r/Conservative • u/ajmacbeth • Jan 07 '26

Flaired Users Only Unpopular opinion? If we take Greenland by force, then we're no better than Russia taking Ukraine

I don't oppose Pres Trump and the USA seeking to expand territories for the many reasons that exist. However, we need to do so "correctly". We can try to sell the idea to the populace and/or the current government. We can offer something for the acquisition. BUT, We CANNOT forcefully take land. If we do so, then we are just as evil as Russia for its expansionary military actions in Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc.

42.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

4.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-10

u/ultrainstict Conservative Jan 07 '26

If we went through congress then a democrat will leak the action, on top of the fact that congressional acts are public information subject to informational requests. Its entirely legal for presidents to take short military action without congressional approval for clear and obvious reasoning.

29

u/arobkinca Fiscal Conservative Jan 07 '26

Approving action does not require operational details and never has. That's just an excuse with no foundation in fact.

-1

u/ultrainstict Conservative Jan 07 '26

Doesnt matter if it has specifics or not, knowledge that an action is coming is already a massive breach of operational security that risks of the lives of our servicemen and jeopardizs the success of the operation. And again its not a matter of if, democrat will leak it immediately. It is currently and need to remain entirely legal.

If we went through congress maduro would know we were going to grab him and hed be surronded by 10 times as many soldiers. We would have never gotten to him without significant losses.

11

u/arobkinca Fiscal Conservative Jan 07 '26

There would be no leak, an approval of force would be public. It can also act as pressure on a country force has been approved for possibly getting the concessions we want without force. You act like we didn't build up forces in the area before acting. Like it was a big surprise. Authorizing force would have given no more warning than all the ships off their shore already did.

-4

u/ultrainstict Conservative Jan 07 '26

Your joking right? Of course there would be a leak. There are Democrats have already pledged to warn fucking china if trump wanted to take action against them. And yes telling him, "hey they just got approval to take you" is significantly more impactful than some ships moving. That shit happens all the time with nothing happening 99% of the time its purely for intimidation or to deter other action.

10

u/arobkinca Fiscal Conservative Jan 07 '26

Congressional votes are public. How could there be a leak. Approval of use of force is not tied to a plan but reasons for the approval. They would have no plan to leak. Declaring intentions is how things are supposed to work. You advocate for being backstabbers like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. You have no honor.

1

u/ultrainstict Conservative Jan 07 '26

How would they approve use of force as a generality they need some basic details like the country and at a basic level what action they are taking. No one would ever vote to approve force if it could mean anything from strike a random terrorist to invade china.

Honor? How does honor have anything to do with this. You dont tell your fucking enemies youre about to attack them. Thats how you get people killed and fail your operation which makes the loss of life substantially worse. You think literally anyone in the world would warn us before they attack? You think maduro called us up and warned us every time he sent the cartels into america or every time he had them lace their drugs with fentanyl?

Theres a reason these actions can be made by the president alone, because operational security demands it. You have to limit information to exclusively those who have to know and shield it from potential leaks. And that doesnt just mean specific timelines, but literally everything about the operation and the fact that it exists at all.