• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

War on Cartels? Large Mormon family slaughtered, raped, burned alive in Sonora, Trump responds.

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,541
14,658
840




I've said before the only war we should seriously be considering is a war on the Cartels.

Hell, let me search it up.... April 15th:

Declare Cartels terrorist groups. Shift combat theatres away from the Middle East where possible and rout the Cartels with the consent of 'host' countries [sanctions if not, unless they take measurable action of their own]. Hard ball.

Deal with major gang presence in the US, like MS-13, crips, bloods, and any others in a similar way. Hard ball.

Fund and greatly, greatly expand the Army Corps of Engineers [or create an entirely new branch with this in mind] capable of working on infrastructure and serving as a military trade school for those in need of work or a skill [or a way out of their situation]. Provide this as an option and reduce welfare across the board. Also provide this as an option for rehabilitation for some crimes as an alternative to prison. Possibly provide this as a path to citizenship for illegals already inside our borders [for a limited time]. Ensure a trade based education that helps those who serve to branch out into the private sector after their duty ends.

Build the wall to prevent/reduce illegal immigration so we can work on reforming social services and come up with a common sense solution for those already here and improve our legal immigration system.

Or something, just spitballing. Sounds better than Beto's plan to tear down existing walls.
So. Yes, clearly I support looking into this.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
It's not something to be taken lightly. I would need to understand Trump and his team plan to do this differently than how the war on drugs was handled. I am especially concerned with how the war on drugs influenced our foreign policy of the 60s through 80s and greatly expanded certain unelected letter agencies in the Federal gov't.

Leveraging the military for what should be handled by law enforcement (ideally) opens the door to martial law and more military influence on domestic safety. I'm not saying Trump will do that or even if it'll be any time soon, but it starts to open that door.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
26,560
30,233
1,095
It's not something to be taken lightly. I would need to understand Trump and his team plan to do this differently than how the war on drugs was handled. I am especially concerned with how the war on drugs influenced our foreign policy of the 60s through 80s and greatly expanded certain unelected letter agencies in the Federal gov't.

Leveraging the military for what should be handled by law enforcement (ideally) opens the door to martial law and more military influence on domestic safety. I'm not saying Trump will do that or even if it'll be any time soon, but it starts to open that door.
There entails the crux of the problem as well. Do we want our law enforcement to be more and more militarized (some believe was the goal with the "war on drugs") which then puts them in a position of authoritarian threat over the will of the people?

You also can't rely on law enforcement or military in Mexico. Too much intertwined corruption.
 

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
5,035
6,387
880
There entails the crux of the problem as well. Do we want our law enforcement to be more and more militarized (some believe was the goal with the "war on drugs") which then puts them in a position of authoritarian threat over the will of the people?

You also can't rely on law enforcement or military in Mexico. Too much intertwined corruption.
I don't want the military acting as a police force, nor the police force acting as paramilitary forces. That being said, the cartels in Mexico probably need to taste some of that good ol' American "Freedoming" that usually comes swiftly with big explosions.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
There entails the crux of the problem as well. Do we want our law enforcement to be more and more militarized (some believe was the goal with the "war on drugs") which then puts them in a position of authoritarian threat over the will of the people?

You also can't rely on law enforcement or military in Mexico. Too much intertwined corruption.
This is what leads to the USA playing "world police" yet again, though I am not disagreeing with your logic.

Do we follow Star Trek's "Prime Directive" (in a manner of speaking) with these countries and leave them to their own devices and not interfere? Personally, I have always felt that we should err on the side of isolationism even if it makes us look calloused in the short term. Let private agencies send food, send missionaries, send relief efforts. The government apparatus should only be woken from slumber in the most dire of circumstances, and the 20th century appears to be good evidence of that ideal.

However, I wonder if there are exceptions when we should leverage our law enforcement (or even our armies) to deal with a problem like this. What would be the breaking point when the military really does need to step in? When cartels are crossing our border with impunity and bringing child sex-slaves with them, I wouldn't mind giving their camps a rocket barrage or a raid or a drone strike. We excised slavery from this nation and now cartels are helping bring it back in the worst form.

