this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
209 points (96.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

35374 readers
1540 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Seriously, they are both former military, my dad was in for like 30 years, how do they like the drunk secretary? I get that he saw combat, but being in combat doesn't automatically make you qualified for... well anything except therapy and medical care.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 113 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Honest answer, as someone in the military:

A LOT of military people lament how "soft" the military has become, and someone coming down on beards, fat, etc, as well as being up front with what the military is for (e.g. Department of War), scratches a whiny itch they've always had. Because every old salty sailor and sandy equivalent feels like they came from the Old Guard.

I came from the Old Guard that my peers are nostalgic about. It was terrible and unnecessarily cruel. It was inefficient and left new people floundering instead of supported. The whole thing feels like a cycle of abuse.

But back to the point, they don't care if he's underqualified, makes bad and inexperienced military decisions, or has a host of DUIs ("who doesn't?"). They only care that he's calling generals fat to their faces and getting rid of beard ememptions.

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 51 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What's funny is that nobody alive today was alive and in the military for any major conflict that we were actually victorious in, so what "good old days" are these geezers even pining for? The days where we lost a bunch of soldiers in Vietnam and the ones who survived came back with PTSD and drug addictions?

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago

The good old days where the people in charge could get away with anything, that's what it comes down to.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 10 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

nobody alive today was alive and in the military for any major conflict that we were actually victorious in

There are still a handful of WWII vets kicking around

Also depending on how you want to define "major" and "victorious" you could maybe make an argument for Dessert Storm, and possibly the 2003-2011 Iraq War. (Whether we should have been involved in those wars in the first place, and how those wars were fought are separate issues, and I certainly wouldn't call them "unqualified" victories, but I do think there are absolutely certain angles you could look at them from and make the argument that the US was the victor in those conflicts)

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

The wars in the Middle East are tricky, though, because to have a "victory" you would need a clear metric for it, a clear goal. It's not like the US was looking to conquer and annex those countries

If the goal was to completely fuck up a country with little to no (physical, not financial) damage to our home country, mission accomplished, one helluva victory.

If the goal was to stop Terrorism... that's like the War on Drugs, there's no winning that.

If the goal was merely to occupy them in order to (temporarily) prevent them from being a staging ground and financial support for Terrorism... I guess that worked? For awhile?

Vietnam and Korea were about stopping Communists from taking over the country. Huge failure on Vietnam, and apparently a draw in Korea (considering the North/South divide). But it was a clear enough goal. The Middle East? Who knows what the specific goal was (other than trillions of dollars to the Military Industrial Complex).