206
Comments (48)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
NZ_needs_a_Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

You don't need to, you literally just need one general with loyalists to take out a few higherups and assume the role of commander a la every military revolution that ever took place. It's never been about beating the military it's about being in the military and then taking out the 1-2 people above you.

1
Mooksayshigh 1 point ago +1 / -0

How many Generals do you think are in the US Military? 1 General with a few loyalists isn’t shit. Take out a few higher ups? You mean a few dozen.

1
NZ_needs_a_Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not familiar with military terms, general was just my way of saying top leader. Look through history: Russia, Rome, plenty of generals took nations by themselves with the army. Army is critical to everything.

1
Mooksayshigh 1 point ago +1 / -0

The top leader of the US military is the President.

1
NZ_needs_a_Trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know, but you're going into a semantic argument that's not relevant. I'm referring to the person who is senior in their day to day command not their entire oversight.