"Dear Mexico, we will respect your sovereignty on the condition that we will not respect your sovereignty if we don’t feel like it. Love and kisses, America"
Didn't the Germans try this with Belgium in 1914? That worked well, didn't it?
The scary drug de jour being Fentanyl, the opium poppy prices have plummeted for Mexican growers. Sure, the US could somehow seize all the production facilities in Mexico (although they mostly just package the stuff, and transship it to the willing US market, but that would just mean Fentanyl production would move elsewhere... Wyoming? Caymans? A winebego outside Albuqueque?
I thought it was mostly made (or its precursors) in china and then transshipped through the cartels. but I realize I may have inadvertently drank some propaganda too.
Considering Mexico is the US's #1 trading partner, one can only guess what the results of any agression towards the country would have. Not to mention what would happen to US soldiers (and the million or so US citizens living here) were the US to intervene militarily. HELL, considering how badly the world reacted to just a Ecuadorian SWAT team entering the Mexican Embassy, and you can imagine the reaction around the planet if the US were to try anything ... uh... energetic in the way of some armed incursion.
Trump apparently has no clue how many American companies own factories in Mexico, or contract Mexican firms to produce things for them. Disrupting trade with Mexico on a large scale would probably cause a massive recession, or worse, in the US, and piss off a bunch of American companies enough for them to take action against Trump.
Everyone forgets the Fenian raids of the 1860s and 70s: the biggest one I know of was a few thousand people from New York trying to invade Canada across the Niagara River. It also didn't go well for the invaders.
The US invaded Afghanistan, the place where they grow all that opium. So, the problem with heroin was over, right? Nope - in those 20 years, and under the noses of the biggest US military operation in history - the production of opium skyrocketed.
In reality the Taliban was originally aggressively anti-drugs, and routinely burned fields (and houses and goats and families etc.) of opium farmers. It was only once the US arrived to Save the Motherfucking World by burning fields, houses, goats and families, and the Taliban needed a source of easy cash for weapons, that they started turning a blind eye. Now they are turning the other direction, and burning fields again. And of course who suffers each time but the poor farmers.
Yeah Reagan had a War on Drugs, too, funneling crack and guns into Inner-City LA and providing weapons to guerrilla warfare groups destabilizing Central and South American governments.
The only reason for PAB to have a War on Drugs is that it’ll be cheaper if he and Jr get their drugs straight from the source.
I do like informing the 2A nutters at my work (Louisiana and Mississippi oilfield trash) that California is "anti gun" because the conservatives freaked the fuck out when black panthers were armed up and doing evil lefty shit like feeding kids free breakfast and filming police (LAPD) interactions.
Actually the real reason is to destabilize this government - between the wholesale gutting of the administrative state and a perpetual state of war he won't even have to proclaim himself "El Grande Jefe de Naranja", it will just be true.
The US appears to already be trying to destablize the Mexican government. Nobody down this way thinks it's just cooincidence that three US publications had almost simultanous articles trying to claim AMLO's election campaigns were financed by narcos.
Much of the Galvéz (conservative coalition) campaign looks to be based on US campaign strategies, while the anti-Sheinbaum (left coalition) bots and other on-line material also looks to have US origins, even if the bot farms are in Argentina.
As it is, it's pretty much accepted on the left in all of Latin America that the United States is absolutely terrified that Latin American nations will cooperate closely with each other as an economic and political united front against US and Canadian interests ((yeah, the Canadian government is seen as , being as interentionst as the US, though less inclined to direct threats). The tepid (at best) support given Mexico by the US and Canada following the invasion of the Embassy in Quito is seen as an indication of this.
"Yeah Reagan had a War on Drugs, too, funneling crack and guns into Inner-City LA and providing weapons to guerrilla warfare groups destabilizing Central and South American governments."
I am sooooo .... confused as to why more people don't know about this
Or maybe I would be if I didn't know how hard Confederate Republicans have worked for at least half a century to cut funding to public education
"Did the CIA Actually Sell Crack in the 1980s?" Why, yes -- yes, they did
"President Trump will take down the drug cartels just as he took down ISIS."
Well - I think _that_ is, at least, an absolutely true statement. Let's just see what the DNI says about ISIS today:
"ISIS remains capable of conducting insurgent operations in Iraq and Syria while overseeing at least 19 branches and networks in Africa, Asia, and Europe. "
Oh... Yeah - so I guess we can expect the cartels to be similarly curtailed (apologies for that, I could not resist).
Aren't cartels something like a hybrid of a corporation and a terrorist organization?
