this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2025
471 points (98.8% liked)

World News

42773 readers
3107 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Donald Trump defended Russia's massive missile and drone attack on Ukraine that followed his administration's halt to intelligence sharing and military aid to Kyiv, saying Putin was "doing what anybody would do."

Trump told reporters he finds it "easier" to work with Russia than Ukraine, claiming Putin "wants to end the war."

While threatening vague sanctions against Russia on social media, Trump's actual actions have targeted Ukraine, including cutting off military supplies and disabling Ukraine's access to satellite imagery.

Ukrainian forces have reportedly suffered battlefield setbacks as a direct result of these U.S. policy changes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

mexico??? you know the panama/canada/greenland talk yeah.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's been a long standing right wing fantasy of sending the us military to deal with the cartels

[–] commander@lemmings.world -5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

What about that is right-wing?

[–] OnASnowyEvening@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

The United States has a history of organizing campaigns to crush terrorist organizations. A month ago, the United States designated six cartels as terrorist organizations, which prompted Mexico to issue a warning about the United States attempting any sort of invasion or incursion. This is also occuring in tandem with the current President of the United States going on about taking Greenland and Panama, and how Canada should be part of the United States, which was also interpreted as a suggestion of a hostile takeover.

And then there are reports of them having been mulling options since November, talk of it by political candidates in 2023, talk by sitting members of Congress and even legislation introduced in support of it within Congress.

Not so curiously, these acts have been exclusively done by Republicans, also known as the Right-Wing.

Of course, if you could show that Democrats were as keen on the idea of invading Mexico, then calling it right-wring would be in error.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

When your response to complicated situation that could be solved with non-violence is to send in the military - that's right wing

[–] commander@lemmings.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

How do we solve it with non-violence?

[–] mira13@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Fix the root issue. Cartels thrive because yanks want drugs. Yanks mostly want drugs because there are issues in their lives they want to run away from and end up addicted to said drugs. Decriminalizing possession and offering detox programs to those addicted would already help reduce the demand by making people willing and able to come forward to get treatment for a drug addiction without fear of being arrested and having their lives ruined further. Then you can attack the source of this desire for drugs by passing laws that actually help people by offering them social safety nets and access to healthcare. Then you can legalize far less addicting and dangerous drugs like cannabis so people who do seek drugs won't go to black market ones that help cartels thrive.

There are SOOOOO many little steps that can be taken to reduce the power of cartels, but that would require Yanks to actually care about one another, not just about their own wallet and be willing to go for complex solutions, not just the easy solution of just shoot your problem, so I guess that's just never happening.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Cartels have been diversifying their investments for years. They're involved in way more than drugs at this point.

[–] MonkeMischief 2 points 5 hours ago

Wonderfully said!

Indeed, when we've based our society around "get rich or die trying" and a constant state of misery is the motivator to work ever-demanding jobs with less compensation, and people are scared to lose the house over an ambulance ride...

The US practically molded the cartels' success from their own policies. A cartel is simply violent unfettered capitalism, after all. They are destructively "filling a need."

We could reduce or eliminate that need, but the State would rather crush their competition in the misery business.

It's no wonder we saw the serious rise of the cartels especially around the 1970's and onward, and that's when the working class started its increasingly rapid descent.