For the sake of argument, I do believe there are times when an army might need to be used against an opposing force that doesn't consider itself an army. I just don't know if the eradication of the cartels is worth it. Are we going to be fighting for a grateful populace who is eager to rebuild their own country, or are we going to stir up regional conflict south of our own border and push more people into the USA by necessity?

The ideal outcome would be for the Mexican populace to oust their own corruption and reclaim their national heritage. When the Americans keep coming in and saving the day over and over, it fosters resentment.
 

The Pleasure

Member
Jan 8, 2019
525
509
340
I don't want the military acting as a police force, nor the police force acting as paramilitary forces. That being said, the cartels in Mexico probably need to taste some of that good ol' American "Freedoming" that usually comes swiftly with big explosions.
Did you say freedoming?
 
  • Like
Reactions: daveonezero

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
1,303
1,533
430
No thanks; we don't have the collective will to endure 24 hour new coverage of the 100,000's+ violent deaths that would come from the US military going hot into Mexico.

If we had the stones for it, sure...but we very obviously do not. The American public really isn't on board with a (another) decades long occupation + counter insurgency campaign, this time on our neighbor and biggest trade partner. Not to mention the 1000's of miles of porous border which will inevitably lead to raids, rapes, and killings in US territory.

I'm not even saying that Mexico doesn't have it coming for letting shit get so out of hand; I just can't even imagine it happening and being successful.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Lord Oso and Rran

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
26,560
30,233
1,095
Did Trump just declare war on the leaders of Mexico? One thing's for certain this would completely necessitate the building of the wall.
He is playing more psychological games shining a spotlight on the world stage. Basically telling the leaders that "if you can't do it, we can easily do it for you, if you need"... a bravado thing. Trying to light a fire for them to step up and not look weak where they need big brother in the north to fight their battles for them.

We will see how it pans out, of course.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
5,522
6,289
1,560
It's not something to be taken lightly. I would need to understand Trump and his team plan to do this differently than how the war on drugs was handled. I am especially concerned with how the war on drugs influenced our foreign policy of the 60s through 80s and greatly expanded certain unelected letter agencies in the Federal gov't.

Leveraging the military for what should be handled by law enforcement (ideally) opens the door to martial law and more military influence on domestic safety. I'm not saying Trump will do that or even if it'll be any time soon, but it starts to open that door.
TBH, I'm not sure you can make a distinction between Mexico as a political entity and the cartels at this point, especially when their president ran partly on appeasement of cartels. Any action would have to be with the military, whether or not Mexico likes it or not.

I'm heavily against intervention, but (much like with ISIS) the US created these cartels both directly and indirectly. I think we do have a responsibility to fix our messes even as I want to avoid entering conflicts and to pull back on world policing to stop making them in the first place. In this case, unlike with ISIS, the mess regularly pours over our border, so that makes it is even more of a priority.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,541
14,658
840
This is what leads to the USA playing "world police" yet again, though I am not disagreeing with your logic.

Do we follow Star Trek's "Prime Directive" (in a manner of speaking) with these countries and leave them to their own devices and not interfere? Personally, I have always felt that we should err on the side of isolationism even if it makes us look calloused in the short term. Let private agencies send food, send missionaries, send relief efforts. The government apparatus should only be woken from slumber in the most dire of circumstances, and the 20th century appears to be good evidence of that ideal.

However, I wonder if there are exceptions when we should leverage our law enforcement (or even our armies) to deal with a problem like this. What would be the breaking point when the military really does need to step in? When cartels are crossing our border with impunity and bringing child sex-slaves with them, I wouldn't mind giving their camps a rocket barrage or a raid or a drone strike. We excised slavery from this nation and now cartels are helping bring it back in the worst form.

For the sake of argument, I do believe there are times when an army might need to be used against an opposing force that doesn't consider itself an army. I just don't know if the eradication of the cartels is worth it. Are we going to be fighting for a grateful populace who is eager to rebuild their own country, or are we going to stir up regional conflict south of our own border and push more people into the USA by necessity?

