While Mexico Burns, Obama Golfs

[Business_Casual]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/25/mexico.dead.bodies/index.html?iref=obnetwork

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/27/car-explodes-mexican-tv-offices-drug-plagued-state-network-reports/

http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/white-house-press-pool-report-3-2/

Israel, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan - does it matter? Obama has a tee time, not time for work!

B_C

[ForTehNguyen]

The Fall of Mexico, some startling implications in this read: corrupt govt, corrupt military, certain states are essentially under undeclared martial law. Not that we didnt know that already.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-fall-of-mexico/7760/

all of this can end with the legalization of this failed War on Drugs

[Business_Casual]

"We're getting some shrimp, come on guys!"

[kmrtnsn]

I think it is a better question as to where Presidente Calderon is and what he is doing. He is the Leader of Mexico after all; Obama ( and Bush 41, Bush 43 and Reagan before them) is not.

[Business_Casual]

I think it is a better question as to where Presidente Calderon is and what he is doing. He is the Leader of Mexico after all; Obama ( and Bush 41, Bush 43 and Reagan before them) is not.

I guess the American President has no influence over our border or the drug war that is escalating over the increasingly profitable business of taking drugs into the US virtually unimpeded by US security forces and where the Attorney General, who reports to the President, wouldn't sue a soveriegn state for enacting a law designed to stem the flow of illegals into their territory, right?

Yeah, you're right, the voters and citizens of the USA shouldn't question our leaders, we should question the leader of a country of which we aren't citizens nor voters.

B_C

[kmrtnsn]

The sad truth is that there will be no real change in Mexico until the people of Mexico decide they want to fix their own problems, we can't fix this for them. They sold their souls for Colombian cocaine dollars a decade ago from the peasant fisherman unloading the boats and mini-subs all the way up to their chief executive. Mexico has been a failed state since before WWII; it is going to take another, and real Mexican revolution to cure their ails. After all of their previous failed Mexican revolutions I hope they get the next one right.

[bkb0000]

After all of their previous failed Mexican revolutions I hope they get the next one right.

grab your guns. i'll bring my laptop. we can design propaganda leaflets along the way.

gentlemen... we're going to mexico.

[kmrtnsn]

"grab your guns. i'll bring my laptop. we can design propaganda leaflets along the way.

gentlemen... we're going to mexico."

That's the spirit!

[Iraqgunz]

As much as I don't care for Obama, I don't see this as a big deal. We all know he isn't doing much anyways- whether he is in the White House or on the putting green.

People accused Bush of the same thing when he was in office.

[ForTehNguyen]

Mexican massacre investigator found dead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/27/mexico-massacre-investigator-migrants

Cartels are winning:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8d0f5ec6-b1fb-11df-b2d9-00144feabdc0.html

[telecustom]

I would rather have him playing golf than screwing up the country. I feel safer when he is on vacation.

[Business_Casual]

I think a failed Narcostate on the southern border is a bit more serious than that.

B_C

[montanadave]

I think a failed Narcostate on the southern border is a bit more serious than that.

B_C

If Mexico is a failed Narcostate, we bear a significant amount of the blame, given our insatiable appetite for drugs and our failed "war on drugs."

[Safetyhit]

If Mexico is a failed Narcostate, we bear a significant amount of the blame, given our insatiable appetite for drugs and our failed "war on drugs."


Goodness gracious, not this again. :rolleyes:

[uwe1]

If Mexico is a failed Narcostate, we bear a significant amount of the blame, given our insatiable appetite for drugs and our failed "war on drugs."

This BS has got to stop. The liberal talking point in the mainstream media is that the US is just as much or more to blame because of our appetite for drugs. Under the same argument, it was China's fault that they wanted the opium and the British were only providing them what they had such a huge appetite for. Under that argument, the drug pusher is only filling a demand created by our citizens and our children, therefore he isn't really the one to blame. The Mexican leadership sold their souls long ago. They are the ones that put their country in the piss poor condition that it is in now while lining their pockets and they are the ones that allowed their country's economy to become dependent on illegal immigration and drug exports.

While you can argue that legalization of drugs will fix some issues, that same legalization will bring on a whole other set of issues. A significant number of our high school and junior high school kids are already using alcohol and tobacco. With much of the poor to non-existing parenting going on in this country, an influx of legalized drugs would likely further accelerate this country's deterioration.

[chadbag]

Goodness gracious, not this again. :rolleyes:

While I might use another word than blame, he is right that it is
largely a consequence of the war on drugs and desire to make drugs illegal. Same thing played out during prohibition. You'd think we would have learned by now.

[chadbag]

While you can argue that legalization of drugs will fix some issues, that same legalization will bring on a whole other set of issues. A significant number of our high school and junior high school kids are already using alcohol and tobacco. With much of the poor to non-existing parenting going on in this country, an influx of legalized drugs would likely further accelerate this country's deterioration.

I don't know. History does not support this position. Neither our own experience with Prohibition nor other countries who have "liberalized" drug policies.

One point is that people fail to see the power of "advertising". With big money to be made, there are lots of people on the street corners "advertising" to the kids to take drugs. Remove the money incentive, and you remove lots of the "advertising" to the kids. And the current prohibitions have not lessened the usage of drugs by kids at all.

Tangentially, this is an interesting link about Portugals drug liberalization

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/is-portugals-liberal-drug-policy-a-model-for-us/19591395

[Caeser25]

The worse Mexico gets, the more illegals will and want to pour over our border. Which will mean more future voters once they get amnesty. Why would Obama want to do anything?

