this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
313 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19248 readers
2462 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rising GOP support for the U.S. taking unilateral military action in Mexico against drug cartels is increasingly rattling people on both sides of the border who worry talk of an attack is getting normalized.

Wednesday’s Republican presidential primary debate featured high-stakes policy disagreements on a range of issues from abortion to the environment — but found near-unanimous consensus on the idea of using American military force to fight drug smuggling and migration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Weren't these the same people that didn't want to help out Ukraine?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, this really seems similar to Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in being unnecessary, stupid and with potential to change the target country from "imperfect" to "trash action movie" level.

(I remind you that when Soviets started all that crap, Afghanistan was a half-dependent from USSR socialist republic, and there were some mojahed (a socialist-Muslim hybrid, not really that popular today) rebels making trouble, and it would likely remain the same. Then they decided to perform a limited operation, which succeeded in changing Afghanistan's government, and then it turned into FFA.)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You forget an important component in Afghanistan though. The US heavily supporting the muhajjedins that later became the Taliban, to mess with the UDSSR. I think it was even in Rambo 2 or 3 were the dedicated the ending to the "brave fighters".

Now the CIA is on the same side. Unless they are still pulling some Contra style stuff in Mexico, which also wouldnt be too suprising.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, they were, and "heavily" is not an understatement. Only no, Taliban is not same as mojaheds.

The former means medieval fundamentalism, while the latter is almost "progressive with Islamic traits' (in Iran one can see some remnants of it in their relation to transgenders and, well, women as compared to Taliban).

Many mojahed groups were Taliban's enemies too. I mean, Ahmad Shah Masoud is the name coming to mind first.

[–] Madison420 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What? The Taliban was literally created from the mujahedeen, they're not the same thing no but they're also not that far removed from each other as you seem to imply.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

From some of them, yeah. Like there's been plenty of people to come to NSDAP from German Communists, that doesn't make NSDAP Communist.

[–] solstice 3 points 1 year ago

Ever seen Charlie Wilson's War? Best movie I've ever seen on the subject. The last scene was so potent, minor spoiler: when Tom Hanks' character is fighting for reparations money, and nobody gives a shit about building schools in Pakistan. He just sighs and facepalms, and says, 'it's Afghanistan. We're talking about Afghanistan.' Really illuminates how we got to where we are right now.

[–] Madison420 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A destabilized Mexico is what they want, they'll use it to annex Mexico and make Sam Houstons intent reality.

[–] sturmblast 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone is trying to annex Mexico

[–] Madison420 2 points 1 year ago

You'd be wrong. "Remember the Alamo" is essentially "remember we still want your land".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ukraine is over the seven seas. Mexico is next door.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US has military bases all around the world and strategically a hostile nuclear power winning a war in Eastern Europe is far more severe for the geopolitical position of the US, than Mexico being in its shape since decades. Its just that the GOP and Trump have some interesting ties and suprising cash flows with Russia.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's "geopolitical position" and there's your literal neighbour.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, seven seas at least!