please, people. Just stop. Use the rational part of your brain. You're being trolled. Refuse to be trolled.
Dave Bowman
(3,851 posts)DENVERPOPS
(10,143 posts)Any other person spewing the delusional drivel that comes out of his mouth, would be put on a 72 hour psychiatric hold, against their will, for psychiatric observation.
Beringia
(4,654 posts)Blue_Tires
(56,725 posts)Silent Type
(7,323 posts)bolded comments:
CNN
President-elect Donald Trump appears to be entertaining an American territorial expansion that, if hes serious, would rival the Louisiana Purchase or the deal that netted Alaska from Russia.
In the past week, hes taunted Canadian officials by suggesting the US could absorb its northern neighbor and make it the 51st state. He threatened to take over the Panama Canal, the US-made waterway controlled for a quarter century by its Central American namesake. And on Sunday, he resurfaced his first-term desire to obtain Greenland, a Danish territory he has long eyed.
With Trump, the differences between serious policy proposals and rhetorical flourishes intended to stoke media attention or energize his base are not always clear. At other times, his provocations have appeared to be the opening salvos in his attempts at dealmaking.
Whats the history of the Panama Canal, and why is Trump threatening to retake control of it? Indeed, when Trump vocalized his threat to take back the Panama Canal this weekend, he did so with an out for the country to avoid his wrath: lower fees on American ships that utilize the passageway to travel between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. So to the officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly, he warned on Sunday during remarks to conservative activists in Arizona.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/23/politics/trump-us-expansion-panama-canada-greenland/index.html
zorbasd
(259 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 24, 2024, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)
The Fascist wants war. He will strike at Mexico, and just invade Greenland, and Panama. He will do it, believe him.
Silent Type
(7,323 posts)DENVERPOPS
(10,143 posts)Reagan was under pressure about something, and he needed to divert attention by starting an invasion of Panama and arresting Noriega as I recall. Noriega was a drug lord actually put into power by the U.S. CIA.......LOL
Anyways, no one in the U.S. got the factual story about what we did down there, although the rest of the entire world knew the true/factual story. The Panama Invasion was made into a documentary. The Documentary won the Oscar that year for the best documentary. The rest of the world saw the video Documentary, but it was banned in the U.S. by HW and his CABAL. What we saw/heard from U.S. Media was pure propoganda, rah-rah America BS. I got a copy from Denmark. A friend had to transfer it from BETA to VHS, and then sent me a copy.........It was nauseating to see the actual numbers of innocent civilians killed and the destruction, and to watch the cover up, just so HW and his CABAL could divert our attention by capturing Noriega which wouldn't have required a U.S. Military "invasion".......
zorbasd
(259 posts)Grenada was Reagan, to cover the Beruit bombing, killing hundreds of US soldiers.
MOJohn
(19 posts)This is clearly meant to provoke the exact reaction it is getting, it needs to not be given more oxygen.
Response to Swede (Original post)
dalton99a This message was self-deleted by its author.