The judicial system is making this worse by releasing nonviolent:rolleyes: addicts back onto the street because of overcrowded prison populations. The prisons are overpopulated because prison is a joke compared to what it used to be. This war on drugs is attacking the supply more than it is the demand. When a "business" has no demand, it goes out of business. Although you would see an increase in violence if the demand were to shrink to a trickle with the suppliers fighting for the remaining business.

[ForTehNguyen]

its funny after they legalized MJ in Amsterdam, the Minster of Health declared "we successfully made smoking pot uncool." They have HALF the MJ usage as the US, especially among teenagers.

Find me an instance where long term drug usage went higher after legalization than after illegalization. Dont kid yourselves into thinking this is some just righteous war on morality, its 100% an economic war and everyone is feeling the unintended consequences. You will literally destroy the cartels overnight with legalization. Drugs are bad but the side effects of legalization >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prohibition.

if one is for prohibition and in order for one's arguements to be consistent, one must support the prohibition of alcohol or tobacco as well. If not, dont waste your own time trying to defend a hypocritical and inconsistent position. Only then would I recognize someones prohibition position, a true one that is consistent.

I would not use any drugs if they were legalized even tho I support their legalization. Hell, I dont even use alcohol or tobacco which are legal. I made a personal choice because of education and knowledge of their side effects, and I choose not to partake in such items.

[uwe1]

I don't know. History does not support this position. Neither our own experience with Prohibition nor other countries who have "liberalized" drug policies.

One point is that people fail to see the power of "advertising". With big money to be made, there are lots of people on the street corners "advertising" to the kids to take drugs. Remove the money incentive, and you remove lots of the "advertising" to the kids. And the current prohibitions have not lessened the usage of drugs by kids at all.

Tangentially, this is an interesting link about Portugals drug liberalization

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/is-portugals-liberal-drug-policy-a-model-for-us/19591395

I can see the merit in "decriminalization" versus "legalization" as described in the link. However, in the third paragraph, it says that while the users caught with less than a ten day supply face treatment, hefty fines and prison sentences still await drug traffickers and dealers. So, I can agree with decriminalizing possession, but what about trafficking?

Regarding your point on advertising, and just playing devil's advocate, you are aware that many alcohol and tobacco companies do advertise? How would you feel about a huge billboard ad with a hot model preparing to snort down a line of cocaine?

[Safetyhit]

Why would Obama want to do anything?


Not just he, but anyone who cares more about vote pandering than about having mini-Mexicos established (that will essentially become permanent) here in the US is extremely detrimental to this country.

We need to drop the ideology and go with common sense.

[ForTehNguyen]

too bad the state govts, police, and correction have a vested interested in job security with all these potheads going to prison.

[montanadave]

Goodness gracious, not this again. :rolleyes:

I'm not lookin' to vilify the United States as the root cause of all the world's ills.

I'm sayin' it takes two to tango and we seem to be dancin' as fast as we can.

[d90king]

As much as I don't care for Obama, I don't see this as a big deal. We all know he isn't doing much anyways- whether he is in the White House or on the putting green.

People accused Bush of the same thing when he was in office.

In fairness to Bush though... I think BO has played more and vacationed more than GW did in 8 years... At least Bush simply went to White House west and cleared brush and worked like a man.

[Nathan_Bell]

The "legalization would stop the problems in Mexico" statements miss an important issue.
The cartels have the guns, money, and ruthlessness; but are basically looking to make a "safe" niche to move their product through.
Now we make it legal.

What will the cartels do then? Kick a rock and whine a bit? Don't think so. They will see that US corporations will be wanting partners and realize that the 100 Families will be in positions to try for a cut. So we now have the drug cartels trying to take out the oligarchs and trying to carve out their own territories. So the violence changes from being primarily along the US drug supply corridors to the entire country of Mexico. We are about 10-15 years too late for our legalizing drugs to keep Mexico from going down the shitter.

No good answers now, folks. Have to find the least bad, which is a bitch of an approach for the American people to accept. So BHO is just ignoring it.

[Caeser25]

Not just he, but anyone who cares more about vote pandering than about having mini-Mexicos established (that will essentially become permanent) here in the US is extremely detrimental to this country.

We need to drop the ideology and go with common sense.

Thats my take on his ideology, how true or false it is is anybodys guess.

[Business_Casual]

its funny after they legalized MJ in Amsterdam,

Why don't you take some weed through Schipol and tell me how "legal" it is in Amsterdam.

It isn't. The cafes are allowed to exist, there is no legal drug trade/use/possession - it is a matter of enforcement.

However, I don't disagree entirely with the legalization arguments, I see benefits to both sides of the drug issue.

What I don't see is a benefit to doing nothing while America's #2 trading partner disintegrates, which will not only contribute to our current economic problems but will be a long term expense for us. Who do you think is eventually going to pay for the troops and reconstruction necessary to rebuild Mexico after it falls? The Dutch?

Futher, this is an ever larger national security issue. If there is no legitimate government, then any number of invasions, nuclear smuggling, etc. scenarios become possible.

B_C

[bkb0000]

i think the only "solution" to the mexico problem is to start operating within mexico. this so-called "war on drugs" has been a ****ing joke- a "war" is needed, but what we've had, as we all know, has been nothing more than locking up users and the occasional importer when we can.

mexico is in no position to stop us, or even complain. we need napalm, carpet bombs of various kind and type, and the occasional ground assault. we need to send strike teams after cartel bosses. we need to establish FOBs within mexico. we need to be willing to let soldiers do what they signed up for- fight for, and possibly die for, the protection of their country and countrymen. we need to investigate leadership within the mexican government, and facilitate the prosecution and conviction of these ****s in the mexican criminal justice system. we need to send CJA professionals in to "assist" the mexican DOJ (whatever they call it), and re-vamp it.

