Greendland - why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the cycle of life. Larger animals eat smaller ones. More sophisticated nations conquer unsophisticated ones. Don't try to fight what comes naturally.

Like an obese old man with vascular issues having a massive heart attack while sitting on the toilet after downing one too many Big Macs. 😏

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever.

Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever.

Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved.

DP no Russia can’t. In fact Russia has been using its bomber force since the beginning of the conflict. Russia does not enter Ukraine airspace because they would be shot down. They stand off in Russia airspace and launch missiles.

Oh and the Ukraine has nuclear weapons. Russia is a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside how he has gone about it, what's wrong with the idea of Greenland joining the US. It cannot be negative for the very small population over there, and could be positive for them. As for the US many many benefits. So, setting aside the rhetoric, what's wrong?

Honest question: what’s the benefit to the US? Military considerations or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Russia is not holding back in the Ukraine. That is an idiotic statement. Russia has lost 3 armies against 1980’s technology against a country with a fourth of its population and a 10th of its GDP. NATO without the US would destroy Russia even with the US bricking the F35 and surveillance tech. NATO without the US has a population of 610 million and a GPD of 26 trillion vs Russia’s 144 million and GDP of 1.8 trillion. Who do you think would win?

If the US takes Greenland 7 European states will go nuclear within a month with missiles pointed at the US. Also NATO will be over and the US will lose all European bases(31 major bases and 50-80 shared access). The US military will not be allow to enter or refuel/resupply in European territory. They will sanction the US(and Israel). Israel’s survival depends on US pressure on Europe and would be crippled with European sanctions.

The US would lose Australia joint bases, British Indian Ocean Territory naval bases(Diego Garcia), Canadian air force bases, Singapore air force bases, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (United Kingdom) air force bases, Ascension Island (United Kingdom) space force bases, etc. The logistics problem supplying the US fleet would be almost unworkable. Oh and Five Eyes and all intelligence sharing would be over.

Without NATO we would have to conservatively increase our defense spending by 3-4 times to maintain the same presence. Seems like a great trade for a place that will be cover with 2 miles of ice for 500-1,000 years, we can access any of their resources through the free market and we already have bases on.

You republicans have chosen Russia over Europe and NATO. It is utterly stupid(see above)

Russia doesn’t use their heavy bombers/missiles on Ukraine, they could but don’t.

It sounds like you think Europe can defend itself w/o the US in NATO. I agree, fantastic, close the US bases in Europe and send all the troops/equipment home. WWll ended 75+years ago, why are still there given all their economic/military power that you cite ? The rest of the bases can be negotiated with the other countries. But, the more that are closed, the better. The US has been defending the world forever, let others step up. We’ll worry about the Western hemisphere, which includes Greenland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside how he has gone about it, what's wrong with the idea of Greenland joining the US. It cannot be negative for the very small population over there, and could be positive for them. As for the US many many benefits. So, setting aside the rhetoric, what's wrong?

Honest question: what’s the benefit to the US? Military considerations or something?

Really, maybe you should look at a map of the world. Concentrate on the Atlantic Ocean part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside how he has gone about it, what's wrong with the idea of Greenland joining the US. It cannot be negative for the very small population over there, and could be positive for them. As for the US many many benefits. So, setting aside the rhetoric, what's wrong?

Honest question: what’s the benefit to the US? Military considerations or something?

With climate change, the polar world is going to be very active. So that's Russia, China, Canada, the US with Alaska, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark and Greenland.

The US could get whatever it wants with a cooperative approach with Canada and Scandinavia. But the US has chosen a very belligerent, imperialistic approach. Which will likely weaken America's position in the arctic in the end. Trump's position is profoundly stupid and will be very costly for American interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Setting aside how he has gone about it, what's wrong with the idea of Greenland joining the US. It cannot be negative for the very small population over there, and could be positive for them. As for the US many many benefits. So, setting aside the rhetoric, what's wrong?

Honest question: what’s the benefit to the US? Military considerations or something?

With climate change, the polar world is going to be very active. So that's Russia, China, Canada, the US with Alaska, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark and Greenland.

The US could get whatever it wants with a cooperative approach with Canada and Scandinavia. But the US has chosen a very belligerent, imperialistic approach. Which will likely weaken America's position in the arctic in the end. Trump's position is profoundly stupid and will be very costly for American interests.

This. Anyone who can't see that Trump's aggressive posturing and what he has done in Venezuela is a bad idea that weakens us in the long run is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever.

Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved.

No. Russia has lost more than 400 aircraft in this war, and an additional 350 or so helicopters. Ukraine too has its losses, which is why the F-16s and so on tend to only operate in western Ukraine to shoot down drones and missiles. Neither side is getting anywhere close to the line of contact. Anything in the air gets shot down. And Ukraine is very good at it. They do have Patriots and other systems to make Russian air power pretty useless except for long distance glide bombs.

This war would be very different if one side had air dominance. But neither does. So we have this war of attrition. We should all be very grateful we have F-22s, F-35s, and stealth bombers so that American soldiers never have to fight this kind of war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever.

Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved.

No. Russia has lost more than 400 aircraft in this war, and an additional 350 or so helicopters. Ukraine too has its losses, which is why the F-16s and so on tend to only operate in western Ukraine to shoot down drones and missiles. Neither side is getting anywhere close to the line of contact. Anything in the air gets shot down. And Ukraine is very good at it. They do have Patriots and other systems to make Russian air power pretty useless except for long distance glide bombs.

This war would be very different if one side had air dominance. But neither does. So we have this war of attrition. We should all be very grateful we have F-22s, F-35s, and stealth bombers so that American soldiers never have to fight this kind of war.

