Rick Perry Says Drug War ‘May Require Our Military in Mexico’ [Archive]

bluesc

10-01-2011, 10:41 PM

He's actually 100% right. This is always the case. Our elites cause massive problems and then we have to clean up their messes.

You would support opening up another war just across the border just so the federal government can keep up its failing drug war? Have you even seen what the cartels do to the federal police and the Mexican army down there? It's brutal.

Anti Federalist

10-01-2011, 10:42 PM

Why the fuck not?

We've been fucking around in the internal affairs of Central and South America for over a 100 years now.

Why should Mexico be any different?

Which explains an awful lot, btw.

MikeStanart

10-01-2011, 10:43 PM

Or just legalize drugs and watch the cartels' wallets hemmorage.

Gumba of Liberty

10-01-2011, 10:43 PM

He's actually 100% right. This is always the case. Our elites cause massive problems and then we have to clean up their messes.
Is sending the U.S. military into Mexico in order to stop the practice of market transactions in any way a good way to promote the Constitution? No. Mr. Perry is anything but 100% right.

moreliberty

10-01-2011, 10:45 PM

If the laws are not changed, this move would do not good in the long run. Even if you wipe all of them out, they started for a reason, and that reason is still there.

AuH20

10-01-2011, 10:48 PM

Is sending the U.S. military into Mexico in order to stop the practice of market transactions in any way a good way to promote the Constitution? No. Mr. Perry is anything but 100% right.

This goes far beyond commerce at this juncture. Los Zetas is practically ruling Mexico with an iron fist and brazenly attacking our citizens as well as the authorities. Wipe them off the map. Practice national defense for a change. And after we're done with Los Zetas we should start an internal investigation on who's directly benefiting within our government. Obviously, this is never going to happen.

bluesc

10-01-2011, 10:54 PM

This goes far beyond commerce at this juncture. Los Zetas is practically ruling Mexico with an iron fist and attacking our citizens as well as the authorities. Wipe them off the map. Practice national defense for a change. And after we're done with Los Zetas we should start an internal investigation on who's benefiting within our government. Obviously, this is never going to happen.

This would not solve anything. When civilians get together down there to eliminate the cartels, they end up replacing them. There is easy money to be made, and they seek power. Mexican special forces switch sides and rule vicious gangs. You cannot eliminate the problem by bombing them. While there is still money to be made, they will be replaced.

The Taliban were ruling Afghanistan, we went in to fix their country, now look at the mess. Do we learn nothing?

Legalize all drugs. Their market would dry up completely. It would be hard to target US agents if they weren't placed in Mexico, and if there wasn't any gain to be made from doing it.

Gumba of Liberty

10-01-2011, 10:58 PM

This goes far beyond commerce at this juncture. Los Zetas is practically ruling Mexico with an iron fist and attacking our citizens as well as the authorities. Wipe them off the map. Practice national defense for a change.

Is the Constitution a document based on commerce or is it the rule of law? Does it only explain the role of the Federal government in peacetime or does it state the role of the federal government in all times? National Defense describes the majority of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. In a society intellectually based on the rule of law, natural rights and individual sovereignty, defending the Constitution is synonymous with defending national defense.

If more defense is needed beyond the Constitution look to your states, communities, families and self for protection.

AuH20

10-01-2011, 11:08 PM

This would not solve anything. When civilians get together down there to eliminate the cartels, they end up replacing them. There is easy money to be made, and they seek power. Mexican special forces switch sides and rule vicious gangs. You cannot eliminate the problem by bombing them. While there is still money to be made, they will be replaced.

The Taliban were ruling Afghanistan, we went in to fix their country, now look at the mess. Do we learn nothing?

Legalize all drugs. Their market would dry up completely. It would be hard to target US agents if they weren't placed in Mexico, and if there wasn't any gain to be made from doing it.