"You guys are ****ing up our country, so we're gonna come help. whether you like it or not. so shut up and take this medicine."

probably not within our lifetime.

[Nathan_Bell]

Why don't you take some weed through Schipol and tell me how "legal" it is in Amsterdam.

It isn't. The cafes are allowed to exist, there is no legal drug trade/use/possession - it is a matter of enforcement.

However, I don't disagree entirely with the legalization arguments, I see benefits to both sides of the drug issue.

What I don't see is a benefit to doing nothing while America's #2 trading partner disintegrates, which will not only contribute to our current economic problems but will be a long term expense for us. Who do you think is eventually going to pay for the troops and reconstruction necessary to rebuild Mexico after it falls? The Dutch?

Futher, this is an ever larger national security issue. If there is no legitimate government, then any number of invasions, nuclear smuggling, etc. scenarios become possible.

B_C

How do we "fix" it?
Continue to prop up the oligarchs who rely on our accepting their underclass to maintain power?

Start hitting the cartels directly? US troops in Mexico? That will not go well.

Start hitting them once they have crossed into the US? US troops involved in combat operations within the US?

Claim 1 mile deep corridor and DMZ it Korea style? That is about the only way we will stop people from crossing the border once the water starts swirling.

I am being slightly snarky, but do you see anything we can do to change what is going to happen?

[bkb0000]

Start hitting the cartels directly? US troops in Mexico? That will not go well.

si. this is the path to justicia.

it won't go over well, but wouldn't you say we have even more justification to enter mexico to put down their militantly organized crime than we have fully invading a country and removing a sovereign government?

we could pretty much end this problem. would the cartels go away? no.. but within the first month of active military operations, i predict we'd have a MASSIVE drug shortage in our own country. hit hard and fast, and with abandon.

and no, i do not believe for a second that our current government would even entertain the idea. bunch of fags.

i like the DMZ idea as well.

[Nathan_Bell]

si. this is the path to justicia.

it won't go over well, but wouldn't you say we have even more justification to enter mexico to put down their militantly organized crime than we have fully invading a country and removing a sovereign government?

we could pretty much end this problem. would the cartels go away? no.. but within the first month of active military operations, i predict we'd have a MASSIVE drug shortage in our own country. hit hard and fast, and with abandon.

and no, i do not believe for a second that our current government would even entertain the idea. bunch of fags.

i like the DMZ idea as well.

The gringo is mightily hated in Mexico, already. If we went into there we would have to kill folks in job lots not just drug dealers, folks who would be defending their nation against invasion. In addition to that, now we have 25+ million first generation or non-assimilated second generation Mexican immigrants in the US. They are not going to not cause trouble when we roll in and start turning folks into paste? There is a great deal of Mexican Nationalism that a lot of folks forget about.

The DMZ would probably be the cheapest route to go.

[chadbag]

Regarding your point on advertising, and just playing devil's advocate, you are aware that many alcohol and tobacco companies do advertise? How would you feel about a huge billboard ad with a hot model preparing to snort down a line of cocaine?

I would prefer that to the dealer on the street corner hustling the coke.

Though I seriously doubt you would see such billboards.

[Business_Casual]

We could spend a tiny fraction of the money currently wasted on other projects - a mere rounding error in the Federal budget - and supplement the pay of units in the Federales enough to keep them honest. We could pay for security details on the Mayors of towns along the border. We could supplement the security on the border and start hitting their revenue stream where it would matter.

That's an example of something we could do. I am aware of others, and I am not prepared to throw up my hands and kiss order in Mexico good bye just because it might not be simple or easy.

The money recently spent by the BATFE investigating an M4Carbine member's firearms transactions in Texas (posted in GD) would probably have supplemented a squad's pay enough to keep them honest.

B_C

[Fyrhazzrd]

While I might use another word than blame, he is right that it is
largely a consequence of the war on drugs and desire to make drugs illegal. Same thing played out during prohibition. You'd think we would have learned by now.

I have to agree with you there. Prohibition has never worked and it never will.

When a parent tells a kid not to do something, because it is bad. That just makes them want to do it even more.

It's just like the drinking age. One of my theories is that we have so much alcoholism in this country because of the drinking age. It's illegal to drink under the age of 21. So all the kids do it to be cool. Then once you turn 21 drinking really isn't all that fun anymore. But the problem is that most kids turn into alcoholics before they turn 21 because of the need to fit in. And once they become an alcoholic it's too late.

[ForTehNguyen]

this war is nothing but an economic war and you have to fight it with economics. You can already destroy 50% of their income by legalizing MJ alone. The one thing the cartels are truly afraid of is they wake up one day and their product is worth jack because its not on the black market anymore and they will have to get a real job maybe.

As for the constitutional issue and legal issue, what gives the govt the right to tell us what we can put in our bodies? At least the alcohol prohibitionists knew the only legal way to ban alcohol was to pass a constitutional amendment. As for drug use being a "crime" how is it a crime when the only direct victim is the user itself. The definition of crime infers harm done onto another person.

[Irish]

As for the constitutional issue and legal issue, what gives the govt the right to tell us what we can put in our bodies? At least the alcohol prohibitionists knew the only legal way to ban alcohol was to pass a constitutional amendment. As for drug use being a "crime" how is it a crime when the only direct victim is the user itself. The definition of crime infers harm done onto another person.

Right on the money with that statement.

