87
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Bring_Back_Buggy_Whips@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

Operation Dessert Storm
The Green Buffets
Meal Team Six

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They're southern, so Gravy Seals is a good fit.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago
[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

Considering their obvious weakness for truck stop cheese, I prefer "Y'all Queso"

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 23 points 1 month ago

Pretty sure they were already failing to meet standards when the tax payer flew them up there for no reason to begin with. Could have saved a lot of transport dollars with a preflight check in. Hell, a zoom call would have outed some of them!

[-] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

These guys? They look like troops, not generals. Don't recall ever seeing Schwarzkopf carrying an assault rifle.

[-] MisterOwl@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

What, not fascist enough?

Fucking traitors.

[-] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Report just came out that pete is starting to get Botox. Let that sink in on the level we are at.

[-] mister_flibble@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Blart just needed to get back to the mall before the holiday season starts.

[-] dickalan@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Wasn't he the protagonist in that movie

[-] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago

They're classified as armored vehicles when fully equipped.

[-] julysfire@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

They gunna have fun come winter

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Lmao they all look like Shane Gillis.

[-] skeezix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I see General Custard in that photo

[-] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Which standards? Were they not racist enough?

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Does the US National Guard not have fitness requirements? Because I doubt those guys can run or do a pull up.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

But Call of Duty told ME that the National Guards are forces to be reckoned with because they're fit and can take Burgertown from the Russians! Are you saying they lied?!

In all seriousness, however, a US general's concern was correct that America is too ill-prepared for a war, precisely because most Americans are ill-fitting.

[-] Vupware@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

National Lard

[-] DrFistington@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Semper Fudge

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

It's weird how for a fat guy, Taco doesn't like fatties.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Call of Gravy

[-] jaschen306@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No plates left behind

Meal can all can be

Special Fork Unit

Snack Ops Unit

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

I'm not pleased they're being deployed, but these guys aren't choosing to go to these places. They signed up for national defense (and not the kind that blows up schools in a desert on the other side of the world) and often helping with major disasters.

The Texas National Guard absolutely did not sign up for policing cities in Illinois or Oregon, and I'd bet vast majority are not pleased to be there.

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Then fucking quit or refuse the orders.

[-] p3n@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That seems like an easy thing until you consider:

  1. Federalized National guard troops are under Title 10 Authority.

  2. Under Title 10 USC 890 Article 90: Willfully disobeying a lawful order in wartime is punishable with the death penalty.

  3. With the executive branch claiming wartime powers and the DoJ willing to pursue any claim they want, they could certainly choose to pursue the maximum punishment to make an example out of someone.

The ranks of the JAG and military judges hasn't been purged yet, so I believe it is very inlikely that a court-marshal would reach this punishment, but these orders aren't something a Soldier can just walk away from without serious legal and financial repurcussions.

What they do in Chicago matters far more than their presence there. Every Soldier needs to recognize their ultimate purpose is to defend the freedom and liberty of their nation's citizens. They must have a line in the sand that they will refuse to cross and are willing to die for, but simply deploying to a city to stand outside a federal building is not that line.

They can't just quit. They're under a signed contract, which can be penalized with jail time if breached. Refusing orders is also not as simple as it sounds. Each soldier has a duty to refuse an unlawful order. However, if you disobey a direct order, and it is later determined to have been a lawful one, you will now be punished for failing to obey orders, might be a slap on the wrist, might be a dishonorable discharge, or could even be a court martial with jail time.

[-] NoTagBacks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

That's it exactly. I'm so sick of these dickheads jumping online and talking all the way out of their ass 'just refuse unlawful orders, bro'. Like their COC isn't gonna fuck them every kind of sideways for refusing orders via the UCMJ. Like, this isn't spending a weekend in jail and then it's over kinda shit, this will absolutely ruin your life. You could be spending years in the brig, reduced rank, reduced pay, possible dishonorable discharge while trying to fight the charges if you manage to win the case. On top of that, you want these soldiers/airmen to directly bring a legal fight to a federal administration that is likely to fuck them despite any legitimate grounds to refuse unlawful orders/conscientiously object? Get fucking real. Military personnel have the regular law AND the UCMJ to fucking deal with. These bros are fucking trapped.

[-] pedz@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, they are "just following orders".

this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
87 points (98.9% liked)

politics

26516 readers
660 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS