how far is trump to go for greenland

RDKirk · Tuesday at 10:34 AM

essentialsaltes said:
Broglio: US troops could refuse Greenland orders
The archbishop of the U.S. military services said U.S. troops in good conscience could refuse orders to invade an ally.
Speaking to the BBC on Jan. 18. Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services said he “cannot see any circumstances” in which an American military operation to take control of Greenland or another ally’s territory could fulfill the criteria for a just war.

The archbishop also said administration rhetoric on Greenland “tarnishes the image of the United States.”

Asked whether he is concerned about Catholics serving in the military who might be asked to participate in a military operation to take control of Greenland, Broglio responded, “I am obviously worried, because they could be put in a situation where they’re being ordered to do something which is morally questionable.”

“And it would be very difficult for a soldier or a Marine or a sailor by himself to disobey an order such as that,” he continued. “But strictly speaking, he or she, within the realm of their own conscience, it would be morally acceptable to disobey that order. But that’s perhaps putting that individual in an untenable situation, and that’s my concern.”

In an interview earlier this month, Trump was asked about the limits of his power to act globally.

The president responded that the only thing that limits him is “my own morality,” also saying, “I don’t need international law.”

The technical legalities are iffy for troops.

An illegal order is an order that requires a soldier to break a law--a law that's applicable to that soldier. If the law is not applicable to that soldier, it's technically not illegal to order the soldier to break it.

So, there is a 2023 law that prohibits the president from withdrawing from NATO without Congressional approval. But there is no law explicitly making it illegal for a soldier to be deployed to Greenland, despite the fact that deploying him to Greenland would result in the US no longer being a member of NATO. That is to say, there is no law by which soldiers themselves can be prosecuted for being in Greenland. So, it would not be illegal for them to obey such an order.

And whether the 2023 law is powerful enough to prevent the president from giving the order would have to go to court. The bad thing about that is that the Congress historically lets the president get away with anything he does with the military, and the court historically shies away from how the president controls the military.

So...nobody has a clear legal requirement to tell the president, "No" to a deployment to Greenland. Or anywhere, actually.

The generals would have to respect the spirit of the intent of Congress. Knowing that the intent of Congress is to keep the US in NATO, and knowing that putting troops in Greenland is tantamount to the US withdrawing from NATO, the generals would have to be willing to resign en masse in respect to the spirit of the law, not to the letter of the law. They would have to do what Admiral Holsey did with respect to Venezuela.

Deborah1$ · Tuesday at 10:54 AM

Servus said:
Since a lot of the world relies upon the US to keep them safe, why object to what would help the US in providing even more protection?

What the U.S. wants is already "doable" without the need to take over Greenland. Greenland is already giving the U.S. unlimmited access to what the U.S. wants. What Greenland wants is autonomy from the U.S. They want their own way of life and not being under the thumb of the U.S. Greenland's healthcare provides free services to citizens. What happens to that?

loveofourlord · Tuesday at 11:04 AM

essentialsaltes said:
While some of that may apply, he was appointed by the Pope. As I understand it, although his office oversees Catholic military chaplains, he and his office are part of the Church and not part of the military.

your an idiot, obviously biden told the pope to hire him!

RDKirk · Tuesday at 11:05 AM

Deborah1$ said:
What the U.S. wants is already "doable" without the need to take over Greenland. Greenland is already giving the U.S. unlimmited access to what the U.S. wants. What Greenland wants is autonomy from the U.S. They want their own way of life and not being under the thumb of the U.S. Greenland's healthcare provides free services to citizens. What happens to that?

The Inuit in Greenland see what has become of the indigenous people of the US and Canada.

They see that whatever financial offer they get from the US, it will become chump change within a couple of generations, just as it became for the indigenous people in the US who sold their mineral rights instead of licensing them.

mark46 · Tuesday at 11:08 AM

Nithavela said:
You can see this effect with chinese trade. China has rerouted a lot of it's production towards europe, causing reduced prices because of higher supply. This both hurts european economies because now local producers have to compete with low prices and china because they can't as much money for their products.

Sure, you can sell elsewhere. But there's fallout.

And yet, it's a price worth paying for ones commitments.

to be clear, you are complaining that the tariffs are causing lower prices because China has reduced costs to Europe?

mark46 · Tuesday at 11:19 AM

loveofourlord said:
I love how the only move trump knows is tariffs, on countries that no longer really trade with the US because all he knows is tariffs heh. Oh no...more tariffs....anyway, china you want to finish this trade agreement?

Do you think that Canada no longer trades with the US?

essentialsaltes · Tuesday at 11:23 AM

loveofourlord said:
your an idiot

*you're

Nithavela · Tuesday at 11:49 AM

mark46 said:
to be clear, you are complaining that the tariffs are causing lower prices because China has reduced costs to Europe?

I am not complaining about anything. Please don't put such a spin on my posts.

I am EXplaining that while costs for consumers are reduced, it puts more pressure on producers in europe because of increased price pressure because of higher supply, as an example of how rerouting trade due to tariffs has consequences beyond not trading with the USA.

mark46 · Tuesday at 12:00 PM

Nithavela said:
I am not complaining about anything. Please don't put such a spin on my posts.

I am EXplaining that while costs for consumers are reduced, it puts more pressure on producers in europe because of increased price pressure because of higher supply, as an example of how rerouting trade due to tariffs has consequences beyond not trading with the USA.

fair enough

I'll be more clear.