It is not a political reality to emancipate the drug market at this moment in time. The fact of the matter is that Mexico is hemorrhaging and any adverse breakdown could be catastrophic for this country (humanitarian crisis), beyond the heinous crimes that have already been perpetuated against our citizens and local officials. This situation has moved beyond the sphere of local and state authorities. You have to play the hand you are dealt. If the situation worsens, Congress should look seriously about addressing this problem, preferably by removing a large share of our troops from the Middle East where they have never belonged.

bluesc

10-01-2011, 11:19 PM

It is not a political reality to emancipate the drug market at this moment in time. The fact of the matter is that Mexico is hemorrhaging and any adverse breakdown could be catastrophic for this country, beyond the heinous crimes that have already been perpetuated against our citizens and local officials. This situation has moved beyond the sphere of local and state authorities. You have to play the hand you are dealt. If the situation worsens, Congress should look seriously about addressing this problem, preferably by removing a large share of our troops from the Middle East where they have never belonged.

They don't belong in Mexico either.

You can't eliminate a problem like this with force. You can remove a government with force quite easily, but you can't win a guerrilla war against a hidden enemy that recruits the young and arms them. The Mexican drug war has been very violent, and will never be won by the Mexican government.

American troops over there causing massive damage and collateral damage would hardly be received well by the Mexican people or government. That would be catastrophic. Let's not forget the economic implications. That would be transferring hundreds of billions of dollars from the Middle East to Mexico. That would cause a breakdown at home. That would most certainly be catastrophic.

AuH20

10-01-2011, 11:24 PM

They don't belong in Mexico either.

You can't eliminate a problem like this with force. You can remove a government with force quite easily, but you can't win a guerrilla war against a hidden enemy that recruits the young and arms them. The Mexican drug war has been very violent, and will never be won by the Mexican government.

American troops over there causing massive damage and collateral damage would hardly be received well by the Mexican people or government. That would be catastrophic. Let's not forget the economic implications. That would be transferring hundreds of billions of dollars from the Middle East to Mexico. That would cause a breakdown at home. That would most certainly be catastrophic.

Any strategic goal of winning something as amorphous as the drug war would be foolhardy. The drug war is unwinnable. This would be about specifically eliminating Los Zetas and any other paramilitary oriented cartel that has brazenly committed crimes against Americans. Seek and destroy. So if they want to shoot at ATF agents with no fear of repercussions, maybe the next time they should have their head on a swivel for an incoming Predator drone.

affa

10-01-2011, 11:30 PM

wow. people supporting invading mexico for 'national security'.

question: do we do this even if the sovereign nation requests that we -do not- go in and deal with their issues for them?

bluesc

10-01-2011, 11:31 PM

Any strategic goal of winning something as amorphous as the drug war would be foolhardy. This would be about specifically eliminating Los Zetas and any other paramilitary trained cartel that has brazenly committed crimes against Americans. Seek and destroy. So if they want to shoot at ATF agents with no fear of repercussions, maybe the next time they should have their head on a swivel for an incoming Predator drone.

More predator drones? Kill one enemy and 10 innocents, create 20 new enemies and unknown hatred.

How about bringing those agents home and securing the border with the national guard troops? If they try to shoot at the troops, they will get blown up.

You cannot eliminate the cartel corruption in Mexico unless you eliminate the government. Then to prevent a new corrupt government rising from the ashes, it requires nation building.

You seem to be against the middle east wars, yet seem to be so willing to enter into the same thing in Mexico.

The Free Hornet

10-01-2011, 11:37 PM

And after we're done with Los Zetas we should start an internal investigation on who's directly benefiting within our government. Obviously, this is never going to happen.

1. The police

2. The DAs (assistant DAs and their staffs)

3. The prison guards

4. The judges

5. The "get tough on crime" politicians

6. The recipients of pharmaceutical company donations

7. The recipients of alcohol and tobacco company donations

AuH20

10-01-2011, 11:38 PM

How about bringing those agents home and securing the border with the national guard troops? If they try to shoot at the troops, they will get blown up.

That would be a likely deterrent.