The ideal outcome would be for the Mexican populace to oust their own corruption and reclaim their national heritage. When the Americans keep coming in and saving the day over and over, it fosters resentment.
I definitely agree with many posters here regarding the various complications.

However, I would bring up two things:

1] I believe there is a difference between being world police across the world, and dealing with a militaristic, well developed, shadow narco state next door. This doesn't mean I don't think a similar conversation should be had before we commit troops, it's more that I think this is a different enough case from 'world police' that it warrants its own conversation.

2] I am not sure this is a case where the Mexico govt or people can solve this on their own. The Cartels are too powerful, too entrenched, and at this point infest their government. If our neighbor asks for help, I believe this, again, transcends the normal world police argument.

This is a difficult one, though.

I really, really don't want our troops dying for problems that should be solved locally. However, at what point is this problem our problem, given the intrusion of Cartel drugs and gangs into our territory?

One more thing: I believe the Cartel may have reached a point where 'law enforcement' is not enough to stop them. They are well armed and often well trained.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
TBH, I'm not sure you can make a distinction between Mexico as a political entity and the cartels at this point, especially when their president ran partly on appeasement of cartels. Any action would have to be with the military, whether or not Mexico likes it or not.
When the Serbians -- yes, every last one of those dirty Serbians! -- assassinated our beloved Archduke, we rightly declared war on their despicable nation as well.

Same logic, though of course I am exaggerating for effect and not trying to put words in your mouth.

A "war" against the Mexican cartels and their entangled government entities will assuredly hurt the Mexican citizens. That's why I am leery.

I'm heavily against intervention, but (much like with ISIS) the US created these cartels both directly and indirectly. I think we do have a responsibility to fix our messes even as I want to avoid entering conflicts and to pull back on world policing to stop making them in the first place. In this case, unlike with ISIS, the mess regularly pours over our border, so that makes it is even more of a priority.
Arguably, we could unseat some of the cartels while driving the shrewd and capable ones even further into the underground. This still doesn't alleviate the politicians who bow to them nor the populace who votes for those politicians. I would say that if they step foot into our country or attempt to push their business into our country, eradicate them at the border and dust our hands. We shouldn't be sending troops into foreign sovereign nations.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I definitely agree with many posters here regarding the various complications.

However, I would bring up two things:

1] I believe there is a difference between being world police across the world, and dealing with a militaristic, well developed, shadow narco state next door. This doesn't mean I don't think a similar conversation should be had before we commit troops, it's more that I think this is a different enough case from 'world police' that it warrants its own conversation.

2] I am not sure this is a case where the Mexico govt or people can solve this on their own. The Cartels are too powerful, too entrenched, and at this point infest their government. If our neighbor asks for help, I believe this, again, transcends the normal world police argument.

This is a difficult one, though.

I really, really don't want our troops dying for problems that should be solved locally. However, at what point is this problem our problem, given the intrusion of Cartel drugs and gangs into our territory?

One more thing: I believe the Cartel may have reached a point where 'law enforcement' is not enough to stop them. They are well armed and often well trained.
How would the Mexican people make their voices heard? How can I -- as an American citizen who hopes to vote morally -- stand by our Mexican neighbors and help them assert their own sovereignty? If the government there is corrupt, which politicians will actually speak publicly in support of Trump's idea?

That is my concern. When a populace will not assert itself over the corruption that grips it, then how can we be sure they all want to be saved? The sad reality is these cartels do terrorize, but they also provide richly for their constituents.

If I'm some poor, uneducated Mexican living in a cartel slum and my livelihood is provided by these drug lords, am I likely to appreciate when the US military rolls in and flattens my neighborhood? Aren't we just repeating the same mistakes of the middle east?

I don't want another S. America where we go there to "help" because of the supposed outcry of the populace and instead we step into a mountain of shit.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: FMXVII and Oner

Somnium

Member
Apr 1, 2016
2,030
1,531
570
art-of-vlad.com
If there's any war that would be more justified it's the war on Mexican drug cartels. Would be great if the President of Mexico gave President Trump a call for aid.
Unfortunately much of the Mexican government is bought and paid for as corruption runs deep, and sometimes it's due to a fear of violent backlash.

