The US has been waging unprovoked war on Latin America since before WW1.
The only thing new about this is that this irredeemable piece of garbage is stating the quiet part out loud.
When asked in an interview how drone operators would know if the people being blown to smithereens were actually carrying drugs, he replied: “Same way a police officer would know … Same way somebody operating in Iraq would know. You know, these people in Iraq at the time, they all looked the same. You didn’t know who had a bomb strapped to them. So those guys have to make judgments.”
Holy F, as a mexican that crosses the border often for vacations… this is extreme and scary
Picking two examples where the operator is often wrong, and very publicly so
Absolutely batshit rhetoric, this guy better lose hard…………
At the very least, that is certainly the case right now. All the polls of conservatives consistently show Trump smoking Desantis.
That’s a whole different kind of problem and I hate it
Unfortunately he’s only 44 years old. Hoping he slides into oblivion but I worry he’s going to be flirting around for decades.
I do wonder if Desantis’ insanity will ever meaningfully affect his electoral chances in Florida or if the boomers there are too far gone to care about the state around them (and their ongoing dwindling Social Security and Medicare thanks to Republicans).
He’s using a pretty standard tactic for a right wing politician down in the polls: throw increasing amounts of crazy against the wall until something sticks and the polls improve.
His consultants will call this “calibrating”, to find the right level of insane to match voter expectations and grab media attention for a few cycles along the way.
Next time you cross just carry an ir strobe and IFF NATO friendly panel on your hood. Should be good to go.
Yeah, that sounds like the old “Kill them all and let God sort them out” approach.
Funnily enough, if you suggest to do the same to people who advocate this approach to let God decide if the approach is good, they’re a lot less enthusiastic
It doesn’t make any sense. In heaven, all the good people will have everything they’ve ever wanted forever.
But when I offer to send everyone to heaven all at the same time, they treat me like I’m a bad guy.
It just doesn’t make any sense
I mean, we joke, but this is pretty what he’s proposing.
This dude is pushing Putin-level shades of crazy.
at least putin isn’t in control of a hideously powerful military
As a white person from Wisconsin who never crosses the boarder… this is extreme and scary.
As a Canadian who’s an entire country away… this is extreme and scary.
Are drones strikes on our maple syrup cartels next?
Don’t give them ideas, for all that’s sacred, leave the maple out of this!
How about a new rule that if you vote for a war, you are automatically enlisted. And if you’re ineligible to enlist you must either abstain or vote no.
Unfortunately he was a Lieutenant commander in the Navy. Going back probably doesn’t concern him.
Smedley Butler solved this issue back in the 1920’s, change the vote from Congress to eligible draftees to solve us going to war for stupid reasons.
Then during times of war, lock down every individual’s income and ability to earn money to that of the soldier. Keeping war profiteering from stretching wars on indefinitely.
It’s radical, but would probably keep us from just “being at war” eternally. A reality we have had to live in since at least 9/11.
The problem these “add a meta policy” proposals all have in common is that they assume we have any control over the legislature… which we don’t have; they don’t work for us at all. At this point only organizing and other direct action will have any significant impact on actual policy.
In this particular case, legislators would continue to receive bribe income that they refuse to acknowledge as bribery.
Is the US even still involved in a war since 2021? At least through direct action.
The Global War on Terror is what it’s called, it’s just a neverending operation of military sorties across the world to support whatever and wherever.
The problem is the us hasn’t had a formal declaration of war since WW2. Basically we’ve just had military engagements. Some haven’t even been authorized by congress.
Basically we’d need to fix that issue before worrying about the other suggestions. Else it’d just be military engagement not a war so don’t need to fallow them.
Congress members get as many votes for war as they have draft-age family members. For each vote they cast, they must enlist 1 family member. Starting with their own children.
I see an obvious exploit with this: congress members enlisting family members who would rather vote ‘No’ just so they can get more votes for their own choice.
You might think “nobody would enlist their child to fight a war that they’re against” but I promise you, there are people like that.
deleted by creator
Nah just ship the congressmen/women off with the infantry. Then they can see exactly what they’re voting for.
Given the low regard for their children and grandchildren they show when it comes to climate change, I doubt that would be an adequate deterrent.
Senators are (with few exceptions) extraordinarily wealthy. When climate change is destroying crops and making some areas uninhabitable, these senators’ families will still be living very comfortably.