You cannot eliminate the cartel corruption in Mexico unless you eliminate the government. Then to prevent a new corrupt government rising from the ashes, it requires nation building.

Their government is basically a subsidiary of ours. Expecting anything out of the Mexican government is too much. We practically fund all their operations.

You seem to be against the middle east wars, yet seem to be so willing to enter into the same thing in Mexico.

Not really. I have no interest in Mexico's resources. I'm not an advocate for occupation. Just eliminate the problem cartels. It's like mowing weeds. They're going to return in the long-term but right now the cartel criminal in Mexico needs a heavy dose of humility. Unleash the nasty side of the U.S. military, because right now Los Zetas think they are the modern-day Mongols, doing whatever they please.

bluesc

10-01-2011, 11:47 PM

That would be a likely deterrent.

Their government is basically a subsidiary of ours. Expecting anything out of the Mexican government is too much. We practically fund all their operations.

Not really. I have no interest in Mexico's resources. I'm not an advocate for occupation. Just eliminate the problem cartels. It's like mowing weeds. They're going to return in the long-term but right now the cartel criminal in Mexico needs a heavy dose of humility. Unleash the nasty side of the U.S. military, because right now Los Zetas think they are the modern-day Mongols, doing whatever they please.

The cartels are the government. Half of the mayors are paid off, those that have any integrity are either run off or assassinated, the federal police are paid off, special forces are paid off, ect. The cartels are not out of control children that need a spanking, they own a country. So once again we go around full circle to the fact that you can bomb all you want, you will just create more enemies, and you can't keep them out of government unless you occupy aka nation building.

The second we leave Afghanistan, the whole thing will collapse. It is an American government. It will not be maintained unless there is an American presence. Just like an American government in Mexico will not be maintained without American presence. They only way a country will truly get better for the people of that country is if the people have a revolution.

Carehn

10-01-2011, 11:49 PM

Secondly, think about if Los Zetas takes over Mexico, which triggers a huge migration north, completely overwhelming the southern states. This is a bonafide national defense issue as opposed to that resource plundering sham in the Middle East.

I don't see how that would be a nation defense issue. Do brown people pose a national threat of some kind when travailing in packs?

Im seeing this underlined hatred of mexico all over the right, SOAB I don't want to see it on my forums. Yes MY FORUMS. That's how we will all refer to them now.

AuH20

10-01-2011, 11:55 PM

I don't see how that would be a nation defense issue. Do brown people pose a national threat of some kind when travailing in packs?

Im seeing this underlined hatred of mexico all over the right, SOAB I don't want to see it on my forums. Yes MY FORUMS. That's how we will all refer to them now.

Hatred? A humanitarian crisis is a humanitarian crisis. Imagine 4 or 5 million Americans forced to relocate to Canada. It wouldn't be pretty. Plus, violence would likely erupt with such a large displacement. It's in America's best interest for Mexico to remain stable. We don't need or want a civil war in the Southwest.

AuH20

10-02-2011, 12:04 AM

The third world is exacting it's revenge. Frightening chart.

http://panzner.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451591e69e2014e8be8f50a970d-pi

Carehn

10-02-2011, 12:07 AM

Hatred? A humanitarian crisis is a humanitarian crisis. Imagine 4 or 5 million Americans forced to relocate to Canada. It wouldn't be pretty. Plus, violence would likely erupt with such a large displacement. It's in America's best interest for Iraq to remain stable. We don't need or want a civil war in the Southwest.

Let me just fix your language so you fit in more with the fox news type.

You are making more out of it then you must. Why would it be violent? And how the hell do you think the federal government getting involved would ever make things less violent?

bluesc

10-02-2011, 12:11 AM

AuH20

10-02-2011, 12:14 AM

Let me just fix your language so you fit in more with the fox news type.

You are making more out of it then you must. Why would it be violent? And how the hell do you think the federal government getting involved would ever make things less violent?

