• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon removes Greenland base commander after Vance visit (1 Viewer)

Mr. Eyeliner Vance is Trump Lite. Not to be trusted.

I'm glad that I'm not in the US military now and having to watch Trump/Vance/Musk tear this country apart.
 
gman said:
BS. I responded to your post of hope with a response based upon Trump’s latest actions of him thinking he has complete and unequivocal immunity as POTUS.
Click to expand...

You don't think Trump fears an ICC warrant, others (including Tangmo) do

You are entitled to your opinion.
 
The military up and down the ranks was never going to line up at the southern border with their machine guns to commence firing on unarmed civilians. This is no matter who the unarmed civilians would be. Any order to do that is not a legal order, it is not an order that is moral and it certainly would not be an order that is ethical. This is not what the US armed forces do.

Indeed any such order would violate all the Geneva Conventions, all the Laws of War and every provision of the Law of Land Warfare. All members of the US armed forces know this but they anyway would never do any such crime against humanity.

www.yahoo.com

Trump says machine guns would deter border crossers, but 'we can't do it'

President Trump says that aiming machine guns at migrants would be a "very effective" deterrent — but vowed the United States would not use that method.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com


Troops of the United States armed forces would never use any weapons of any kind in any such a way. Not anywhere and not at any time, place, circumstance. Yet and as I'd posted, the military at the border with machine guys was a RW wet dream for decades and the RW thought they had their guy in Trump the Bloodthirsty President / Commander in Chief and Wannabe Barbarian. Yet the RW has always been wrong wrong wrong about this.

The RW has no clue of the US armed forces up and down the ranks but then again neither do 98.6% of Americans have any clue of who are the members of the highly professional and ethical AVF. Indeed, too many Americans talk about the troops of the AVF and their NCO's and officers as if the AVF were the PLA in Tiananmen Square in 1989 which is grotesquely wrong, crude and offensive. It is repugnant.
 
Trump btw just the other day decided he will not activate the Insurrection Act of 1807 at the southern border. Which also means Trump is giving a pass to any attempt to declare martial law down there. As scheduled, Hegseth The Knight Templar and the Puppy Killer Dusty Noem made their report due April 20th and they recommended against it which was what Trump had decided he wanted 'em to do.

The issue of a federal domestic martial law is not a good one for the Generalissimo Trump. There is no provision of law nor is it anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government can declare a domestic martial law. State governors can do it but there is nothing anywhere to authorize the Potus/C'nC to declare a domestic martial law anywhere at any time for any reason.

What is clear is that federal troops act domestically in support of overwhelmed local and state LEO and LEA so these authorities can regain control over a situation that they alone could not control or cope with. Federal troops do not act domestically to arrest American citizens, do not detain American citizens and do not lock up American citizens.

Federal troops do not "roundup" anyone to haul 'em away somewhere or anywhere. Federal troops themselves do not want any such thing put on 'em to do and no law says federal troops must do this or any such thing inside the United States.

Indeed the JCS told the Generalissimo Trump to go pound sand on his use of federal troops for his wet dream "mass deportation" and to sit down and STFU on his "roundup" of "the enemy within" liberals. The armed forces do not do this or any such thing and will not do these or any such things. End of.
 
Tangmo said:
The military up and down the ranks was never going to line up at the southern border with their machine guns to commence firing on unarmed civilians. This is no matter who the unarmed civilians would be. Any order to do that is not a legal order, it is not an order that is moral and it certainly would not be an order that is ethical. This is not what the US armed forces do.

Indeed any such order would violate all the Geneva Conventions, all the Laws of War and every provision of the Law of Land Warfare. All members of the US armed forces know this but they anyway would never do any such crime against humanity.

www.yahoo.com

Trump says machine guns would deter border crossers, but 'we can't do it'

President Trump says that aiming machine guns at migrants would be a "very effective" deterrent — but vowed the United States would not use that method.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com


Troops of the United States armed forces would never use any weapons of any kind in any such a way. Not anywhere and not at any time, place, circumstance. Yet and as I'd posted, the military at the border with machine guys was a RW wet dream for decades and the RW thought they had their guy in Trump the Bloodthirsty President / Commander in Chief and Wannabe Barbarian. Yet the RW has always been wrong wrong wrong about this.

