US military against cartels based in Mexico

[MikeNovack]

I do not think the US has any intention of seizing Mexican territory.

I agree, I do not think the US currently has any intention of seizing Mexican territory THIS TIME. But based on their history with us, don't you consider Mexico justified in being concerned. After all, we did that multiple times in the past. And Mexico's take on the 1916-17 incursion different than ours. We can say "we had no intent" but they "our army was in place and stopped you."

NOTE: The Zimmerman Telegram was January 17, 1917. The US incursion didn't end until February. In other words, the context of that German offer of alliance was while we did have an incursion into Mexico.

[commonsense]

No, but really. The cartels are far too sheltered within Mexico. I agree that military strikes, assassinations, blowing up compounds and making life really difficult for them is illegal. But I do not think it is immoral. There is a justice in it.

Here, see for yourself.

What makes you think our military can eliminate the cartels? We didn't have much luck against the Taliban.

Never fight an unjust wsr..... or a losing one. The military is neither equipped nor trained for police work.

The cartels are a source of the drug problem in the United States. The cartels are our problem. If we were to commit to the annihilation of our problem, then we would have to send our tanks and bombers to Central and South America, deploying our military as a military force, and not a police force.

I doubt that such action would be popular or feasible. The amount of resources necessary to defeat and destroy all the cartels would make the Vietnam war scene like a local skirmish.

[wtf]

There is no power on earth that can keep the American drug consumers from their drugs.

If you wiped out the cartels, other cartels would spring up to take their place.

America made beer illegal once. Did people stop drinking beer? Of course not. Criminal enterprises sprung up to meet the demand, resulting in adulterated and dangerous alcohol, criminal violence, and corrupted law enforcement.

Same with drugs. It's a demand-side problem.

Many people don't know that Mexico declared all-out war on the drug cartels in the early 2000's. The result was 70-100 thousand Mexicans killed. Finally, they dialed back the drug war.

The problem is that when you "decapitate" a cartel by killing or arresting its leaders, the underlings engage in bloody war against each other to be the new boss. The result is more deaths, mostly of innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The drugs keep flowing. The drugs keep flowing because you have the greatest drug-consuming population in the world, the US, situated next to a long border with a poor country where drugs are one of the principal ways to make a lot of money. The result is the corruption of law enforcement and violence among the cartels. Same as when the US made beer illegal.

As others have mentioned, why would we expect the US to be any more successful in guerrilla warfare against the cartels than we were against the Taliban? When you send Americans into a Mexican village, you can't look at someone and know if they're a civilian or a cartel member. Mistakes will be made. Civilians will be killed.

Except that instead of being on the other side of the world, such a war would be on the other side of the southern border. The blowback would take place in San Diego, El Paso, and all the other border cities. The cartels all have major presences in US cities. Every time the US blows up a Mexican village, the cartels would just blow up some Americans. How long do you think the public would stand for that?

Those saying the US should invade Mexico or conduct military operations in Mexico against the cartels are fools who know nothing about Mexico's ongoing drug war; and frankly, who learned nothing from our wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

You want to stop Americans from taking drugs? Fix the sickness in the American soul. Perpetrating violence on Mexico because "they made me take drugs" is lunacy. Profitable lunacy, I might add. The drug wars go on because there's so much money to be made. Not only by the dealers; but by the cops, border guards, banks, and judges who enable the trade.

[Gary Childress]

There is no power on earth that can keep the American drug consumers from their drugs.

If you wiped out the cartels, other cartels would spring up to take their place.

America made beer illegal once. Did people stop drinking beer? Of course not. Criminal enterprises sprung up to meet the demand, resulting in adulterated and dangerous alcohol, criminal violence, and corrupted law enforcement.

Same with drugs. It's a demand-side problem.

Many people don't know that Mexico declared all-out war on the drug cartels in the early 2000's. The result was 70-100 thousand Mexicans killed. Finally, they dialed back the drug war.

The problem is that when you "decapitate" a cartel by killing or arresting its leaders, the underlings engage in bloody war against each other to be the new boss. The result is more deaths, mostly of innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The drugs keep flowing. The drugs keep flowing because you have the greatest drug-consuming population in the world, the US, situated next to a long border with a poor country where drugs are one of the principal ways to make a lot of money. The result is the corruption of law enforcement and violence among the cartels. Same as when the US made beer illegal.

As others have mentioned, why would we expect the US to be any more successful in guerrilla warfare against the cartels than we were against the Taliban? When you send Americans into a Mexican village, you can't look at someone and know if they're a civilian or a cartel member. Mistakes will be made. Civilians will be killed.

Except that instead of being on the other side of the world, such a war would be on the other side of the southern border. The blowback would take place in San Diego, El Paso, and all the other border cities. The cartels all have major presences in US cities. Every time the US blows up a Mexican village, the cartels would just blow up some Americans. How long do you think the public would stand for that?

