The next US war... Mexico

[dorifto240]

and yeah it was beyond our borders, but what about whats been happening in the lower southwestern states? kidnapping..... murder......... it is time to put guns on OUR southern border. preferably some abrahms!!! (not sure I spelt that right but who cares) this should have been fixed many years ago and its time someone that are supposed to be our learders grow some balls.

Ha! As though our leaders are concerned about anything more than securing their reelection, and beating the other party. That's the revolutionary coming out again.

i like how you think +rep

Thank you.

[chevysoldier]

Ha! As though our leaders are concerned about anything more than securing their reelection, and beating the other party. That's the revolutionary coming out again.

This is when militias can come into play.

[Disclaimer]

Because it's merely a war of words, for as well armed as the cartels are: they hardly match the training and expertise of all but the newest members of the US Armed forces.

Now if we actually declared war on the Zetas and other drug cartels things might get interesting. Instead of seizing drug vessels, we would just sink them. Instead of attempting to arrest cartel members, we'd be engaging them in battle.

They act with impunity and have no fear of local authority, it won't be difficult to identify their leadership hierarchy and locations, and then strike. Wipe them all out in on night. Then let the small fish squabble over the pieces.

I don't understand why it's our problem to clean up? Why throw US resources at this? Why is the solution to have OUR Armed Forces deal with it?

People decry NATO saying it's dumb and we shouldn't be the world police, then turn around and say the solution is to declare war on something that knows no geographic bounds and use our resources to deal with it. What am I missing here?

[Steve Butters]

I don't understand why it's our problem to clean up? Why throw US resources at this? Why is the solution to have OUR Armed Forces deal with it?

People decry NATO saying it's dumb and we shouldn't be the world police, then turn around and say the solution is to declare war on something that knows no geographic bounds and use our resources to deal with it. What am I missing here?

theyre invading US territory - how is it NOT our problem?

[chevysoldier]

I don't understand why it's our problem to clean up? Why throw US resources at this? Why is the solution to have OUR Armed Forces deal with it?

People decry NATO saying it's dumb and we shouldn't be the world police, then turn around and say the solution is to declare war on something that knows no geographic bounds and use our resources to deal with it. What am I missing here?

Just to clarify, I would just like to secure our border. Let them fight it out and kill themselves off. Once the population is down, we can go ahead and add another state to the union. Call it Newer Mexico.

[Disclaimer]

theyre invading US territory - how is it NOT our problem?

I just read your link... why can't Arizona handle it? States rights and all that jazz.

And how do you propose we stop this? Shoot on sight? If you see a group of drug smugglers armed to the hilt -- do you go ahead, make the assumption they are drug smugglers and start sniping without justification? Or do you attempt to apprehend a group of armed men who probably won't go quietly?

I'm just throwin' all this out there for entertainment purposes, btw.

[jporter12]

I just read your link... why can't Arizona handle it? States rights and all that jazz.

And how do you propose we stop this? Shoot on sight? If you see a group of drug smugglers armed to the hilt -- do you go ahead, make the assumption they are drug smugglers and start sniping without justification? Or do you attempt to apprehend a group of armed men who probably won't go quietly?

I'm just throwin' all this out there for entertainment purposes, btw.

Arizona would probably do better at handling it than the federal level anyway!

[MidgetTodd]

I like the sniper idea, where do I sign up? I'll bring my own gun too.

[Steve Butters]

I just read your link... why can't Arizona handle it? States rights and all that jazz.

And how do you propose we stop this? Shoot on sight? If you see a group of drug smugglers armed to the hilt -- do you go ahead, make the assumption they are drug smugglers and start sniping without justification? Or do you attempt to apprehend a group of armed men who probably won't go quietly?

I'm just throwin' all this out there for entertainment purposes, btw.

arizona doesnt have the resources to handle it...theyre being outgunned and overrun. why should they have to? theyre part of our country, when NY got attacked on 9/11, do you think nypd should have been sent to afghanistan? shouldnt the US army, fight FOR the US? we waste so much time everywhere else in the world, the least we can do is defend our home country.

and yes, if you see a group of armed smugglers, and have confirmation that they are smugglers - shoot on sight, the same as any other group we're at war against

[Disclaimer]

The FedGov is always overstepping it's bounds, right? But this is different because the state is asking for help? Sounds like AZ should tax their citizens more and buy more guns, bigger guns, with that increased tax revenue. As an Ohioan, why do I care about Arizona's problems?

Sending NYPD to Afghanistan is not equivalent to this scenario, I didn't suggest sending anyone OUT of this country to fight the drug cartels.

How do you "confirm" they're smugglers? They're "suspected" or "alleged" smugglers until convicted in a court of law are they not? And what exactly are we defending? Drugs aren't terrorism -- why not legalize them and take all the power from the cartels?

As always, this post was made "for entertainment purposes only".

[Steve Butters]

The FedGov is always overstepping it's bounds, right? But this is different because the state is asking for help? Sounds like AZ should tax their citizens more and buy more guns, bigger guns, with that increased tax revenue. As an Ohioan, why do I care about Arizona's problems?

Sending NYPD to Afghanistan is not equivalent to this scenario, I didn't suggest sending anyone OUT of this country to fight the drug cartels.

How do you "confirm" they're smugglers? They're "suspected" or "alleged" smugglers until convicted in a court of law are they not? And what exactly are we defending? Drugs aren't terrorism -- why not legalize them and take all the power from the cartels?

As always, this post was made "for entertainment purposes only".

yep - fuck the USA, who gives a shit about the citizens. mexico is better anyways.

[InyaAzz]

Before we nuke Mexico, I'd like to make one more trip back to Mexico City and attempt to impregnate as many women there as possible. Seriously. Mexican women look totally different than their 'Mexican-American' counterparts.

Just give me three days, and some wet naps.

[Disclaimer]

yep - fuck the USA, who gives a shit about the citizens. mexico is better anyways.

Yea, that answers all the questions. I can totally see how you got that out of my post.

[Steve Butters]

**edit - i found it

[Disclaimer]

i really wish i knew how the ignore feature worked

...And another one bites the dust...

[jagr]

Tbutters. This is a feel good book you should pick up.

[Reimbrandt]

I dont see why you bother with the whole "how do you identify armed persons crossing the border" shit.......................... if they are armed crossing OUR borders

shoot them. that second guessing is whats going to allow something much worse to enter our borders. I dont give a flying fk who we offend or gun down.... I really dont.

Im really more worried about a nuke...... ya know, terrorist. the thing that dumbass obama wont let anyone say. they do still exist...............

[Disclaimer]

How do you go from gunning someone down for crossing our borders ------> nuclear terrorism?

Not that I can speak from experience, but I think the only thing worse than second guessing if you should have killed someone is second guessing if you shouldn't have.

[Vulcan_Rider]

How do you go from gunning someone down for crossing our borders ------> nuclear terrorism?

Not that I can speak from experience, but I think the only thing worse than second guessing if you should have killed someone is second guessing if you shouldn't have.

Kudos for playing devils advocate. I would like to hear your solution. Do we let it go and just say fuck it? Do we keep making empty threats while allowing cartels to take over a section of our country? I fully understand that you can not make everyone happy in most situations but what is your personal opinion on what should be done in that section of Arizona that the cartels have pretty much taken over?

[Disclaimer]

Hmm, I usually don't get asked what I'd do -- that threw me off.

I don't know what the exact solution is... I can just throw some options out along with the pros/cons.

1) Legalize drugs - Pros, simple legislation and takes the economic wind out of all the sales from the cartels. Cons, there are a lot of other problems associated with drug use that the country would have to bear; and I don't exactly think a bunch of heroin and coke Qwik-E-Marts are going spring up automatically, it'll just turn the cartel into a strongarm mafia.

2) Secure just our borders - Call in the Feds, get big guns, big dogs, electrified barb wire, no one goes in and no one goes out, economically sanction Mexico. Pros, problem goes away. Cons, just about everything else, we'd basically be shooting ourselves in the foot by restricting trade/travel to and from Mexico. I personally know a lot of people that cross the border everyday to work there and supply/manufacture parts for us. Our economy would free fall, AND we'd have to pay for the electric fence and guns.

3) Let the problem solve itself. I don't really know where this would go, I mean, time has a way of figuring things out for itself. Pros, status quo -- people resist change anyway, so easy to implement. Cons, situation could get worse before it gets better, or it could never get better?

I'll need to think about it some more, since the optimal solution would balance economics with Constitutionality, due process / habeas corpus, human rights, and satisfy the ethical and moral dilemmas of security and privacy. Basically, something cheap and effective that wouldn't resort to us trampling on our own Constitution -- we still have to take the high ground or we're hypocrites. Hypocrites aren't respected.

[jporter12]

...And another one bites the dust...

Quoted to be seen by all!

[jhaag]

why not legalize them and take all the power from the cartels?

well said, Dr. Paul.

[Cheech]

Goddamnit, I am trying to stay out of politics threads, but this one is just too good. Time to fire up the blockquoter:

Because it's merely a war of words, for as well armed as the cartels are: they hardly match the training and expertise of all but the newest members of the US Armed forces.

You are correct, the training of a US soldier/Marine/seaman/airman is superior, but the National Guard will cannot by law be deployed to actively guard the border. Little thing called the Posse Comitatus Act, a piece of legislation that's about 130 years old. Besides, at the rate DHS is funding Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), you'd think they are militarized enough as it stands. By the way, inasmuch as the training of the US Armed Forces member is superior, the training of a CBP/ICE officer, in my opinion, is not.

Now if we actually declared war on the Zetas and other drug cartels things might get interesting. Instead of seizing drug vessels, we would just sink them. Instead of attempting to arrest cartel members, we'd be engaging them in battle.

How do you intend on declaring war on non-state entity? I don't mean to nit-pick here, I completely agree that the Zetas and the cartels represent a threat to American national security, but it seems to me that you are saying that we should declare war on them the same way we declared war on drugs in that we just throw a bunch of money at the problem, create a ton of superfluous government agencies, do an end run around civil liberties and domestic freedoms, and make the problem worse.

Besides, as has been seen in the current drug war, there is WAY too much profitability for local law enforcement to simply seize the cash without any possible way of getting it back (see court cases of United States vs. X amount of currency) that goes straight to law enforcement, seizing tangible items and selling them at auction, the proceeds of which go to law enforcement and the local government, should I go on?

They act with impunity and have no fear of local authority, it won't be difficult to identify their leadership hierarchy and locations, and then strike. Wipe them all out in on night. Then let the small fish squabble over the pieces.

Yes, it will be difficult. Like the Taliban, these people don't wear uniforms. Unlike the Taliban, instead of resorting to physical violence to placate the local population, they win their hearts and minds by taking care of some of their basic needs.

Also, as has been proven in the drug war over and over again, if you remove one major player, the smaller fish jockey for position to be the big fish and you are right back to where you started.

The only permanent solution in my opinion is to remove the underlying problem: criminalization of drugs. I submit as proof Portugal, a Western first-world country that decriminalized personal possession of cocaine, heroin, EVERYTHING. 5 years after they are doing just fine, the country hasn't devolved into complete armageddon. Read about it for yourself: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

[RFM]

How do you intend on declaring war on non-state entity? I don't mean to nit-pick here, I completely agree that the Zetas and the cartels represent a threat to American national security, but it seems to me that you are saying that we should declare war on them the same way we declared war on drugs in that we just throw a bunch of money at the problem, create a ton of superfluous government agencies, do an end run around civil liberties and domestic freedoms, and make the problem worse.

Oh I don't know... Maybe say it is Iraq's fault?