They are organized in "branch offices", and no one wears a uniform or even carries an ID. There really isn't a single person at the top - you can take out the CEO, but there's still the Chairman of the Board to deal with. Sure, that "regional manager" is definitely a cartel "member", but just how responsible is the person in the local office who processes payroll? Or the people in the mailroom?
How do you truly wipe out a cartel without attacking innocents?
"Terrorist organization" or just multi-national corporations. As it is, the various gangs you lump together as "cartels" have a lot in common with the Trump enterprises... that is, they have the "brand name" but different management and ownership.
This just in: Prohibiting drugs that are easy to make or grow will create a huge potential for profit which will be fulfilled by unsavory characters. It never ends well.
The area of North East Syria is now an consent-based democratic region supported by a egalitarian feminists. So there is that positive effect.
"Jineology is a fundamental tenet of the KCK's democratic confederalism[5] and as such central to the Kurds' social revolution taking place in Rojava, their de facto autonomous region in northern Syria, led by the KCK-affiliated Democratic Union Party (PYD).[5] Consequently, women make up 40% of the Kurdish militia fighting in the Rojava conflict[5] against the Bashar al-Assad regime and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Syrian Civil War.[1][2] "
"Democratic confederalism[1][2] (...) is (...) a system of democratic self-organization[4] with the features of a confederation based on the principles of autonomy, direct democracy, political ecology, feminism, multiculturalism, self-defense, self-governance and elements of a cooperative economy.[5][6][7] "
"Dear Mexico, we will respect your sovereignty on the condition that we will not respect your sovereignty if we don’t feel like it. Love and kisses, America"
Didn't the Germans try this with Belgium in 1914? That worked well, didn't it?
The scary drug de jour being Fentanyl, the opium poppy prices have plummeted for Mexican growers. Sure, the US could somehow seize all the production facilities in Mexico (although they mostly just package the stuff, and transship it to the willing US market, but that would just mean Fentanyl production would move elsewhere... Wyoming? Caymans? A winebego outside Albuqueque?
I thought it was mostly made (or its precursors) in china and then transshipped through the cartels. but I realize I may have inadvertently drank some propaganda too.
North Korea via some African country. I'm sure the North Koreans would love to cause a bunch more Americans to OD.
Considering Mexico is the US's #1 trading partner, one can only guess what the results of any agression towards the country would have. Not to mention what would happen to US soldiers (and the million or so US citizens living here) were the US to intervene militarily. HELL, considering how badly the world reacted to just a Ecuadorian SWAT team entering the Mexican Embassy, and you can imagine the reaction around the planet if the US were to try anything ... uh... energetic in the way of some armed incursion.
Trump apparently has no clue how many American companies own factories in Mexico, or contract Mexican firms to produce things for them. Disrupting trade with Mexico on a large scale would probably cause a massive recession, or worse, in the US, and piss off a bunch of American companies enough for them to take action against Trump.
On behalf of Canadians: Hey what about us?
You guys will go along with whatever the US does... anything to protect your mining interests in Mexico.
You completely missed the point of my comment.
Nah... the US doesn't "white" countries ... even if some of you guys speak French. Besides, the last time back in 1812, it didn't go all that well.
Everyone forgets the Fenian raids of the 1860s and 70s: the biggest one I know of was a few thousand people from New York trying to invade Canada across the Niagara River. It also didn't go well for the invaders.
To paraphrase DJT, maybe we should build a wall and make the USA pay for it.
Instead of 101st can we invade with the 1st Armored Div. Fort Bliss is only 5 miles from Juarez. They can be back in time for lunch.
Elimination the cartels in Mexico will end up just like Israel's effort to elimination Hamas - Badly, very badly.
Ta, Gary. WTF did Mexico ever do to TFG?
The US invaded Afghanistan, the place where they grow all that opium. So, the problem with heroin was over, right? Nope - in those 20 years, and under the noses of the biggest US military operation in history - the production of opium skyrocketed.
In reality the Taliban was originally aggressively anti-drugs, and routinely burned fields (and houses and goats and families etc.) of opium farmers. It was only once the US arrived to Save the Motherfucking World by burning fields, houses, goats and families, and the Taliban needed a source of easy cash for weapons, that they started turning a blind eye. Now they are turning the other direction, and burning fields again. And of course who suffers each time but the poor farmers.
Yeah Reagan had a War on Drugs, too, funneling crack and guns into Inner-City LA and providing weapons to guerrilla warfare groups destabilizing Central and South American governments.
The only reason for PAB to have a War on Drugs is that it’ll be cheaper if he and Jr get their drugs straight from the source.
I do like informing the 2A nutters at my work (Louisiana and Mississippi oilfield trash) that California is "anti gun" because the conservatives freaked the fuck out when black panthers were armed up and doing evil lefty shit like feeding kids free breakfast and filming police (LAPD) interactions.