Since when does Iraq border the United States? Secondly, I want to invite 500 guests over to your house without your permission and see how you react in a week. Diasporas, especially of this projected size, would cause quite the problem. Local municipalities are structured to handle only so many people per their tax base and native population. It's not like there are ample resources lying around, especially factoring the economic drawdown of late. You only have so many EMS, physicians, firemen, police, teachers, etc.

AuH20

10-02-2011, 12:19 AM

Bombing Mexico would help it remain stable? That's the same logic the neocons use when bombing Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Cartels. You're making this much more complicated than it really is. I'm not advocating winning the futile drug war. This isn't about supplanting Mexico's corrupt government. This is purely about eliminating a particular faction which has gotten far too big and bold for it's own good. The common Mexican citizen despises them as well.

bluesc

10-02-2011, 12:21 AM

Cartels. You're making this much more complicated than it really is. I'm not advocating winning the futile drug war. This isn't about supplanting Mexico's corrupt government. This is purely about eliminating a particular faction which has gotten far too big for it's own good. The common Mexican citizen despises them as well.

How do you bomb the cartels without bombing innocent civilians too? You're making this out to be far too simple.

AuH20

10-02-2011, 12:31 AM

How do you bomb the cartels without bombing innocent civilians too? You're making this out to be far too simple.

43,000 mexicans have been killed over the last 4 years. You'd be saving lives with the enormous tradeoff. I'm not going to be paralyzed by fear in the off-chance that an innocent is killed. You can't commence military operations with that mentality. In fact, disband the entire military if that's the objective. The main objective is to crush your enemy as quickly as possibly, as soon as you make that difficult decision.
The question that begs an answer, are we at that point yet? I'd say no as of today, but given the rapid deterioration, this could be left at our feet very shortly.

affa

10-02-2011, 01:05 AM

Hatred? A humanitarian crisis is a humanitarian crisis. Imagine 4 or 5 million Americans forced to relocate to Canada. It wouldn't be pretty. Plus, violence would likely erupt with such a large displacement. It's in America's best interest for Mexico to remain stable. We don't need or want a civil war in the Southwest.

Your solution for keeping Mexico 'stable' is going in and slaughtering them. Don't worry, anyone we kill is easily labeled an insurgent, and most likely a Cartel member. Meanwhile, we get involved in yet another war. Where's that money come from?

But hey, don't worry, if we every hit hyperinflation and the economy goes under, maybe Canada will send in death teams to kill us off so we don't migrate north en masse.

affa

10-02-2011, 01:07 AM

43,000 mexicans have been killed over the last 4 years. You'd be saving lives with the enormous tradeoff. I'm not going to be paralyzed by fear in the off-chance that an innocent is killed. You can't commence military operations with that mentality. In fact, disband the entire military if that's the objective. The main objective is to crush your enemy as quickly as possibly, as soon as you make that difficult decision.
The question that begs an answer, are we at that point yet? I'd say no as of today, but given the rapid deterioration, this could be left at our feet very shortly.

On the off-chance? You make it sound unlikely, rather than the absolute given that it would be.

And promoting war to 'save' lives in some sick trade-off is pretty absurd.

leonster

10-02-2011, 01:11 AM

wow. people supporting invading mexico for 'national security'.

question: do we do this even if the sovereign nation requests that we -do not- go in and deal with their issues for them?

No.

Futher question: do we do this even if the sovereign nation requests that we -DO- go in and deal with their issues?

I still say no. Let them take care of their own problems, and we take care of ours.

noneedtoaggress

10-02-2011, 01:54 AM

Hey guys it's much more humanitarian to "kill" them on accident (collateral damage, so it's not like it's murder) with the moral high ground of wanting to kill the people who are killing them so that they don't come up here and clog up our system which might cause a bunch of headaches in my life, than to let the killers who are killing them now kill them over drugs and stuff.

