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

politics

19248 readers
3310 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus 152 points 1 year ago (48 children)

You don't need guns to kill the Cartels. You need to legalize drigs and regulate them. The war on drugs is what made the cartels what they are today.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (36 children)

That's completely out of the question in the Nanny States of America. The republicans want their "small government" to tell you what you're allowed to put in or do to your own body, so free will would never be acceptable.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] WhatAmLemmy 18 points 1 year ago

They need to manufacture a new "war on terror" to distract the media and population through their coup and robbery.

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

Unfortunately the cartels saw this coming with marijuana legalization and now aare in every industry in mexico. Avocados are already legal and the cartel makes a lot of money from them already. The cats out of the bag and it's frankly to late to just end the war on drugs and see the country revert. Also even if meth is legal to consume are we saying that the US goverment would start producing meth?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (45 replies)
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago (5 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 (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The only policy Republicans have is "kill people different than me", there is literally nothing else.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have other policies, like forcing 13 year old rape victims to give birth and non-lethal discrimination.

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

They also want to normalize marrying that 13 year old.

[–] tallwookie 4 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago

"We already beat them and stole half their country back in the 1840s. High time we did that again!"

"You do realize that would mean we would have more Mexicans living in the US?"

"..."

[–] WorldWideLem 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When there's domestic problems that you haven't even offered a solution for, point outward.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

When there's domestic problems that you ~~haven't even offered a solution for~~ have actively created, point outward.

FTFY

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

I'm not surprised at this point. I'm not shocked. I'm not disgusted.

Like climate change, it's time.

We need to have 2+ functional political parties in this country. One cannot be a terrorist organization fueled by hate.

If you are old enough to vote and do not vote against these people, you are a supporter of Republican rightwing fascism.

[–] UltraMagnus0001 17 points 1 year ago

do we want mexico to join cuba china and Russia to be close to our doorsteps as an enemy?

[–] nomadjoanne 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Uff... Yeah. Pretty horrible. Mexico is a shit show that can't get them under control. But it is a sovereign state. Unacceptable.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


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.

Even more moderate GOP candidates such as former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott have suggested support for some version of unilateral military action across the Rio Grande.

Now, bilateral tensions are being stimulated on both sides of the border, with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador pursuing an internal image of defiance against the United States.

Former Vice President Mike Pence lauded Hutchinson’s appeal for economic pressure, but said he would “engage Mexico the exact same way” as the Trump administration to ensure security cooperation.

“Ron DeSantis rightly didn’t back down to the Experts(TM) during COVID and he likewise won’t let them keep him from securing our southern border,” said press secretary Bryan Griffin.


The original article contains 1,146 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›