• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -102 years ago

    If it’s to kill terrorists that are enemies of both the US and Mexican government, not really.

    • Awoo [she/her]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      562 years ago

      Mexico isn’t fucking inviting the US to do it. They want the US to fuck off.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

        • Awoo [she/her]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          49
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

          This is a disgusting level of nationalism. You’re already making excuses for america.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -22 years ago

            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”

        • Redcat [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          40
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -22 years ago

            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.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              342 years ago

              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

            • Redcat [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              28
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              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.

        • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          262 years ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -22 years ago

            “War” implies the US and Mexico mutually fighting. Libya was military intervention not war.

            • immuredanchorite [he/him, any]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              362 years ago

              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 smuglord

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -22 years ago

                Well yeah, you OBJECTIVELY can’t call what happened in Libya a “war”. It was bad and unnecessary, but by definition, not a war… You did not have US troops fighting Libyan troops.

                • brain_in_a_box [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  292 years ago

                  So because the US troops were using weapons the Libyan troops couldn’t effectively fight back against, it doesn’t count as a war?

                  “It wasn’t a battle, it was a just a massacre, so it’s OK”

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -12 years ago

                    You’re fighting with the air. I very clearly said Libya wasn’t ok.

                    You’re right, massacres aren’t battles and we shouldn’t call them that. Of course that doesn’t make it any better but why call it a battle if it’s not?

            • FALGSConaut [comrade/them]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              282 years ago

              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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      472 years ago

      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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

        • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          At this point you really need to define what a “war” is because all you’re doing is dancing around without having to actually stake any claim to an argument. Instead of getting indignant at people drawing conclusions from what you DO say, make the substance of your opinion known so it can be examined and criticized openly.

          Explain what the difference is between having your military attack another country and a “congress didn’t say it’s a war but it’s really a war”.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            At this point you really need to define what a “war” is

            “a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state”

            Key word, “between.” You can’t have a war if no one declares war.

            • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              24
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              You can’t have a war if no one declares war

              Are you just fucking with us now? Is this a bit?

              I’ve seen at least one other person gently remind you of the last 70 years of US history. Are you just being a troll at this point?

              I worded my question explicitly so as to make you think about this. Can you please try to?

            • eatmyass [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              172 years ago

              Two states fighting against each other for the other state’s territory or resources is not a war unless they declare war?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                Mexico wouldn’t be fighting back in this case (which is obviously bad, I’m just speaking semantically).

                • eatmyass [he/him]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  142 years ago

                  Right, but we’re just talking in the abstract. You have a definition of war, I’m asking if there is a conventional war, one state opposing another site, trying to gain the other’s resources or territory - you don’t consider this a war unless both countries explicitly declare war on the other?

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    12 years ago

                    you don’t consider this a war unless both countries explicitly declare war on the other?

                    An invasion sure, but not technically a war.

    • Flinch [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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)

    • Farman [any]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 years ago

      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.

    • oregoncom [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -62 years ago

      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.