[Mjolnir]

grab your guns. i'll bring my laptop. we can design propaganda leaflets along the way.

gentlemen... we're going to mexico.
Actually, they beat us to it. They're already here though if the "dire predictions" of global famine are anywhere near correct there will be a lot of northbound border traffic into the USA. :stop:

[variablebinary]

Mexico is a shit-hole because of Mexicans. That's pretty much all there is too it.

When Mexicans choose to make their country a better place, Mexico will cease to a shit-hole.

As for legalizing drugs, we'll never be able to outpace the creation of new ways to get high. Getting into a proverbial "drug race" with pushers is a failing strategy.

The single best way we can help Mexico and the USA is to defend the border. Once Mexicans realize they cant suck America's tits for sustenance, they will do what is needed to control their nation.

[bkb0000]

Mexico is a shit-hole because of Mexicans. That's pretty much all there is too it.

When Mexicans choose to make their country a better place, Mexico will cease to a shit-hole.

As for legalizing drugs, we'll never be able to outpace the creation of new ways to get high. Getting into a proverbial "drug race" with pushers is a failing strategy.

The single best way we can help Mexico and the USA is to defend the border. Once Mexicans realize they cant suck America's tits for sustenance, they will do what is needed to control their nation.

do you KNOW any mexicans? real mexicans? they're generally humble people with peaceful and politically-passive lifestyles that are not conducive to taking up arms, or really giving a shit about anything outside of their own AOs. they're communally minded, and stick to their communities and the affairs of their communities. national affairs aren't any of their concern.

not everyone in the world is an A-type aggressive male with strong sense of nationalism. and personally, i'm ****in glad we're unique that way. but we can't blame them for being ignorant. everyone was ignorant until somebody educated him.

[variablebinary]

do you KNOW any mexicans? real mexicans? they're generally humble people with peaceful and politically-passive lifestyles that are not conducive to taking up arms, or really giving a shit about anything outside of their own AOs. they're communally minded, and stick to their communities and the affairs of their communities. national affairs aren't any of their concern.

not everyone in the world is an A-type aggressive male with strong sense of nationalism. and personally, i'm ****in glad we're unique that way. but we can't blame them for being ignorant. everyone was ignorant until somebody educated him.

I sure as hell can blame them. It's their country. Living in a "good" nation takes effort beyond just worrying about the chickens in your front yard.

This is the same truth for Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Detroit or any other third world sewer. It's going to be up to the people to turn things around. We can't do it for them.

[montanadave]

Drugs on the Mexican side... drug users on the American side.

Poor, unemployed on the Mexican side... money and jobs on the American side.

If anyone thinks they can stop drugs, money, people, etc. from moving from areas of high supply, low demand to areas of low supply, high demand I invite them to suspend the law of gravity for their next trick.

[bkb0000]

I sure as hell can blame them. It's their country. Living in a "good" nation takes effort beyond just worrying about the chickens in your front yard.

This is the same truth for Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Detroit or any other third world sewer. It's going to be up to the people to turn things around. We can't do it for them.

civilized nations are only that way due to the intervention of the enlightened on behalf of the ignorant. our very own revolution is a perfect example. mexico is run by murderers, extortionists, thieves, liars, and drug lords. they're full of "good" people, but have no enlightened. the common man has a third grade education and has been taught his entire life to mind his own business and let the big people make the big decisions. to say "they just need to get off their asses and take care of our problem themselves" displays a pretty profound deficiency in understanding. the ONLY way change will come to mexico is if somebody brings it. we can do that, or we can shut down the border and let it get even worse- but mexicans are NOT going to fix their/our problem. you can say they "should" or that they "need to" all you want- it will never happen.

i probably would have bet money i'd never say this to anyone- but you need to take a cultural diversity class, man. are you totally unaware of the vast and unshakable differences in psychology between cultures?

[Artos]

do you KNOW any mexicans? real mexicans? they're generally humble people with peaceful and politically-passive lifestyles that are not conducive to taking up arms, or really giving a shit about anything outside of their own AOs. they're communally minded, and stick to their communities and the affairs of their communities. national affairs aren't any of their concern.


thanks for your post...i could spend days telling stories of the generosity of the kind people down in san fernando, who would not let us leave their little colonias without eating the last piece of food in their cardboard homes. This would be way out in the sticks after dropping off the bird boys from some wing hunts that will forever be stamped in my memory. No running water or electricity w/ dirt floors but yet richer than most of the spoiled & ungreatful turds we have living in this country off the tax payers dime.

Just last week, I listened to an old friend come to tears about how his home country is coming apart at the seams with no solution in sight. He was wrecked that he couldn't take his kids outside of monterrey to the farms & country side where he camped as a kid with his folks just a decade or 2 back.

Mexico is a special place...losing her soul to narcos for the moment but the people have a desired character that is hard to explain to those who just view todays headlines and never laid their head on the soil.

Both the U.S. & Mexico need to get back our roots and what made us both shine in our own way. We share a border & are related in the economy more than most people understand. We need Mexico to pull out of this tail spin...i fear the worst if the bad guys win.

In reality, the U.S. is losing her soul too...just not with blood & thugs.

[variablebinary]

civilized nations are only that way due to the intervention of the enlightened on behalf of the ignorant. our very own revolution is a perfect example. mexico is run by murderers, extortionists, thieves, liars, and drug lords. they're full of "good" people, but have no enlightened. the common man has a third grade education and has been taught his entire life to mind his own business and let the big people make the big decisions. to say "they just need to get off their asses and take care of our problem themselves" displays a pretty profound deficiency in understanding. the ONLY way change will come to mexico is if somebody brings it. we can do that, or we can shut down the border and let it get even worse- but mexicans are NOT going to fix their/our problem. you can say they "should" or that they "need to" all you want- it will never happen.

i probably would have bet money i'd never say this to anyone- but you need to take a cultural diversity class, man. are you totally unaware of the vast and unshakable differences in psychology between cultures?