It would be pleasing to finally have the absolute scum that lack any humanity that make up these drug cartels wiped form the face of the planet.
What these drug cartels do not only brings suffering to many innocent Mexicans, but spills over into the USA and affects American citizens.

The only way Mexico can be won back is through war. That is the harsh truth.
 
Last edited:

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,512
2,769
1,500
This is what the military is for. This is our border. If Mexican officials cannot get it done, you roll in period.

The drug cartels, and every single person involved with them need to be destroyed.

Enough is enough.

Make no mistake on my meaning of roll in. You inform the Mexican government that it is time, and it's either help, get out of the way, or go down in flames with them. Full military operation.
 

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
537
776
315
Build the Wall, patrol the border heavily with our military, camera drones, etc. All persons trying to cross the border are stopped and turned back, captured if necessary, taken to a Mexican border post and turned over to them. If they resist they get shot and buried along the border.

If any Americans want to go south into Mexico, OK fine. But you'll need to sign a waiver first stating that you understand you're entering a lawless war-zone and we're not going to invade Mexico to save your ass when you get kidnapped for ransom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner and pramod

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
10,772
2,014
755
Did you say freedoming?
Haha, classic.

I wonder if they'd change the "Democrats FUCK YEAH, Republicans, ....fuck.. yeah?" part if it was written now. They'd probably both get the half hearted questioning treatment. But when this was created then were in full Bush-hating mode.
 

UltimaKilo

Member
May 17, 2006
4,876
263
1,350
Florida
Has the Mexican government responded? So many new Presidents have come in and pledged to stop the crimes, and nothing gets done. Calderon actually cracked down on the cartels, causing them to lash out and start killing even more innocent citizens, until the electorate got tired of all the blow-back from the cartels.
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,327
2,523
1,695
Montreal, Quebec
Has the Mexican government responded? So many new Presidents have come in and pledged to stop the crimes, and nothing gets done. Calderon actually cracked down on the cartels, causing them to lash out and start killing even more innocent citizens, until the electorate got tired of all the blow-back from the cartels.
Their president shot down the idea of waging war against the cartels according to The Hill:

 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
The only one that i would truly trust that has a true will to end this madness is the person that proposes to end the war on drugs and pursue legalization and regulations. A war in Mexico territory would be a catastrophy because cartels are mixed with civilians so the civilian population will be impacted even harder than cartels and, as we have seen before, killing a cartel leader basically generates a power vaccum for new cartels and drug lords, each new one more sadistic than the previous one. The only way to fix this is to destroy the illegal drug demand market so either the US does something to stop being the main drug consuming country in the world or we pursue legalization and regulation of this market and make the problem a health problem rather than a criminal one. I'm personally for the second option since it worked with taking power away from the mafia when alcohol was legalized.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: infinitys_7th

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
26,560
30,233
1,095
It really is a head scratcher as an outsider looking in. Makes me wonder how much reality mirrors the image we get of Mexico and the cartels from movies/TV shows. They obviously have a lot of power/influence and the government's been incapable of reigning them in.
We glorify/romanticize it in culture sometimes. From Scarface, to Narcos, now even their own game.

 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,541
14,658
840
How would the Mexican people make their voices heard? How can I -- as an American citizen who hopes to vote morally -- stand by our Mexican neighbors and help them assert their own sovereignty? If the government there is corrupt, which politicians will actually speak publicly in support of Trump's idea?

That is my concern. When a populace will not assert itself over the corruption that grips it, then how can we be sure they all want to be saved? The sad reality is these cartels do terrorize, but they also provide richly for their constituents.

If I'm some poor, uneducated Mexican living in a cartel slum and my livelihood is provided by these drug lords, am I likely to appreciate when the US military rolls in and flattens my neighborhood? Aren't we just repeating the same mistakes of the middle east?

I don't want another S. America where we go there to "help" because of the supposed outcry of the populace and instead we step into a mountain of shit.
Well, we don't actually disagree much on this, that's for sure. I want our troops out of pretty much everywhere for similar reasons.