Most of their kids are 55+, they can’t enlist lol
No different than having no kids.
No kids/grandkids/niblings we can send to war? No right to vote for war.
Why not?.. Look at the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine, they clearly look like 60+.
many have already gladly voted yes for both many times. I don’t think that will stop enough of them.
As if someone like Trump would even give a second thought to sending his kids off to war?
Some of em don’t care about their kids. They can go fight, themselves.
Some of em don’t care about their kids.
As evidenced by their complete lack of concern regarding climate change.
We basically had that a century ago, before the nobility moved behind the scenes and became the 1%
Unqualified scions were sent to the battlefield to gain military merits, which was generally bad for everyone. I’m pretty sure it only really stopped after WWI, when the death toll from combat started getting ridiculous
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You can be against war without thinking you’ll end war.
Does the “Presidents approval rating increase during wartime” thing occur if you just loudly state “I’m gonna do a war if elected”?
It increases their approval rating with the military industrial complex lobbyists funding their campaigns, I’m sure.
Exactly. Wat is a very profitable business, and I’m sure Northrop and Raytheon would love some more revenue.
a fair chunk of the aid being sent to ukraine is already ending up in the pockets of defense contractors.
They was a press release recently saying that almost all of the money is going to the MIC(military industrial complex) to replenish stocks for stuff given to Ukraine.
Even the Canadian money is doing that. Like where Trudeau brokered a deal with South Korea to gift shells from the active stockpile to Ukraine, the money went to their MIC to make new shells for their stockpile.
No, it doesn’t always happen. Look to 2016 as an example. One of the talking points of Trump’s campaign was that Clinton would lead the U.S. to war with Russia.
Anecdotally, after the election, I was talking with a Trump voter who mentioned that Trump prevented us from going to war with Russia. Which fucking surprised me, considering conservatives are so fucking hawkish, and I did not know that idea was tossed around in conservative circles as a talking point.
So no, many elections in the U.S. have been won by candidates that back isolationist policies (primarily WWI and WWII as an example). It’s all inherently political and can take a very populist tone.
Before Trump they’d have loved war with Russia. It was them following the typical conservative “we all believe this now” rhetoric that changed that. Now Putin is a great example of an orthodox Christian and he’s doing great things for his country.
Historically you have to campaign as being against the war but then promptly set about the business of creating a war once in office
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
unfortunately he was just stating US policy there - Obama infamously drone bombed a wedding. one of the things that makes him appealing to his base is that he takes these facts (or presumed facts in other cases) and says them straight up without hiding it behind sophistry.
Yeah, the way the US picks targets to murder is like algorithm moderated vibes. It’s really sick.
Obama also liked double tapping ambulances. IE dropping a missile, waiting for first responders and neighbors to show up, then dropping another missile.
deleted by creator
The Mexican government has also responded to these proposals with scalding outrage. As Zach Beauchamp points out at Vox, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said at a press conference that “We won’t allow it. And not only are we not going to allow it, we’re denouncing it.” Even a single drone attack would seem highly likely to end up in a direct confrontation with the Mexican military.
That’s the important part of the article. It may be worth discussing whether to use the US military against drug cartels, but doing it without the full consent of the Mexican government would be batshit crazy.
That’s how the US get Russia-levels of sanctions from every other nation. Russia would cream it’s pants if the US did something so boldly stupid.
I’d still call bullshit. Done attacks will be useless. People desire drugs. They’ll find a way.
The problem is supply and demand. If people want to use drugs, they’re going to either way. We need to make the drugs ourselves and create harm reduction centers. Attack the problem at home.
For real, if I was buying FDA regulated MDMA at Walgreens, there would be a virtually 0 percent chance of me accidentally getting addicted to fentanyl.
Well…yeah, of course. This isn’t about drug use. This is about fear and hate.
It was never about the drugs.
Republicans trying really hard to make Trump look normal.
Trump is what you get when you average all of America.
Certain groups in the US have been building up to this for a while. They genuinely do want a war with Mexico. They’ve been trying to use drugs as an excuse to do it.
Here is an excellent video going into this when it all started to get quite serious and AMLO (mexican president) started to aggressively fight back against it: https://youtu.be/3dw1pcDoewY
He’s also called the american media sphere trying to build up to this fascistic “hitlerismo”, comparing american media to goebbels.
