Nope. They sent “troops” (like 15 people e.g. German), not AGAINST US, but exactly the opposite: To show Trump, that they take his security worries for real and that they can protect Greenland. Ridiculous.
Are you suggesting that NATO would break and the soldiers there would immediately lay down their guns and surrender to the US? Like Trump has just found one weird trick that NATO hates?
NATO would break down, yes.
Soldiers would lay down guns: I didn’t say anything about that.
It’s so weird people cannot see that a mutual protection treaty ends, once there’s fighting WITHIN the group - especially if it involves the strongest party. It’s so logical and clear it doesn’t even make sense to discuss.
That said, I’m outta here. Let’s hope it won’t happen.
I didn’t realize we were arguing about whether NATO would dissolve… of course it will. Frankly I didn’t think that question was really all that contentious, in fact it’s fairly obvious isn’t it?
NATO will instantly be invalidated, dissolve, whatever, and the Allies will switch over to other mutual defense agreements.
I don’t need to imagine, you said it plainly. There would not be a war.
What I’m saying is that there are EU and Canadian troops there. They are likely going to get in the way of the US if the US decides to occupy a port, or whatever it is the US decides to do to ‘take Greenland’. If the Allies try to prevent it and the Axis kills someone in the process, that will be difficult to just brush off politically. If Greenlanders die due to bombing, same thing.
I would be interested to know how anyone can imagine an Axis occupation of Greenland that doesn’t involve Axis powers exercising lethal force. What is the actual plan from Trump?
No EU country will send troops against the US.
They just did. They are certainly not in Greenland to defend it against say Thailand.
Nope. They sent “troops” (like 15 people e.g. German), not AGAINST US, but exactly the opposite: To show Trump, that they take his security worries for real and that they can protect Greenland. Ridiculous.
And even if it was against US, I ment combat. There is no combat in Greenland so far. As soon as this started, NATO would break.
Are you suggesting that NATO would break and the soldiers there would immediately lay down their guns and surrender to the US? Like Trump has just found one weird trick that NATO hates?
NATO would break down, yes. Soldiers would lay down guns: I didn’t say anything about that.
It’s so weird people cannot see that a mutual protection treaty ends, once there’s fighting WITHIN the group - especially if it involves the strongest party. It’s so logical and clear it doesn’t even make sense to discuss.
That said, I’m outta here. Let’s hope it won’t happen.
I didn’t realize we were arguing about whether NATO would dissolve… of course it will. Frankly I didn’t think that question was really all that contentious, in fact it’s fairly obvious isn’t it?
NATO will instantly be invalidated, dissolve, whatever, and the Allies will switch over to other mutual defense agreements.
and - what do you think I’m thinking? And what do you think would happen in that hypothetical case?
I don’t need to imagine, you said it plainly. There would not be a war.
What I’m saying is that there are EU and Canadian troops there. They are likely going to get in the way of the US if the US decides to occupy a port, or whatever it is the US decides to do to ‘take Greenland’. If the Allies try to prevent it and the Axis kills someone in the process, that will be difficult to just brush off politically. If Greenlanders die due to bombing, same thing.
I would be interested to know how anyone can imagine an Axis occupation of Greenland that doesn’t involve Axis powers exercising lethal force. What is the actual plan from Trump?
Nope, I didn’t say there would be no war.