They'd want it this way.

asurfaholic

10-02-2011, 03:47 AM

Any strategic goal of winning something as amorphous as the drug war would be foolhardy. The drug war is unwinnable. This would be about specifically eliminating Los Zetas and any other paramilitary oriented cartel that has brazenly committed crimes against Americans. Seek and destroy. So if they want to shoot at ATF agents with no fear of repercussions, maybe the next time they should have their head on a swivel for an incoming Predator drone.

We provided the guns, so why should we get mad when they shoot us for trying to disrupt their business? We certainly didn't give them guns so they could hang them on the wall to show off... If Mexico has a drug war problem, then we need to look seriously at WHY there is a problem. This is prime time to make a perfect case for decriminalizing the American cultivation of wacky weed..

cindy25

10-02-2011, 05:53 AM

Mexico is also an oil exporter, with a govt owned oil industry. The so called drug war probably has nothing to do with Perry's interest. Its the black gold/Texas Tea the Perry wants for his cronies.

acptulsa

10-02-2011, 07:07 AM

Rick Perry is right to a degree--it is an onerous burden on our four states bordering Mexico to shoulder the responsibility to guard this frontier. And Au2O is right to a degree as well--this would be a far more legitimate use of the military than the adventurism halfway around the world from our mainland and thousands of miles from our nearest outlying territories. And, yes, we must play the hand we are dealt. There is reality in that.

That said, I agree with many in this thread who insist that wandering into Mexico will make a bad situation worse. Perhaps it's too reactive for some to merely guard the border and hope we have enough assets to keep this mess from spilling into our physical territory, but this is legitimate by any standard and anything but presumptuous.

And I'm not in favor of aiming the water at the tops of the flames and leaving it at that. Our failed war on drugs is at the root of this; it is the fuel that keeps this fire burning bright. Yeah, maybe it's true that if we end this fiasco those cartels will find another source of funding for their ammo supplies. But you know, why not make them do it? Why not force them to find another source? Why not try to create a firebreak by removing the fuel, and see if the fire can jump it or not? I mean really.

'Communism is like prohibition; it's a good idea but it won't work.'--Will Rogers

I think it's high time we turned that around. Prohibition is like communism--it's a good idea, but it won't work either. Been there, done that, made one hell of a mess with it. Enough.

Southron

10-02-2011, 07:59 AM

Troops in Mexico makes more sense than our multiple wars in the Middle East. I would make that trade.

pcosmar

10-02-2011, 08:10 AM

Troops in Mexico makes more sense than our multiple wars in the Middle East. I would make that trade.
American Troops have been in Mexico. For Years.
That is part of the problem there, and adds to the violence.

There is something known as the Hydra Effect.
When you take out one head (cartel) several others take its place. Smaller and less organized at first but more violent than the last.

Arms that are sent to the corrupt government end up in the hands of these. They are not getting Automatic weapons and explosives from "Bubba's Bait and Tackle" on this side of the border.
The USGOV has been involved there for years.
It is another war that needs to END.

moderate libertarian

10-02-2011, 11:25 AM

Are we addicted to having lot of enemies around the world?

First we bombed few muslim countries without realizing that there were almost a billion muslims around the world and many of them would hate us. Now if we bomb a Catholic nation and a fellow Christian neighbor, how would almost half a billion (?) Catholics around the world see us?

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

10-02-2011, 11:42 AM

wow. people supporting invading mexico for 'national security'.

question: do we do this even if the sovereign nation requests that we -do not- go in and deal with their issues for them?

Depends on if warmongers like their leaders or not.

As for Mexico, people are making big money there. They don't want it stopped any more than they're already trying.

pcosmar

10-02-2011, 11:43 AM

Tried a google search for something and all I got was pages of Perry, Perry, Perry says,,,

so I did a search Excluding Perry.
There were several about Obama requesting troops in Mexico and Others promoting, suggesting or opposing the idea.

They are already there.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/06/us-special-ops-troops-deployed-mexico-leaked-briefing-confirms
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2010/06/us-military-has-special-ops-boots-ground-mexico
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/08/us-trained-assassin-teams-now-deployed-drug-war