There are really nice people in every culture and it is completely irrelevant.

If the majority of a culture are content to live like shit, they will live like shit forever, irrespective of who "teaches" them, and they will spawn a generation equally content to live like pigs.

Diversity? Yeah I lived it growing up in NYC, and saw first hand that savages will be savages till they get off their ass and decide not to be savages. It doesn't matter if you build nice schools, provide cable and and assign touchy feely social workers with welfare forms in their native language.

People have to want to live a good life. If they don't really want it, they will never work to get it. What your suggesting sounds frighteningly like a big city liberal speaking about inner city communities.

I know for a fact that self determination and accountability works. I'll believe in taught enlightenment when El Este de Los Ángeles and Oakland become a place I would actually want to live.

[uwe1]

this war is nothing but an economic war and you have to fight it with economics. You can already destroy 50% of their income by legalizing MJ alone. The one thing the cartels are truly afraid of is they wake up one day and their product is worth jack because its not on the black market anymore and they will have to get a real job maybe.

As for the constitutional issue and legal issue, what gives the govt the right to tell us what we can put in our bodies? At least the alcohol prohibitionists knew the only legal way to ban alcohol was to pass a constitutional amendment. As for drug use being a "crime" how is it a crime when the only direct victim is the user itself. The definition of crime infers harm done onto another person.

Let me begin by saying that I agree with your points and can appreciate the argument from a constitutional point of view. I haven't made up my own mind yet because I see valid points on both sides (I am aware of the hypocrisy of legalizing one drug over another). But, I ask you, because you seem very knowledgeable from the legalization side, which first world countries and even upcoming countries (i.e. China and India) allow unrestricted access to drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine etc.). I would hazard to guess few to none (I may be completely wrong). Most of the leadership would probably logically conclude that it would be completely detrimental to their country's welfare.

I can somewhat understand legalization of marijuana as alcohol and tobacco are already widely accepted. Do you also propose legalization of cocaine and heroin? Given their highly addictive properties, I just don't see the plus side.

[Artos]

It is interesting to see this come out in the local paper...pretty much the same % from what I hear in my dealings across the border. This goes from management to workers on the line. They want the narcos defeated.

It would certainly be easier for the mexican people to wish for things to return like they did when the former ruling party established 'understandings' with the cartels but they seem to be on track to stay at war when they are still in the crossfire. I honestly don't think being nice has anything do with the character of mexico. I also don't perceive any of them seeing themselves living in a shit-hole either. I have met very few mexicans even the poorest of poor who did not feel they were not living a good life. Most of the whiners are just like state side & were the ones who had every opportunity to improve their situation but wanted it handed to them instead of changing their own lives.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mexican citizens still support military's fight against drug cartels, poll says

August 29, 2010 10:52 PM
Jazmine Ulloa
The Brownsville Herald

Most Mexicans continue to endorse President Felipe Calderón’s war against the drug cartels, even as violence has wracked their country since he launched the offensive in 2006, according to a recently released study.

Fully 80 percent of Mexicans said they back the use of the army to fight drug traffickers — compared with 83 percent in 2009, according to a survey conducted by the Global Attitudes Project of the Pew Research Center. Opposition to Calderón’s use of the army increased slightly from last year, from 12 percent to 17 percent.

A little more than half of Mexican citizens, 55 percent, say they believe the Mexican military is making progress against the cartels, while 22 percent said they think it is losing ground, the report states.

The approval ratings, though down from last year, show that a majority of Mexican nationals believe in Calderón’s tactics, said Richard Wike, associate director of the Pew project.

more here:

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/support-42279-military-endorse.html



.

[ForTehNguyen]

Let me begin by saying that I agree with your points and can appreciate the argument from a constitutional point of view. I haven't made up my own mind yet because I see valid points on both sides (I am aware of the hypocrisy of legalizing one drug over another). But, I ask you, because you seem very knowledgeable from the legalization side, which first world countries and even upcoming countries (i.e. China and India) allow unrestricted access to drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine etc.). I would hazard to guess few to none (I may be completely wrong). Most of the leadership would probably logically conclude that it would be completely detrimental to their country's welfare.

I can somewhat understand legalization of marijuana as alcohol and tobacco are already widely accepted. Do you also propose legalization of cocaine and heroin? Given their highly addictive properties, I just don't see the plus side.

yes for legalization of all drugs. We have learned the hard way that the bad effects from illegalization are much greater than legalization. Very bad things happen when the forces of legislating morality collide with the forces of supply and demand. If you are worried about legalized drug use, just look at cigarettes. Look how the usage has plummetted over the last few decades...and we never locked anyone up for using them. All it took was education. We cant educate anyone effectively of the harmful effects of illegal drugs while they are driven underground in the black market, nor can any addict come out in the open to get help without getting thrown in jail. Addiction is a physical and mental illness, I don't see how locking up people fixes that. No drug wars are being fought over alcohol or tobacco, the profits suck because its legal. There once was a war fought over alcohol during Prohibition, but the 21st Amendment ended that. The solution is very simple just take the profit (mainly the black market profit) out of the equation, there will be no more war for the cartel's to fight. The only way to do that is legalization. Not only will the cartel's be out of business, so will the inner city gangs that inhabit the major US cities as they are fueled by the same income stream.

