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.

  • Hemingways_ShotgunEnglish
    291·
    8 hours ago

    It’s a pretext for invasion. Just like invading Afganistan was to intervene in order to get Al-Queda. Or invading Iraq was about getting the Taliban… etc… etc… etc…

    If America wants a war with someone for oil/economic pressure/etc… (really whatever reason they choose to make up) they simply say that there are terrorists there.

    I’m calling it now and saying that in two weeks he declares the Quebec Sovereignty movement a terrorist organization for reasons…

    • Juice@midwest.social
      8·
      7 hours ago

      Quebec

      Yeah if our reality could stop resembling Infinite Jest, that would be great. I can’t stand that stupid fucking book and how accurately it predicts our increasingly insane circumstances

      • Hemingways_ShotgunEnglish
        6·
        7 hours ago

        I’ve honestly never made it through the whole thing.

        Tried to, back in the day. It’s one of those things that’s expected of you if you want to be a proper turtleneck wearing, pretentious literati as a university student. (I was a douche, okay…I admit it…it’s the same reason I fought my way through War and Peace and Foucault’s Pendulum) But I’m much better now.

        (and yes…I had the soul patch and everything)

        • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          4 hours ago

          Foucault’s Pendulum is fucking awesome though? It might be his best book since Name of the Rose.

          I read War and Peace on an iphone. It gave a strange sense of achievement to read 57 “pages” in 15 minutes. Each page was most of a paragraph.

          I haven’t bothered with David Foster Wallace yet.

          • Hemingways_ShotgunEnglish
            2·
            3 hours ago

            It might be his best book since Name of the Rose

            My personal favourite is The Island of the Day Before. Though I haven’t read either in years and it might be nostalgia because that was my first introduction to Eco.

        • Juice@midwest.social
          2·
          7 hours ago

          Same, except i wasnt a lit major, just a guy who was going through the phase of “this is what intelligent people look like” while trying to educate myself. I was convinced DFW was the voice of our generation, heralding in a new era of consciousness.

          The book is conceptually pretty cool, like it is really well written and he draws together so many disparate elements to make kind of a coherent narrative.

          But the idea of making a book impossible to read on purpose is a funny joke, especially one that so many aspiring intelligentsia gush over. I can appreciate a good shaggy dog as much as the next guy, but IJ is just so far beyond the pale.

          A book should be challenging because the concepts are unique and well considered, and it draws from lots of historic and philosophical research; not because the author decided to intentionally break the flow of the narrative to make you flip to the not-optional appendix to read 32 pages of made up synopsis about a character’s avant-garde filmography.