And, you're right, we certainly can never be sure 'all' want to be 'saved'. For example, Escobar was a legend to many, not an enemy, for providing to the poor despite any atrocities he may have been responsible for. And I'm sure by now, many of the Cartels do exactly that - provide for the local population in a semi-symbiotic relationship.

But I'm not sure that is a legitimate relationship. They certainly aren't voting for the cartels, and at best they can send their children to join them. That's not exactly representation. I am sure some slaves had no interest in being rescued when the North came in and burned their home and everything they knew down.

And perhaps I'm being naive, or perhaps you're overstating, with neighborhoods being flattened. In my mind, we're not talking about rolling tanks through neighborhoods and using artillery in populated areas. I would think any operation of that scale would have to be Mexico military and them alone. We would be for other operations - special ops, intelligence, missile strikes on remote strongholds, perhaps defending known supply lines.

But you are absolutely right, it risks becoming quagmire. It risks American lives. And it isn't on our territory.

But it is next door, and the Cartel has only become more powerful with time, not less. This is also true of the drug trade into the US, with certain Cartel related gang networks also growing and becoming more militarized within our own borders.

Do we risk Mexico becoming a full on narco state when, perhaps, today we could, with the assent of a duly elected President of Mexico acting as a representative of his people, curtail this future?

I mean,I suppose we can look at it as a purely internal problem. Secure the wall. Act directly against the drug trade and Cartel presence in America. But now we're just talking War on Drugs 2.0, and I don't see that going any better than the first one.

I have exactly the same issues as you, I think. Heck, I'd use those very same arguments against our presence around the world. But I view the Cartels as an increasingly Domestic problem. This was what, 3 hours away? What if it happened outside, say, El Paso? When is it our problem, and when it is, how do we solve it without Mexico giving us the OK to go in and solve it? And are we already at that point, or even well beyond it?
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Well, we don't actually disagree much on this, that's for sure. I want our troops out of pretty much everywhere for similar reasons.

And, you're right, we certainly can never be sure 'all' want to be 'saved'. For example, Escobar was a legend to many, not an enemy, for providing to the poor despite any atrocities he may have been responsible for. And I'm sure by now, many of the Cartels do exactly that - provide for the local population in a semi-symbiotic relationship.

But I'm not sure that is a legitimate relationship. They certainly aren't voting for the cartels, and at best they can send their children to join them. That's not exactly representation. I am sure some slaves had no interest in being rescued when the North came in and burned their home and everything they knew down.

And perhaps I'm being naive, or perhaps you're overstating, with neighborhoods being flattened. In my mind, we're not talking about rolling tanks through neighborhoods and using artillery in populated areas. I would think any operation of that scale would have to be Mexico military and them alone. We would be for other operations - special ops, intelligence, missile strikes on remote strongholds, perhaps defending known supply lines.

But you are absolutely right, it risks becoming quagmire. It risks American lives. And it isn't on our territory.

But it is next door, and the Cartel has only become more powerful with time, not less. This is also true of the drug trade into the US, with certain Cartel related gang networks also growing and becoming more militarized within our own borders.

Do we risk Mexico becoming a full on narco state when, perhaps, today we could, with the assent of a duly elected President of Mexico acting as a representative of his people, curtail this future?

I mean,I suppose we can look at it as a purely internal problem. Secure the wall. Act directly against the drug trade and Cartel presence in America. But now we're just talking War on Drugs 2.0, and I don't see that going any better than the first one.

I have exactly the same issues as you, I think. Heck, I'd use those very same arguments against our presence around the world. But I view the Cartels as an increasingly Domestic problem. This was what, 3 hours away? What if it happened outside, say, El Paso? When is it our problem, and when it is, how do we solve it without Mexico giving us the OK to go in and solve it? And are we already at that point, or even well beyond it?
I don't think you're being naive. My problem is that the necessary mentality of "flatten their homes" is no longer present nor permissible in the modern US military. We are forever haunted by Vietnam and Iraq. We would not be able to carry out the war on cartels in a way that would actually remove them from Mexico because the collateral damage would be considered too extreme.