Russia has cruise missiles that they are holding in reserve, they are unstoppable. But they are not using them for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the US is serious about "taking over" Greenland, then it is at least as great as security threat to Western Europe as Russia is.

And should be treated accordingly.

Treated by who exactly, the vaunted Danish military ? Like it or not, Trump has the “cards” on this one.

NATO

There is no NATO without the US. That’s a reality you can’t deny when you start analyzing the relative military capabilities. T of course knows this.

You're thinking the US would commit to a full scale global conflict? No, they wouldn't. There are more than enough military resources to push back on Trump. And the global sanctions against the US would be crippling. The US would be descend into the relative dark ages for the sole purpose of entertaining the mad king.

WTF are you talking about ? If the US decided to put more installations there it, it would be up to whatever is left to stop them. The French have one aircraft carrier, the Germans have zero, the French carrier would never make it out of port. The rest of NATO is defensive, not offensive. They are deathly afraid of this country called Russia, ever heard of them ? They’re not moving any troops to defend Greenland against the US. That’s a joke.

First of all, as an ALLY of DENMARK, the U.S. has already been welcome to put military installations there. So there is nothing to gain by this hostile stance.

Secondly, on paper alone, by sheer superiority in numbers and everything else, Russia should have taken Ukraine within a month. Nearly 3 years later, they are still entrenched where they were for the last two years, and they lost ONE MILLION MEN. Warfare is not determined by what is on paper at the outset.

Ugh, Ukraine gets alot of help from the US, and Russia is holding back so they don’t just level the entire country.

What you don’t address is where is non-US NATO getting the offensive capabilities to kick the US out of an established position in Greenland. They don’t have it. There navies are putrid. They spent all their minimal funds to fight a land war with Russia, as they should since the US won’t be there to defend them per the logic of this thread.

Pray tell, how is Russia holding back after suffering 1.2 million casualties after four years of grinding war. They couldn't take Ukraine. They tried. Couldn't do it back when Ukraine was weak. And now Russia has lost more than a million men for a few kilometers in Donetsk, which will be uninhabitable for generations because of all the mines, unexploded ordnance, and FBV wires.

Sure, Ukraine made a mistake turning over nukes in exchange for peace back in 1993. But France and the UK could vaporize Moscow in a heartbeat if it comes to that. And their missiles will work, unlike Russia. Russian air defense has proven to be very weak, and corruption runs very deep in the Russian military. They've lost nearly all their armor and tanks. Russia is reduced to sending convicts and old men on their assaults, mostly in civilian unarmored vehicles or motorcycles, even horses. And they die. Drones have made everything within 20 kilometers of the front line a kill zone. Russia is very weak presently. Europe could take Russia very easily today if Russia made the mistake of starting things in the Baltics or Poland.

But you are right. No one is fighting the US if they take Greenland. But there are a gazillion different ways that Europe will make that hurt. It will be financial oblivion for the US if they choose that course of action. And the US will lose all its bases in Europe. What's interesting is how enthusiastic Republicans are for this course of action. Absolute nutcases. And that has already changed the world forever.

Russia could bomb them into oblivion with heavy bombers, they don’t do it because they are afraid the West would get involved.

No. Russia has lost more than 400 aircraft in this war, and an additional 350 or so helicopters. Ukraine too has its losses, which is why the F-16s and so on tend to only operate in western Ukraine to shoot down drones and missiles. Neither side is getting anywhere close to the line of contact. Anything in the air gets shot down. And Ukraine is very good at it. They do have Patriots and other systems to make Russian air power pretty useless except for long distance glide bombs.

This war would be very different if one side had air dominance. But neither does. So we have this war of attrition. We should all be very grateful we have F-22s, F-35s, and stealth bombers so that American soldiers never have to fight this kind of war.

Russia has cruise missiles that they are holding in reserve, they are unstoppable. But they are not using them for some reason.

The Kalibr? Ukraine shoots down most of them, but not all. Regardless, Russia is not holding anything back - except nukes. What you see in Ukraine is what you get from Russia. This is total war for them. And Poland would defeat them in a week if Russia chose that course of action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just as an aside, the Danish military has a grand total of 21,000 active duty, across all 3 services. WTF ?

They’re not going to war with anybody over anything, and are totally reliant on NATO to save their ass if something happens.

They are only have a population of 6,000,000. The military to civilian ratio is pretty similar to the US. That is literally the point of the NATO that they all help each other.

China has a population of 1.4 billion. What’s America got? A few hundred mil? China should just invade the U.S. by your logic. Obviously no one, NATO or otherwise, would help us, since we don’t “need” them.

EXACTLY. A return to might makes right unleashes chaos that will bite everyone around the globe, including us, in the a**.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just as an aside, the Danish military has a grand total of 21,000 active duty, across all 3 services. WTF ?

They’re not going to war with anybody over anything, and are totally reliant on NATO to save their ass if something happens.

They are only have a population of 6,000,000. The military to civilian ratio is pretty similar to the US. That is literally the point of the NATO that they all help each other.

China has a population of 1.4 billion. What’s America got? A few hundred mil? China should just invade the U.S. by your logic. Obviously no one, NATO or otherwise, would help us, since we don’t “need” them.

You’re arguing with the wrong person. I was just saying Denmark is a small nation with a small military.

Well no s**t. Thanks for explaining that. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Americans want nothing to do with this

Trumpers want whatever Trump wants. So unfortunately, yes they do.

trumpers only account for about a quarter of the population.

If we can make it to this year's election....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who wants to live in a world where petty bullies rule?

The startlingly large number of uneducated, petty bullies we call fellow citizens, apparently.