Portugal has very large decriminalization since 2001, and overall drug use has gone down, not up. Because now people can actually come out to get help instead of the fear of getting locked up. Right now legalization MJ is the only one that has a chance of getting through. I think once people see the positive effects, people would be more open minded to the others. Cartels would be in a huge pinch with half of their income destroyed. We can generate so much tax revenue, increased resources from enforcement, and now we would have a new industry. MJ has a lot of other uses than just smoking it, hemp has a ton of consumer uses, who knows what kind of products can be created from it. But we are not allowed to use it because MJ is illegal. If you are interested in a study of Portugal here is one from CATO about their decriminalization. However to me decriminalization is only one part of the solution, decriminalization does nothing for the supply side, just the demand side.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

I want to be able to say no to drugs myself, not because govt said so like it is now. Even if drugs were legalized, I would not use it because I have educated myself on the consequences, and this is the only way Mexico and other drug war stricken nations can have peace.

[austinN4]

Not only will the cartel's be out of business, so will the inner city gangs that inhabit the major US cities as they are fueled by the same income stream.
Will they really be out of business?

I was having this discussion with friends over dinner last night and the opinion was floated that all the cartels have to do is lower their price to below what the legalized and taxed product sells for. As long as this is above their COGS and administrative costs they will still be profitable, albeit less profitable than they are now. Presumably there is plenty of markup which would allow them to do this.

And I don't see crack or meth ever being legalized so the cartels are still going to fill that demand. They will just lower their MJ production and sales and increase the harder drug sales, no?

Edited to add: Let's presume for a moment that legalization would put them out of the drug business (which I am not sure of). What are they now supposed to do, get regular jobs? I don't think so.

They are highly organized criminal enterprises and they will simply shift to doing more or different products and services such as human trafficing and abductions for ransom, or something else alltogether that maybe we aren't thinking of today. What I keep coming back to in my own mind is that to truely be out of business they need to be wiped out, much like the Taliban.

[ForTehNguyen]

what else do they have for income that comes close to what they make selling drugs? Drug dealing is by far the #1 method to get their illegal money it gave rise to the inner city gang. Nothing else comes close to the huge amount of profits and low risk high reward selling drugs is as compared to robbing a bank or a 7-11. They might not be out of business 100% but they will have to massively downsize. If LE wasnt wasting resoruces on locking up pot smokers or coke snorters, they would have a lot more resources to go after the real criminals.

A privately run factory can destroy any attempts of the cartels at lowering price through economies of scale. There is a reason why there are no alcohol or tobacco cartels. Private industry will always lowball the price over any cartel through sheer economies of scale and efficient production.

[chadbag]

They are highly organized criminal enterprises and they will simply shift to doing more or different products and services such as human trafficing and abductions for ransom, or something else alltogether that maybe we aren't thinking of today. What I keep coming back to in my own mind is that to truely be out of business they need to be wiped out, much like the Taliban.

While the cartels may switch to something else, will those other things be as human intensive as drugs? Ie, will all the foot soldiers still be needed? It would make a significant dent in the employment of lower level criminals who now control the drug trade

[uwe1]

yes for legalization of all drugs. We have learned the hard way that the bad effects from illegalization are much greater than legalization. Very bad things happen when the forces of legislating morality collide with the forces of supply and demand. If you are worried about legalized drug use, just look at cigarettes. Look how the usage has plummetted over the last few decades...and we never locked anyone up for using them. All it took was education. We cant educate anyone effectively of the harmful effects of illegal drugs while they are driven underground in the black market, nor can any addict come out in the open to get help without getting thrown in jail. Addiction is a physical and mental illness, I don't see how locking up people fixes that. No drug wars are being fought over alcohol or tobacco, the profits suck because its legal. There once was a war fought over alcohol during Prohibition, but the 21st Amendment ended that. The solution is very simple just take the profit (mainly the black market profit) out of the equation, there will be no more war for the cartel's to fight. The only way to do that is legalization. Not only will the cartel's be out of business, so will the inner city gangs that inhabit the major US cities as they are fueled by the same income stream.

Portugal has very large decriminalization since 2001, and overall drug use has gone down, not up. Because now people can actually come out to get help instead of the fear of getting locked up. Right now legalization MJ is the only one that has a chance of getting through. I think once people see the positive effects, people would be more open minded to the others. Cartels would be in a huge pinch with half of their income destroyed. We can generate so much tax revenue, increased resources from enforcement, and now we would have a new industry. MJ has a lot of other uses than just smoking it, hemp has a ton of consumer uses, who knows what kind of products can be created from it. But we are not allowed to use it because MJ is illegal. If you are interested in a study of Portugal here is one from CATO about their decriminalization. However to me decriminalization is only one part of the solution, decriminalization does nothing for the supply side, just the demand side.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

I want to be able to say no to drugs myself, not because govt said so like it is now. Even if drugs were legalized, I would not use it because I have educated myself on the consequences, and this is the only way Mexico and other drug war stricken nations can have peace.

Cigarette usage has lessened, but I believe there are various factors to that. You have the education side, but also the very heavy taxation side. While nicotine does affect your mental capacity, MJ has far more potential to alter the state of mind. I agree that addiciton is a mental and physical illness and decriminalization has significant merit. LE should focus their energies elsewhere besides on locking up users. Let's face it, Portugal is a has-been nation. Even they will not fully legalize drugs. No world power can stay on top while a significant percentage of its people are stuck stupid on drugs.

EDIT: The Opium Wars/Opium trade is a good example of that in my opinion. There were significant economic reasons for the western world importing opium into China while the use of such things were banned in the countries that were doing the exporting. This situation is not unlike what is going on today. You have a foreign nation, flooding a another sovereign nation with drugs that debilitate its populace. Chinese leaders saw the dangers looming and tried to curb the problem.

