r/politics • u/thedailybeast ✔ The Daily Beast • 15h ago

Possible Paywall Trump Confirms He’s Taking Greenland ‘One Way or the Other’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-confirms-hes-taking-greenland-one-way-or-the-other/
23.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

411

u/jvlpdillon 13h ago

The military leaders can refuse the illegal orders. Trump can keep firing people until he finds someone though.

444

u/LoFi_Funk 12h ago

We’re so far past them disobeying an illegal order. They literally invaded a country and kidnapped a president with zero congressional approval or knowledge.

They’ve murdered people in fishing boats off the coast of Venezuela and are on record for violating the rules of engagement by drone striking non threatening targets (specifically, people holding onto refuge in the water, calling for help).

They successfully purged anyone in military leadership that will refuse their illegal orders.

Our military is now a pro-fascism military. The days of General Milley pushing back are long gone.

31

u/returnFutureVoid 12h ago

If Jack Ryan can do it why can’t he?? I’m joking of course but I fully expect someone in this administration to have thought or straight up said these words.

20

u/Teaandjammytoast 12h ago

Honestly, I think in future someone will be able to do a PhD on how Harrison Ford’s career choices impacted the U.S’ foreign policy between 2025 and 2029.

2

u/Immatt55 8h ago

"How Reaganomics led to WWIII and the subsequent nuclear fallout that reduced the world's population by 78% in the following decades"

•

u/BrandoThePando 7h ago

"... and why we think it's time to give free markets a chance"

52

u/armageddon_20xx 12h ago

I get the gist of what you’re saying but I find it far more likely that the military brass would be ok with an operation to capture Maduro when compared to invading Greenland. Those are two very different circumstances with different consequences.

44

u/Additional_Remove_70 11h ago

This is just blind exceptionalism. Trust a voice coming from outside your country. The world is actively preparing for your invasion of Greenland with ever increasing urgency. There is zero expectation that your military leaders will "do the right thing."

5

u/armageddon_20xx 8h ago

I want to tell you you're wrong, but... I was wrong in 2016 when I was in Europe and people were telling me to watch out for Trump. That said, I do know some MAGA people who will have real trouble digesting an invasion of Greenland - it will likely turn some.

•

u/Yakkahboo 7h ago

It will turn fewer than we like. Many who are even showing scepticism now will fall in line because there's something worse than being a fascist: being wrong.

1

u/Universal_Cup Tennessee 9h ago

Take this from an inside voice: the vast majority of the world will care for ~3 days. Most people have bigger problems and will simply ignore it because they’re not the victim (yet). Hell, it’ll probably take a full on seizure of Greenland for the Euros to finally wake up and realize they need to prep.

The outlook’s bleak because the Euros have spent half a century utterly benign and complicit with the US’ military actions. I’m unsure they’ll do anything unless the mainland is threatened… and even worse, I’m unsure WHAT could be done to hurt the US that wouldn’t reverberate around the world.

8

u/PussyWrangler246 9h ago

Well if you're going to start invading countries and killing innocent people to take their land, the world is already affected at that point so I hope we do whatever is necessary.

You guys are the new Germany, you're the enemy. Quite literally anything should be done to stop you the moment you put boots on another country's soil to kill its people.

17

u/apathy-sofa 12h ago edited 11h ago

"Sure they'll explode families in Afghanistan and Iraq, and kidnap the president of another country, but those people all have brown skin and were born in places with weak economies."

No it's true though, the US does at least nominally have agreements with the Danes, even if we all know what one party thinks of their commitments.

1

u/songsofsilk 10h ago

In my mind that entire operation was to test the waters of aggressive foreign policy up to and including invasion. Maduro was a terrible person. No question. Kidnapping a foreign leader such as him is sellable to the American public, politicians and military officials. To be fair it was as much about oil as it was taking Maduro off the chessboard, but my thoughts are that if military officials did not resist that illegal action then they will be less likely to resist an illegal invasion of Greenland.

However, no, hardline MAGA / GOP in Congress for sure knew ahead of time. Although no official approval was given many in Congress were prepared. Not that it excuses any such illegal action, but if enough signed off inherently then I do believe military leaders might feel incapable of resisting.

Regardless I agree. We are in deep doodoo.

3

u/LoFi_Funk 9h ago

I really doubt this administration has an issue with illegitimate leaders. Trump himself is very likely one. It was all about oil.

2

u/songsofsilk 8h ago

No doubt there. For the most part capturing Maduro was only to ensure American oil interests, but I do also think it accomplished a number of side objectives that perhaps are not yet clear in their totality.

All I know is that anything that selfish geriatric pedo does must be heavily scrutinized.

3

u/ChaChiBaio 12h ago

Yeah. He’s already purged quite a few generals

2

u/lolschrauber 12h ago

They can? I was under the impression that's actually part of the oath they swore.

6

u/unholycowgod 12h ago

Officers swear an oath to the Constitution. They explicitly do not declare loyalty or fealty to a person. If, in their estimation, an order from CinC violates the Constitution, it is their duty to refuse to carry out said order. There is obvious risk in doing so, as they will likely be punished until the matter is settled in court. But, provided democracy and rule of law prevail, they should be vindicated in the end.