The RW has no clue of the US armed forces up and down the ranks but then again neither do 98.6% of Americans have any clue of who are the members of the highly professional and ethical AVF. Indeed, too many Americans talk about the troops of the AVF and their NCO's and officers as if the AVF were the PLA in Tiananmen Square in 1989 which is grotesquely wrong, crude and offensive. It is repugnant.
Click to expand...


Trump's dream was like a 2,000 mile long Berlin Wall reinforced with barbed wire and land mines, with soldiers in guard towers every 100-150 yards.
 
SavannahMann said:
Officers who work with and because of coalitions have to be trained to understand the nuances of the reality. The reality is there are agreements covering the base. Where it is, what it is allowed to do, and probably a thousand small things. So if a political leader, and it is a stretch to call anyone in the Trump Admin a Leader, makes a comment that riles up the other nations. The job of the commander is to calm them down by pointing to the agreements and such as the official policy.

Now we can get into a pissing contest with Greenland. But eventually they’ll hand us an eviction notice. If you want to take over Greenland, well let’s say you need to dust off the Draft because occupation of Europe is going to be expensive and take a lot more soldiers than we have.
Click to expand...
No the job of a colonel is never to counter the agenda of the elected leadership of this country. Especially to make it public. No matter how much they may disagree with it.

While I respect her for making her thoughts public. The administration had every right to fire her. And think most administrations would have.
 
braindrain said:
No the job of a colonel is never to counter the agenda of the elected leadership of this country. Especially to make it public. No matter how much they may disagree with it.

While I respect her for making her thoughts public. The administration had every right to fire her. And think most administrations would have.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with the Nuremburg war trial assertion that claiming to merely be following orders is no defense ?

Officers who blindly follow the commander-in-chiefs agenda and don't speak out, in support of their conscience, are guilty of doing just that.
 
Rich2018 said:
So you disagree with the Nuremburg war trial assertion that claiming to merely be following orders is no defense ?

Officers who blindly follow the commander-in-chiefs agenda and don't speak out, in support of their conscience, are guilty of doing just that.
Click to expand...
You’re comparing apples and oranges. Not even close.
 
The Danish parliament is concluding its ratification of a Biden presidency agreement in 2023 to station US forces at three bases in Denmark as part of strengthening the Alliances eastern front with Russia to include the Low Countries the Nazis paraded through in 1939-40.

The Denmark parliament is processing a $2bn upgrade of Denmark's defense of Greenland to include two new swift Naval frigates, reconnaissance aircraft, coastal guard boats, four of Denmark's F-35 Lightning II fighters, 100 "special duty" troops and military training of men and women in Greenland.


US & Danish Armed Forces Conclude NATO Training Operation Raven Assistor in Denmark April 3rd

1745438142127.png


There's sentiment in the Denmark parliament for antiship missiles to Greenland.


As noted by US Northern Command that has the defense of North America, Alaska is well armed to respond to its west but the US has no equivalent place at its east which is where Greenland comes in. As USNORCOM notes, "America’s line of contact with opposing forces stretches from the First Island Chain [off the east coast of the CCP] across the vast northern Pacific and through the Bering Strait, across the Arctic Ocean to Norway, then down NATO’s eastern border to Turkey.

"American national security depends on defeating Arctic-based threats to North America while blocking Russian and Chinese power projection into the North Atlantic and North Pacific. Greenland is the geostrategic linchpin connecting the Arctic, North America, and Europe. Alaska hosts the world’s highest concentration of fifth-generation fighters (F-22s and F-35s) and the U.S. Army’s 11th Airborne Division, reactivated in 2022. Deepwater ports like Kodiak support naval staging."

warontherocks.com

Greenland’s Military Possibilities for the United States - War on the Rocks

Over a thousand years ago, the Viking leader Erik the Red discovered a new land after being exiled for murdering his neighbor. To entice his fellow
warontherocks.com


Indeed and as I look more into this Greenland thingy the more obvious it becomes that someone at US Northern Command got to Trump about it because of course and otherwise Trump would have no clue of all this. Someone in Trump's defense and/or foreign policy shops.
 
