Clearly something needs to be done. I am all for stronger border patrols, but it's a big border. Moreover, it is not something we can just wall off an ignore. Ideas?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
yes and the US invading other countries has worked SO swell the last 3 or 4 times you've tried it, oh well, 6th time is the charm?
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
I'm not suggesting ousting the government or invading Mexico like we invaded Afghanistan/Iraq. I would suggest military intervention though, whether Mexico wants help or not. However, I am gathering that the president would not be opposed to US intervention.
I picked the title because A>it is a little inflammatory, and B> this is, in a sense, war with Mexico. It is war on a big business in Mexico, war against a certain type of person in Mexico, and what can be seen as a Mexican problem (this is a bit of a stretch, since the drug problem is global, and this particular instance is heavily dependant on recreational users in the US).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We are already providing police and military cooperation with the Mexican authorities in dealing with this problem. Several U.S. agencies have taskforces specifically tasked with finding criminals that are in/flee to the U.S. and extraditing them to Mexico, and vice versa. The agencies even sometimes operate within the other country's borders, with permission and cooperation.
It doesn't seem to be helping much. But I don't think "invading" is going to help...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
oh i know, lets glass mexico. First though we'll need to find a Covenant cruiser....
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Mexico's problem is that the US subsidizes absurdly high prices for non-patentable and thus cheap* recreational drugs through its so-called "War on Drugs". Nor does it help that the NationalRifleAssociation supports the massive shipments of fire arms and assault weapons to drug dealers south of the border.
* $5 per day -- about the amount spent by cigarette smokers and Starbuck regulars -- in a legal market would kill the worst heroin or cocaine addict. And "weed" is a weed. The US planted hemp in Midwestern fields for its WWII military effort, and still can't kill the stuff off.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We could solve at least part of the problem through big changes in domestic drug policy. Legalize and regulate marijuana, change from punishment to treatment methods in our judicial system so we reduce the actual number of addicts.
I think we waste too much money on ineffective methods of dealing with the demand side, and it makes efforts on the supply side meaningless.
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
I have a better idea Blayne: Why don't we just "glass" the entire world. I mean, every country is annoying in its own way. Why not just destroy it all?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:Legalize and regulate marijuana, change from punishment to treatment methods in our judicial system so we reduce the actual number of addicts.
I'm interested in why you think this would help the situation in northern Mexico. My impression is that it's not just marijuana the cartels are running. Why wouldn't these cartels just shift their focus to other products?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Legalize and regulate is just one piece. Changing to a treatment versus punishment track isn't at all targeted at marijuana users. As far as I'm aware, marijuana doesn't even have the same addictive properties as the other drugs in question, but that's hardly the point. Locking people up isn't going to reduce demand. You have to look at addictions like a disease, where you stamp out the infection both to forestall future flare ups and to reduce the number of other people infected.
There are only so many things they can grow, and I think cocaine and weed are the favorites down there. Legalize and regulate one, and treat the addicts of the other to reduce the number of customers en masse.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: yes and the US invading other countries has worked SO swell the last 3 or 4 times you've tried it, oh well, 6th time is the charm?
It did work pretty well when we invaded Mexico though.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Legalize and regulate is just one piece. Changing to a treatment versus punishment track isn't at all targeted at marijuana users. As far as I'm aware, marijuana doesn't even have the same addictive properties as the other drugs in question, but that's hardly the point. Locking people up isn't going to reduce demand. You have to look at addictions like a disease, where you stamp out the infection both to forestall future flare ups and to reduce the number of other people infected.
There are only so many things they can grow, and I think cocaine and weed are the favorites down there. Legalize and regulate one, and treat the addicts of the other to reduce the number of customers en masse.
QFT
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
As I understand it, marijuana is the least of our worries.
