One thing Trump tried to do after getting inaugurated was considering Mexican cartels terrorist organizations, and for that he was attacked by Sheinbaum for violating Mexico’s sovereignty. But, at least as far as I’ve read on the topic (whcih is not a lot to be fair), nobody actually explains why that’s the case. I mean at a glance you’d think the Mexican government would benefit from such an action, or at least I did. It’s pretty obvious to me I’m missing a piece of the puzzle, so does anyone here have it?

Edit: Thanks for the answers. Now it makes sense.

  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    See: Afghanistan, Iraq.

    America are the toddlers who have found father’s gun and decide to blast at anyone withholding sugar.

    The idea that the American military are competent enough to go after just the cartels is laughable. Not to mention the violation of Mexican sovereignty.

    Then you see what they did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Any boy over the age of 12 was considered a potential terrorist therefore a “military age male” and was thus fair game for special forces murder squads, air strikes, drone strikes, and was not needed to be included in the official statistics for civilian kills.

    In short the American military apparatus uses Terrorism as a green light to go for maximum overkill, regardless of the level of civilian kills and socio-economic impact. This in turn sustains the vast economic forces in defence contracting and makes a lot of political donors a lot of money.

    It also rids the US of thousands of low-income patriotic-but-stupid people who sign up to the military because they have few other career options. These would later cost the state money in Medicare but not if they get killed in action.

    War is primarily big business. Moral and legal factors take a back seat.