• Panamalt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    ·
    5 days ago

    Hmm, aren’t over-the-top displays of military forces a sign of something? What could it possibly be, certainly not fascism or something silly like that . . .

    • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      5 days ago

      hey kim got a 3 miles parade, vlad got a 2.5 miles parade, who’s donald to have a shorter parade than them for his birthday? They’ll laugh at him at the next villain con

    • xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      this is just so they can get a most of the military in one place, so that way russia’s sneak attack will be more effective

  • vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Trump doesn’t give a shit about anyone but him. They just cut $55M intended to fund training for rural teachers (because who wants educated educators?) and now he wants to spend more than that on a mile long military parade celebrating his birthday. And it’s not even a milestone birthday, just a birthday.

    From the article, Trump wanted to do something similar but, presumably smaller, in his first term but backed off after the price tag came to $92M. He instead opted for an event that ONLY cost $13M. How much do you think this one will cost? What will get cut to fund it?

    Fucking narcissistic traitor… He’ll probably figure out how to grift a few tens of millions from this by selling tickets, too.

  • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    5 days ago

    Trump crafted the idea for a military parade after witnessing a lavish Bastille Day celebration in Paris in 2017. Top US generals and officials were less thrilled about the idea. At one White House meeting, when Trump addressed his idea with Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, then the second-highest-ranking general as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Selva suggested the idea was reminiscent of something often seen in dictatorships. When Trump asked Selva what he thought of the parade, Selva said he grew up in Portugal, which “was a dictatorship — and parades were about showing the people who had the guns.” “And in this country, we don’t do that,” Selva said. “It’s not who we are.” Trump then asked Selva whether or not he liked the idea, to which he responded: “No.” He added, “It’s what dictators do.”

    • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      Spain, under Franco had a yearly massive parade. When Democracy was reinstated, the tradition continued, but instead of celebrating the victory of the nationalists in the civil war, it became a celebration of the armed forces. It’s still held, but it has steadily been downsized, to a mainly ceremonial and testimonial level.

  • MuskyMelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 days ago

    Don’t show up, even to protest. He’ll just say everyone showed up for him. Let him have his audience-less parade like a retarded North Korean despot.

  • Lucky_777@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    5 days ago

    Where is DOGE? This is like Charles Minor coming down on Michael Scott. Trump is just a huge fucking cry baby that needs constant validation. What a fucking loser.

  • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I want the military to maliciously comply with this.

    One Army solder marches by

    One mile later one Marine marches by

    One mile later a lone Navy sailor marches by

    One mile later one USAF pilot marches by

    One mile later a member of the USCG marches by.

    • freely1333@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 days ago

      Why do people think the military isn’t on his side?? He is the commander in chief lol

      • Tiger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        5 days ago

        There are a ton who are not. Hegseth fired the black General and woman leaders. Many service members are black or female and saw this. They see brown people getting rounded up, many in the military are Latino. And apart from that, people are 50% non-MAGA anyway.

        • SilentStorms@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          50% of the general population. I’d be curious to see polling of just the military, both of officers and enlisted. I’d imagine they skew higher in his favour.

          • Soulg@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 days ago

            The higher up the chain you go, the more left it becomes. Never 100% or anything, but it’s there.

          • Triasha@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 days ago

            Higher in his favor than the general population? Probably. More than 50%? I doubt it.

            But he is purging the leadership. If he purges it enough he will erode the effectiveness of the whole force. Which might be for the best when he invaded Greenland, Panama, and Canada.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 days ago

            Not sure. There’s a full blown white male military guy I know through work. He’s an openly hateful and racist person. Like not even pretending he isn’t. He still is pissed at Trump over being incompetent and disrespectful to soldiers.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        5 days ago

        Being elected “commander in chief” is not a magic spell that makes the military suddenly love someone. President is a more temporary and unstable position than high ranked military people.

      • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I recently attended a lecture by retired Admiral James Stavridis, who among other things was the NATO supreme allied commander for 4 years. He explained how every soldier swears an oath to the US Constitution, and in many cases more than just once. Each time an officer is promoted they swear that oath again, so by the time you make something like admiral you’ve likely sworn that oath around ten times, and administered it countless times to others.