Rich2018 said:
Nope it's exactly the same principle

Soldiers, especially commanders, should not blindly follow orders (or policy for that matter).
Click to expand...
Says the guy who probably hasn’t worn a uniform. If you would like to reword your response to such as: the My Lai massacre, which was clearly an illegal order, then it makes sense. However, what I’m hearing you say is that if the soldier or commander doesn’t like the order then it’s okay. If that were the case it destroys the discipline of the unit, an objective would not be taken, lives dependant on that unit obeying orders would be sacrificed, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
 
gman said:
Says the guy who probably hasn’t worn a uniform. If you would like to reword your response to such as: the My Lai massacre, which was clearly an illegal order, then it makes sense. However, what I’m hearing you say is that if the soldier or commander doesn’t like the order then it’s okay. If that were the case it destroys the discipline of the unit, an objective would not be taken, lives dependant on that unit obeying orders would be sacrificed, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Quick question. Where do Regulations originate? Congress. The Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress.

Now part of those guidelines is try not to offend the locals when you are in their Country. It would be as if someone was a guest in your house and started running down your beliefs. You would invite them to get their asses out wouldn’t you?

So you are mad at the Commander for not supporting the Political Leadership. The problem is the Political Leadership is not changing the agreements and understandings. The actual written rules. They’re just running their mouths like boorish idiots. Now if the Commander had come out in full throated support they would have fired her for violating the agreements.

Furthermore wouldn’t she have violated regulations by making political comments while representing the Military? When I wore the Uniform we were told that was a bad thing. People who did such things were penalized. But that was the old days right?
 
SavannahMann said:
Quick question. Where do Regulations originate? Congress. The Uniform Code of Military Justice was passed by Congress.

Now part of those guidelines is try not to offend the locals when you are in their Country. It would be as if someone was a guest in your house and started running down your beliefs. You would invite them to get their asses out wouldn’t you?

So you are mad at the Commander for not supporting the Political Leadership. The problem is the Political Leadership is not changing the agreements and understandings. The actual written rules. They’re just running their mouths like boorish idiots. Now if the Commander had come out in full throated support they would have fired her for violating the agreements.

Furthermore wouldn’t she have violated regulations by making political comments while representing the Military? When I wore the Uniform we were told that was a bad thing. People who did such things were penalized. But that was the old days right?
Click to expand...
I am not mad at the commander, but she knew better to keep her address to herself and that it was possibly offending to her boss. She chose to fall on her sword. It wasn’t a life threatening, do or die issue, but she made it one.
 
gman said:
I am not mad at the commander, but she knew better to keep her address to herself and that it was possibly offending to her boss. She chose to fall on her sword. It wasn’t a life threatening, do or die issue, but she made it one.
Click to expand...

The Commander sent out an email to people on the base, including Greenland Citizens we have working on the base, to reassure everyone that they were not changing the agreements or policies. You know, informing her command that they were continuing with the Status Quo.

The morons at the Political Leader level including DUI hire Hegseth wanted her to give full throated support to Trump and his insane rants. Despite that being a violation of regulations.

It just shows the truth. Let me describe it this way. The Clitoris has about 8,000 nerve endings. It still isn’t as sensitive as a MAGA Male.
 
gman said:
Says the guy who probably hasn’t worn a uniform.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about or who he's talking to.

gman said:
If you would like to reword your response to such as: the My Lai massacre, which was clearly an illegal order, then it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Some orders are clearly illegal, some less so
Like if the military was ordered to invade Greenland, would they ?

You could argue that such an act would not be breaking US law, but is that enough ?

gman said:
However, what I’m hearing you say is that if the soldier or commander doesn’t like the order then it’s okay. If that were the case it destroys the discipline of the unit, an objective would not be taken, lives dependant on that unit obeying orders would be sacrificed, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Nope, simply not "liking" an order is not enought. No where near enough - soldiers are often given orders that are unpleasant to carry out. That does not make them illegal.

You should learn the difference.
 
Cosmo said:
Then she should have shut the **** up about them. What does (did) she do there, anyway, besides living rent-free and collecting a paycheck?
Click to expand...

She should have shut up because Greenbeard doesn't presume to understand current politics ?

That doesn't make sense.
 
Rich2018 said:
Nice editing :)
Click to expand...
It was obvious in the initial one given I said "she" and Greenbeard is listed as Male, but I know you need a little extra help, so you're welcome! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom