Well there's no way this is going to end badly. No way at all.
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
214 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19146 readers
2229 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't know if Trump knows this but a lot of things here are made in Mexico.
Nah he's got that covered, hes going to charge us 25% more for all of them, destabilize the region further and wonder why the border issues increase instead of decrease, causing our international dealings to degrade further and respect to keep plummeting
I hate to admit it, but somehow Ben Shapiro was right. He wrote about this in his terrible, awful, no good, very bad book True Allegiance. Although the reason why that invasion started was due to border crossings. And it wasn't started by the president but by the governor of Texas.
The book is awful but I recommend listening to Behind the Bastards' (a podcast) reading of it because it is enlightening.
"But he never got us into any wars!"
And the parallels to late 1930's Germany just keep coming
I thought these guys were trying to frame themselves as isolationists.
if you hear or see words coming from them assume they are lies.
got me through covid pretty well.
They're notorious liars.
Well I wondered how long this would take.
The US has been fighting the war in drugs since 1976.
The drugs won.
No, they didn't. The police, defense contractors, and private prisons won. The drugs are doing their job just fine.
True dat.
Another source close to Trump describes to Rolling Stone what they call a “soft invasion” of Mexico, in which American special forces — not a large theater deployment — would be sent covertly to assassinate cartel leaders.
Oh yeah, that went so well previously, why not try again?
/s
To be fair, the unofficial word has always been that our guys are doing a little more than what a civilian would consider training when they go on joint training missions in Central and South America. They aren't officially supposed to take part in any fighting but it's common knowledge that part of the faith in a partnership and the skills host forces have been taught is for the special forces guys training them to go on a few missions with them.
The reputation from those operations is a large part of why cartels don't want to bother feds or tourists anymore. They know if they end up on Uncle Sam's list then no amount of sovereignty is going to stop tier 1 forces from coming for them. Even if it has to be the CIA's Special Activities Group. (The guys who actually do "if you get caught, we don't know you" types of missions)
This is a large part of why a Cartel apologized for shooting tourists and handed over 5 members in 2023. They did not want to be on that list.
Now before anyone comes in here and says Trump's plan is no big deal, the entire calculus of this situation changes when the cartel leaders become indiscriminate targets. The status quo right now is a bit like old Chicago's legends, only Americans "in the game" are fair targets. We turn our heads and in return the cartels leave most Americans alone. That changes the second they go into self defense mode. They're going to take hostages, they're going to blow shit up in border communities, they're going make it as painful as possible.
In short, this is a great way to create an insurgency in the US South West.
If the cartels start openly fighting back on U.S. soil, this administration will immediately change the rules of engagement to shooting anybody who physically approaches the U.S. border overnight. I'm talking literally within hours. This is exactly what they want. They are looking for any excuse they can use to leverage support from border states in deploying automated defense systems.
There is no scenario where the cartels engaging in insurgency on U.S. soil does not result in immediate shock and awe military tactics in response. There will be no more consideration for civilian deaths. Anybody within shooting distance of the border will be designated as an enemy combatant. That's what will happen. Make no mistake about it.
I have no doubt it would be used to escalate things further. But I must say, that wouldn't matter. All the tech and loose ROEs in the world cannot kill an idea.
What show? Was it good?
Narcos Mexico.
I liked it.
These morons are gonna roll tanks into downtown Santa Fe while a confused crowd gathers for the parade and Trump in a gold John Wayne helmet orders them to open fire.
Pffft. They'll get confused by Paseo de Peralta and end up at the mall.
What's USA's record against insurgents? I know Trump went to the Taliban to make a deal after more than 2 decades fighting them.
It's a bit more complicated than most people realize. They know about Vietnam (loss), Iraq (win), and Afghanistan (loss). But there's also;
More recently -
- The Philippines (win),
- Lebanon (draw, objective achieved, but no decisive victory)
- Somalia (draw, transition government was not deposed, no decisive victory),
And through the years -
- The Indian Wars 1776-1923 (win, massive war crimes),
- US-Algiers (loss, impetus for creating the Navy),
- The Barbary Wars (win),
- Taiping Rebellion (Win),
- Kansas mini Civil War (1854, goes into actual Civil War, Abolitionist win)
- Second Opium war (win)
- Utah Secession (win),
- Mexican Civil War (win),
- Cortina War (win),
- Formosa Expedition (loss),
- Garza War (win),
- Las Cuevas War (win),
- Boxer Rebellion (win),
- Mexican Border War (win),
- Banana Wars 1912-1934 (win)
- Philippines Rebellion (win, but they do resurface for a modern conflict)
You can see why we were a tad over confident going into Vietnam and even afterwards we thought we just needed to make some adjustments to our tactics.
He'll hand over the Mexican government to the Zetas in exchange for some empty promises.
You joke but this proposal would effectively be a declaration of war on heavily armed criminals who already run parts of the country. There's every possibility he destabilizes the place enough that surrendering Mexico City to the Zetas is how it ends.
We just elected an attempted insurgent!
Idk, seems to me like a successful insurgent. Maybe not an immediate result but, with no real punishment, and getting in anyway, he def got away with it, and rewarded for doing it to boot. If there are future (non sham) elections, the message is loud and clear, this I'd acceptable behavior.
If he tries to cut a deal with them it'll probably include Texas annexation 😬
I wholly support Texas going elsewhere and shutting the fuck up.
Mexico can have Texas back. We should send them a Thank You card for doing so.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
USA can have a little Mexico, as a treat
Isn't that just Texas?
Nope. It's New Mexico. Right in the name.
That's a real braintrust donvict has going there....JFC. And no wonder, given Junior the cokehead is apparently influencing a lot of picks.
Or they could save billions, AND make billions after, just by legalize, tax and regulate it. Once that happens, the cartels will die off on their own. But hey, the defense lobby is really strong... So.
Sorry to break it to you, but cartels are never gonna die off. They're not something that's currently happening in Mexico, they're the backbone of the Mexican economy and have been since the revolution war a hundred years ago.
More context: Cartels, although they weren't called that back then, are how the revolution war was financed. They basically rolled up into small towns and took everything that wasn't nailed down —including women— under the pretext that they needed it to "fight for freedom". When the revolution ended and they had no excuse to ransack villages anymore, they pivoted onto drugs. If drugs are legalized, they're just gonna pivot to something else. Right now, there's cartels who barely sell drugs and make most of their money through kidnappings and extortion.
There's cartels controlling the growth and distribution of Avocados. All the criminal behavior, none of the drugs.
Been screaming that for years, now it's too late. The cartels got wise and diversified their portfolio. We can no longer pull their teeth by legalizing.
Indeed, FFS, just legalize all of it. The WOSD has been far more harmful than the drugs themselves. But moneyed interests definitely want them illegal.
How long before the cartels leave a pigs head in his bed at Mar-A-Lago (or however that shithole is spelled)?
Oh don't think for a second he plans to actually go after the real cartels. He just wants an excuse to kill random Mexicans.
After his orders to kill people we'll have news reports from actual Mexicans saying the people he order killed weren't drug dealers. And they'll be right.
Mar a Lago, it's Spanish 🤣
view more: next ›