this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026

1192 points (98.6% liked)

Actually Infuriating

actually_infuriating@lemmy.world

1,065 readers

3 active

1 user here now

Community Rules:

Be Civil

Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.

Content should be actually infuriating

Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.

Mark NSFW/NSFL posts

Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.

Keep it Legal and Moral

No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.

Partner Communities

founded 2 years ago

moderators

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

The US Attacked my country... (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago by NONE_dc@lemmy.world to c/actually_infuriating@lemmy.world

346 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I don't care about Maduro, as far as I'm concerned, they can shoot him if they want. What matters to me is walking through the streets of my city and seeing the faces of fear on my neighbors. The military patrolling to prevent looting due to panic. It's a collective hangover, a horrible one.

It's 2016 all over again. It's seeing despair entering the circulatory system of all Venezuelans, only now it's more sudden, and we are painfully aware of it.

This is far from improving, and we know it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 133 points 10 months ago (26 children)

What about your military staff (Generals and the likes) Aren't they supposed to refuse illegal orders even from potus?

parent

hideshow 26 child comments

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 134 points 10 months ago (20 children)

Aren't they supposed to refuse illegal orders even from potus?

Yes. Yes they are supposed to.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 84 points 10 months ago (16 children)

All the ones that would, have been replaced.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 64 points 10 months ago* (15 children)

That's why I get pissed about stories of the variety "X resigns rather than follow administrations orders". People seem to cheer when that happens because they see it as people pushing back on illegal orders, but they're not. They're just bailing from responsibility when they were one of the few people in the position to legitimately be a stopgap on this runaway power abuse. In resigning, they've just made it easier for a loyalist or morally corrupt replacement to come in and roll out the red carpet to the autocracy. Stay right where the fuck you're at, plant your feet, and tell them that you're absolutely not following illegal orders from anyone. That is worth cheering.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Resigning instead of refusing an illegal order is a betrayal of their oath to the constitution, and a betrayal of the American people

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago (13 children)

This. It’s not upholding the constitution, it’s standing back and watching it get fucked, while selling books or speaking engagements.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

I don't disagree, but then they get dishonorably discharged, lose their pension and benefits, a loyalist is put in their place and the end result is the same except that they're worse off personally. I can absolutely see that the better option for them is to resign and make a statement rather than going hard-core and fight it. Unless they plan on a full-on military coup.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

Apparently their main guiding moral is greed then.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

Bit harsh IMHO.

It's being human. Not everyone is prepared to throw away the future they planned for and have been working towards their whole life on principle, especially if the end result of that action is bugger all.

I might not agree, but I get it.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

Well there's plenty of us who never got a single second of the "future we planned for". Sure its a bummer to have something you thought was nice and have it turn into something awful, but that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye towards your morals. Doubly so if you happen to be in the military.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

So then you might understand that if you're in the lucky group who is on track to get it, it might be hard to give up?

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

No I'm saying that is a selfish and greedy viewpoint. It only holds up if you only think about yourself and your own family. If you are in the military, you should be concerned about more than those in your immediate circle. Joining the military for selfish reasons is absurd already.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are people for joining the military. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I understand their rationale. If I had to choose between ideological purity and comfort for my family I'm not 100% sure what I'd choose. I'm human after all, and looking after your loved ones absolutely comes first.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago* (2 children)

I currently have limited the comfort of my family due to the inability to make a large salary without betraying my morals and values. I'm not even in the military and I can realize that its better to show my children what is right rather than make excuses so they can have the easiest life possible.

Edit: apologies if it seems Im attacking you directly.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

Right, but you can see the difference, can't you? They quit because they couldn't continue because that would put them in the position where they had to betray their values or their future for no gain.

I wish every single serviceman would have said "No, we're not going to murder civilians", but that didn't happen either. I respect those who stepped away more.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago

I'd argue the no gain part but it is true nothing is guaranteed. Its still an abandonment of duty either way in my opinion, but it is definitely worse to stay and just go along with things so there's that.

parent

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

These high level guys have the wealth to sue for their pensions. Courts will restore them if the orders they refused were illegal.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

Courts will restore them if the orders they refused were illegal.

Will they though? Pre-Trump, probably. Today? I wouldn't bet my future and retirement on it.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago

SCOTUS, no, but I’m pretty sure this would be a civil lawsuit.

parent

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Except the supreme court ruled no order from the executive branch is illegal

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 16 points 10 months ago

I know youre being funny about it, but I need to point out the officer's oath is not to the president, and the supreme court is irrelevant in this.

Specifically any orders which violate the constitution, federal law, or (specifically an "or" here, not "and") international law should be refused. Typical examples are torturing people who are detained, targeting civilians, etc.

parent

[–] 7101334@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Not exactly. They ruled the president cannot be prosecuted for illegal acts taken in the capacity of president. So it's more "he can do illegal shit and we can't stop him" and less "anything he does it automatically legal". So refusing an illegal order would presumably still be a valid route of action.

But from what I know about the military, they can just punish you in some other capacity even if what you did is technically legal. Ie reassigning you to some shit duty or miserable location.

parent

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 10 months ago

“Fascist to the core... the most dangerous person to this country.” — Gen. Mark Milley, Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Highest-ranking military officer). Status: Trump has suggested he should be executed for treason.
“He fits the general definition of fascist... he certainly prefers the dictator approach.” — Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff and retired Marine General. Status: Trump has attacked him as "dumb," "weak," and a "low life."
“Effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump.” — Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s first Secretary of Defense and retired Marine General. Status: Trump labeled him the "world’s most overrated general."
“I do regard him as a threat to democracy... I think he’s unfit for office.” — Mark Esper, Trump’s second Secretary of Defense. Status: Fired after refusing Trump's order to "just shoot" protesters in the legs.
“His sense of betrayal drove him to abandon his oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ a president’s highest obligation.” — Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s second National Security Adviser. Status: Publicly attacked by Trump as "naive."
“Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” — Mike Pence, Trump’s Vice President. Status: Trump has spent years attacking him for refusing to overturn the election.
“A consummate narcissist... our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.” — Bill Barr, Trump’s second Attorney General. Status: Trump has called him a "weak," "lazy," and "RINO" coward.
“I understand what you want to do, but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law.” — Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State. Status: Fired; Trump called him "dumb as a rock" and "lazy."
“He has never cared about America... his conduct and mere existence have hastened the demise of democracy.” — Ty Cobb, Trump’s White House Lawyer during the Russia investigation. Status: Dismissed by Trump as a "weak lawyer."
“He makes up what he wants to say... how little of American history he knows.” — John Bolton, Trump’s third National Security Adviser. Status: Trump calls him a "wacko" and a "disgruntled boring fool."
“We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.” — Gen. Mark Milley, during his farewell address as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

parent

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 18 points 10 months ago

Sadly a good chunk of the good ones were fired, and the others are too scared about their pensions to do anything. The rest have been installed by our glorious dictator and also suck his cock on the daily.

parent

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

He's been getting rid of those guys since day 1. Undoubtedly they came in with purge lists.

And then of course they gave this operation to a loyalist.

parent

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Yes, they are supposed to. They also are trained to follow orders, and much more vigorously.

But generally, overthrowing governments that oppose the USA is seen as routine. We do this frequently.

parent

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 10 months ago

but they also have alot of trump supporters in the military, im not surprised.

parent