Nothing is more American than invading other countries and murdering their people.
*English. Ftfy
This dude is desperate to be the most hated piece of shit in existence.
He wants to be Trump so bad - and everytime his poll numbers drop, it seems like he just tries to crank up his impersonation even more
It shows how terrifyingly bloodthirsty @Civility@hexbear.net liberals are when they want DeSant!s over
🙈
when you meme yourself, lol
Credit to the legendary @Eugene_V_Dabs@hexbear.net. I need to get back on reuploading the rest of those honestly.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=8eg9DxBzAkE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I hate DeSantis as much as the next guy but cmon, this title is misleading. He said he would “drone strikes cartels,” not that he wanted to go to war.
Launching military ordnance into another country is the definition of war.
If it’s to kill terrorists that are enemies of both the US and Mexican government, not really.
I’m sure the regime who drone struck weddings, hospitals, and loves to double-tap to catch civilians coming to help victims in the aftermath can be trusted to only kill “terrorists” (don’t ask what they define as a terrorist)
Maybe you should worry more about your meth-addled midwest shithole than try to turn socal into a warzone? Jesus christ I wish we could drone strike whatever meth lab you’re posting from.
Targeted drone strikes to kill terrorists have done wonders every other time we’ve done it, let’s run it back!
because mexico definitely consents to the US bombing their country
What if i say the us army are terrorists? Then sending ordinance into your country should be fine no. Since i said they are terrorists.
If it’s to kill terrorists
Where have I heard this one before?
Mexico isn’t fucking inviting the US to do it. They want the US to fuck off.
Still, misleading title, he’s not proposing a war. Could it potentially lead to war? Yeah but it’s very, very unlikely Mexico would actually declare war on America.
The United States is not an arbiter of which Mexicans are to be extrajudicially executed by drone strikes. You’re acting like a coward who’s only too happy the Mexicans are too weak to strike back.
Buddy all I’m saying is the title is misleading. I’m obviously against the US bombing Mexican cartels, I just don’t think it’s going to start a war.
If you think the US would be disciplined about only attacking cartels after seeing the War on Terror, I have a bridge to sell you
dude you said it would be no loss to do so, since they’re cartels
you ain’t fooling no one
Yes, you know that the US can do almost anything it wants and that it won’t trigger a war with Mexico. It can sanction thousands or millions to death by starvation and lack of medical supplies. It can bomb people. It can seize and occupy territory if it really wants to. Not because the US wouldn’t be waging war then, but because the Mexicans and the rest of latin america are too weak to fight back. And in knowing this you can then claim that, actually, ‘this is misleading 4/5 pinocchios Ron DeSantis only wants the right to do a little gunboat diplomacy with capital punishment characteristics and that’s not really a war’.
I’m sure that if China drone bombed someone in New York the Americans would be super chill about it.
What the fuck do you think putting your military into another country uninvited is? What the fuck are you doing quibbling over “potentially” a war or not? What you’re essentially saying here is that you’re ok with it as long if Mexico cowers and doesn’t fight back.
Typical hexbears to shove words down throats.
I never said I wasn’t against this, I’m merely saying the title should’ve been something like, “Ron DeSantis proposes uninvited drone strikes on Mexican cartel”
Why should a title help obscure the reality of calling to commit acts of war against our neighbor
“The American Supreme Court gives individual states the right to choose in reversal of Roe vs Wade”
How dare you shove my words back into my mouth! I wasn’t endorsing it! I was merely using Bush era talking points to obscure the reality of those actions and diminish their impact!
The US hasn’t declared a war since WW2, they’ve still gone to war. Neither the US nor Libya declared war on each other but it still counts as a war when the US bombs the absolute shit out of a country.
“War” implies the US and Mexico mutually fighting. Libya was military intervention not war.
Libya was military intervention not war.
A Special Military Operation, if you will.
Of course, I forgot when you call it something other than war then it’s not a war! That’s why we have the Korean Police Action, the Vietnam Police Action, the Police Actions in Panama and Grenada, Desert Police Action 1 & 2 in Iraq, and the Global Police Action on Terror! None of those were wars, right?