The other side of the legalization argument is that it will put the cartels out of business. I don't think for a moment that this is true. These are business people, first and foremeost, they will find a way to survive. Don't think for a moment that they'll go away. They didn't get to where they are because they were a bunch of half-ass law-breaking idiots who got lucky. If MJ were legalized, whats to prevent the Gulf Cartel selling shares to Phillip Morris. Great...we've got legitimized criminals now. Look at the allegations of Joe Kennedy making the seed money of their family fortune from bootlegging. Look at California, another legalization experiment.

Pro-legalization groups always use hemp as an example. Hemp is a very gray area where there are benefits and the plant has many uses. I don't think you're going to be able to argue the benefits of cocaine, heroin, or meth (Again I could be wrong).

I've also chosen, on my own, not to use drugs. The only thing I'll indulge in is the occasional beer or wine.

[chadbag]

CLet's face it, Portugal is a has-been nation. No world power can stay on top while a significant percentage of its people are stuck stupid on drugs.


Ok, lets assume this is true (and I am not doubting it). How exactly has the war on drugs helped this? How is making it illegal and creating a huge blackmarket going to reduce the percentage of the population who are stuck on stupid drugs?

It ain't. It probably increases it even.



The other side of the legalization argument is that it will put the cartels out of business. I don't think for a moment that this is true.


No one has claimed it will put the cartels out of business. The only claim is that it will put them out of the drug business. (And along with that probably put a ton of small time people involved at various levels out of business completely).


These are business people, first and foremeost, they will find a way to survive. Don't think for a moment that they'll go away.


Some will go away, some will turn to other criminal activity. Some will take their ill gotten gains and turn legit businessmen (which to some extent they have experience with in attempts to launder the money anyway).

This is no argument against legalization btw


They didn't get to where they are because they were a bunch of half-ass law-breaking idiots who got lucky. If MJ were legalized, whats to prevent the Gulf Cartel selling shares to Phillip Morris. Great...we've got legitimized criminals now.


They are no longer criminals if what they are doing is legal. What is your point please?


Look at the allegations of Joe Kennedy making the seed money of their family fortune from bootlegging.

Pro-legalization groups always use hemp as an example. Hemp is a very gray area where there are benefits and the plant has many uses. I don't think you're going to be able to argue the benefits of cocaine, heroin, or meth (Again I could be wrong).


Drug legalization arguments do not rely on hemp as having useful benefits. That is merely frosting on the cake. Drug legalization arguments revolve around economics and freedom/liberty issues.




I've also chosen, on my own, not to use drugs. The only thing I'll indulge in is the occasional beer or wine.

I am 100% pro legalization. I don't even drink a beer or wine and have never tried any drugs and don't plan to. But I believe in liberty and have also seen how stupid and idiotic the war on drugs has been and how it only makes things worse. And I have also seen the threat that the war on drugs makes against the 2A.

And I try and learn from history.

[ForTehNguyen]

the Mafia was reduce to bottom feeding after prohibition was abolished. They no longer had the lucrative income stream to support what they did. Of course they started coming back when the illegal drugs started appearing. Thanks govt for creating a new monster for criminals to prosper from.

Why would Phillip Morris buy from the cartel? Do they buy from tobacco cartels? No they grow it themselves why on earth would they deal with a shady middleman when its more productive to do it themselves. At least legal drugs would be a heck of a lot safer being manufactured in a quality controlled environment with standards. Who knows what cocktail these street pharmacists put in their stuff.

Govt at its core is virtually enabling the cartels and inner city gangs. The only reason they get all this money and power is because drugs are illegal. Either we legalize it and the country gets the tax revenues and benefits or we make it illegal and the cartels and gangs get the money and all its benefits.

[uwe1]

The many pros and cons of legalization discussed in these three audios were well presented, although haphazardly here. FYI, it is Michael Savage so if you don't agree with him, don't click on the links. It doesn't appear that any conclusion was reached, but there are positives with each side of the argument.

He mentions China and the Opium Wars also. The Delanos and the Kennedys were mentioned as two prominent families who had ties to drug/alcohol trafficking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGd2FDTsdxM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCUyIt868n0&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1Tuo65a4vg&NR=1

[uwe1]

the Mafia was reduce to bottom feeding after prohibition was abolished. They no longer had the lucrative income stream to support what they did. Of course they started coming back when the illegal drugs started appearing. Thanks govt for creating a new monster for criminals to prosper from.

I agree. The fact is, there will always be those who will make their fortunes in unscrupulous ways.


Why would Phillip Morris buy from the cartel? Do they buy from tobacco cartels? No they grow it themselves why on earth would they deal with a shady middleman when its more productive to do it themselves. At least legal drugs would be a heck of a lot safer being manufactured in a quality controlled environment with standards. Who knows what cocktail these street pharmacists put in their stuff.

I was engaging in hyperbole there. I'm sure Philip Morris already has the know how on how to grow MJ. If they don't, they need to just go to California and visit any number of the production areas there. My point was that these drug traffickers will just find another way. Maybe they'll make up the difference in human trafficking. I guess we can bring them to their knees and put them out of business then by allowing amnesty and open borders?


Govt at its core is virtually enabling the cartels and inner city gangs. The only reason they get all this money and power is because drugs are illegal. Either we legalize it and the country gets the tax revenues and benefits or we make it illegal and the cartels and gangs get the money and all its benefits.

All valid points. I don't disagree there. My reluctance to accept legalization is mainly due to my opinion that drugs are detrimental to a society as a whole.

