Not comparing it to Turkey, but NATO in general, look at England, France, Denmark, and England have all responded to the dire threat in Greenland with a total of company strength of a handful of men and equipment.
Yes I can see China on that map ... a tiny bit of it. The missile launch sites shown are not in China. All are in Russia and labeled as such. The map targets for all Russian missiles is Washinton D.C. on the east coast of US which assumes D.C. would be the sole target. Of course it would not. Other targets to take out military sites would be scattered across the US. Those trajectories would not go over Greenland. The three left most trajectories illustrated on that map originate in eastern Siberia near China. They don't cross Greenland airspace even with D.C. as target. So I'm the one who can't read a map? Pffft.
Of course you were comparing Denmark/Greenland to Turkey. It is silly to think Denmark would be as duplicitous an ally as Turkey.
Invasion of Panama did not require Congressional approval. Neither did the invasion of Venezuela. The president can conduct "police actions" on his own initiative.
I see, it sounds like a good read! And like you say more or less spot on with current events.
It sounds rather silly on a first view, but if the US would ever invade Greenland and Nato allies would be honoring article 5, then that would mean that they would indeed have to fight against the US.
I think thats because they dont really see any real treat and that the deployment are actually more of them responding to Trumps comment about the Island being undefended and that they were hoping that he would take their deployment as a win similar to him getting Nato allies pay up and that it would make him calm down.
Turkey and Greece fought on Cyprus. Article 5 not used. So, everything is possible.
www.politico.eu
www.bbc.com
www.bbc.com
We certainly won't accuse you of being the brightest bulb in the room.....
Completely differ situation Einstein.
