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 n…

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.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      132·
      1 year ago

      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.)

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        71·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
          5·
          1 year ago

          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@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              3·
              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@lemmy.world
          3·
          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@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

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

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        11·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Llewellyn@lemm.ee
          27·
          1 year ago

          There’s “geopolitical position” and there’s your literal neighbour.