Those saying the US should invade Mexico or conduct military operations in Mexico against the cartels are fools who know nothing about Mexico's ongoing drug war; and frankly, who learned nothing from our wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

You want to stop Americans from taking drugs? Fix the sickness in the American soul. Perpetrating violence on Mexico because "they made me take drugs" is lunacy. Profitable lunacy, I might add. The drug wars go on because there's so much money to be made. Not only by the dealers; but by the cops, border guards, banks, and judges who enable the trade.

This is very well said. The worst thing that can happen to the US right now is to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and Afghanistan.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

There is no power on earth that can keep the American drug consumers from their drugs.

If you wiped out the cartels, other cartels would spring up to take their place.

America made beer illegal once. Did people stop drinking beer? Of course not. Criminal enterprises sprung up to meet the demand, resulting in adulterated and dangerous alcohol, criminal violence, and corrupted law enforcement.

Same with drugs. It's a demand-side problem.

Many people don't know that Mexico declared all-out war on the drug cartels in the early 2000's. The result was 70-100 thousand Mexicans killed. Finally, they dialed back the drug war.

The problem is that when you "decapitate" a cartel by killing or arresting its leaders, the underlings engage in bloody war against each other to be the new boss. The result is more deaths, mostly of innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The drugs keep flowing. The drugs keep flowing because you have the greatest drug-consuming population in the world, the US, situated next to a long border with a poor country where drugs are one of the principal ways to make a lot of money. The result is the corruption of law enforcement and violence among the cartels. Same as when the US made beer illegal.

As others have mentioned, why would we expect the US to be any more successful in guerrilla warfare against the cartels than we were against the Taliban? When you send Americans into a Mexican village, you can't look at someone and know if they're a civilian or a cartel member. Mistakes will be made. Civilians will be killed.

Except that instead of being on the other side of the world, such a war would be on the other side of the southern border. The blowback would take place in San Diego, El Paso, and all the other border cities. The cartels all have major presences in US cities. Every time the US blows up a Mexican village, the cartels would just blow up some Americans. How long do you think the public would stand for that?

Those saying the US should invade Mexico or conduct military operations in Mexico against the cartels are fools who know nothing about Mexico's ongoing drug war; and frankly, who learned nothing from our wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

You want to stop Americans from taking drugs? Fix the sickness in the American soul. Perpetrating violence on Mexico because "they made me take drugs" is lunacy. Profitable lunacy, I might add. The drug wars go on because there's so much money to be made. Not only by the dealers; but by the cops, border guards, banks, and judges who enable the trade.

This is very well said. The worst thing that can happen to the US right now is to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Is Russia making the same mistake in Ukraine? They're addicted to consuming Russophones.

[Gary Childress]

There is no power on earth that can keep the American drug consumers from their drugs.

If you wiped out the cartels, other cartels would spring up to take their place.

America made beer illegal once. Did people stop drinking beer? Of course not. Criminal enterprises sprung up to meet the demand, resulting in adulterated and dangerous alcohol, criminal violence, and corrupted law enforcement.

Same with drugs. It's a demand-side problem.

Many people don't know that Mexico declared all-out war on the drug cartels in the early 2000's. The result was 70-100 thousand Mexicans killed. Finally, they dialed back the drug war.

The problem is that when you "decapitate" a cartel by killing or arresting its leaders, the underlings engage in bloody war against each other to be the new boss. The result is more deaths, mostly of innocent civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The drugs keep flowing. The drugs keep flowing because you have the greatest drug-consuming population in the world, the US, situated next to a long border with a poor country where drugs are one of the principal ways to make a lot of money. The result is the corruption of law enforcement and violence among the cartels. Same as when the US made beer illegal.

As others have mentioned, why would we expect the US to be any more successful in guerrilla warfare against the cartels than we were against the Taliban? When you send Americans into a Mexican village, you can't look at someone and know if they're a civilian or a cartel member. Mistakes will be made. Civilians will be killed.

Except that instead of being on the other side of the world, such a war would be on the other side of the southern border. The blowback would take place in San Diego, El Paso, and all the other border cities. The cartels all have major presences in US cities. Every time the US blows up a Mexican village, the cartels would just blow up some Americans. How long do you think the public would stand for that?

Those saying the US should invade Mexico or conduct military operations in Mexico against the cartels are fools who know nothing about Mexico's ongoing drug war; and frankly, who learned nothing from our wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

You want to stop Americans from taking drugs? Fix the sickness in the American soul. Perpetrating violence on Mexico because "they made me take drugs" is lunacy. Profitable lunacy, I might add. The drug wars go on because there's so much money to be made. Not only by the dealers; but by the cops, border guards, banks, and judges who enable the trade.

This is very well said. The worst thing that can happen to the US right now is to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Is Russia making the same mistake in Ukraine? They're addicted to consuming Russophones.

I guess it depends on what is meant by "mistake". If a mistake means doing something that unnecessarily harms others, then yes, Putin made a mistake. If, OTOH, a mistake means doing something that ends up hurting the one who does it, then maybe not. It depends on what ends up happening as a result of the things we do.