--j_k
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Legalize and regulate is just one piece. Changing to a treatment versus punishment track isn't at all targeted at marijuana users. As far as I'm aware, marijuana doesn't even have the same addictive properties as the other drugs in question, but that's hardly the point. Locking people up isn't going to reduce demand. You have to look at addictions like a disease, where you stamp out the infection both to forestall future flare ups and to reduce the number of other people infected.
There are only so many things they can grow, and I think cocaine and weed are the favorites down there. Legalize and regulate one, and treat the addicts of the other to reduce the number of customers en masse.
I'm in favor of legalizing all of it. However, starting with marijuana might be a wise first step so we can examine the effects before moving on to other drugs. But I'm pretty well convinced that the expense of enforcement, incentive for criminal activity, and seemingly irrepressible human demand make banning such substances pointless.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: yes and the US invading other countries has worked SO swell the last 3 or 4 times you've tried it, oh well, 6th time is the charm?
It did work pretty well when we invaded Mexico though.
Incorrect you invaded occupied US territory (Under the Manifest Destiny Doctrine) if im not incorrect there was quite a bit of american settlers in some of those places. And you were fighting a nation-state that wanted to resume a peaceful coexistence with the US.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eh. We sort of pumped settlers into Texas and then grabbed them when they declared independence. The war that followed was naked aggression, and we got TONS of stuff out of it.
Interestingly, the Mexican cession would have been a LOT larger (we'd have a lot more of Mexico) if not for party politics, and the same is true of the Gadsden Purchase. Northern politicians wanted to limit the size of the cession for fear of what southern politicians would do with the land. Lincoln by the way got his first political burn for criticizing what he saw as an unnecessary war that wasted American lives the moment before a big loss of American life, then everyone piled on the war bandwagon and he got left in the dust.
Posted by saberXedge (Member # 8841) on :
aspectre:
NationalRifleAssociation supports the massive shipments of fire arms and assault weapons to drug dealers south of the border.
Where did you come up with that tidbit of foolishness?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Lincoln by the way got his first political burn for criticizing what he saw as an unnecessary war that wasted American lives the moment before a big loss of American life, then everyone piled on the war bandwagon and he got left in the dust.
Not everyone. Thoreau had his back. I guess HDT wasn't much of a political operative, though, was he. Hard to build a constituency out of wild flowers and mushrooms.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: yes and the US invading other countries has worked SO swell the last 3 or 4 times you've tried it, oh well, 6th time is the charm?
It did work pretty well when we invaded Mexico though.
Gah. We ended up stuck with Texas. I think we have been punished enough. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Could Mexico turn into another Lebanon? Sounds similar. Violent people not sponsored by their government spilling into a neighboring country.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Beyond a certain admiration for this Marshall Kane for the 21st century (a brainy and courageous bureaucrat), I thought the most interesting thing in the article was that there have been about 230 deaths in Ciudad Juarez in the past month. That's more than Baghdad (at least by the best estimates I could find). It's not "war with Mexico," but it's certainly "war in Mexico."
Here's a thought question (although it's far from simply academic). If we could prevent civil war (through a combination of diplomatic and military actions) in one and only one of the following five countries, which would you choose: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico, Iraq, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
For me, I have to go with Pakistan, but Mexico is a close second. Pakistan has more people, nuclear-weapons, and is surrounded by lots of other unstable countries that might/would be drawn into the conflict (including India). But Mexican civil war is a greater direct threat to the US, and we have far greater cultural and civic ties with Mexico than Pakistan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd argue that a civil war in Pakistan is potentially more of a direct threat to the US. A civil war in any country that currently has nuclear weapons is always a threat, and not just because they could turn their weapons on us, but because they could just as easily nuke India, and India in turn could nuke them back, and God only knows what happens once the nukes start flying.
