Donald Trump 'orders US army chiefs to draw up plan to invade Greenland'

Ekklesian said:
I'm not trying to justify anything. Im just saying his motives aren't as black as being painted in the article being quoted.

But around here, Trump's unconstitutional acts of war seem only unquestionable when perpetrated against Iran.

Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...
Greenland hasn’t been chanting “death to America” and stockpiling nuclear weapons.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
Greenland hasn’t been chanting “death to America” and stockpiling nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Iran isn't stockpiling weapons. That's Bibi's old song and dance. If Florida were being bombed for IsraelTM, wouldn't some Floridians be chanting something similar?
 
Ekklesian said:
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. Iran isn't stockpiling weapons. That's Bibi's old song and dance. If Florida were being bombed for IsraelTM, wouldn't some Floridians be chanting something similar?
Click to expand...

Jooooooooooooooooos!
 
i know a lot of people who believe it was the 1973 war powers act itself that is unconstitutional..... rather than solving any conflict in the minds of congress between article 1 section 8 and article 2 section 2 of the u.s. constitution it merely added a 3rd layer to the confusion contrary to both articles - and resolved nothing........ both sections of the constitution allow a president to take military action without a formal declaration of war under certain circumstances..... but the actual declaration itself - which goes beyond simply authorizing military action - is the responsibility of congress...... ....whether or not any particular action of a president fits within the constitutions framework in that regard, often depends on who is looking at it - who is making a judgement... and what their own personal interests are..... ...
 
aleshanee said:
i know a lot of people who believe it was the 1973 war powers act itself that is unconstitutional..... rather than solving any conflict in the minds of congress between article 1 section 8 and article 2 section 2 of the u.s. constitution it merely added a 3rd layer to the confusion contrary to both articles - and resolved nothing........ both sections of the constitution allow a president to take military action without a formal declaration of war under certain circumstances..... but the actual declaration itself - which goes beyond simply authorizing military action - is the responsibility of congress...... ....whether or not any particular action of a president fits within the constitutions framework in that regard, often depends on who is looking at it - who is making a judgement... and what their own personal interests are..... ...
Click to expand...
I always viewed it like this: the president is allowed to send troops to battle, but only Congress is allowed to send troops to war. Of course, that’s not how it’s actually worked in many, many years.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I always viewed it like this: the president is allowed to send troops to battle, but only Congress is allowed to send troops to war. Of course, that’s not how it’s actually worked in many, many years.
Click to expand...
a single military action ordered by a president might involve doing things associated with war.. ....such as capturing a criminal like maduro.... stopping an illegal action by a criminal country... etc. .... .. .. but it should be limited in it;s scope and be ended as soon as it;s objective is realized......

but a war is generally against an entire country .... and congress declaring war means our whole country mobilizes and changes the way it does things in order to see that war to it;s end....... industry retools and begins making war machines and weapons... a draft might be ordered to bring more people into the military.... money is rerouted or taxed differently to fund the war.... .. all these things can be put into motion in a single day with a formal war declaration......

they are 2 different things even though when either one is being carried out - the political party not in power tends to pretend they are the same...... with all the talk now about what is or is not unconstitutional a lot of people are starting to get the idea the word "unconstitutional" simple describes something the other party is doing something someones own party doesn;t like...... .. soon it will be like the word racism... applied to anything and everything whether it;s racist or not........ it;s the implication of severity the other side wants to convey - not necessarily reality....
 
aleshanee said:
a single military action ordered by a president might involve doing things associated with war.. ....such as capturing a criminal like maduro.... stopping an illegal action by a criminal country... etc. .... .. .. but it should be limited in it;s scope and be ended as soon as it;s objective is realized.
Click to expand...
How would invading Greenland, which is a well-behaved, autonomous ally, fit into this description?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
How would invading Greenland, which is a well-behaved, autonomous ally, fit into this description?
Click to expand...
At least it would end once its objective is realized. I mean that's gotta count for something. 😉
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
How would invading Greenland, which is a well-behaved, autonomous ally, fit into this description?
Click to expand...
it wouldn;t.... if greenland becomes part of the united states it should be done through negotiation... .... ....unless... denmark or greenland starts doing things that makes it easier for russia or china to get a foothold in greenland.... rather than just looking the other way when those countries navys prowl around..... for instance - if the current lack of concern denmark shows towards russian or chinese agression becomes so apathetic that russia or china is actually able to start making landings and establishing camps or micro-bases .... (like china does with coral reefs located in international waters of south east asia)... ... then we should act and act quickly....

the best thing denmark/greenland could do right now is to offer the u.s.land in strategic areas to build military bases.... and the best thing the u.s. could do would be to accept that as being good enough and not to pursue ownership or control of greenland........ ..you are right - they are an ally..... and our relationship with other allys could depend on how we act towards greenland.... ..
 
aleshanee said:
the best thing denmark/greenland could do right now is to offer the u.s.land in strategic areas to build military bases
Click to expand...
We have a military base there already (Pituffik Space Base). I’m assuming you’re meaning a more traditional military base. That would be a good idea.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
We have a military base there already (Pituffik Space Base). I’m assuming you’re meaning a more traditional military base. That would be a good idea.
Click to expand...
establishing a deep water naval base would be good... ...something our submarines as well as bigger ships could operate from -
 
Despite his Israel™ blinders, Doug Wilson made an apt observation. The War Powers Act is not what the Founders had in mind.


It also should be noted that the "long history of messing around in Central America" wasn't a history of unilateral actions on the part of the Executive.

Lawyers have a knack for redefining reality (It is Corban). When you're dropping bombs on people, or firing missiles at them, it's an act of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top