421
Pentagon stunned after Trump picks Pete Hegseth for defence secretary
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
421 points (98.6% liked)
News
23284 readers
3684 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Eh, the military will probably coup before submitting to Stalin-esque purges.
That isn't a particularly good thing. Coups are like Lay's and Pringles... You can't just have one and once you pop you just can't stop.
Yeah, I'm trying to think of a recent (<100y) example that didn't result in a junta or other coups, and I'm drawing a blank.
Gorbachev purging the Soviet military.
I don't think that's really a coup — if anything it's the same as what Trump wants to do, but unlike Mr. Pizza Hut he isn't on the right side of history.
Collapsing the USSR and causing horrible living conditions throughout the area for the better part of two decades was the right side of history?
Right, I forgot he singlehandedly destroyed the USSR, which was a glorious utopia until his leadership and would totally still be around today otherwise. Thanks for the correction.
I interpreted you as saying that you couldn't think of a mass purge that didn't result in a junta or other coups.
I was thinking (and presumably xmunk too) of scenarios where the military overthrows the government.
There are lots of examples of purges not resulting in coups, including the most famous purger of recent times, Stalin.
Ah
No because he has already said when he becomes President he is going to create a task force that will basically clean house in the military of any ranking people that are not ‘yes men’
He is wanting to create a North Korea/Russia style military that is only there to agree with him.
He doesn't understand just how decentralized the military command structure is, and the enlisted-officer relationship that has existed for a very, very long time. Just because anything is written in a regulation and a high-ranking officer with a good idea fairy perched on his shoulder says something or orders something doesn't mean it happens. Or that the report back from down below is actually true. Officers that actually rise up through the ranks understand that they, too, should sleep with one eye open if the enlisted do not approve.
This is an insane take. No, the military isn't going to coup over this. If the generals were getting executed, perhaps, but they're just being retired or shuffled off to other duties.