In some sense, I am grateful for this. War is destructive and we should be confronted by its ugliness.

When a populace has already settled into a resigned attitude and won't stand up for themselves, they're certainly not going to appreciate being blown up. The impoverished and least-educated will -- every single time -- begin to despise the aggressors. They will side with the cartels.

Unless it was some kind of surgical Desert Storm-like operation that wiped out the cartels within a few weeks, we would not be able to win this "war".

The US military could surely roll in and annihilate every last one of them, giving Mexico as close to a clean slate as they could wish for.

I do not expect that whatever was built on top of that clean slate would be very grateful to the USA, though, and I don't want that resentment building up so close to our border.

We already have Mexican dissidents coming into the USA and staking claim over territory that we "stole from the natives" in our public education system. That seems like a tame version of what we'd get if we "took care" of the cartels.

To be quite honest, if nearby Mexican towns are so overrun then we need to threaten to annex them. That'll wake up the Mexican gov't. I don't mind sending troops into "domestic" US territory. ;)
 

JimiNutz

Formerly 'NutJobJim'
Apr 15, 2007
10,818
2,676
1,515
London UK
This is seriously fucked up.

The cartels are fucking animals and responsible for some of the most disgusting murders I've ever seen (skinning people alive while their next victim watches on, burning people alive, removing gentalia while still alive etc.)

They are scum and need to be eradicated.
Get it done Trump. Kill em all.
 

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,981
2,760
555
USA
The War on Drugs is largely responsible for the historic decline of violent crime over the last few decades.

Criminal justice reform is why it recently spiked back up in the last few years.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
It's not something to be taken lightly. I would need to understand Trump and his team plan to do this differently than how the war on drugs was handled. I am especially concerned with how the war on drugs influenced our foreign policy of the 60s through 80s and greatly expanded certain unelected letter agencies in the Federal gov't.

Leveraging the military for what should be handled by law enforcement (ideally) opens the door to martial law and more military influence on domestic safety. I'm not saying Trump will do that or even if it'll be any time soon, but it starts to open that door.
Based on the past couple of years, I would expect that if Mexico accepted the offer to help (which I do support), Trump would tell the generals to neutralize the problem, and then come home to let Mexico handle the run of the mill law enforcement functions. Get in, take them out, and come home.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,512
2,769
1,500
This is seriously fucked up.

The cartels are fucking animals and responsible for some of the most disgusting murders I've ever seen (skinning people alive while their next victim watches on, burning people alive, removing gentalia while still alive etc.)

They are scum and need to be eradicated.
Get it done Trump. Kill em all.
If these "people" are not terrorists (kill people in the most disgusting ways. Hook people on drugs to fund their empire. Involved in politics. Use absolute violence to get what they want)I dont understand the term anymore.

They need to be dealt with as you would ISIS/ISIL.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
The War on Drugs is largely responsible for the historic decline of violent crime over the last few decades.
Decline? The mexican cartels now make Escobar look like a toddler playing with fake guns. Even El Chapo was child's play next to how sadistic and bold the cartels have become. Every drug lord becomes worse than the last one. The war on drugs is an utter failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stitch

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,740
4,731
765
The only one that i would truly trust that has a true will to end this madness is the person that proposes to end the war on drugs and pursue legalization and regulations. A war in Mexico territory would be a catastrophy because cartels are mixed with civilians so the civilian population will be impacted even harder than cartels and, as we have seen before, killing a cartel leader basically generates a power vaccum for new cartels and drug lords, each new one more sadistic than the previous one. The only way to fix this is to destroy the illegal drug demand market so either the US does something to stop being the main drug consuming country in the world or we pursue legalization and regulation of this market and make the problem a health problem rather than a criminal one. I'm personally for the second option since it worked with taking power away from the mafia when alcohol was legalized.
You are not wrong that there would be collateral damage that needs to be minimized, but I think you are invested a bit much in the "its the US fault that Mexican cartels feed US addicts drugs." You are not wrong that demand begets supply at all, but this talking point is political and not a solid foundation for attacking the problem. At the end of the day the addicts are in part victims, and I've yet to meet one who condones the tactics used by cartels.

