231
Hegseth’s mysterious meeting with generals will focus on grooming and warrior ethos
(www.politico.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
231 points (97.9% liked)
News
32520 readers
3327 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. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The national guard is the military. Or are we going to get down to "Look, so what if the Army, Marines, and Navy are all running gas chambers. The Air Force would save us if only they were allowed to. Uhm. I mean, just the PJs. But they need to get flown in so they can't help us. But Abrahamic God Bless The Military"
We had an armed force rushing and occupying Congress to murder Congress and the VPOTUS under the orders of a man who was only still POTUS because the changeover he was actively trying to prevent hadn't occured yet. This was actively violating the will of the people and the constitution.
If there is any situation where you unload on a crowd like they are brown people in a hospital with a few pesky journalists in the middle...
VERY strong disagree there
But, regardless: We have the military actively causing terror and enforcing the will of the fascists in 2025 as they occupy cities and confuse NIMBYs over whether they are allowed to complain about the heavily armed people sleeping in alleyways.
The fact fo the matter is: The US Military was tested. The absolute best case interpretation is that they are so incompetent and disorganized that they were unable to protect the people they "serve". And there is absolutely zero indication that is gonna change.
Yes, but the structure is very different. The Guard operates on a state by state basis (for reasons which now seem remarkably farsighted), the rest of the military is a single centrally organized force based in DC. It's fine to talk about one or the other, or "the military" in general obviously, but specifically for something like January 6th it makes very little sense to talk about them both as a collective, talking about what they did or didn't do. That's why in my original message I specified "the federal military" which it seemed like was what you were talking about in the comment I was responding to.
Literally no idea what you are saying here.
Based on what? Something like this?
So on what are you basing this picture you have, of what happened?
No, it makes perfect sense.
Let's step through the workflow.
And let's do the obvious tweak that is always ignored in these attempts to Support The Troops
I am pointing out the sheer and utter stupidity of insisting the military will save us. Just not THAT military. And I am doing so by extending that to the "it would be humorous if it weren't so true" extreme.
As for the rest: The national guard is the military. You can gla-err, praise them all you want for not unloading on protesters. But the fact of the matter is they were there as a threat in case the protests "got out of hand" and were officially there to support the law enforcement and fat white kids with guns on the ground.
They are the enemy until they stop fucking acting on its behalf.
So on what are you basing this picture of, of what happened?
I get what you're saying about how simple and clear this massive constitutional crisis would have been to solve, and how lethal force on American soil by the foreign-focused military would have been a total improvement. Like I say, I actually do think there's a good bit of sense there. I'm just curious to see more of your credentials by learning about the accuracy of some of your other statements. Kind of get a baseline. Surely you're on board for that so you can help demonstrate your mastery of these issues right?
So on what are you basing this picture of, of what happened with BLM and the Guard? Tell me more.
The event I keep referencing. You may have heard of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
The Military had its chance to fucking protect this country. It actively chose not to and, in doing so, supported a terrorist who had taken control of the White House and refused to obey the Constitution (because that is what trump was on that day)
They can make a bunch of excuses all they want and you can parrot them and insist the real problem is the National Guard except the National Guard are also heroes because they just stood around menacingly with guns to let people vent some steam during the BLM protests and blah blah blah.
The fact of the matter is: They were faced with a situation where force was needed to protect the country they claim to serve. They actively chose not to. End of fucking story.
As for the rest: I genuinely don't care about your distinctions between the different branches. I don't care if you were on the raid by secret seal team six to capture secret bin laden. Because none of that fucking matters.
What matters is that four and a half years ago the very government was under attack by a force with ties to foreign interests that was going to steal the country from the people. And the military chose to let that play out.
So if you are just going to keep insisting that your favorite branch are actually heroes but the others are actually good too and hey, this guy with a gun totally didn't smack a black guy in the face that one time? Take your call of duty wank fantasies elsewhere because I won't be helping you get off.
Oh, and if your argument is now that the military isn't meant to protect the country and is instead meant solely to murder brown people overseas: Hey, we agree on something!
Okay, so you have no real examples of what you swore was happening with the Guard attacking protestors and sports fans. But of course you're completely right about this other thing (in a realm of speculation and judgement, instead of just objective reality of what happened in the past), and since you're now getting super pushy and emotional about it and how right you are, I guess I am supposed to knuckle under to it.
Good luck with it, I think our conversation can conclude now.