I believer that US tariffs have resulted in lower consumer prices in Europe. Do you agree?

I understand that some in Europe consider this to be a negative, just as Trump does for imports into the US.

The open question is whether lower prices are a good thing and to what degree local producers should be protected from competition. If European governments want to protect their high-cost producers, then they can put higher tariffs on Chinese goods. I don't think that Europe has chosen this path. It seems that they are choosing the path of more trade with fewer trade barriers, and lower prices for their consumers/voters.

Nithavela · Tuesday at 12:07 PM

mark46 said:
fair enough

I'll be more clear.

I believer that US tariffs have resulted in lower consumer prices in Europe. Do you agree?

Yes.

mark46 said:
I understand that some in Europe consider this to be a negative, just as Trump does for imports into the US.

The open question is whether lower prices are a good thing and to what degree local producers should be protected from competition. If European governments want to protect their high-cost producers, then they can put higher tariffs on Chinese goods. I don't think that Europe has chosen this path. It seems that they are choosing the path of more trade with fewer trade barriers, and lower prices for their consumers/voters.

Something can be both good for one group and bad for another.

I think that a more long-term view of things would be beneficial. We are already quite dependent on chinese imports.

mark46 · Tuesday at 12:25 PM

10% of EU exports go to the US. Further increases in tariffs might decrease this a bit and of course increase the cost to consumers of European goods in the US.

As the Economist has noted, an increase will have relatively little effect (other than to continue overall price decreases of goods in Europe).

I expect that Europe will be more selective than the US in choosing their retaliatory efforts, both tariffs on US goods, and export controls.
=========

loveofourlord · Tuesday at 12:48 PM

mark46 said:
10% of EU exports go to the US. Further increases in tariffs might decrease this a bit and of course increase the cost to consumers of European goods in the US.

As the Economist has noted, an increase will have relatively little effect (other than to continue overall price decreases of goods in Europe).

I expect that Europe will be more selective than the US in choosing their retaliatory efforts, both tariffs on US goods, and export controls.
=========

problem isn't what % of imports the US gets from other countries, but what % of those imports come from other countries. Remember most of the potash/aluminium and energy come from Canada, the effects of Canada cutting that off be devestating.

Aryeh Jay · Tuesday at 12:50 PM

loveofourlord said:
Remember most of the potash/aluminium and energy come from Canada, the effects of Canada cutting that off be devestating.

Yes, devastating, to Canada.

loveofourlord · Tuesday at 12:55 PM

Aryeh Jay said:
Yes, devastating, to Canada.

well true, but only because trump probably be crazy enough to invade over it.

loveofourlord · Tuesday at 12:59 PM

mark46 said:
10% of EU exports go to the US. Further increases in tariffs might decrease this a bit and of course increase the cost to consumers of European goods in the US.

As the Economist has noted, an increase will have relatively little effect (other than to continue overall price decreases of goods in Europe).

I expect that Europe will be more selective than the US in choosing their retaliatory efforts, both tariffs on US goods, and export controls.
=========

hmmmm lets also see, most of americas pharmaceuticals, and products to make them, machine parts, chemicals and many other things come from Europe, can't imagine that be good for the US to have all that cut off or tariffed. Kinda like trumps boneheaded move on aluminium when the US needs half a decade or more to make up from what is bought from canada.

Aryeh Jay · Tuesday at 1:00 PM

loveofourlord said:
well true, but only because trump probably be crazy enough to invade over it.

It would be over in a week and we will be greeted as a liberating force for good.

Aryeh Jay · Tuesday at 1:04 PM

mark46 · Tuesday at 1:05 PM

loveofourlord said:
hmmmm lets also see, most of americas pharmaceuticals, and products to make them, machine parts, chemicals and many other things come from Europe, can't imagine that be good for the US to have all that cut off or tariffed. Kinda like trumps boneheaded move on aluminium when the US needs half a decade or more to make up from what is bought from canada.

Yup, there are critical products in the 10% that the US. Europe could choose an embargo over tairffs. Of course, Trump already has agreements to move a lot of the pharmaceuticals production to the US.

loveofourlord · Tuesday at 1:07 PM

mark46 said:
Yup, there are critical products in the 10% that the US. Europe could choose an embargo over tairffs. Of course, Trump already has agreements to move a lot of the pharmaceuticals production toe the US.

yeah...A) not happening,many of least companies in other industries are not moving with how volitile the US is, and B) you can't just plop down a new plant in a week, these things take years to build, train people to make. While the US is waiting for doemestic stuff, europe could cut off the US in response to threats, and the US be hurting.

loveofourlord · Tuesday at 1:08 PM

Aryeh Jay said:
It would be over in a week and we will be greeted as a liberating force for good.

yeah, but all those terrorists canada has in the US disguised as tourists would devestate the US!!...oh wait I was supposed to keep that a secret.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

how far is trump to go for greenland

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Broglio: US troops could refuse Greenland orders​

The archbishop of the U.S. military services said U.S. troops in good conscience could refuse orders to invade an ally.​

Active Member

Newbie

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Stuck on a ship.

Newbie

Newbie

Stuck on a ship.

Stuck on a ship.

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Broglio: US troops could refuse Greenland orders

The archbishop of the U.S. military services said U.S. troops in good conscience could refuse orders to invade an ally.