I have more confidence in our ability to contain the Mexican/US border in the event of a war, mostly because I believe if it really did come down to a full scale war, it'd probably, sadly, be in our best interests to actually invade and put the matter to rest, otherwise the refugee problem would overwhelm the southern US. Part of me thinks that an invasion would be the best thing for them, but I don't want a part of that mess unless we have to.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't think we have to have a war with Mexico if the United States would treat crossing the border illegally as a military act by individuals. We send a massive amount of troops with heavy artillery to the U.S. border. Make a line in the sand, so to speak, that is a no mans land. Anyone found in that zone, American or Mexican, is shot or blown up. Anyone know about Mexico's Southern border? They have a very strict policy and not many get past it who try to cross the line.
Instead, we live in a nation that is its own worst enemy. The best course of action is the one that gets the least support by politicians. And, no that isn't legalization of the product since the drug lords are not going to suddenly ask for permits. Your not going to get sympathy for such a course from me since I think recreational alcohol and smoking should be illegal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Your not going to get sympathy for such a course from me since I think recreational alcohol and smoking should be illegal.
I guess no idea isn't so bad it shouldn't be tried twice.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ... We send a massive amount of troops with heavy artillery to the U.S. border. Make a line in the sand, so to speak, that is a no mans land. Anyone found in that zone, American or Mexican, is shot or blown up ...
That should play out well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: ... We send a massive amount of troops with heavy artillery to the U.S. border. Make a line in the sand, so to speak, that is a no mans land. Anyone found in that zone, American or Mexican, is shot or blown up ...
That should play out well.
No kidding.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Was he serious about that? It was such an evil and stupid notion I thought it had to be a joke, honestly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: The best course of action is the one that gets the least support by politicians. And, no that isn't legalization of the product since the drug lords are not going to suddenly ask for permits.
Of course the drug lords wouldn't ask for permits, but they would lose their customers to legitimate, licensed, safe, and possibly cheaper sources.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder if they would be cheaper or not. On the one hand, the labor down there is a lot cheaper, but then, it's not really hard to get Mexican farm labor up here either, so we might be able to go toe to toe with them on that. Further, American agricultural prowess is incredibly impressive, which makes me think we could probably grow massive amounts of it for a lot cheaper than they can. That's speculation though, as I have very little idea as to how weed is grown. If college kids can do it in their dorm rooms, I doubt it'd be too expensive for ConAg to take a crack at it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Almost certainly cheaper. Most of the drugs involved are very cheap to produce (and nobody would have a patent, so there would be a lot of generics ) even without cheap labor. The markup on expensive drugs is due to enforcement efforts.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: yes and the US invading other countries has worked SO swell the last 3 or 4 times you've tried it, oh well, 6th time is the charm?
"They've got to be protected All their rights respected 'Til somebody we like can be elected." --Tom Lehrer
I was in college when we invaded Grenada. My first reaction was to start humming that song. As I walked through the quad, I noticed that I was far from the only one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I don't think we have to have a war with Mexico if the United States would treat crossing the border illegally as a military act by individuals. We send a massive amount of troops with heavy artillery to the U.S. border. Make a line in the sand, so to speak, that is a no mans land. Anyone found in that zone, American or Mexican, is shot or blown up. Anyone know about Mexico's Southern border? They have a very strict policy and not many get past it who try to cross the line.
Instead, we live in a nation that is its own worst enemy.
Dag, yo. What a terrible idea.
Look, the last time I said you would prefer a totalitarian, theocratic police state in the place of a secular democratic republic, I was joking.
And here, you throw my joke back in my face.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
There is still a lot of national pride and anger left over from the last several times we sent troops into Mexico. (and no I'm not talking about what is now the US, I mean Veracruz, Sonora and Chihauhua. Our National Guard Band was denied visas to play in a band festival, to which we had been invited because we would be playing in Uniform. Clinton is right. We have some responsability to help the Mexican government in this mess. But troops on the ground are just not a politically viable option.
quote:aspectre:
NationalRifleAssociation supports the massive shipments of fire arms and assault weapons to drug dealers south of the border.
