I don't post chatty opiners. Nance has the chops to know what he is talking about. This is worth your time.

[flashman13]

I recently posted a condensed version of Nance's list of consequences which would result from an invasion of Greenland. I was pooh poohed by a number of replies. Maybe if we hear from an expert the message will get through.

What's the message? An attack on Greenland will have devastating consequences for the United States. The Danish pension fund AkademikerPension dumping their Treasury bills is just a taste of things to come even if there is no invasion. Trump made fun of Danish dog sleds. He has no idea that Denmark is an economic power house. Don't trifle with the Norse men.

[SheltieLover]

1. Devastation of USA is clearly tsf's goal in his RUSSIA FIRST plans

[flashman13]

2. Trumps mission is to amass a vast personal fortune, destroy the U.S. and NATO for Putin, and then flee to Russia.

This is by definition Occam's Razor. All of the events we see unfolding point to this simple explanation.

[SheltieLover]

3. Yup. Bilk the US Treasury & extort allies using our tax $ & military to do it

[littlemissmartypants]

5. Bingo.

"It’s a criminal enterprise."
~Malcolm Nance

[SheltieLover]

12. I love Malcom Nance!

Thx, Pants.

I'm no policy expert, so it should be patently obvious to anyone breathing.

[bdamomma]

10. He's

a Russian asset!!!!! Putin got what he wanted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SheltieLover]

13. So far ...

[irisblue]

4. Bumping

[littlemissmartypants]

6. ❤️

[Bev54]

7. No more Ozempic for Americans

I will bet that most Americans don't even know that 100% of their Ozempic comes from Denmark.

[Martin68]

8. It is quite obvious to me that the consequences of annexing Greenland would be catastrophic for all concerned (except

Russia and China). NATO is an essential shield against Russia's imperialist ambitions. Europe is also a vital trade partner for both economic and national security reasons. Anybody who thinks this is no big del has no understanding of the global situation.

[SheltieLover]

14. Absofuckingloutely!!!

[ancianita]

9. Here's the most important thing Nance overlooks. That US treaties are the Law of the Land under the US Constitution.

What that means is that the CIC and SecDef will be giving an illegal order to the US military to break a treaty -- THE same as violating the US Constitution. So they will refuse to invade because they've been issued an illegal order to violate the NATO treaty which is the same as violating the US Constitutio, both being the law of the land.

The U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, explicitly states that treaties made under U.S. authority are part of the "supreme Law of the Land," on par with the Constitution and federal laws, and are binding on state judges and officials. This means ratified treaties have the force of federal law and are enforceable in U.S. courts, superseding conflicting state laws.

I've posted about this before on DU
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20932234
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20932234

You're mistaken to believe that, as a military veteran, Nance can even hypothesize on whether the US will invade Greenland.
Nance himself show know a lot better about our treaties and therefore, any CIC's illegal order. Nance is out for clicks, and just making folks needlessly worry over a hypothetical.

[littlemissmartypants]

16. Hahaha!

I'm pretty sure Nance and you and a limitless number of other people, can hypothesize about anything. Last I checked there were no hypothesis police.

It can be very frustrating when people refuse to agree with ones hypothesis though. But isn't that the beauty of debate and freedom of speech?

It may be helpful to consider the number of times that a message has to be repeated for someone to actually value it. It's more than ten according to some scientific reports.

Stay encouraged, ancianita.

❤️

[flashman13]

19. I was quite literally writing a post about treaties under the Constitution when I saw your post. I guess I'll bag that.

Now, as far as shooting the messenger, you don't rebut what Nance says, only that as a vet he shouldn't say it. I see it as a former intelligence officer using his expertise and experience to enlighten the rest of us of potential consequences vis-a-vis NATO and Europe. He could have intentionally omitted discussing the internal political consequences.

