this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
303 points (98.7% liked)

News

37702 readers
1557 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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
 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to acknowledge that the Pentagon has developed plans to take over Greenland and Panama by force if necessary but refused to answer repeated questions at a hotly combative congressional hearing Thursday about his use of Signal chats to discuss military operations.

Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee repeatedly got into heated exchanges with Hegseth, with some of the toughest lines of questioning coming from military veterans as many demanded yes or no answers and he tried to avoid direct responses about his actions as Pentagon chief.

In one back-and-forth, Hegseth did provide an eyebrow-raising answer. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked whether the Pentagon has developed plans to take Greenland or Panama by force if necessary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 67 points 11 months ago (6 children)

This by no means diminishes this guy’s level of evil stupidity, but I’m entirely certain the pentagon had developed plans for all kinds of batshit insane shenanigans, including (but not limited to) invasions of probably most other countries in the world.

[–] cattywampas@lemm.ee 28 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think they have alien invasion plans.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Zombies, aliens, Zeus and the gods of Olympus attacking Pearl Harbor…if you can imagine it there’s a folder in the Pentagon somewhere with general plans

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

This is documentary footage. You can’t argue with science.

https://youtu.be/O0AUS_XTyLI

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

These people are too stupid and incompetent to realize we already have plans for everything.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Hegseth: You there! Jackson! I want plans on how to invade Greenland on my desk by the end of the week!

Johnson: [Looks at filing cabinet full of plans for invading every other country] Oh, yeah, sure thing, sir. Gonna be a few all-nighters, though. Me and the boys are gonna need some pizzas and a few bottles of Mountain Dew and some cinnamon dipperz.

Hegseth: No problem! Just take it out of the Preventing Kids From Being Thrown Into The Orphan Crushing Machine fund! You're a good man Jackson!

Johnson: Sir, yes sir.

Hegseth: [takes enormous swig out of family-sized plastic bottle of bourbon]

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

Johnson’s a real straight shooter. He’s got upper management written all over him.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Frankly, good planning is the key to success at just about anything in life. The concept of having plans is not evil at all. And certainlynot in a military sense. What if Greenland got taken over by vampires? You don’t know. In that event, it would be good to have this plan on the books. Probably in no other circumstance besides that one but hey, there’s not anything wrong with having a plan.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago

We stopped maintaining a handful of them, but waay later than you would expect. At some point we decided we didn't need a plan to deal with an invasion by the British empire kept up to date at all times.

[–] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago

The DoD had a plan to attack the U.S. and blame it on Cuba. Not an invasion, but attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I find that a credible thought, though one would imagine an answer to say that they try to have plans for any concevaiable scenario, no matter how unlikely, and have done so for years.

One would imagine if he was good at this politics thing, he would have found an answer to distance such plans from the current contentious situation.

And upon reading, he said precisely that...

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Or not even mention them at all, because what possible beneficial purpose could there be to divulging anything related to your military strategy or planning beforehand?

[–] rodneyck@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago

I thought that was the definition of the pentagon? 🤔