Where did you come up with that tidbit of foolishness?
Geat real. The kneejerk reaction of the NRA to any limitations on arms sales is a major factor in the avalability of arms in Mexico. Even when the dealers are identified, the NRA machine blocks any legal sanctions. EDIT: to add a link for the latest example.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:There is still a lot of national pride and anger left over from the last several times we sent troops into Mexico.
RECONQUISTA
*fires a few twenny rimfires into the air*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Oooh. I like it.
We combat drug violence in Mexico by overwhelming violence against illegal day workers. Once we cut off their supply of money and jobs in the US, I'm sure none of those workers would be forced to settle for a life of violent crime in Mexico.
But wait, there's more.
Since we are considering the illegal immigrants to this country as a military style invasion it seems only fair that we treat those that help them as traitors. We execute such traitors in this country. Lets go hang all the owners of the companies that employ them.
Giving Aid and Comfort to the enemy means we should also hang every cook, waiter, hotel desk clerk, apartment manager, and gas station attendant who ever helped them travel and live in this country. Unlike some who did so for their ideals, these people did it for base money. Hang em high.
Now, those caring people who aided these folks out of compassion and religious obligation are still traitors. The get hanged next. That means every priest who offered confession, every nurse who offered a bandage, every doctor, minister, aid worker and homeless shelter that ever helped or continues to help these invaders must die.
Then there is the true enemy, not the workers trying to feed their families, but those who profit by the drug trade, or take the drugs themselves.
Gun dealers who knowingly sell their guns to the Mexican drug cartels--must be hanged.
Drug dealers and middle men who take the Mexican drugs and sell it to the US markets--must be hanged.
Bankers who take the drug money and wash it so that it can be used and abused by the cartels--must be hanged.
And those who take the drugs, who buy them and are the source of all their evil money. They too must be hanged.
All are traitors in this war.
We hang traitors in the good Old US.
Hang them all, as a sign that the US will not be molested in this way by upstart foreigners and their dirty drugs.
The only problem I see with this is once we have hanged all the people who have betrayed our country, either out of compassion, or for cash, or just to get a little high, there won't be many people left to man the border patrol.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Hard to build a constituency out of wild flowers and mushrooms.
Isn't this how the Hippies got started?
(I know this was from a week and a half ago, but I just started reading this thread...)
-Bok
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I would be more concerned with millions of refugees instead of invaders. We won't go to war "with" Mexico but we may end up fighting alongside the Mexican government against Mexican cartels. Slight distinction. Like we are not at war with Iraq, we are fighting alongside Iraqi's against Iranians, Pakistani's, Egyptians, Saudi's, who want a religious state controlled by Sharia law.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Seems like half the important players in Mexico are in some way or form under the thumb of the cartels.
How do you fight alongside a government whose army and police are being taken out for ice cream cones by the cartels? We wouldn't be fighting alongside them, we'd be fighting a proxy war for them.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I see your point. Similarly, how can our politicians be looking out for main street against wall street when wall street fills their campaign coffers.
The people in the government that are paid off are the enemy too. They are not representing the government but the cartels therefore part of the cartel. Spies in a sense. I'm sure the Taliban has members working as Iraqi police officers, but they too need to be discovered and purged.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, that's a much more complicated ball of wax.
Politicians actually have to walk a tight rope between, for lack of a better term, corporate sponsorship and public will. When you stray too far into defending the interests if your campaign donors, you become Chris Dodd, who is facing both a serious primary and general election challenge in the upcoming midterms, and who many feel is unlike to survive due to his corporate connections and actions.
A police captain in Tijuana doesn't have nearly the same problem. Down there if you complain you wind up dead, or a loved one ends up dead or kidnapped. If you narc on someone down there, you get yourself killed, but up here it's called whistleblowing, and you get a media fanfare parade and legal protections (that don't always work, sure) to ensure your job security.
Different situations, different cultures.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)