Oh my god dude. Come on.
checkmate! it can’t be called a war if we simply lob misiles at a country and arm every lunatic we find, completely destroying it in the process
If it’s to kill terrorists
Imagine still buying this
So you’d be okay with the Chinese dropping a bomb on a house in your neighbourhood because some right-wing nut was gonna blow up a government building?
He’s a terrorist, so it’s all good right?
I mean, I’m not going to shed any tears over a would-be Timothy McVeigh who probably fantasized about killing leftists like me.
Now, if they start bombing weddings, then we’ve got a problem. And yeah, the US military did that.
I’m not justifying it. I’m only saying the title is a bit misleading/sensationalist.
how do you people live with yourselves. that’s definitionally war.deleted by creator
dude imagine if russia went and drone striked your capital, or any city, you would consider this war yes?
Why the fuck does America get a pass?
deleted by creator
once again, i have to commend you on the quality of this bit
Groups in the US have been working on this for quite some time. The Mexican president has condemned invasion threats from these american groups and called the american media sphere trying to build up to this fascistic, comparing american media to goebbels.
The excuse being used is cartels. But it is ultimately an invasion to force mexico into privatisation of various resources and inflict american will on them.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/3dw1pcDoewY
https://piped.video/vDQbIQlBppU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
“i hate X as much as the next guy but cmon”
literal reddit bot
Holy shit. How did people ever get it in their heads that drone strikes are not military incursions? Is it because there’s no humans physically entering the territory? Would you think the same thing if we were lobbing artillery shells over the border?
And how would doing either of those things without the cooperation of the Mexican government be anything other than an act of war?
I mean, I get that there is a difference between sending an armored column to occupy Juarez and a drone strike, and it’s not clear from the title which one we’re talking about, but you can’t really dispute that either of those things would be an act of war under any meaningful definition.
It’s an insane thing to say, regardless, because if you know anything about US Mexico relations you know he’s not talking about some kind of cooperative anti-cartel police action. He is in fact talking about an act of war. And a particularly stupid one at that.
This is why Trump will win. Trump maybe dumb, but he’s not that stupid to go around telling peoples he gonna invade this and that.
Is this guy the best that the Republican party has to offer?
Trump is actually destroying DeSantis in the polls at 54.5% (Trump) to 14.8% (DeSantis). I have no idea how any Republican can lose to Trump. They don’t even need a platform. All they have to do is go out there and call Trump out on all his bs. Point out he’s failed businessman, make fun of his corny superhero NFTs, show how he sucks up to Putin, emasculate him conservative-style for wearing make-up, say that he will probably die of old age within the next 5 years…call him a rapist! That’s it. Just do it.
Honestly yeah - I feel like to many of his competitors (especially DeSantis) are trying to emulate Trump, when really they should be going directly against him. They’re scared shitless of pissing off his voters, but clearly trying to appeal to them by being Trump v2 isn’t working either, so I don’t see what they have to lose
Most of Trump’s bullshit is why they like him. You can’t attack someone for things his supporters approve of.
Have you ever heard translations of Russian, especially Soviet, propaganda? The lies are absurd. They conflict with reality to the point many viewers have firsthand experiences that conflict with them. But they work, because people are trained to believe them - the unbelievable aspect of them makes them far more effective in a weird quirk of psychology
That’s the real reason why you can’t attack Trump from the right - he’ll lie to your face and call you a hater, and his base will believe him. Doesn’t matter if you have facts, doesn’t matter if you’re just repeating his words from last week - if you support Trump at this point, either it’s convenient for you to support him or you believe him in a faith sort of way. Either way, nothing said on that stage is going to change their minds
The other aspect is that Trump is insanely charismatic. He’s great at debate - without an impartial judge that can shut him down, he gets to play by different rules than everyone else on the stage
The best example of this is to read one of his speeches. You might listen to him and go “wtf is he talking about”, but reading his speeches is viscerally shocking. He rambles like my grandpa did when he was having a bad day with dementia - he drifts topic to topic, rarely goes back to finish a point, and like 90% of it is just filler words.
But despite all that, people absolutely love to hear him speak. There’s plenty to say about the man, but his charisma is off the charts.
Engaging him in debate is a fools errand. He will win, because he can sit up there, not make a single coherent point, come up with gradeschool nicknames, and half the country will walk away with the impression that he won the argument
“Best” is a challenging word to apply to Republican candidates these days.
