Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 2 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: In Trump's defense, it's not really his call until someone in NATO triggers Article 5 unless I'm mistaken. Sovereign states in Eastern Europe are of course free to blast whatever they want should a foreign military violate their borders. I thought Denmark did.
sherpa Posted September 25 Posted September 25 5 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: So you don’t think the commander in chief could order us pilots to not shoot? This is one of those silly questions that are not relevant. You and a few others do this constantly. Of course he could order them, meaning US military, not to engage, but that has nothing to do with NATO sovereign airspace. Other countries airspace. They do their own thing. To answer your red herring directly, US forces deployed operate under ROE and are not directly connected to the White House in those decisions, although sometimes they are, but rarely. I've been there. Did an intercept and had my missile locked on a hostile combatant and ready to kill it, and was cleared to fire immediately, if certain things happened. They didn't. but the decision to not do it was from the task force commander, not the White House.
B-Man Posted September 25 Posted September 25 9 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I thought Denmark did. You thought wrong. .
Coffeesforclosers Posted September 25 Posted September 25 10 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I thought Denmark did. There's been a bunch of Article 4 activations. Article 5 means the Balloon is up or will go up soon.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 9 minutes ago, sherpa said: der ROE and are not directly connected to the White House in those decisions, although sometimes they are, but rarely. So, not a red herring. He can order it.
sherpa Posted September 25 Posted September 25 5 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: So, not a red herring. He can order it. No. It is a red herring. The issue is not with the US, so Trump, to use a legal term, has no "standing." Thus a red herring.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 13 minutes ago, sherpa said: No. It is a red herring. The issue is not with the US, so Trump, to use a legal term, has no "standing." Thus a red herring. Couldn’t trump refuse to participate with NATO on a strike against Russian provocations? He’s made it abundantly clear that he’s not a big fan
sherpa Posted September 25 Posted September 25 13 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Couldn’t trump refuse to participate with NATO on a strike against Russian provocations? He’s made it abundantly clear that he’s not a big fan This has nothing to do with anything in this subject area. Good luck, but not interested. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 (edited) 16 minutes ago, sherpa said: This has nothing to do with anything in this subject area. Good luck, but not interested. It has everything to do with it. We have the world’s best military and trump is commander in chief. If he doesn’t cooperate with NATO the calculus changes dramatically. Edited September 25 by Joe Ferguson forever
sherpa Posted September 25 Posted September 25 21 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: It has everything to do with it. We have the world’s best military and trump is commander in chief. If he doesn’t cooperate with NATO the calculus changes dramatically. I honestly think there is something wrong with you. The issue is how a sovereign nation handles an incursion into its airspace. Is that not clear? Trump has no standing in determining how they handle that, NATO member or not. You seemingly can't address any situation without brining him up, or puking MAGA into the conversation, but for your edification, how a nation's airspace is handled is determined by that nation, as it should be. You are weird, and clearly obsessed. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: I honestly think there is something wrong with you. The issue is how a sovereign nation handles an incursion into its airspace. Is that not clear? Trump has no standing in determining how they handle that, NATO member or not. You seemingly can't address any situation without brining him up, or puking MAGA into the conversation, but for your edification, how a nation's airspace is handled is determined by that nation, as it should be. You are weird, and clearly obsessed. Whether you think I’m weird is irrelevant and i couldn’t care less. If article 4 is declared the next step is discussion with other member nations. Trump would certainly have input.
sherpa Posted September 25 Posted September 25 9 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: If article 4 is declared the next step is discussion with other member nations. Trump would certainly have input. A simple airspace incursion is not an article 4 issue, anymore than an aggressive flyby is. Let's not exaggerate the thing for the simple reason to get Trump into it. I'm so glad you and your ilk are not in charge of anything. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 11 minutes ago, sherpa said: A simple airspace incursion is not an article 4 issue, anymore than an aggressive flyby is. Let's not exaggerate the thing for the simple reason to get Trump into it. I'm so glad you and your ilk are not in charge of anything. Denmark thinks it might just be… https://metro.co.uk/2025/09/24/drones-spotted-yet-another-danish-airport-sparking-delays-cancellations-24255213/
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 2 hours ago, sherpa said: I honestly think there is something wrong with you. The issue is how a sovereign nation handles an incursion into its airspace. Is that not clear? Trump has no standing in determining how they handle that, NATO member or not. You seemingly can't address any situation without brining him up, or puking MAGA into the conversation, but for your edification, how a nation's airspace is handled is determined by that nation, as it should be. You are weird, and clearly obsessed. Seems like trump is already in neck deep https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/23/politics/trump-nato-countries-russian-aircraft
sherpa Posted September 25 Posted September 25 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Seems like trump is already in neck deep https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/23/politics/trump-nato-countries-russian-aircraft This is more of the typical nonsense you post, and your Trump obsession. He, nor we, are in "neck deep," unless we do something. We are not getting into Russian airspace incursions of NATO countries in any military fashion, unless you know something no one else does. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 25 Posted September 25 1 minute ago, sherpa said: This is more of the typical nonsense you post, and your Trump obsession. He, nor we, are in "neck deep," unless we do something. We are not getting into Russian airspace incursions of NATO countries in any military fashion, unless you know something no one else does. i know what he was quoted saying. ambiguous as always but initially giving his stamp of approval of NATO shooting down planes in their airspace but saying it would depend on circumstances whether the US gets involved. Did you read something else?
sherpa Posted September 26 Posted September 26 9 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: i know what he was quoted saying. ambiguous as always but initially giving his stamp of approval of NATO shooting down planes in their airspace but saying it would depend on circumstances whether the US gets involved. Did you read something else? A sovereign nation does not need approval from Trump to handle its airspace in the manner it desires, and defend itself as it sees fit. NATO does not shoot down airplanes, the individual nation does. I think you are confused, and your views distort reality by linking any and everything to Trump. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 26 Posted September 26 1 minute ago, sherpa said: A sovereign nation does not need approval from Trump to handle its airspace in the manner it desires, and defend itself as it sees fit. NATO does not shoot down airplanes, the individual nation does. I think you are confused, and your views distort reality by linking any and everything to Trump. they may not legally need it. practically they do. they won't risk starting ww3 without US approval.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted September 26 Posted September 26 22 hours ago, sherpa said: It's nonsense. If Russia violates airspace, there are rules of engagement. The first it that it gets intercepted. The point being, you don't destroy it as your first response. If it doesn't respond to the intercept, which would be to escort it out, or get it to land, or displays any hostile intent, it can be engaged. The absolute last thing Russia could handle is a military action against NATO. They are hopelessly outmatched. I really doubt China has any interest in being a tag team, military partner with them. I think that thought is silly. https://archive.ph/84UIz perhaps you should give it more thought.
Wolfgang Posted September 26 Posted September 26 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: https://archive.ph/84UIz perhaps you should give it more thought. 1
Recommended Posts