4 ms·

> they're on standby for Minnesota and not Greenland You say this like it's better?

by jghn 9mo ago

lawn 9mo ago
For the rest of the world, yes. I feel bad for the people in Minnesota though.
chasd00 9mo ago
No, i'm saying that because the article wants to paint a picture of the US Army mobilizing to invade Greenland but that's not what's happening. FTFA> "Adding to the unease are unconfirmed reports of increased Special Operations Forces activity linked to Arctic training and reconnaissance." Narrator> it's Winter in the US..
jpkw 9mo ago
Deploying troops to Greenland right now would be solely aimed at seizing Greenland by force and would be a major international incident against the US's most important military allies. Deploying troops to Minnesota would be a domestic show of force that would have minimal impact, as they are incapable of seizing Minnesota for the US as it is already a US territory, so they would be used to guard public buildings (and would basically just sit around doing nothing all day).
- dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
  > and would basically just sit around doing nothing all day This is what everybody hopes for, myself included.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  > would be a major international incident against the US's most important military allies. The thing Trump's spent months "hinting" at? Yes. Are we still giving the BOTD after what happened at Venezuela, and how they are trying to push the "Donroe Doctrine"? Do we REALLY need this to escalate to WW3 before we stop defending Trump? No, people died in COVID defending their stances. People will never admit out loud that they regret their vote. Will be burning in radiation and still trying to put up a front that Trump was good for America.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  > Deploying troops to Minnesota would be a domestic show of force that would have minimal impact, as they are incapable of seizing Minnesota for the US as it is already a US territory, so they would be used to guard public buildings (and would basically just sit around doing nothing all day). It would, at best, be a domestic show of force to further an ongoing campaign of violent, including lethal, state terrorism directed against the civilian population, in violation of the Constitution and laws and direct judicial orders; and at worst a direct addition of the military to the federal paramilitary forces actively engaging in that campaign, rather than merely a show of force in support of it. Can't think of any Trump action that has manifested in the way that would have been described as “at best” in advance, but I guess it is theoretically possible this could be the first.

> they're on standby for Minnesota and not Greenland You say this like it's better?

by jghn 9mo ago

> they're on standby for Minnesota and not Greenland You say this like it's better?

lawn 9mo ago

For the rest of the world, yes. I feel bad for the people in Minnesota though.

chasd00 9mo ago

No, i'm saying that because the article wants to paint a picture of the US Army mobilizing to invade Greenland but that's not what's happening. FTFA> "Adding to the unease are unconfirmed reports of increased Special Operations Forces activity linked to Arctic training and reconnaissance." Narrator> it's Winter in the US..

jpkw 9mo ago

Deploying troops to Greenland right now would be solely aimed at seizing Greenland by force and would be a major international incident against the US's most important military allies. Deploying troops to Minnesota would be a domestic show of force that would have minimal impact, as they are incapable of seizing Minnesota for the US as it is already a US territory, so they would be used to guard public buildings (and would basically just sit around doing nothing all day).

dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
> and would basically just sit around doing nothing all day This is what everybody hopes for, myself included.
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
> would be a major international incident against the US's most important military allies. The thing Trump's spent months "hinting" at? Yes. Are we still giving the BOTD after what happened at Venezuela, and how they are trying to push the "Donroe Doctrine"? Do we REALLY need this to escalate to WW3 before we stop defending Trump? No, people died in COVID defending their stances. People will never admit out loud that they regret their vote. Will be burning in radiation and still trying to put up a front that Trump was good for America.
dragonwriter 9mo ago
> Deploying troops to Minnesota would be a domestic show of force that would have minimal impact, as they are incapable of seizing Minnesota for the US as it is already a US territory, so they would be used to guard public buildings (and would basically just sit around doing nothing all day). It would, at best, be a domestic show of force to further an ongoing campaign of violent, including lethal, state terrorism directed against the civilian population, in violation of the Constitution and laws and direct judicial orders; and at worst a direct addition of the military to the federal paramilitary forces actively engaging in that campaign, rather than merely a show of force in support of it. Can't think of any Trump action that has manifested in the way that would have been described as “at best” in advance, but I guess it is theoretically possible this could be the first.