I'm not raising this issue to make this a partisan debate. I raise it simply because if you detach yourself from this talking point, it should lead to a logical question: "If the US says cocaine is legal, does that mean the black market disappears?" And the obvious answer is no. The US can only legalize the consumption of drugs within the US. So the black market will remain. And knowing that, do we really want to make it easy for an 18 or 21 year old sibling to buy their high school age sibling cocaine? I really don't.
 

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
5,415
5,218
775
I've been saying for years that the Mexico should ask the US for military support to take out the cartels and now we have a president willing to help them. Let's make it happen! If we're truly serious about ending mass migration from Mexico, we need to help Mexicans. A lot of them would rather stay in their country but they feel like the cartels are going to kill them, which happens a lot (entire towns have been decimated by the cartels) and that's why a lot of them try to come to the US.
 
Last edited:

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
2,440
3,033
390
Easiest way to stop the drug cartels is to wage business, not war, on them.

Make coke, legalise it, tax it, make it better, sell it cheap in a proper setting. Flood mexico with so much cheap coke that the cartels fold over-night.
 

btgorman

Member
Jul 26, 2009
1,728
1,087
905
Their president shot down the idea of waging war against the cartels according to The Hill:

My Mexican-American buddy (who is a never-Trumper) is with Trump on this one and thinks AMLO is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FMXVII

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
2,128
2,493
550
At the end of the day the addicts are in part victims
I agree but that's why im in favor of takling the issues through legalization and turning into a healthcare issue rather than a criminal issue. There are also other approaches the US (or any other country with drug addiction problems) could apply without punishing the addicts because the research in the psychological aspects of addiction is already mature. There are many venues other than criminal ones but for that legalization and regulation should first be taken seriously.

If the US says cocaine is legal, does that mean the black market disappears?" And the obvious answer is no.
I know but no solution right now is ideal, all of them have issues. But, even though the black market would not completely disappear, it will severely weaken it. In the end most people who are given the choice to buy a legal and quality product over an illegal and low quality one choose the former option for obvious reasons. Also providing quality and tested drugs could actually diminish health incidents since with illegal drugs you never really know or are really informed of what you're taking. Also, most illegal drugs are less dangerous than stuff like alcohol. So, from the options available legalization and regulation is the one that makes more sense for me. Keeping the status quo is perpetuating the madness and a war will just generate more of this madness and kill many more innocent people.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
10,541
14,658
840

Tim mirrors many of my own opinions on this. Not surprising, I guess, given we are both very anti-war for similar reasons, and given this is an edge case, so it makes sense we'd both justify an exception along similar lines. Still, I was interested to see how he came down.

This was an atrocity committed upon an American family. Last I heard, people are still missing, so for all we know this is a kidnapping as well with ongoing atrocity. It can not stand.
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
2,572
447
485
Easiest way to stop the drug cartels is to wage business, not war, on them.

Make coke, legalise it, tax it, make it better, sell it cheap in a proper setting. Flood mexico with so much cheap coke that the cartels fold over-night.
The Cartels are more powerful than the Mexican Military. They are no joke. Most Americans can't comprehend that. Imagine, in America, a group of people so powerful that they would drive through and take over cities, take over jails, release their own, and the military would be powerless to stop them. Even if you were to take away a large source of their income (through the legalization of drugs), they have diversified into legitimate businesses. I saw Cartel members defending resorts in Mexico because...they own the resorts. They started in drugs but now they have a hand in almost everything. I don't even know how you can stop them at this point. It would be harder than annihilating a countries entire army. I'm anti-war, I'm for pulling out of the middle east, but the cartels are close to home, they kill Americans, and they bring drugs into our own country. This should be a priority over the middle east in my opinion. I hope Trump does something about them, but it could escalate into a situation where a lot more Americans, especially the ones living on or close to the US-Mexico border, will be massacred and made an example out of.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: -Arcadia-