[variablebinary]

There is no war on drugs. That's a myth. There is a half assed endeavor at best. Just like defending our borders. It's a joke.

Make me President for a day, and I will show you a real war on drugs like you can't imagine, and solve our illegal problem.

[uwe1]

There is no war on drugs. That's a myth. There is a half assed endeavor at best. Just like defending our borders. It's a joke.

Make me President for a day, and I will show you a real war on drugs like you can't imagine, and solve our illegal problem.

You, sir, are correct. A very half assed endeavor. Calderon probably won't even hit the real heads of the cartels because he, his relatives, his staff, and/or people in high office are all taking payoffs.

[ForTehNguyen]

I would not be surprised if the Cartels have infiltrated that deeply into the Mexican govt

[Nathan_Bell]

You, sir, are correct. A very half assed endeavor. Calderon probably won't even hit the real heads of the cartels because he, his relatives, his staff, and/or people in high office are all taking payoffs.

Cranking it up and going after the leadership is what has been reported as one of the reasons behind the violence jumping like it has. Not certain if that is the whole truth, but it certainly dovetails with what has happened.
As to taking payoffs from the Cartels, not at Calderon's level. He is bought and paid for by the 100 Families. I would guess that the mid-levels is where the drug money starts to penetrate the system.

[ForTehNguyen]

the exact same thing is happening in Mexico as in Escobar-era Columbia. Only Escobar was a bit more ruthless. He had so many people bought off.

[Nathan_Bell]

the exact same thing is happening in Mexico as in Escobar-era Columbia. Only Escobar was a bit more ruthless. He had so many people bought off.

He didn't have any real competition. There are a fair number of non-drug involved billionaires in Mexico that can offer bribes large enough to make the druggies resort to violence on the scale we are seeing.

[Business_Casual]

Cancun bar attacked:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/31/killed-cancun-bar-attack/

B_C

[ForTehNguyen]

they didnt pay for "protection" and the late fee (molotov) came in

[Business_Casual]

Here's a question: if the cartels escalate the violence, how long before they are using "consultants" from Al Queda to get the knowledge for EFPs and other advanced IEDs? Then how long until that comes north of the border? Don't answer - just ask yourself if Mexico collapsing is a danger.

B_C

[Business_Casual]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/31/signs-in-arizona-warn-of-smuggler-dangers/

B_C

[Business_Casual]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE68C4SP20100917

[d90king]

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE68C4SP20100917

Seems I read more about Mexico and the boarder crisis on the BBC and Reuters than I do in our own media... Hmmm:rolleyes:

[HK45]

Yes, this is terrible. Because who would ever think anything could happen in the world while the President is golfing.

Fratboy Bush took far more vacation time than any President in history. At his "ranch". The one without any animals which makes it a farm. Did the OP have anything to say about that at the time? :rolleyes:

[HK45]

This BS has got to stop. The liberal talking point in the mainstream media is that the US is just as much or more to blame because of our appetite for drugs. Under the same argument, it was China's fault that they wanted the opium and the British were only providing them what they had such a huge appetite for. Under that argument, the drug pusher is only filling a demand created by our citizens and our children, therefore he isn't really the one to blame. The Mexican leadership sold their souls long ago. They are the ones that put their country in the piss poor condition that it is in now while lining their pockets and they are the ones that allowed their country's economy to become dependent on illegal immigration and drug exports.

While you can argue that legalization of drugs will fix some issues, that same legalization will bring on a whole other set of issues. A significant number of our high school and junior high school kids are already using alcohol and tobacco. With much of the poor to non-existing parenting going on in this country, an influx of legalized drugs would likely further accelerate this country's deterioration.

I don't know where you get the idea it is a "liberal talking point". Unless its just what you want to believe. A cursory google search will show that many conservative/republican figures say exactly the same thing.
As always I am amused that anyone thinks the corporate owned and run mainstream media is liberal. Hoo boy...that requires some real cognitive dissonance to believe.

[HK45]

Seems I read more about Mexico and the boarder crisis on the BBC and Reuters than I do in our own media... Hmmm:rolleyes:

Then you don't read enough.

[d90king]

Yes, this is terrible. Because who would ever think anything could happen in the world while the President is golfing.

Fratboy Bush took far more vacation time than any President in history. At his "ranch". The one without any animals which makes it a farm. Did the OP have anything to say about that at the time? :rolleyes:

How many times did Bush play Golf after 9/11 and while we were at war?

[d90king]

Then you don't read enough.

Really, please post NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC account of the same story. I have the news on 15 hours a day at my office and this story has not been run in the last 48 hours...

[Safetyhit]

As always I am amused that anyone thinks the corporate owned and run mainstream media is liberal. Hoo boy...that requires some real cognitive dissonance to believe.


Unless this is cunning sarcasm, I find it far more fascinating that anyone could actually believe the MSM is not liberal.

Were it not for FOX the news would be unwatchable. Like living in some sort of hell were reason and logic are irrelevant.

[chadbag]

Yes, this is terrible. Because who would ever think anything could happen in the world while the President is golfing.

Fratboy Bush took far more vacation time than any President in history. At his "ranch". The one without any animals which makes it a farm. Did the OP have anything to say about that at the time? :rolleyes:

Working from the "ranch" is a lot different than taking vacation and being out golfing. This has already been debunked in this or a similar thread I believe.

[d90king]

As always I am amused that anyone thinks the corporate owned and run mainstream media is liberal. Hoo boy...that requires some real cognitive dissonance to believe.

Okay now I realize you are joking... Sorry at first it sounded like you were serious... :help: