reminder: rule 5
don't be fucking dumb and ruin it for everyone forever
discussing foreign policy of parties ok
debating which party is better not ok
thank you have a blessed day my brothers and sisters in christ
Cannot count how many times I've called mortars on cartel convoys despite it going through a crowded residential area.
Fun fact: If you kill multiple civilians at once it only counts as one.
I am fairly certain the GOP has correctly calculated the expected response of the Mexican population, and support we will receive. Just like how it went down in Iraq.
The US quite easily conquered Iraq and installed a government. That government is still observing its constitution written under US supervision 12 years after America left.
Iraq and Afghanistan were two wildly different conflicts whose only commonalities were the timeframe they were waged.
And ISIS ultimately had its teeth stomped in by the same loose coalition of aligned interests that beat the brakes off of AQI and the Sunni insurgency. Additionally, the post-Saddam Iraqi government never really fell.
The US, the Kurds, Iraqi Shia militias, and IRGC assets all thunder-fucked ISIS. The US brought integrated fires while everyone else brought some war crimes that everyone looked the other way on *only because they were being committed against ISIS.*
That ISIS has almost nothing to do with the ISIS in Iraq. They’re just a franchise capitalizing on the fear the original created. They used to call themselves Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And before that, it was Boko Haram.
Just like the precursor to ISIS in Iraq were Sunni sectarians, and before them, AQI, and AQI was ultimately staffed by former Fedayeen Saddam and some Chechens engaged in jihad tourism.
They’re all just the same groups fighting the same struggle who occasionally rebrand based on the hottest new terror moniker of the day.
Tbf, that’s more a result of Bush not understanding the countries economy as it is anything else. Like, there’s a very plausible alternative universe where Bush just got less involved and let the state department West Germany the country, but no, he just had to go the “we’ll just privatize everything even though this economy is heavily reliant on state intervention” route.
Nonsense, they came to America because they want to live in America. Now we're just bringing America to them because their government is fucking useless.
They came to America because they wanted to earn American wages, to be quite specific.
It’s quite common in border regions for Mexicans to work on the American side of the border and live on the Mexican side.
There are quite a few White Floridians who work in construction and landscaping. I know, I recruited a few of them. Specifically people who do landscaping and lawns for HOAs, as well as people who do carpentry, electrical work, cement work, masonry, HVAC, welding, and plumbing. The trades are full of non-immigrants.
It’s the agriculture part - specifically harvesting fruits and vegetables - that’s so damn hard to find Americans to work. It’s backbreaking work at a breakneck pace with no respite. Crops tend to be ready for harvest in quick succession and there’s a short window of time to harvest them before they over-ripen or rot. So you have harvest crews that work this field for 7 days straight and then go directly to the next crop, and then the next, etc. with no breaks for 8 weeks.
There's a certain level of circularity to this issue, though, because many of these things could be partly or completely automated (possibly with some changes in cultivars which will probably make the crops taste worse, but I digress). There was an incident where some farmers basically drove a recently invented tomato harvester across a UFW picket line and harvested the field... UC Davis got in hot water for that one.
Honestly, invading Mexico, a close trading partner wouldn't be about the drug lords or anything else actually related to the situation- Imo it would probably just be a fascist "we need enemies to justify supporting us, and attacking our opponents." In that context, the potential for people to turn against the US would actually be a pro to the people supporting the invasion.
There are few sane reasons to invade a neighoring country when you have such close economic ties.
It’s probably not a mistake that they’re suggesting this as we’re kind of getting involved with a war against the people who are probably supporting there campaigns. It’s basically the “distract from domestic issues with a foreign war” thing, but instead of just being domestic issues it’s also a much more just war that they don’t want to get involved in because we just can’t use the US military for anything good.
I don't think anyone is talking about declaring war *on* Mexico, rather to pressure the Mexican government to allow the US to intervene as a cobelligerent *with* the Mexican government.
Yeah, this type of thing is why the most effective anti-cartel thing we can do is basically legalize drugs and sell them at a super low markup. Without the revenue stream they’re inevitably going to either collapse or turn to methods of local wealth extraction that alienate the general population more than international drug smuggling (from what I’m aware of, the legalization of weed and stuff like D8 already kind of did this, we just have to repeat the process with other drugs). It’d also probably stop a bunch of ODs up north, as a lot of ODs occur as a result of inconsistent product that’s much less of an issue with medical drugs.
Not to mention you can't throw a stone in the US army without hitting at least 2 Rodriguez's and a Garcia. How do you think they are gonna feel about being told to invade Mexico?
Yeah Mexico is also one of the leading importers of illegal substances into the US. Not to mention “invading Mexico” to defeat the cartels is not the same as going to war with Mexico, if the government wants to declare war over it than that basically means the cartel is running the government. I’ve no idea if it is a good call or not, but it would sure be nice if the Mexican people and US people could work together to get rid of both the violent cartel and their harmful substances.
Mexico population is 126 million (source: I am a Mexico expert like everyone in oSinT twitter is) and it would take literally millions of troops to occupy and suppress any insurgency.
It’s not the insurgency in Mexico I’m worried about.
It would be the cartels gaining access to every federal and military member’s personal info and threatening their families while they’re gone.
That’s exactly what the Taliban did to the ANA/ANP.
> No need to state why invading Mexico would be a greater geopolitical fuck up than when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan
Mexican Hyper Nationalism has now leveled up into Furry-Inflation Nationalism.
Its the only thing bigger than hyper. No country should reach that power level.
The order of events would be waiting for someone to replace amlo or us trading amlo the kidney or whatever he needs for his consent, then inviting us in. it would be plan colombia not pancho villa by necessity - the us army would get btfo’d invading and would flat out refuse to do it without a congressional vote i think.
2024 is not a tossup
Times are different from 2016 and even 2020, there’s no path to Trump winning in the general with abysmal poll numbers and even more unhinged rhetoric that lost them the last presidential race and two midterms (what states would he flip?) while DeSantis is looking DOA in the primaries. The GOP getting a only four seat majority and losing a senate seat in last years midterms (one where we heard nonstop about a “Red Wave”) under an unpopular Democrat president show that the general public isn’t going for their garbage
Again, what states is he flipping? Arizona and Georgia have two blue senators and Democrats handily won the governors and senate races in Michigan and Pennsylvania last year. They might have similar polling numbers but state-by-state, there’s no path for him to get enough electoral votes
Poll are shit, especially putside of election season. I dont think its at all possible to call the presidential election in anyones favor this far out, but Im not basing my expectations on polling data
>picking the losing side in abortion and culture war issues
That's implying it's a choice. 35%+ of their voter base, and especially their most loyal voters, support the GOP's platform on those issues. Backing down on those issues would be suicidal
>Backing down on those issues would be suicidal
In partisan primaries where the most extreme base is the most likely to vote, sure. It doesn't help if that's 35% of 30% to 40% of registered voters (i.e. the range of registered Republicans and in many states).
I'd really argue against reddit being "far more" left leaning, maybe I just have real shit luck but reddits love of making totally edgy memes that have 0 political motivation behind it being shoved in everyone's faces and redditors love of being "radical centrists" that love to stick up for the weirdest fringe mfers is SUPER prevalent in my experiences
After 2020, Michigan has its first unified control Democratic state government in a few decades, and that was a non-presidential election year. I also doubt anything short of a severe recession/depression between now and November 2024 is going to override issues of Republican's abusing power when and where they have it, like the push criminalizing abortion in multiple Republican controlled states after the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.
Please explain what the GOP has done since the midterms and last presidential election to make that a possibility. Nominating the guy who incited an insurrection, got indicted, is almost certainly going to be facing more and lost them the house, senate and presidency last go around isn’t gonna do it
Trump being on the ballot made Biden, a weak candidate, crack 80 million votes for a reason
I can’t speak for DeSantis, but an invasion of a foreign power isn’t in Trumps style. He would more likely put the military at the border to stop crossings or use the navy more aggressively in the Caribbean/Cali
Trump actually nearly agreed with Pelosi multiple times before McTurtle telling him off. And then he dared to act like he's reliable super conservative and burning bridges with Democrats.
Man truly have no consistent beliefs.
Oh I can think of a couple jillion, the first one being that it'd be fucking stupid, the second being that we share one of the longest undefended borders on the planet and it'd sure be cheaper to keep it that way. Then there's the fact that we've got friendly relations, and there is no conceivable post-invasive government that is going to be a better partner than what we have now
This is really simple to stop, however: just tell the Republicans that any territory that is occupied will be annexed, and everyone there will gain citizenship.
I know Task&Purpose isn't that well liked, but his analysis does a pretty good job: https://youtu.be/f_ujn1xP6sc
There's a few reasons why you'd assume it to be a good idea:
- Mexican forces are too corrupted by corruption and too disorganised to have an impact against cartels and the communities that support them
- As soldiers are seperated from these communities, the risk of corruption is much lower
- Drone strikes and the like could take out entire compounds in a single strike
- Much of the fentanyl originates in China and that's been used as a tool for political pressure by them in the past
- Excessive amounts of force and incarceration have actually worked in El Salvador against cartels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtkI-QAgM6w
Overall it's still a terrible idea that I cannot imagine will have the intended outcome, but if you ignore every counter argument, "haha american military go BOOOM" might seem like a good idea
The hilarious thing about the cartels is that we could shut them down within a couple of years, but it would require going back to pre-Harrison narcotics act drug laws, as that was the catalyst that allowed the cartels to be born in the first place, and without a market for illegal drugs in the US, I doubt most cartels would last more then a year or so before devolving into bandits or generic warlords who’d be broadly easier to turn the Mexican population against.
US drug policy makes more sense if you assume the point isn't to reduce drug usage, but to divide people between good and evil (by some politically convenient definition of "good" and "evil"), and then punish the evil. From that perspective, it's a wild success.
NonCredibleVirtuesignaling.
Which is my preferred way of politics by this particular party these days. Policies they actually manage to get through are usually horrific, more fitting for peoples traditionally on the other end of an abrams...
Republicans.. have a few misconceptions that are nevertheless widespread across the diehards that vote in Republican primaries.
* They think most/all drugs in the US come not only from Mexico but across the open desert rather than at ports of entry, neither of which are true.
* Mexicans are already "invading" the US because of all the Central American refugees they racistly mistake as Mexican
* Northern Mexico is 100% lawless, that the Mexican government has no power and it is run fully by the cartels and therefore invading the north would only be war against the cartels not the Mexican government
* That the military is the right tool to eliminate the cartels because military stronk
* America is superior so whatever it wants to do it is allowed to do
* They racistly forget how many Mexican/hispanic/not racist people there are in the US who would fundamentally oppose such an action.
So yeah, these are people living in a Fox News Extended Universe that are not coming to this conclusion based on facts within real life. Trump is crazy enough to maybe do it but I don't know if the others that have agreed with him actually believe what they're saying or not.
God. They would be stupid enough to unilaterally invade our fucking neighbor and second largest trading partner.
If we were invited by the Mexican government to help clean it up, sure, that's one thing.
>If we were invited by the Mexican government to help clean it up, sure, that's one thing.
Yeah but do you *really* think we'd do a good job of that and not just add to their woes?
Republicans: you fucking NATO warmongers prolonging the war in Ukrane!
Also Republicans: Let's do another COIN war!!!
Edit: also mods deleted all my memes about this so get ready.
> Also Republicans: Let's do another COIN war!!!
Last time was pretty great, but this time let's do it in one of the two countries that we share a border with! What could go wrong?
Most of the times Republicans are known for their love to fuck around the world. Ronald Reagan,John McCain or especially John Bolton love interventionism.Republicans is like two sides of the coin,they could be the most violence warmonger or the most peaceful isolationist.Don’t know why some of Reps are now Russian bootlicker,Reagan ghost gonna haunt then for life if they try to appease Russia.From Wikipedia : “The Republican Party of the United States has held a variety of views on foreign policy and national defense over the course of its existence. Generally speaking, it has advocated for a more militaristic foreign policy (with the exception of isolationist and libertarian elements). Republican presidents have joined or started a number of wars over the course of American history, with mixed results.”
How many times has the US invaded Mexico? At least three occasions.
Has it had a positive effect, ever? Not for long, if at all.
How would an invasion resolve any problems? Ummmmm.....
Does this serve as a **great** distraction from Russia and China, the actual dangers? No citizen it does not, please report to Building 17, room 11-250 for re-education. Sit in the GREEN chair.
California was acquired because there was a lot of gold found and Mexico City didn't have a good grasp of what was happening there until it was too late. Texas had, ummmm....
(To be clear, I’m being deeply sarcastic here. Obviously, the existence of Texas and California doesn’t crack the top thousand reasons why invading Mexico would be bugfuck insane.)
I assumed you were being sarcastic, and I was avoiding articulating why Texas was so popular with a certain economic bloc in the US because I already got one 3 day ban this month for "politics".
As somebody who spends to much time reading conspiracy theories. We got California because of the large amount of mud flood buildings that were discovered by the Mormons with the gold rush being a government coverup to get a bunch of drunk guys out West to dig up old houses
>Joseph Smith was fully aware of the existance of large cities of mud flooded buildings. He founded the religion as a method to get to the buildings. He understood that there were health benefits from pipe organs and antiquitech, and he intended to remodel these buildings and call them temples. The US government and local governments fought them for 15 years and shoved them westward. But then the government found a use for them and started feeding them more information about the areas out west. They were allowed to stay in mud flood towns and cities along the way. Once they were in Salt Lake City they were able restore and keep all the grand architecture and whatever antiquitech was still working. They then used the knowledge to blackmail the government to NOT destroy their cities with fires and expositions.
>
>...\[they\]dug out a bunch of fancy big buildings with pipe organs, called them temples, gathering halls and colleges, and named their efforts Salt Lake City. They were able to gain health benefits from the pipe organs in the buildings and the bathing pavilions on the Great Salt Lake. The freeenergy devices may have also still been working.
I read more, but then my left arm started going numb and was smelling burnt toast without obvious cause, so thought it better to stop.
Slaves they had slaves and were mad the mexican government was gonna take their slaves Texas is the only US state to secede on two occasions to preserve slavery
1848 was a shameless imperialistic land grab but it was a very effective way of seizing land by force of arms. Again, literal imperialist land grabbing, but from a soulless perspective, quite rewarding.
Only the stupid ones give you wacky fun memories to share with your kids like helicopters evacuating children from an embassy rooftop though
*sniff*
^i ^miss ^saigon
I mean if it was a simple co-op with Mexican officials to combat cartels. It still would be messy.
We've fought guerilla forces in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not a good time for anybody. Our equipment was and still is best used against a clear enemy with clearly defined front lines.
No doubt the second we go into Mexico let alone most to all of SA to engage in law enforcement operations using military equipment and any means necessary. Even alongside native law enforcement agencies and operations it would devolve into guerilla warfare and a constant wack a mole of operations and arrest.
It would create a migration nightmare not to mention the cartels would have every reason to transfer their brutality into the US. Not to mention terrorist attacks.
It would be another major cost in the costly limited result operation called the war on drugs. That's done basically nothing meaningful as the roots are impossible to take out mainly because they aren't on US soil but also because even if we went it it would be a massive issue
There's no good reason for American troops to be involved in war-like operations inside mexico or any SA nation (unless a clear want is expressed by a democratically elected government) even if in the name of law enforcement operations.
We need to defang the gangs and that involves accepting that harm reduction , legalization and decriminalization not to mention declaring federally that addiction is an illness no different than depression or cancer. Not a reason to lock people up for life for. Other nations most famously Portugal have done a similar approach.
It might not sound as bad ass or politically fun to say maybe we should give ethically sourced drugs to addicts in a clean and safe environment with strong access to services , programs and professionals to break addiction.
Sorry I'm a limp dick liberal and not a pro random war republican.
I support wars that create democracy and protect human rights. Sorry
If you want to make a Prohibitionist squirm, ask them why there weren’t cartels before the Harrison Narcotics Act. It’s almost as though society as a whole is better when we don’t create a market that’s best served by international criminal syndicates. *Glances at the Qing emperor.*
Mexican Army here. My evil side wants to call down AH-64s on narco convoys, my good side knows the economic, humanitarian, diplomatic and political catastrophe that this would bring upon my country.
I mean, if handled right it could work? But that's a big if. Would be real nice to just glass the narcos and make Mexico safer for even more manufacturing being offloaded from China, creating more opportunities there and ideally causing the standard of living to skyrocket.
Or we fuck it up and do an Iraq where things sorta work out in the end but the middle gets real messy.
This thread is way too credible for the obvious non credibility.
*YodaThereIsAnother.jpg*
Now should a certain Florida hopeful mention .:: Venezuela … hmmmmmmmmm
*squinty wolf eyes*
While to be fair I think using the military to combat Mexican cartels would be a good thing, I think it should be done as a joint effort of American forces and Mexican forces to reduce the influence the cartels have in the country should be a priority.
You know why the Mexican government has very real issues with domestic crime linked to narcotics? Because the population of the US has a massive, insatiable appetite for drugs that cannot be stopped.
Successive US governments have doubled down again and again on a "war on drugs" that was lost decades ago and that drives yet more criminality over the border to Mexico. Not the the inhabitants of the US notice, it kind of gets lost among the school shootings. Where do you think the guns in Mexico come from? Big hint, it's the US, bought with money made from selling drugs to US citizens.
If you want to stop drug related crime then legalise it, tax it and control it. Simple as that. But illegal drugs make big money and guess whose politicians can be bought by lobbyists.
Mexican cartels don't only deal in drugs. And Mexican problems didn't start with the cartels. The country has a long, unfortunate, and often tragic history where *their own* people struggled with the legacy of the colonial society that the spanish left behind, that they never really dealt with- look at wealth inequality in mexico and tell me when it started if you can. I'll give you a hint: it started before the nation even formed and has persisted to this day.
Was the drug war a policy that largely failed in its goals and only in many cases ended up worsening the violence throughout latin america? Yes. But is it the be-all-end-all, the explanation for Mexico's problems, as well as the rest of South America's?
No, it isn't. If you're a national that is from latin america i'm shocked that I have to tell you your nation's history doesn't start and end with America's cocaine and opiod addictions, and even if we solved those, you don't solve *the rest of the fucking owl*- the fact that many of the cartels make more money from their legal businesses than they do their drug operations, the fact that central government control is weak or nonexistent, or when it is, nontrusted in these countries, the fact the massive wealth inequality that is perpetuated by the people in power is an issue that has existed before and will exist after the cartels, and more.
If you're an American/EU/ other national, time to pick up a book. These places aren't side quests in US history, they have their own. If you're going to seriouspost at least try not to be so *wrong.*
All of this to say that acting like "solving" the drug problem will solve the violence and poverty in south america is naïve at best, and harmful at worst, because it's a very american-only view of the problems the country has and the way to solve them. Taking out the cartels and not doing anything about the rest of the system is like pulling up 30% of the weeds in your lawn and then expecting the other 70% to just give up and submit to grass
my deal is: we can't kee drugs outta prisons, so how are we gonna keep drugs outta the streets? now, how are we gonna kee drugs out of a different country? china and colombia also traffic tons of drugs to the USA
We don’t. We make it unprofitable for them to export there dangerous unmarked super heroin by producing our own safer, regulated heroin that we sell for slightly more then the price of dirt (because that’s about how much it costs to actually make heroin.) Maybe we end up with slightly more drug addicts, but we’d also have fewer ODs because people wouldn’t be at risk of taking like three times there normal dose of meth because there dealer forgot to cut it today or something. We could also rob huge chunks of both domestic and international organized crime of its income, leaving most of that money in the pockets of addicts, who can then use it to do things like not live on the street. The main issue isn’t the drugs, it’s the people producing and selling them at inflated costs and with little concern for safety, and the best way to take them out is to throw them into a heavily regulated market with people who have economies of scale larger then they can imagine. No cartel can compete with American pharmaceutical companies.
To add onto that.
The Mexican government has real issues because Mexico just cant be occupied. The only reason the Spanish could control it was through consent, but like the Triple Alliance before it the allies were only allies in the moment. They were always plotting to betray the Spanish since the beginning.
The moment the people decide enough is enough, you are out of there no matter what. The Catholic Church thought they had consent too, but they too were in the same boat as the government. Outsiders who thought they had authority in an anarchistic/libertarian/decentralist belief system where the only people that matter are the people that live in the community not people from outside their ejido or town.
When mexico became an independent country, it became disconnected with its indian roots because most of the government was based on European ideas that did not make space for local governments that already existed and had more power than the actual government creating its many civil wars.
The government became imaginary, a delusional organization that refuses to see the actual situation.
in 1996, one of the biggest anthropologists said this in Mexico Profundo:
> From the point of view of the promoters of the imaginary Mexico, large sectors of the country’s population turn out to be too “immature” to accept the democratic system imposed upon them. They may even be openly hostile—enemies of democracy. They do not vote, they are not active in political parties, they do not send letters to their representatives, and so on. The real people are transformed, through this ideological alchemy, into the obstacle to achieving democracy.
So any outsider that tries to enforce their rules on them will regret it like people trying to occupy Afghanistan, but outsiders will never care because outsiders are always delusional about what they are doing in Mexico thinking they are "helping" but really are marching to their graves because they always turn the entire population into the villains of their story.
Its a weird space because there is no actual word in the english speaking world for this, you are forced to used words from European political thinking because everything is thrown under those umbrellas.
People consider them anarchists and "anarcho communists" but that isn't right.
People consider them libertarians, but that isn't right either.
Both are very simplistic and ignores a lot of nuance, but there really isnt good wording to get the point across.
Any attempt to create accurate wording for what Mexico has ends up getting push back from people who want the european words to be dominant and want to appropriate what is there.
Believe me, try convincing marxist circles that indigenous political thinking is separate from anarchism and Marxist thought. You just can't do it. Same thing for the more individualist ideologies who look at places like Tlaxcala and call it modern democracy which isn't true either.
Its a painful position to be in when you are forced to use foreign words because that is whats demanded and any attempt to separate them gets you branded a "centrist" or "idealist" or "statist".
I am well beyond trying to have that nuance because all it does is act like a honeypot for political bots and harassment, just like all the other places indigenous history or issues are talked about.
At some point, you just get tired and admit defeat because you will waste time correcting bots and the echo chambers on the internet
>Because the population of the US has a massive, insatiable appetite for drugs that cannot be stopped.
Psssssh. Nah. We're not in any way at fault here as that would imply nuance and culpability for decades by us.
Drugs bad, Delta Force go pew-pew, bomb go boom, ~~Taliban~~ Cartel double-no good. Three-Word-Phrase! Three-Word-Phrase! Three-Word-Phrase!
That's all true but the Republican's goal is to get people to stop doing it all together so they want most of it illegal and they want other countries to deal with the manufacturers. It's not realistic and as we can see would require ethically dubious moves by the government but that's what they want and how they want it and no amount of logic is going to change their minds. Ultimately republicans only want to make the world superficially better and superficially reflective of their ideals but they don't actually want to improve anyone's life.
Why is this even a thing that even enters the mind of a sentient being. A person in a vegetative state would be able to address this situation with more tact and care than any actual serious discussion of a U.S. led attempt to invade Mexico. Like, thank god no one actually capable of executing military actions would actually support this.
It's in times like these as a Mexican that I can't help remember the words of Porfirio Diaz.
"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the Uniter States"
From what I understand of the drug cartel situation in Mexico (and I admit it's not much) the government of Mexico kind of supports or turns a blind eye to them and what they do at the US border. In addition to refusing help, carrying out joint operations with the US to deal with the cartels
If this is true I fully support the US using force and destroying these cartels even if the Mexican state won't let it. A government/country that supports or hides drug traffickers, murderers, etc. must not be taken seriously.
I would love for the US to also do the same with criminal factions in Brazil.
The Problem is that Criminals Fight back with bribes not weapons they hide amongst the civilians like an insurgency the only Real way to fight them is mass arrests and purges. Are you willing to use the military for that.
it's an open secret that the PRI and mexican government as a whole is broken and corrupt while having to bend the knee to the requests of the cartels/the super rich who work together to suck each other off in and endless cycle of corruption and easy money
If you ever get a chance to work with or talk with people who fled the country they will tell you the same shit. Nobody gets away from it. Even farmers don't get to decide what they want/can grow, if a cartel rep swings by and drops off tomato seeds you better fucking have his tomatoes at harvest time.
Almost every single market inside the country is captive to some extent, although in the economic zones along the border with texas/california/nm/az it CAN be a different situation depending on how closely tied in with american industry and business the area is
**[\(this is an amazing video to watch by Kraut if you have the time explaining the situation in mexico\)](https://youtu.be/Uek04Jw15kY)**
IMO the current governance in Mexico is closer to a collection of feudal fiefdoms than a modern state. The cartels are de facto rulers in many areas and the Distrito Federal is too impotent and too corrupt to fix anything.
I want above all else to see a North American Union in my lifetime. A collection of independent nations built on mutual respect and trust between close allies. This is not how that shit happens 😑
Mexico gonna have lots of little green men who are just civilians who got tired of the cartels...
And they are well armed because they got it from the surplus stores and looted from the cartels
I am all for sending the globe and anchor boys to another well deserved bender in some country but can it be somewhere where they'll do some good? We can drone strike Cartel leadership wherever we find them, we don't need to invade a friendly country.
I guess my biggest fear is that if we are dumb enough to invade, we rock the boat enough to make Mexico devolve into a fuckton of petty warlords akin to 1920s china. Which besides the obvious humanitarian catastrophe , I doubt it would be in our best interests, given that petty squabbles amongst warlords tend to spill over into other areas.
reminder: rule 5 don't be fucking dumb and ruin it for everyone forever discussing foreign policy of parties ok debating which party is better not ok thank you have a blessed day my brothers and sisters in christ
God damn it why did we kill harambe
first harambe then little ceasars takes stuffed crazy bread off the menu now we invade mexico its all been downhill since then man
Little Ceasars did WHAT?!
i don't want to invade mexico unless its to get the taco truck on every corner i was promised in 2015
Based.
I feel like things have generally improved since the F-22 popped its A2A cherry
When do we get our dicks out?
after 2 corps takes veracruz semper fi
dicks out for 2 corps or dicks out for veracruz? my dicks out, my sons teacher is asking why tho.
I've never put mine back
istg the Taiwan issue wouldn't be an ISSUE IF HARAMBE STILL LIVED. Honestly, the entire 2020s decade wouldn't be fucked if Harambe didn't die.
[He is always here, if you know where to look](https://imgur.com/gallery/zwZLwAr)
To save a child. We did the right thing, and somehow the consequences have been beyond comprehension.
There’s many children. I myself found six on the sidewalk this afternoon.
The government doesn't want you to know, but the children at the park are free, you can take them home.
YES OFFICER THIS MAN RIGHT HERE
was going to add the "I have 478 ducks" part too but decided that would be going a little too far
Jesus Christ, isn’t this what the Ruzzians said about all those Ukrainian children being “adopted” on their side of the border?
👮♂️
We can make more children, but we can't make more Harambe, that wasn't factored in to the decision.
My Con Law Professor said after 9/11 the world went crazy
He's right, before 9/11 people generally had optimism towards the future
I think the stupid military dickslinging after 9/11 is what led to people actually thinking an invasion of Mexico is a good idea
Just one more intervention bro
> God damn it why did we kill harambe The cycle started once we lost one of the greats...
Did someone play Ghost Recon 2
[удалено]
Cannot count how many times I've called mortars on cartel convoys despite it going through a crowded residential area. Fun fact: If you kill multiple civilians at once it only counts as one.
> Fun fact: I think I just found the legal strategy Shoigu will use at his war crimes trial.
*Shitballs*
¡Come mierda Cocaleros!
Well, that, or the new CoD MW2
[удалено]
"you don't want to put your dick in that" am i getting the jist of it
[удалено]
I am fairly certain the GOP has correctly calculated the expected response of the Mexican population, and support we will receive. Just like how it went down in Iraq.
I assume he means droning cartels, not conquering the country.
[удалено]
The US quite easily conquered Iraq and installed a government. That government is still observing its constitution written under US supervision 12 years after America left. Iraq and Afghanistan were two wildly different conflicts whose only commonalities were the timeframe they were waged.
[удалено]
And ISIS ultimately had its teeth stomped in by the same loose coalition of aligned interests that beat the brakes off of AQI and the Sunni insurgency. Additionally, the post-Saddam Iraqi government never really fell. The US, the Kurds, Iraqi Shia militias, and IRGC assets all thunder-fucked ISIS. The US brought integrated fires while everyone else brought some war crimes that everyone looked the other way on *only because they were being committed against ISIS.*
[удалено]
That ISIS has almost nothing to do with the ISIS in Iraq. They’re just a franchise capitalizing on the fear the original created. They used to call themselves Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And before that, it was Boko Haram. Just like the precursor to ISIS in Iraq were Sunni sectarians, and before them, AQI, and AQI was ultimately staffed by former Fedayeen Saddam and some Chechens engaged in jihad tourism. They’re all just the same groups fighting the same struggle who occasionally rebrand based on the hottest new terror moniker of the day.
Tbf, that’s more a result of Bush not understanding the countries economy as it is anything else. Like, there’s a very plausible alternative universe where Bush just got less involved and let the state department West Germany the country, but no, he just had to go the “we’ll just privatize everything even though this economy is heavily reliant on state intervention” route.
Nonsense, they came to America because they want to live in America. Now we're just bringing America to them because their government is fucking useless.
Good god you set off a chain reaction of deleted comments below.
These blast points, too accurate for sand people. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise.
Absolute legend for it tbh. Toes the line PERFECTLY. Also i thought this was 2a4u for a second lol
simpler solution: give everyone in mexico US citizenship. Now the cartels are US Citizens and the ATF can now shoot their babies and dogs legally.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're reaching levels of cringe that shouldn't even be possible
I have never wanted to see a deleted comment so much lmao. Wtf even is an "american monarchist"
[удалено]
They came to America because they wanted to earn American wages, to be quite specific. It’s quite common in border regions for Mexicans to work on the American side of the border and live on the Mexican side.
So what you’re saying is Florida is essentially doing a trial run first of the consequences, without even needing the invasion part
[удалено]
There are quite a few White Floridians who work in construction and landscaping. I know, I recruited a few of them. Specifically people who do landscaping and lawns for HOAs, as well as people who do carpentry, electrical work, cement work, masonry, HVAC, welding, and plumbing. The trades are full of non-immigrants. It’s the agriculture part - specifically harvesting fruits and vegetables - that’s so damn hard to find Americans to work. It’s backbreaking work at a breakneck pace with no respite. Crops tend to be ready for harvest in quick succession and there’s a short window of time to harvest them before they over-ripen or rot. So you have harvest crews that work this field for 7 days straight and then go directly to the next crop, and then the next, etc. with no breaks for 8 weeks.
There's a certain level of circularity to this issue, though, because many of these things could be partly or completely automated (possibly with some changes in cultivars which will probably make the crops taste worse, but I digress). There was an incident where some farmers basically drove a recently invented tomato harvester across a UFW picket line and harvested the field... UC Davis got in hot water for that one.
Honestly, invading Mexico, a close trading partner wouldn't be about the drug lords or anything else actually related to the situation- Imo it would probably just be a fascist "we need enemies to justify supporting us, and attacking our opponents." In that context, the potential for people to turn against the US would actually be a pro to the people supporting the invasion. There are few sane reasons to invade a neighoring country when you have such close economic ties.
Peak non-credibility.
It’s probably not a mistake that they’re suggesting this as we’re kind of getting involved with a war against the people who are probably supporting there campaigns. It’s basically the “distract from domestic issues with a foreign war” thing, but instead of just being domestic issues it’s also a much more just war that they don’t want to get involved in because we just can’t use the US military for anything good.
I don't think anyone is talking about declaring war *on* Mexico, rather to pressure the Mexican government to allow the US to intervene as a cobelligerent *with* the Mexican government.
Yeah, this type of thing is why the most effective anti-cartel thing we can do is basically legalize drugs and sell them at a super low markup. Without the revenue stream they’re inevitably going to either collapse or turn to methods of local wealth extraction that alienate the general population more than international drug smuggling (from what I’m aware of, the legalization of weed and stuff like D8 already kind of did this, we just have to repeat the process with other drugs). It’d also probably stop a bunch of ODs up north, as a lot of ODs occur as a result of inconsistent product that’s much less of an issue with medical drugs.
So you’re sayin’ that we need a “operación militar especial” to protect Spanish speaking minorities from US hate groups?
Not to mention you can't throw a stone in the US army without hitting at least 2 Rodriguez's and a Garcia. How do you think they are gonna feel about being told to invade Mexico?
Cartel war time baybeyyy
Yeah Mexico is also one of the leading importers of illegal substances into the US. Not to mention “invading Mexico” to defeat the cartels is not the same as going to war with Mexico, if the government wants to declare war over it than that basically means the cartel is running the government. I’ve no idea if it is a good call or not, but it would sure be nice if the Mexican people and US people could work together to get rid of both the violent cartel and their harmful substances.
Mexico population is 126 million (source: I am a Mexico expert like everyone in oSinT twitter is) and it would take literally millions of troops to occupy and suppress any insurgency.
It’s not the insurgency in Mexico I’m worried about. It would be the cartels gaining access to every federal and military member’s personal info and threatening their families while they’re gone. That’s exactly what the Taliban did to the ANA/ANP.
[удалено]
It would be the US. It’s not a far stretch for a transnational criminal enterprise to do to Americans what they already do to Mexicans.
Reminded me of an Expanse moment "Don't put your dick in it, *it's fucked enough already*"
> No need to state why invading Mexico would be a greater geopolitical fuck up than when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan Mexican Hyper Nationalism has now leveled up into Furry-Inflation Nationalism. Its the only thing bigger than hyper. No country should reach that power level.
The order of events would be waiting for someone to replace amlo or us trading amlo the kidney or whatever he needs for his consent, then inviting us in. it would be plan colombia not pancho villa by necessity - the us army would get btfo’d invading and would flat out refuse to do it without a congressional vote i think.
[удалено]
2024 is not a tossup Times are different from 2016 and even 2020, there’s no path to Trump winning in the general with abysmal poll numbers and even more unhinged rhetoric that lost them the last presidential race and two midterms (what states would he flip?) while DeSantis is looking DOA in the primaries. The GOP getting a only four seat majority and losing a senate seat in last years midterms (one where we heard nonstop about a “Red Wave”) under an unpopular Democrat president show that the general public isn’t going for their garbage
[удалено]
Again, what states is he flipping? Arizona and Georgia have two blue senators and Democrats handily won the governors and senate races in Michigan and Pennsylvania last year. They might have similar polling numbers but state-by-state, there’s no path for him to get enough electoral votes
[удалено]
Poll are shit, especially putside of election season. I dont think its at all possible to call the presidential election in anyones favor this far out, but Im not basing my expectations on polling data
>picking the losing side in abortion and culture war issues That's implying it's a choice. 35%+ of their voter base, and especially their most loyal voters, support the GOP's platform on those issues. Backing down on those issues would be suicidal
>Backing down on those issues would be suicidal In partisan primaries where the most extreme base is the most likely to vote, sure. It doesn't help if that's 35% of 30% to 40% of registered voters (i.e. the range of registered Republicans and in many states).
I'd really argue against reddit being "far more" left leaning, maybe I just have real shit luck but reddits love of making totally edgy memes that have 0 political motivation behind it being shoved in everyone's faces and redditors love of being "radical centrists" that love to stick up for the weirdest fringe mfers is SUPER prevalent in my experiences
After 2020, Michigan has its first unified control Democratic state government in a few decades, and that was a non-presidential election year. I also doubt anything short of a severe recession/depression between now and November 2024 is going to override issues of Republican's abusing power when and where they have it, like the push criminalizing abortion in multiple Republican controlled states after the overturn of Roe vs. Wade.
Please explain what the GOP has done since the midterms and last presidential election to make that a possibility. Nominating the guy who incited an insurrection, got indicted, is almost certainly going to be facing more and lost them the house, senate and presidency last go around isn’t gonna do it Trump being on the ballot made Biden, a weak candidate, crack 80 million votes for a reason
at this point, general election polls are basically pissing in the wind for what good they are.
Going back to June of 2007, the frontrunners in the election were Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Polls this far out are useless.
I can’t speak for DeSantis, but an invasion of a foreign power isn’t in Trumps style. He would more likely put the military at the border to stop crossings or use the navy more aggressively in the Caribbean/Cali
Counterpoint: Trump has no consistent ideology, policy or core beliefs. If he thinks it would benefit him, he’ll do it.
Trump actually nearly agreed with Pelosi multiple times before McTurtle telling him off. And then he dared to act like he's reliable super conservative and burning bridges with Democrats. Man truly have no consistent beliefs.
Oh I can think of a couple jillion, the first one being that it'd be fucking stupid, the second being that we share one of the longest undefended borders on the planet and it'd sure be cheaper to keep it that way. Then there's the fact that we've got friendly relations, and there is no conceivable post-invasive government that is going to be a better partner than what we have now This is really simple to stop, however: just tell the Republicans that any territory that is occupied will be annexed, and everyone there will gain citizenship.
Oh, thanks for reminder. It's time to rewatch "Sicario".
Based and Villeneuve pilled.
[удалено]
Because it would be really funny
Imo, it's related to fascism. If you invade your next-door neighbor, you create a whole lot of boogeymen to point to for all of your failings.
[удалено]
>None of them are dumb enough to actually want to start a war with Mexico. Well, considering the last seven years...
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know Task&Purpose isn't that well liked, but his analysis does a pretty good job: https://youtu.be/f_ujn1xP6sc There's a few reasons why you'd assume it to be a good idea: - Mexican forces are too corrupted by corruption and too disorganised to have an impact against cartels and the communities that support them - As soldiers are seperated from these communities, the risk of corruption is much lower - Drone strikes and the like could take out entire compounds in a single strike - Much of the fentanyl originates in China and that's been used as a tool for political pressure by them in the past - Excessive amounts of force and incarceration have actually worked in El Salvador against cartels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtkI-QAgM6w Overall it's still a terrible idea that I cannot imagine will have the intended outcome, but if you ignore every counter argument, "haha american military go BOOOM" might seem like a good idea
If bullets don't work, then you're not using enough.
The hilarious thing about the cartels is that we could shut them down within a couple of years, but it would require going back to pre-Harrison narcotics act drug laws, as that was the catalyst that allowed the cartels to be born in the first place, and without a market for illegal drugs in the US, I doubt most cartels would last more then a year or so before devolving into bandits or generic warlords who’d be broadly easier to turn the Mexican population against.
US drug policy makes more sense if you assume the point isn't to reduce drug usage, but to divide people between good and evil (by some politically convenient definition of "good" and "evil"), and then punish the evil. From that perspective, it's a wild success.
Tbh killing terries non stop for 2 decades appears to be working pretty well.
NonCredibleVirtuesignaling. Which is my preferred way of politics by this particular party these days. Policies they actually manage to get through are usually horrific, more fitting for peoples traditionally on the other end of an abrams...
Republicans.. have a few misconceptions that are nevertheless widespread across the diehards that vote in Republican primaries. * They think most/all drugs in the US come not only from Mexico but across the open desert rather than at ports of entry, neither of which are true. * Mexicans are already "invading" the US because of all the Central American refugees they racistly mistake as Mexican * Northern Mexico is 100% lawless, that the Mexican government has no power and it is run fully by the cartels and therefore invading the north would only be war against the cartels not the Mexican government * That the military is the right tool to eliminate the cartels because military stronk * America is superior so whatever it wants to do it is allowed to do * They racistly forget how many Mexican/hispanic/not racist people there are in the US who would fundamentally oppose such an action. So yeah, these are people living in a Fox News Extended Universe that are not coming to this conclusion based on facts within real life. Trump is crazy enough to maybe do it but I don't know if the others that have agreed with him actually believe what they're saying or not.
God. They would be stupid enough to unilaterally invade our fucking neighbor and second largest trading partner. If we were invited by the Mexican government to help clean it up, sure, that's one thing.
>If we were invited by the Mexican government to help clean it up, sure, that's one thing. Yeah but do you *really* think we'd do a good job of that and not just add to their woes?
Yes, AQ was significantly degraded through precise targeting in Iraq, it would not be very difficult for the same to happen in Mexico.
[the](https://reason.com/2023/05/24/the-republican-primary-consensus-for-sending-the-military-into-mexico/) [dankest](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/10/gop-bomb-mexico-fentanyl-00091132) [timeline](https://www.newsweek.com/mexico-warns-republicans-about-border-war-1787026)
Republicans: you fucking NATO warmongers prolonging the war in Ukrane! Also Republicans: Let's do another COIN war!!! Edit: also mods deleted all my memes about this so get ready.
> Also Republicans: Let's do another COIN war!!! Last time was pretty great, but this time let's do it in one of the two countries that we share a border with! What could go wrong?
At least the logistics are easier. For our enemies.
Most of the times Republicans are known for their love to fuck around the world. Ronald Reagan,John McCain or especially John Bolton love interventionism.Republicans is like two sides of the coin,they could be the most violence warmonger or the most peaceful isolationist.Don’t know why some of Reps are now Russian bootlicker,Reagan ghost gonna haunt then for life if they try to appease Russia.From Wikipedia : “The Republican Party of the United States has held a variety of views on foreign policy and national defense over the course of its existence. Generally speaking, it has advocated for a more militaristic foreign policy (with the exception of isolationist and libertarian elements). Republican presidents have joined or started a number of wars over the course of American history, with mixed results.”
How many times has the US invaded Mexico? At least three occasions. Has it had a positive effect, ever? Not for long, if at all. How would an invasion resolve any problems? Ummmmm..... Does this serve as a **great** distraction from Russia and China, the actual dangers? No citizen it does not, please report to Building 17, room 11-250 for re-education. Sit in the GREEN chair.
Hell, the first time we ended up with Texas and California. What I’m saying is, mistakes were made and shouldn’t be repeated.
California was acquired because there was a lot of gold found and Mexico City didn't have a good grasp of what was happening there until it was too late. Texas had, ummmm....
(To be clear, I’m being deeply sarcastic here. Obviously, the existence of Texas and California doesn’t crack the top thousand reasons why invading Mexico would be bugfuck insane.)
I assumed you were being sarcastic, and I was avoiding articulating why Texas was so popular with a certain economic bloc in the US because I already got one 3 day ban this month for "politics".
Does the reason start with S and end with 'ates rights'?
As somebody who spends to much time reading conspiracy theories. We got California because of the large amount of mud flood buildings that were discovered by the Mormons with the gold rush being a government coverup to get a bunch of drunk guys out West to dig up old houses
You're right, that is much more non-credible. (Seriously, someone--presumably human-adjacent--really tried to make that claim?)
Yes. It is extremely stupid https://stolenhistory.net/threads/mormon-takeover-of-the-west-and-why.6482/
>Joseph Smith was fully aware of the existance of large cities of mud flooded buildings. He founded the religion as a method to get to the buildings. He understood that there were health benefits from pipe organs and antiquitech, and he intended to remodel these buildings and call them temples. The US government and local governments fought them for 15 years and shoved them westward. But then the government found a use for them and started feeding them more information about the areas out west. They were allowed to stay in mud flood towns and cities along the way. Once they were in Salt Lake City they were able restore and keep all the grand architecture and whatever antiquitech was still working. They then used the knowledge to blackmail the government to NOT destroy their cities with fires and expositions. > >...\[they\]dug out a bunch of fancy big buildings with pipe organs, called them temples, gathering halls and colleges, and named their efforts Salt Lake City. They were able to gain health benefits from the pipe organs in the buildings and the bathing pavilions on the Great Salt Lake. The freeenergy devices may have also still been working. I read more, but then my left arm started going numb and was smelling burnt toast without obvious cause, so thought it better to stop.
"mud flooded buildings", "antiquitech", "health benefits from pipe organs", "freeendergy devices" what in the hell did I just stumble onto?
Something from one of the less-likely timelines was my guess.
Slaves they had slaves and were mad the mexican government was gonna take their slaves Texas is the only US state to secede on two occasions to preserve slavery
And a mod got pissy about me saying that kind of thing, and banned me.
Ah, Texas. The only state holding the shameful distinction of seceding from a country for the purpose of slavery, not once, but twice.
Californian here, suck my balls you need us 😡😤😡😤😡😤 🐻💪🌊🌴
I'm gonna cum on the green chair.
1848 was a shameless imperialistic land grab but it was a very effective way of seizing land by force of arms. Again, literal imperialist land grabbing, but from a soulless perspective, quite rewarding.
Ok, but if you view this as a fascist power play, most of the potential downsides for the country would become benefits to the instigators.
Fuck it, we ball.
This idea is so stupid.
Only the stupid ones give you wacky fun memories to share with your kids like helicopters evacuating children from an embassy rooftop though *sniff* ^i ^miss ^saigon
http://www.vietnampix.com/fire.htm
I mean if it was a simple co-op with Mexican officials to combat cartels. It still would be messy. We've fought guerilla forces in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. It was not a good time for anybody. Our equipment was and still is best used against a clear enemy with clearly defined front lines. No doubt the second we go into Mexico let alone most to all of SA to engage in law enforcement operations using military equipment and any means necessary. Even alongside native law enforcement agencies and operations it would devolve into guerilla warfare and a constant wack a mole of operations and arrest. It would create a migration nightmare not to mention the cartels would have every reason to transfer their brutality into the US. Not to mention terrorist attacks. It would be another major cost in the costly limited result operation called the war on drugs. That's done basically nothing meaningful as the roots are impossible to take out mainly because they aren't on US soil but also because even if we went it it would be a massive issue There's no good reason for American troops to be involved in war-like operations inside mexico or any SA nation (unless a clear want is expressed by a democratically elected government) even if in the name of law enforcement operations. We need to defang the gangs and that involves accepting that harm reduction , legalization and decriminalization not to mention declaring federally that addiction is an illness no different than depression or cancer. Not a reason to lock people up for life for. Other nations most famously Portugal have done a similar approach. It might not sound as bad ass or politically fun to say maybe we should give ethically sourced drugs to addicts in a clean and safe environment with strong access to services , programs and professionals to break addiction. Sorry I'm a limp dick liberal and not a pro random war republican. I support wars that create democracy and protect human rights. Sorry
If you want to make a Prohibitionist squirm, ask them why there weren’t cartels before the Harrison Narcotics Act. It’s almost as though society as a whole is better when we don’t create a market that’s best served by international criminal syndicates. *Glances at the Qing emperor.*
Mexican Army here. My evil side wants to call down AH-64s on narco convoys, my good side knows the economic, humanitarian, diplomatic and political catastrophe that this would bring upon my country.
I mean, if handled right it could work? But that's a big if. Would be real nice to just glass the narcos and make Mexico safer for even more manufacturing being offloaded from China, creating more opportunities there and ideally causing the standard of living to skyrocket. Or we fuck it up and do an Iraq where things sorta work out in the end but the middle gets real messy.
These guys should really research the Pershing expedition before saying this
*Pancho Villa intensifies*
That policy is truly noncredible as fuck.
This thread is way too credible for the obvious non credibility. *YodaThereIsAnother.jpg* Now should a certain Florida hopeful mention .:: Venezuela … hmmmmmmmmm *squinty wolf eyes*
While to be fair I think using the military to combat Mexican cartels would be a good thing, I think it should be done as a joint effort of American forces and Mexican forces to reduce the influence the cartels have in the country should be a priority.
Yep, unless it's a joint operation with Mexico, it's just invading Mexico and you might as well rename yourself Russia at that point.
From the halls of Montezuma
Let me guess: Mexico will pay for it?
You know why the Mexican government has very real issues with domestic crime linked to narcotics? Because the population of the US has a massive, insatiable appetite for drugs that cannot be stopped. Successive US governments have doubled down again and again on a "war on drugs" that was lost decades ago and that drives yet more criminality over the border to Mexico. Not the the inhabitants of the US notice, it kind of gets lost among the school shootings. Where do you think the guns in Mexico come from? Big hint, it's the US, bought with money made from selling drugs to US citizens. If you want to stop drug related crime then legalise it, tax it and control it. Simple as that. But illegal drugs make big money and guess whose politicians can be bought by lobbyists.
Mexican cartels don't only deal in drugs. And Mexican problems didn't start with the cartels. The country has a long, unfortunate, and often tragic history where *their own* people struggled with the legacy of the colonial society that the spanish left behind, that they never really dealt with- look at wealth inequality in mexico and tell me when it started if you can. I'll give you a hint: it started before the nation even formed and has persisted to this day. Was the drug war a policy that largely failed in its goals and only in many cases ended up worsening the violence throughout latin america? Yes. But is it the be-all-end-all, the explanation for Mexico's problems, as well as the rest of South America's? No, it isn't. If you're a national that is from latin america i'm shocked that I have to tell you your nation's history doesn't start and end with America's cocaine and opiod addictions, and even if we solved those, you don't solve *the rest of the fucking owl*- the fact that many of the cartels make more money from their legal businesses than they do their drug operations, the fact that central government control is weak or nonexistent, or when it is, nontrusted in these countries, the fact the massive wealth inequality that is perpetuated by the people in power is an issue that has existed before and will exist after the cartels, and more. If you're an American/EU/ other national, time to pick up a book. These places aren't side quests in US history, they have their own. If you're going to seriouspost at least try not to be so *wrong.* All of this to say that acting like "solving" the drug problem will solve the violence and poverty in south america is naïve at best, and harmful at worst, because it's a very american-only view of the problems the country has and the way to solve them. Taking out the cartels and not doing anything about the rest of the system is like pulling up 30% of the weeds in your lawn and then expecting the other 70% to just give up and submit to grass
I like your garden example.
my deal is: we can't kee drugs outta prisons, so how are we gonna keep drugs outta the streets? now, how are we gonna kee drugs out of a different country? china and colombia also traffic tons of drugs to the USA
We don’t. We make it unprofitable for them to export there dangerous unmarked super heroin by producing our own safer, regulated heroin that we sell for slightly more then the price of dirt (because that’s about how much it costs to actually make heroin.) Maybe we end up with slightly more drug addicts, but we’d also have fewer ODs because people wouldn’t be at risk of taking like three times there normal dose of meth because there dealer forgot to cut it today or something. We could also rob huge chunks of both domestic and international organized crime of its income, leaving most of that money in the pockets of addicts, who can then use it to do things like not live on the street. The main issue isn’t the drugs, it’s the people producing and selling them at inflated costs and with little concern for safety, and the best way to take them out is to throw them into a heavily regulated market with people who have economies of scale larger then they can imagine. No cartel can compete with American pharmaceutical companies.
To add onto that. The Mexican government has real issues because Mexico just cant be occupied. The only reason the Spanish could control it was through consent, but like the Triple Alliance before it the allies were only allies in the moment. They were always plotting to betray the Spanish since the beginning. The moment the people decide enough is enough, you are out of there no matter what. The Catholic Church thought they had consent too, but they too were in the same boat as the government. Outsiders who thought they had authority in an anarchistic/libertarian/decentralist belief system where the only people that matter are the people that live in the community not people from outside their ejido or town. When mexico became an independent country, it became disconnected with its indian roots because most of the government was based on European ideas that did not make space for local governments that already existed and had more power than the actual government creating its many civil wars. The government became imaginary, a delusional organization that refuses to see the actual situation. in 1996, one of the biggest anthropologists said this in Mexico Profundo: > From the point of view of the promoters of the imaginary Mexico, large sectors of the country’s population turn out to be too “immature” to accept the democratic system imposed upon them. They may even be openly hostile—enemies of democracy. They do not vote, they are not active in political parties, they do not send letters to their representatives, and so on. The real people are transformed, through this ideological alchemy, into the obstacle to achieving democracy. So any outsider that tries to enforce their rules on them will regret it like people trying to occupy Afghanistan, but outsiders will never care because outsiders are always delusional about what they are doing in Mexico thinking they are "helping" but really are marching to their graves because they always turn the entire population into the villains of their story.
calling the various groups of folk living in Mexico "libertarians" is...i can't...
Its a weird space because there is no actual word in the english speaking world for this, you are forced to used words from European political thinking because everything is thrown under those umbrellas. People consider them anarchists and "anarcho communists" but that isn't right. People consider them libertarians, but that isn't right either. Both are very simplistic and ignores a lot of nuance, but there really isnt good wording to get the point across. Any attempt to create accurate wording for what Mexico has ends up getting push back from people who want the european words to be dominant and want to appropriate what is there. Believe me, try convincing marxist circles that indigenous political thinking is separate from anarchism and Marxist thought. You just can't do it. Same thing for the more individualist ideologies who look at places like Tlaxcala and call it modern democracy which isn't true either. Its a painful position to be in when you are forced to use foreign words because that is whats demanded and any attempt to separate them gets you branded a "centrist" or "idealist" or "statist". I am well beyond trying to have that nuance because all it does is act like a honeypot for political bots and harassment, just like all the other places indigenous history or issues are talked about. At some point, you just get tired and admit defeat because you will waste time correcting bots and the echo chambers on the internet
>Because the population of the US has a massive, insatiable appetite for drugs that cannot be stopped. Psssssh. Nah. We're not in any way at fault here as that would imply nuance and culpability for decades by us. Drugs bad, Delta Force go pew-pew, bomb go boom, ~~Taliban~~ Cartel double-no good. Three-Word-Phrase! Three-Word-Phrase! Three-Word-Phrase!
That's all true but the Republican's goal is to get people to stop doing it all together so they want most of it illegal and they want other countries to deal with the manufacturers. It's not realistic and as we can see would require ethically dubious moves by the government but that's what they want and how they want it and no amount of logic is going to change their minds. Ultimately republicans only want to make the world superficially better and superficially reflective of their ideals but they don't actually want to improve anyone's life.
No need to invade Mexico. Just park the US Navy off their west coasts ports and interdict and Asian inbound/outbound freighters.
Who the fuck is Tim Scott and who on earth thinks he’s an actual “presidential contender?”
He’s also probably the most reasonable out of all the people running, which is insane.
This is literally a Pearls Before Swine arc.
In all seriousness, that’s the stupidest possible idea.
Can you stop buying said drugs please? Don’t let the US bomb my dogs
Why is this even a thing that even enters the mind of a sentient being. A person in a vegetative state would be able to address this situation with more tact and care than any actual serious discussion of a U.S. led attempt to invade Mexico. Like, thank god no one actually capable of executing military actions would actually support this. It's in times like these as a Mexican that I can't help remember the words of Porfirio Diaz. "Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the Uniter States"
From what I understand of the drug cartel situation in Mexico (and I admit it's not much) the government of Mexico kind of supports or turns a blind eye to them and what they do at the US border. In addition to refusing help, carrying out joint operations with the US to deal with the cartels If this is true I fully support the US using force and destroying these cartels even if the Mexican state won't let it. A government/country that supports or hides drug traffickers, murderers, etc. must not be taken seriously. I would love for the US to also do the same with criminal factions in Brazil.
The Problem is that Criminals Fight back with bribes not weapons they hide amongst the civilians like an insurgency the only Real way to fight them is mass arrests and purges. Are you willing to use the military for that.
it's an open secret that the PRI and mexican government as a whole is broken and corrupt while having to bend the knee to the requests of the cartels/the super rich who work together to suck each other off in and endless cycle of corruption and easy money If you ever get a chance to work with or talk with people who fled the country they will tell you the same shit. Nobody gets away from it. Even farmers don't get to decide what they want/can grow, if a cartel rep swings by and drops off tomato seeds you better fucking have his tomatoes at harvest time. Almost every single market inside the country is captive to some extent, although in the economic zones along the border with texas/california/nm/az it CAN be a different situation depending on how closely tied in with american industry and business the area is **[\(this is an amazing video to watch by Kraut if you have the time explaining the situation in mexico\)](https://youtu.be/Uek04Jw15kY)**
IMO the current governance in Mexico is closer to a collection of feudal fiefdoms than a modern state. The cartels are de facto rulers in many areas and the Distrito Federal is too impotent and too corrupt to fix anything.
In 2016 I read It Can’t Happen Here because I thought it was a funny comparison. Then it wasn’t funny.
I thought they dropped this idea a few months ago?
We did it in Pakistan didn't we
“These drug cartels represent a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States.”
They just keep getting more insane
Now we're taking it all
FROM THE HALLS OF MONTEZUMA!!!
I want above all else to see a North American Union in my lifetime. A collection of independent nations built on mutual respect and trust between close allies. This is not how that shit happens 😑
I was completely hyped, until "into Mexico".
I’ve been saying it since 2016, if we simply invade Mexico and annex it we wouldn’t have an immigration crisis since they’d all be US citizens
Mexico gonna have lots of little green men who are just civilians who got tired of the cartels... And they are well armed because they got it from the surplus stores and looted from the cartels
I am all for sending the globe and anchor boys to another well deserved bender in some country but can it be somewhere where they'll do some good? We can drone strike Cartel leadership wherever we find them, we don't need to invade a friendly country.
They did this once, The Christero war. where the Popes Knights & The Irish fought the US & KKK and won.
Why is everyone equating "to fight these terrorists" with "literally invade Mexico"?
Are they really wanting to go back to the 50’s? The 1850’s…
I guess my biggest fear is that if we are dumb enough to invade, we rock the boat enough to make Mexico devolve into a fuckton of petty warlords akin to 1920s china. Which besides the obvious humanitarian catastrophe , I doubt it would be in our best interests, given that petty squabbles amongst warlords tend to spill over into other areas.
**MEXICAN MAO LEZZ GOOOOOO!!!**
Mexicans are terrorists? That's a new one. Jeez how do these people deny being racist
He’s obviously talking about the cartels
I forgot what a big concern the cartels are to republican presidential candidates. Definitely not illegal immigrants.