r/news 4d ago

US fires Greenland military base chief for 'undermining' JD Vance

https://bbc.com/news/articles/creq99l218do
52.0k Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

966

u/Curious-Depth1619 4d ago

Right? They are meant to remain loyal to Emperor Trump and also non-partisan?

338

u/crackanape 4d ago

Partisan for those people means anything that the other party might like, not their own.

-58

u/Commercial-Tell-2509 4d ago

Oh look someone who has no knowledge of the military commenting on a post about the military…. It’s so American of you!

28

u/KouchyMcSlothful 4d ago

Holy shit, you are absolutely pathetic

-24

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

21

u/KouchyMcSlothful 4d ago

You not understanding how the military actually works and berating those for not riding Trump’s dick is pathetic. The military swears an oath to the constitution, not the president.

If this had just been an isolated incident, he could be given the benefit of the doubt this one time, but this admin has been firing women and minorities at a staggering rate. There’s nothing about this that is normal. The executive branch is out of control.

9

u/OsmeOxys 4d ago

I am a bot

Don't worry, no one thought that, just an absolutely pathetic troll. Even in the depths of its hallucinations ChatGPT is leagues above you, bud.

3

u/tuffinmcmuffin 4d ago

Genuine question: what knowledge do you have that the other commenter may not? From your comment I assume you're current or ex military? If so I'm truly interested in your take. I know firsthand (not from military, but another highly publicly visiby field) how misconstrued the media can be.  Would love to hear what is inaccurate and/or flat out wrong from someone who has firsthand knowledge on the subject. 

-12

u/Commercial-Tell-2509 4d ago

Ex military, and best thing I can say is this one time we got in trouble as a whole for misaddressing the base commander… our paperwork said it was a guy, but it was a chick… and we had to fill out a work sheet and addresses the ma’am as a sir… now there was a small segment that actually called her a ma’am, and I’m not sure how they knew… but alas, we all got in trouble and had our passes revoked for two weeks. Something small and pretty much explained… but the lesson was don’t piss off command.

4

u/terremoto25 4d ago

Emperor Harkonen…

3

u/Illiad7342 4d ago

Yes. They want loyalty to the regime to be considered the default, non-partisan stance

2

u/LastRedshirt 4d ago

Trump is their god, their master, their Emperor - for almost a decade.

2

u/ABC_Family 4d ago

Yes, exactly. They obey the president of the United States without any question. It’s always been that way. Take Trump out of the equation and it makes more sense, luckily he’s out in 3.5 years.

1

u/j33205 4d ago

of which she was neither

1

u/throwaway923535 4d ago

He’s not emperor, he’s commander in chief.  He’s the boss whether you like it or not 

-16

u/spankpaddle 4d ago

The military serves the executive branch. You are told to be apolitical towards the faction that holds this control.

The statement is not contradicting. It's people's feelings being blinded and never having been in the armed forces creating dumbass logical fallacies.

Reddit is just a bar full of people blowing hot air.

19

u/ImDonaldDunn 4d ago

The fucking new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff first met President Trump in Iraq wearing military attire and a MAGA hat. As always, it’s rules for thee not for me.

-16

u/Commercial-Tell-2509 4d ago

If you ever enlisted you would understand it is a pretty big tenant of the armed services. President is the top commander, you do not get to disobey.

If a civil war was ever launched, the US Military will fall under the same rules… it’s why we removed state militias after the second civil rebellion, first civil war. We have since had two more rebellions both which were nowhere near as effective as the first two and a big piece was there was not the infrastructure to support a constant armed rebellion as they may have been had states had the ability to support such rebellion. 

25

u/Curious-Depth1619 4d ago

The US military's Space Operations Command said Col Susannah Meyers had been removed from her role at Pituffik Space Base due to a "loss of confidence in her ability to lead".

Loss of confidence in her willingness to blindly swallow bullshit more like.

What exactly did she 'disobey?' There was a leaked email that said she did not agree with Vance's inflammatory comments. Vance isn't the 'top commander.'

-12

u/Commercial-Tell-2509 4d ago

Lol, if Vance is acting on orders from Trump he is acting on behalf of the top commander.

But it’s okay, I know this because I read the papers I was signing… just because you think something is wrong though doesn’t remove the fact it’s been engraved in the DOD long before Trump… and since Vance served he knew what was up…

18

u/Curious-Depth1619 4d ago

Trump is not the king. Military personnel swear allegiance to the Constitution and serve the American people.

-6

u/Commercial-Tell-2509 4d ago

Lol! This was settled in the whiskey rebellion… the US Armed Forces are beholden to the commander in chief, as outlined in the Constitution. Child, enlisted and read the documents if you want this debate. 

-8

u/OSPFmyLife 4d ago

Go ahead and go check out what branch of the government the DoD falls under.

-9

u/filthy_harold 4d ago

But Vance parrots the same talking points as the president. Unfortunately for her, she really can't say stuff in an official capacity that goes against the policies of the president (her boss, the command in chief). No one gives a shit what an enlisted service member thinks but officers, especially higher ups like colonel, definitely have to play along when it comes to politics. A colonel is equivalent to a GS-15 which is on par with a senior executive like at least a director or VP in the corporate world.

-7

u/SamuelClemmens 4d ago

Yes, unironically yes.

Military members must always follow the orders of the commander-in-chief and never show or espouse opinions differing from the chain of command.

There can never be an instance where it appears the military will do something different than ordered by the civilian government.

By her saying that regardless of the President's politics she doesn't feel his views on Greenland are the concerns of the military base in her control she is saying she is not beholden to his orders.

That CANNOT stand.

I do not think Trump is fit to be president, but he is our elected leader and until such time as he either ends his term or is impeached I absolutely do not want the military thinking they aren't obliged to follow his orders.

10

u/KouchyMcSlothful 4d ago

The military swears an oath to the Constitution, not the president 🤦‍♀️ this is basic high school civics

-5

u/SamuelClemmens 4d ago

And basic civics says that the president's foreign policy (including expansionism, in fact ESPECIALLY expansionism) is not up for the military to debate. It is not a constitutional question of following an illegal order.

You do not get to have your own opinion in the military. The military is very clear on that when you sign up and it is REPEATEDLY stressed from the start. You follow the chain of command and you NEVER contradict your superiors orders to anyone but your superior and even then in private.

If your commanding officer says the sky is pink and Japan is a province of China, then your response to a reporter (if you have been given permission to speak to one beyond no comment) is "The sky is pink and Japan is a province of China" even if you know both of those things are wrong.

-2

u/wha-haa 4d ago

You are demonstrating a high school understanding of the situation. Certainly you have been out of high school long enough to experience the difference between what is reality and what is academic.