Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is appearing to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions at a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations.

Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief.

In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary.

  • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    16 hours ago

    This statement is based on nothing.

    Article 5

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

    • pinkapple@lemmy.ml
      1·
      15 hours ago

      That says nothing about attacks of NATO members on NATO members and there are precedents like Turkey taking over and occupying half of Cyprus leading to war between members Greece and Turkey where the other useless members did absolutely nothing because the standard interpretation is that NATO doesn’t protect members from other members. Stop making up theories and spreading misinformation.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 minutes ago

        It says that members will fight those who attack other members of the group. It doesn’t have to say it specifically its blatantly obvious through a plain reading of the text. The absolute minimum action would be Greenlanders violently resisting and murdering soldiers. Denmark attacking the US to prevent the murder of their citizens and others providing financial support whilst dumping US dollars and sanctioning the US.

        1 year in we have 5000 dead US soldiers and a cratered economy, our own citizens are calling military babykillers again, and are suing for peace not because they beat us militarily but because we ruined our own shit.