No question about it. An order to attack a NATO treaty ally would be an illegal order. The upper echelons of the military certainly understand the consequences. The big question is, would they refuse to execute that illegal order? Up until very recently I would say that they absolutely would not execute such a blatantly illegal order. At this point I am not all that sure. However, I also think many in the lower ranks would also know it was an illegal order and would refuse obey and would not attack NATO military personnel which they have trained with for decades. It could fracture the military. How would China and Russia react to dissension in the ranks? Those are more uncharted consequences. Or the whole thing could swing in the other direction. The general officers could say enough of Trump's BS and stage a coup to remove the entire regime. Again I would never believe that possible, but we have never been in this position before. Anything is possible.

In summary, a mad man has been allowed to drive us to the edge of a cliff. If he pushes us over that edge every man, woman and child both here and abroad will pay an extremely high price.

Let me just finish by saying that after Munich, Churchill clearly described a hypothetical of the consequences of appeasement. That hypothetical was WWII. If you're not worried, you're not paying attention.

[ancianita]

21. Okay. I hear you. I get it. Some hypotheticals are close to reality, and this could happen.

I still believe there is enough military leadership to hold the six forces of the US military to their oath, and leave the CIC and SecDef hanging out to dry. When that happens they'll be seen for the foolish and lawless leaders they are.

I've always admired Nance, bought his books. I just thought that at this time he should remind Americans to see the legal side of this and not just prep them for the worst.

[flashman13]

22. I do understand your consideration of the law. I was in the process of saying exactly what you said regarding treaties.

I think when push comes to shove I think the military would refuse the order to invade Greenland. To some extent it would probably depend on how deeply the MAGAts have penetrated the chain of command.

If Trump gives the order and the Pentagon says no, that will be a serious break point. You might even consider it a soft coup. Many MAGAts will. We are so far out in the weeds it's difficult to guess the outcome.

[ancianita]

24. "If Trump gives the order and the Pentagon says no, that will be a serious break point." It means the military will

hold for the U.S. Constitution and Rule of Law, and for The People over rule of men.

The world is against Trump. Just not enough global oligarchs. The world has a million millionaires and as of this year over 3,000 billionaires globally. But only 400 of that 1,003,000 are calling for taxation of the superrich. I just posted this.
And I believe the remaining 1,002,600 won't listen. These superrich will go down with the planet they're ruining along with the millions of human souls they've killed out of selfish indifference.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all quote Jesus: "For what shall it profit man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

Life is the blink of any eye. Eternity is long.

[flashman13]

25. " It means the military will hold for the U.S. Constitution and Rule of Law, and for The People over rule of men."

That's what it means.

[vapor2]

26. Sometimes I do think he is an alarmist

[ChicagoTeamster]

11. Years ago I tried telling MAGA relatives about the NATO nations that lost troops for us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I told them that Article 5 had been invoked to protect the United States after the September 11 attacks and Canada, Denmark, Germany, UK, Sweden, France had all contributed troops and material for over 20 years. Even during Desert Storm. In the 80s, the UN was Canada's Vietnam. Canadians protested their military being deployed all over the world as peace keepers.

They laughed and didn't believe me. They are so fu@*ing stupid and willfully ignorant.

They also don't believe that EURO countries have strong free market economies that are invested in the US. They invest their national retirement funds in our stocks and bonds especially US bonds. They think they're all socialist and poor. These people don't travel or watch World News. Nor do they care to.

[SheltieLover]

15. If you can, block rwnj tv stations on their remotes

[ChicagoTeamster]

17. Out in Middle America, it's more about the radio than TV. Years of Rush Limbaugh and other Sinclair Networks crap.

All basic cable packages seem to include FOX news. A few years back there was a push to tell cable providers that you didn't want FOX and wouldn't take the package if FOX was included. Don't know what happened with that. But people tried. I just got cable internet without the TV package and use a Fire Stick.

[SheltieLover]

18. Yuck fire & brimstone via radio. Barf

I've not watched any tv in >10 yrs.

[ChicagoTeamster]

20. From Junior year HS til my mid 30s I lived without a TV. Now I mainly watch news, Kimmel, Netflix, Paramount+, AMC.

[SheltieLover]

23. I ignore all of it.