223
Donald Trump’s New Admin Weighs ‘How Much Should We Invade Mexico?’
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
223 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19246 readers
3603 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
I'd be down, love their president and all she's for.
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.
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 -
And through the years -
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.
Not remotely comparable. Different fighters with different experiences and motivations. Fighting next door vs. halfway around the planet changes logistics, uh, a teeny bit. Different US government and soldier motivations.
We've never done anything like this, no way to tell what will happen.
Well, except for all the other times we invaded countries in Latin America.
And except for that time we invaded Mexico all the way down to Mexico City.
"Invaded" with both hands tied behind our back.
And my reply was to a post about failing in Afghanistan. So, uh, everything I said still stands.
Bro..
We didn't win at the Alamo.
The good guys (the ones opposing slavery) won.
That is true, yes.
We won at a hell of lot more times and places though. In fact the Alamo stands out partially because we were generally winning on the border region all the way through Mexico's 1920 conflict.
And the United States wasn't the world's sole superpower. That's like saying Republicans defeated slavery. True, but things have changed just a bit.
The US still isn't the world's sole super power... I mean, does China not exist today?
Well there was that one time, about 212 years ago, and ya’ll had a terrible time about it.