Fair point.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Greenland
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
The justify your position that force was ever on the table against NATO.
I yearn to hear your justification to the idea that it was ever a rational evaluation of the situation at hand. To quote you, because of action in SOUTHCOM and CENTCOM suddenly our NATO partners have reasons to fear we would simply use force against them and should plan against that. Well you’ve had the president and the Secretary of State say that isn’t true. Please give us a reason they should consider performative deployments of double digit troop numbers.
Last edited:
Again, nothing about the current has anything to do with the reality of the last 70 years you keep pointing to. But perhaps you understand Army Force Structure and the ARFORGEN model better than those of us that live through the command and staffs. Maybe you can explain how having less maintenance support and total flight hours makes a unit more ready while it’s sitting in Poland.
But to the original conspiratorial point you decided to bring into this discussion, tell us all how 1500 hundred infantry troops with no supporting brigade or division was going to suddenly take down Greenland like you suggested. The idea of that is to say the least stupid. It was stupid to give it live before Davos, and it’s even dumber now.
There is no COFM where that makes any logical sense so saying we need to not “blindside ourselves to Cheeto” shows you are entirely consumed by a political ethos and not making a logical evaluation on your professional understanding to the situation at hand.
Last edited:
We’ve also had the President say that he wouldn’t rule out force, with reporting that he had tasked JSOC to provide him military options for Greenland. Which iteration of Trump’s statements should foreign leaders consider as they make contingency plans to deal with Trump’s overt and direct threats?
If you don’t understand why a small, symbolic military presence can raise the stakes, then you have a child-like comprehension of how things work. At least you’re consistent.
Cheeto has no plan, as usual; that’s all there is to say. You’re exclaiming the lack of a plan as evidence that there is no plan. Which is also true
My dude you’re missing the point entirely. Tacit implication of the use of military force at the strategic level has a massive effect on the geopolitical environment.
Even if that wasn’t the point that I and others are making… a brigade of 1,500 is well above the requirement to maintain security for 55-60k Greenlanders. You need only to point to Cheeto Jesus - who’s been president for 5 of the last 9 years to blame for any readiness or force generation concerns. Biden didn’t cut the DOD budget, either.
…and I was a republican before this clown show administration started destroying 70 years of American political capital. Not an ideologue at all.
Unless you are a lot higher up the food chain than any one else here on the board, you don't know what was being planned or contemplated.
I'm still betting there are things going on below the radar.
But he does have LAMPS stink on him... He might even be old enough he didn't have a SENS HOR button on the keyset.
LN-66, APS-124, APS-137, APS-115 . . .
So I guess it is now Canada's turn?
Some of our polices towards our neighbor to the north are really doing nothing but causing harm, like supporting Albertan separatists which is nothing more than a fool's errand when 1 - The separatists don't have anywhere near the needed support, if Quebec separatists can't win an independence referendum no one else in Canada is going to, 2 - It isn't constitutional unless Alberta, the other provinces and the federal government all agree on it and 3 - It just pisses off Canadians. Again.
Along with the US Ambassador's remarks about buying the F-35 and NORAD and the President's threat to 'decertify' Canadian-built aircraft it is no small wonder that Canada decided to look for alternative trade agreements. While not a significant number, just the mere fact that Canada is now going to allow a limited number of Chinese EV's to be exported with much lower tariffs cracks a door that could open much wider if relations continue to be strained.
Some of our polices towards our neighbor to the north are really doing nothing but causing harm, like supporting Albertan separatists which is nothing more than a fool's errand when 1 - The separatists don't have anywhere near the needed support, if Quebec separatists can't win an independence referendum no one else in Canada is going to, 2 - It isn't constitutional unless Alberta, the other provinces and the federal government all agree on it and 3 - It just pisses off Canadians. Again.
Along with the US Ambassador's remarks about buying the F-35 and NORAD and the President's threat to 'decertify' Canadian-built aircraft it is no small wonder that Canada decided to look for alternative trade agreements. While not a significant number, just the mere fact that Canada is now going to allow a limited number of Chinese EV's to be exported with much lower tariffs cracks a door that could open much wider if relations continue to be strained.
Lol at the thought of thousands of CRJ commuter flights stuck in podunk airports across the heartland. Like a 9-11 grounding, but just for country bumpkin losers.
Of course that stupidity got walked back.