For some people (Putin and Netanyahu probably fall into this category), it's OK to harm others in the process of accomplishing the goals of the state. For Putin, this is especially the case, as Ukraine posed no threat to Russia and did nothing to warrant the invasion. But, of course, the US did much the same thing to Cuba, though we ultimately failed to convert Cuba back into a client state.

Really, the worst thing for Ukraine is that the US is the one who is helping it. Part of the world perceives that as validation in itself for the Russian invasion. And the reason part of the world sees it that way is because of the US invasion of Iraq. We lost all credibility as a doer of good in this world because of that. Now it's become "us" vs "them" for many people instead of "good" vs "bad".

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So America's doing good by Israel for 77 years was undone by invading Iraq on a false prospectus? And she lost no credibility in the Vietnam holocaust? Or the Philippines holocaust? Or occupying Afghanistan for 20 years? Or the conquest of America?

[Gary Childress]

So America's doing good by Israel for 77 years was undone by invading Iraq on a false prospectus? And she lost no credibility in the Vietnam holocaust? Or the Philippines holocaust? Or occupying Afghanistan for 20 years? Or the conquest of America?

Of course, we lost credibility from those other things. However, Iraq was a repeat of the same mistake we made in Vietnam; therefore, we should have known better at that point.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So America's doing good by Israel for 77 years was undone by invading Iraq on a false prospectus? And she lost no credibility in the Vietnam holocaust? Or the Philippines holocaust? Or occupying Afghanistan for 20 years? Or the conquest of America?

Of course, we lost credibility from those other things. However, Iraq was a repeat of the same mistake we made in Vietnam; therefore, we should have known better at that point.

From a machtpolitik POV Iraq worked. For the US. It 20% destroyed the reputation of the British Army however. Afghanistan did the 80% There is no comparison with Vietnam whatsoever. Afghanistan and Vietnam, yes.

[Gary Childress]

So America's doing good by Israel for 77 years was undone by invading Iraq on a false prospectus? And she lost no credibility in the Vietnam holocaust? Or the Philippines holocaust? Or occupying Afghanistan for 20 years? Or the conquest of America?

Of course, we lost credibility from those other things. However, Iraq was a repeat of the same mistake we made in Vietnam; therefore, we should have known better at that point.

From a machtpolitik POV Iraq worked. For the US. It 20% destroyed the reputation of the British Army however. Afghanistan did the 80% There is no comparison with Vietnam whatsoever. Afghanistan and Vietnam, yes.

How did Iraq "work" for the US?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

It has a compliant government in Iraq. And two major bases. The knock on effects are seen in Syria, & Lebanon, Iran, Yemen: In the Shiasphere. Thanks to its Zionist proxy. The extended Sunnisphere is happy.

Morality has nothing to do with any of this. Credibility comes from the barrel of a gun.

[Impenitent]

It has a compliant government in Iraq. And two major bases. The knock on effects are seen in Syria, & Lebanon, Iran, Yemen: In the Shiasphere. Thanks to its Zionist proxy. The extended Sunnisphere is happy.

Morality has nothing to do with any of this. Credibility comes from the barrel of a gun.

or a "Midnight Hammer"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-b ... ear-sites/

-Imp

[Martin Peter Clarke]

2027

[Age]

No, but really. The cartels are far too sheltered within Mexico. I agree that military strikes, assassinations, blowing up compounds and making life really difficult for them is illegal. But I do not think it is immoral. There is a justice in it.

Here, see for yourself.

1. Is basing one's views and/or beliefs off of, or on, movie scenes really wise?

2. Do you also think and agree that people from other countries taking out military strikes, assassinations, blowing up compounds, and making life really difficult for certain "american" cartels in the "united states of america" also moral?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

No, but really. The cartels are far too sheltered within Mexico. I agree that military strikes, assassinations, blowing up compounds and making life really difficult for them is illegal. But I do not think it is immoral. There is a justice in it.

Here, see for yourself.

What makes you think our military can eliminate the cartels? We didn't have much luck against the Taliban.

After about 20 years of "american" military action it could be said that the "taliban" grew even stronger and 'now' with more control.

Which is quite humorous to watch and observe take place considering how quite a few "americans" think of "themselves'" and of "american might".

Imagine 'going in' to eliminate 'an enemy' only to have 'the enemy' grow much stronger and much more powerful during 'the whole process'. And, worse still, then having to 'run away'.

All "american military" actually really created, over all of those years, was just more hatred of "america" and so many more chances, now, of hostilities and revengeful attacks. Which, obviously, defeated the whole purpose of spending billions and billions of dollars while also costing the lives of many, many young adults and while also obviously destroying their families.

Never fight an unjust wsr..... or a losing one. The military is neither equipped nor trained for police work.

And, the police are neither equipped nor trained for the death and destruction of human beings and their homes, in other countries, like the "american military" is.