this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
362 points (97.1% liked)

World News

49186 readers
1585 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 3 hours ago

2025, the start of the beans war, USA Burrito vs. Mexican Taco. Fight fire with fire.

It all starts with a sandwich attack... Next thing you know the USA realizes that drones can't win a food war....

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Attack Mexico.

Start Draft.

[–] StarryPhoenix97@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Indoctrinate youth, thin out over educated middle aged opposition.

[–] Treetrimmer@sh.itjust.works 11 points 12 hours ago

Deport military age immigrants to Mexico, then attack. Brilliant plan

[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Faltering empires always flail about militarily. Part of the death throes.

That said. It would almost be worth him doing it just to see what happens when Mexico invokes Article 5.

[–] darkpanda@lemmy.ca 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

Well poo. Still. It'll be fun to watch the US lose another war.

25 years of recent living memory experience and we still can't fight an insurgency. Let alone one that already knows all our best training and techniques.

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Chivera@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago
[–] Mortoc@lemmy.world 116 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Anything to distract from the Epstein files.

[–] Treetrimmer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago

That was the only reason trump planned the Alaska trip

[–] PodPerson@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

Are those similar to the Trump-Epstein files?

load more comments (1 replies)

Oh, well thats nice of them, I guess. Who is Mexico attacking?

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah, roght out of Isreals play book, invade a country on the basis of eliminating terrorists/gangs

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ehm... the US doesn't need to use someone's else's copy of the book they wrote.

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty much every nation with an army has attack plans against its' neighbours, just in case. Actually using them, of course, is quite another thing. Unless you need to be really on your toes because of an unpredictable, aggressive and vicious southern neighbour like -not to name anyone- Austria.

[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Most other countries aren't currently ran by a dementia addled pedophile who's desperate to become a king.

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Heads of state do not design attack plans. Strategists do. In other words, all these generals have to do something for their money, so they breed over attack and defense scenarios of any imaginable situation so they can be perfectly unprepared if one of them really becomes real.

[–] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Of course. They've got half a dozen attack plans for each country with more than a prop plane at their disposal.

Still bodes ill that this president and this state dept are advertising that fact.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 42 points 1 day ago

When current news gives you flashbacks to the Cyberpunk 2077 lore. The names and dates are different but the trends and events match enough to give the uncanny feeling. Agencies in the streets being deployed, USA in trade war losing irrelevance, going for the Central American war and then losing. By the way, that's why cybernetic limbs got so good, they needed them to patch up the soldiers from that war.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 61 points 2 days ago (3 children)

drawing up

Doesn't DoD have detailed attack plans for every nation already?

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes but this is a bad headline. The article is about specifically using US military to attack cartels, which the Trump administration has already made legal for themselves by recategorizing them as terrorists.

It is still a violation of both international law and common sense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 46 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes.

Well, not necessarily detailed. Like I'm sure the plan for an invasion of Uruguay is basically nonexistent, while one for war with China is comprehensive.

Plans for a zombie apocalypse have also been created at least once as an exercise. It's good practice for an emergency situation.

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Airborne Rabies wouldn't be that dissimilar from zombies. Pretty sure there's a tabletop for that.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

We've got that in Australia!

note: It's 'not rabies' (it's Bat Lyssavirus, which is 'totally not rabies'*) and it's 'airborne' since they're bats :P

[–] philpo@feddit.org 1 points 15 hours ago

In the US they have bats with actual Rabies...sooo....

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] orclev@lemmy.world 42 points 2 days ago (13 children)

He's trying to imitate Putin. Probably go about as well as it has for Putin as well.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The US isn’t ready for a two front war where the whole world wants to get rid of them. They don’t have the cards.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Please... I'm not a big fan of the US right now either. But that is just an absurd claim. No one is going to willingly open up a front against the US.

Like it or not, but they absolutely have the cards.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Canada would know that if the US attacks Mexico then it would be next, that would be the only time to fight.

There isn’t a choice, this means Europe joins.

Europe joining means China will join so that it can replace the US in Europe.

Mexico at war is going to bring many countries below it in because they don’t want to be the next smaller country on the US doorstep.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Canada isn't a smuggle route worth billions.

The only reason they could even potentially go into Mexico is due to the Cartels and their billion dollar drug trade. (I don't have facts saying it's a billion dollar drug trade. But I'm making an educated guess that's it's worth a shit ton of money)

There is just no way in hell Canada would ever strike first on the US and be the aggressor. Even if Canada would strike at the US, why the hell would Europe side with Canada? They are now the aggressor. Attacking a fellow NATO member no less.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The realism of my previous statement, no one would view it as a strike first, it’s retaliation for attacking Mexico.

The alternative is to just get picked off one by one.

After Canada comes Denmark so be realistic about it.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Ehm.... I disagree. Everyone would see it as a first strike. Because that's what it is.

Canada has no military alliance with Mexico as far as I know.

I honestly can't believe you put the words "be realistic about it" in the context of Canada striking the US.

If Europe didn't do more than sending weapons to Ukraine. Why would they do anything more to Canada? Which, would be logistically, an almost impossible task.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Giving Russia control of the North Atlantic is a much bigger threat to Europe than giving them access to the Black Sea.

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

What are you even talking about? Russia already have access to the Black Sea. And have had since the birth of their country.

And what do you even mean "give them control" of the North Atlantic? When was the last time you looked at a map of the globe?

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The note on the black sea was about Crimea

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes. Thank you. So please explain how the US would have anything to do, with granting them access via that route. If anything. It looks like it's up to Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark to exert control over what is right next to their maritime border.

The note on the black sea was about Crimea

They don't need Crimea to have access to the black sea. They already had access to it.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Why do you think the US wants Canada and Denmark? It’s to help Russian conquest of Europe.

They don’t need Crimea to have access to the black sea. They already had access to it.

So you see why it would matter less to Europe?

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

the US doesn't want Canada and Denmark.

Trump speaking nonsense just to get attention for the sake of getting attention is a different matter than what the US actually want.

Not to mention that it's never been about wanting Denmark. It's about putting Military bases on Greenland. Which they already have under a current agreement. And the US isn't even reaching the quota of the current agreement.

It doesn't matter what Trump says. The US is not going to just casually invade a fellow NATO member. And Canada isn't going to either. Especially not over Mexico.

So you see why it would matter less to Europe?

Why what would matter less to Europe? Are you trying to say that just because Russia already had access to the Black Sea, that it somehow wouldn't matter to Europe that they invaded Ukraine and violated their sovereignty?

Either you're on something you shouldn't be. Or you're off something you shouldn't be. Whatever it is. Good luck.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DrSoap@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Why? What's even the end goal? A war to stay in office maybe?

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago

Martial Law is definitely on his wishlist.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›