Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 11:13 pm I do not think the US has any intention of seizing Mexican territory.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 8:52 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 12:50 am 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.

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:05 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:42 pm

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:05 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 10:34 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 5:42 pm

wtf wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:05 pm 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.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:07 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:18 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:07 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 2:03 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:18 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 12:07 pm 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.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 11:08 pm 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.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 12:50 am 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.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 8:52 am

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 12:50 am 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.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 8:52 am Never fight an unjust wsr..... or a losing one. The military is neither equipped nor trained for police work.