        Even when Trump fired those members of the Joint Chiefs, those who replaced them will renew that oath if they receive promotions to fill that role. Stavridis also said that the JAG officers who were recently fired would be replaced through military promotions, triggering even more oaths.

        While the military may indeed humor Trump with a parade, I’m not worried they would blindly obey an illegal order. If Trump ordered them to deploy across the US, to invade Greenland, etc. I think you would see the military leadership act in a way nobody in modern times has ever seen. I’m confident they would honor their oaths and not violate the law.

        • freely1333@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 days ago

          I mean isn’t the military flying the no due process death camp flights out sometimes at least? Is “to the death camp” a legal order? Seems like a slippery slope from there.

          • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            I believe the flights to El Salvador were private charters, not military. The earlier flights to Guantanamo would have been military, but even that isn’t clearly & blatantly illegal. Trump claimed legal authority based on an existing legal precedent (I forget which), and since military pilots are not lawyers they followed those orders. The flights stopped in part because of all the legal challenges in court (but also due to costs and other legal issues).

            If anything, when ordered to fly these people to Guantanamo, the military probably turned to their JAG officers, who are lawyers, to ensure they weren’t illegal. They likely would have said the flights should go until the courts ruled on the matter.

        • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 days ago

          You seem to know a lot more about this than me but I struggle share your confidence.

          Everything I know about military service I have learned from popular media, but it seems like “following orders” is a foundational principle. If orders contravene an oath you made to the constitution that would present a conundrum, but I suspect that “following orders” will always win. That’s the whole idea of an “order”, you’re not supposed to think about it and figure out whether or not you want to follow such a directive, and surely this is beaten in to servicemen and women every day ?

          • cley_faye@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 days ago

            The gist of it is, the military defends the US constitution, not the president whims. Obviously, some may not see it that way, but if the general army changed direction each time the president changed, it would cause some problems.

            • Triasha@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 days ago

              Canada might crack the military into the faithful to the constitution vrs the loyal to maga.

              Panama or Greenland I figure they would try to minimize loss of life but they would just do it. Blowing up your career for a symbolic gesture or risking civil war in a mass revolt wouldn’t be worth it.

              (Some might give up their careers, the ones with high integrity, maybe a lot of command. But they would be replaced with loyalists)

          • Ænima@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 days ago

            Media is not a good place to learn about military life. If you are in the States, you might have a local VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars). The old guys in there will likely talk your ear off about their experiences, just don’t press for details about specific combat experience unless they broach the subject.

            If you want to learn more about the military and their oath, from popular media sources, NCIS is the show to watch. It’s relatively accurate in it’s display of service life, and they cite the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in what seems like every episode. Now that is the real bread and butter of a military members legal guidance. Every military member is keenly aware of that book, especially when deploying.

            Source: A military veteran and friend of multiple military peeps from multiple branches, backgrounds, and countries. The depiction of mindless drones is far from accurate. They exist, just like you have shitty people at any job, but as someone else pointed out above here, the higher up the branch you go, the more left-leaning the soldier is. That’s why tRump had to appoint a complete dunce to DoD, and not someone with military background and scruples. You know that if tRump could get military support from upper command that he wouldn’t hesitate to post soldiers around him for every presser. He is a weak-man’s idea of a strong-man.

        • futatorius@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yeah, good thing oaths are magically self-enforcing and impossible to break. Otherwise we’d be fucked.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Greenland is hard. They’d likely do it. It’s a legal order under the War Powers Act. They would probably do it in a completely different way than going full explodey like they did with Iraq, but it would happen.

          Now they could drag their feet, super telegraphing their moves, effectively giving Congress time to use the WPA to shut it down. But it’s not guaranteed by any means.

          Canada would see mass desertions though. And Mexico or Panama are actually the most likely targets. The military would invade those places without a second thought.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s a useless show of disrespect. People we need in place would be fired for taking over one news cycle. Worse it could kick a purge of officers into high gear by giving ammunition to conservatives that the military has “gone rogue”.