Actually the real reason is to destabilize this government - between the wholesale gutting of the administrative state and a perpetual state of war he won't even have to proclaim himself "El Grande Jefe de Naranja", it will just be true.
The US appears to already be trying to destablize the Mexican government. Nobody down this way thinks it's just cooincidence that three US publications had almost simultanous articles trying to claim AMLO's election campaigns were financed by narcos.
Much of the Galvéz (conservative coalition) campaign looks to be based on US campaign strategies, while the anti-Sheinbaum (left coalition) bots and other on-line material also looks to have US origins, even if the bot farms are in Argentina.
As it is, it's pretty much accepted on the left in all of Latin America that the United States is absolutely terrified that Latin American nations will cooperate closely with each other as an economic and political united front against US and Canadian interests ((yeah, the Canadian government is seen as , being as interentionst as the US, though less inclined to direct threats). The tepid (at best) support given Mexico by the US and Canada following the invasion of the Embassy in Quito is seen as an indication of this.
"Yeah Reagan had a War on Drugs, too, funneling crack and guns into Inner-City LA and providing weapons to guerrilla warfare groups destabilizing Central and South American governments."
I am sooooo .... confused as to why more people don't know about this
Or maybe I would be if I didn't know how hard Confederate Republicans have worked for at least half a century to cut funding to public education
"Did the CIA Actually Sell Crack in the 1980s?" Why, yes -- yes, they did
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE2-zYEldGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUNohVdNuYk
"President Trump will take down the drug cartels just as he took down ISIS."
Well - I think _that_ is, at least, an absolutely true statement. Let's just see what the DNI says about ISIS today:
"ISIS remains capable of conducting insurgent operations in Iraq and Syria while overseeing at least 19 branches and networks in Africa, Asia, and Europe. "
Oh... Yeah - so I guess we can expect the cartels to be similarly curtailed (apologies for that, I could not resist).
This is why John Bolton isn’t voting for Trump. He wants to invade Iran, not Mexico.
Michael I don't worry about much, but John is a dessicated cat turd.
Yep. My bad.
Saul Goodman.
Michael Bolton is still at war with the office printer.
'You'll have a repair tech here TOMORROW!!???
A war with Mexico? Isn't he worried about unintended consequences? After all, that's how we got California in the first place.
And New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado.
Not sure about Utah. Did I miss any?
Aren't cartels something like a hybrid of a corporation and a terrorist organization?
They are organized in "branch offices", and no one wears a uniform or even carries an ID. There really isn't a single person at the top - you can take out the CEO, but there's still the Chairman of the Board to deal with. Sure, that "regional manager" is definitely a cartel "member", but just how responsible is the person in the local office who processes payroll? Or the people in the mailroom?
How do you truly wipe out a cartel without attacking innocents?
Alternative take: That's not a hybrid, you just named the same thing twice.
Easy: Bury the bodies fast and then relabel all your 'collateral damage' to terrorists retro-actively. Especially the dead babies.
"Terrorist organization" or just multi-national corporations. As it is, the various gangs you lump together as "cartels" have a lot in common with the Trump enterprises... that is, they have the "brand name" but different management and ownership.
You stop buying their product, obvs. Rather I should say, you support people in not buying their product, in all the various ways.
Free methadone for all!
Where's mine? Love that stuff
This just in: Prohibiting drugs that are easy to make or grow will create a huge potential for profit which will be fulfilled by unsavory characters. It never ends well.
"President Trump will take down the drug cartels just as he took down ISIS."
so, not at all? got it.
We have never taken down ISIS.
We have always taken down ISIS.
So, he'll slaughter a lot of people and blow a bunch of shit up, destabilizing whole regions, with very little positive effect?
The area of North East Syria is now an consent-based democratic region supported by a egalitarian feminists. So there is that positive effect.
"Jineology is a fundamental tenet of the KCK's democratic confederalism[5] and as such central to the Kurds' social revolution taking place in Rojava, their de facto autonomous region in northern Syria, led by the KCK-affiliated Democratic Union Party (PYD).[5] Consequently, women make up 40% of the Kurdish militia fighting in the Rojava conflict[5] against the Bashar al-Assad regime and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Syrian Civil War.[1][2] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jineology
"Democratic confederalism[1][2] (...) is (...) a system of democratic self-organization[4] with the features of a confederation based on the principles of autonomy, direct democracy, political ecology, feminism, multiculturalism, self-defense, self-governance and elements of a cooperative economy.[5][6][7] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism
More areas for Kushner to redevelop!
WWII famously totally didn't start like that. no, sir.
PAB took down ISIS?! 👀 I thought that was George Santos!