|
On July 02 2012 05:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 09:38 Meta wrote: People against the legalization of all drugs need to stay the fuck out of other people's business. Thanks for telling me what I can and can't do to my own body, dad. I appreciate the freedom you're taking away from me.
Solve the overdose issue by making medical treatment for drug addicts cheap and easy to access and then give people the choice of whatever they want to do with their lives and bodies. If you're against that you're against liberty and would be better off living in a place like like Saudi Arabia than the US. People for the legalization of all drugs should be held financially responsible for the costs of treating cocaine, opiate, methamphetamine addicts, etc. Then maybe they'll understand the situation is a little more complex than "don't tell me what I can and can't do with my body!" Thanks for telling us that we should - perhaps by magic! - make medical treatment for addiction cheap and easy. You obviously know little to nothing about the health effects of hard drugs or the costs and difficulties of successfully treating serious addiction to them. And the best part is the my way or the highway attitude; 'if you don't agree with me you're against liberty!' Yeah, that's a real freedom-loving attitude right there. Thanks for telling us we should be responsible for your decisions and that we're against liberty if we disagree but sticking your hands in our pockets to try to make treatment for addiction cheap for the addict and easy to successfully accomplish is A-OK. I'm someone who thinks weed should be totally legal without even an age limit, but legalizing all drugs, incredibly stupid idea.
We already have to pay for rehabilitation of drug addicts. Nothing will change in that regard if drugs are legalized. The only difference will be that now we won't have to pay for the costs of policing, prosecuting, and jailing them as well. And then once they get out of rehab, they'll easily integrate back into society seeing as they don't have a felony of their record.
Also, I don't understand your logic. You think we should rehab drug addicts, but you don't think we should have to pay for it? That doesn't make sense. You have to either support paying for rehab or not support paying for it. You can't have one without the other.
|
On July 02 2012 05:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 09:38 Meta wrote: People against the legalization of all drugs need to stay the fuck out of other people's business. Thanks for telling me what I can and can't do to my own body, dad. I appreciate the freedom you're taking away from me.
Solve the overdose issue by making medical treatment for drug addicts cheap and easy to access and then give people the choice of whatever they want to do with their lives and bodies. If you're against that you're against liberty and would be better off living in a place like like Saudi Arabia than the US. People for the legalization of all drugs should be held financially responsible for the costs of treating cocaine, opiate, methamphetamine addicts, etc. Then maybe they'll understand the situation is a little more complex than "don't tell me what I can and can't do with my body!" Thanks for telling us that we should - perhaps by magic! - make medical treatment for addiction cheap and easy. You obviously know little to nothing about the health effects of hard drugs or the costs and difficulties of successfully treating serious addiction to them. And the best part is the my way or the highway attitude; 'if you don't agree with me you're against liberty!' Yeah, that's a real freedom-loving attitude right there. Thanks for telling us we should be responsible for your decisions and that we're against liberty if we disagree but sticking your hands in our pockets to try to make treatment for addiction cheap for the addict and easy to successfully accomplish is A-OK. I'm someone who thinks weed should be totally legal without even an age limit, but legalizing all drugs, incredibly stupid idea.
Then you are clearly clueless on how much the war on drugs costs. Legalization + proper treament is cheaper, faster, and most importantly, it actually works.
Since Nixon declared the war on drugs, the consumption/production levels have grown exponentially.
Since Portugal legalized drugs... 'oh you won't believe this one'...guess what... things got better.
|
On July 02 2012 05:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 09:38 Meta wrote: People against the legalization of all drugs need to stay the fuck out of other people's business. Thanks for telling me what I can and can't do to my own body, dad. I appreciate the freedom you're taking away from me.
Solve the overdose issue by making medical treatment for drug addicts cheap and easy to access and then give people the choice of whatever they want to do with their lives and bodies. If you're against that you're against liberty and would be better off living in a place like like Saudi Arabia than the US. People for the legalization of all drugs should be held financially responsible for the costs of treating cocaine, opiate, methamphetamine addicts, etc. Then maybe they'll understand the situation is a little more complex than "don't tell me what I can and can't do with my body!" Thanks for telling us that we should - perhaps by magic! - make medical treatment for addiction cheap and easy. You obviously know little to nothing about the health effects of hard drugs or the costs and difficulties of successfully treating serious addiction to them. And the best part is the my way or the highway attitude; 'if you don't agree with me you're against liberty!' Yeah, that's a real freedom-loving attitude right there. Thanks for telling us we should be responsible for your decisions and that we're against liberty if we disagree but sticking your hands in our pockets to try to make treatment for addiction cheap for the addict and easy to successfully accomplish is A-OK. I'm someone who thinks weed should be totally legal without even an age limit, but legalizing all drugs, incredibly stupid idea.
So far roughly 24 BILLION dollars have been spent on the drug war in 2012, as best I can find based on past years and estimates for this year.
Twenty four billion. Perhaps you don't understand that.
$24,000,000,000 - that much. We just landed a rover on Mars for one-tenth of that. I'd like you to tell me with a straight face that the cost of treating addicts will be even 2.4 billion, let alone 24 billion. And we're not even done with the year yet. Last year we spent around 44 billion, and over the entirety of the drug war we've spent about half a trillion dollars.
You really think treating the small population of drug addicts in this country will cost more than that? Please, do tell.
Wait, lets do some math - a quick google says that the most expensive drug rehab treatments are roughly $7,400. So, how many drug addicts would there need to be to match the 44 billion dollars spent every year in the drug war? Assuming they all get the expensive treatment, roughly 5,945,945 drug addicts EVERY YEAR would have to be rehabed - The most recent info I can find from a quick google suggests there are roughly 2,166,000 regular user of cocaine (both powder and crack) and heroin, the two major addicting drugs I'm sure you're concerned about (there are other addicting drugs that have some data here and there, but they are in very small numbers or the data doesn't seem very reliable) So, assuming EVERY SINGLE REGULAR USER OF COCAINE AND HEROIN REQUIRED REHAB TWICE A YEAR, then yes, maybe you'd be right...
But wait, there's more! considering that Drugs will be legalized, we'll actually see an increase in tax revenue - wiki pegs it at 37.2 billion, and I have no reason to question that at the moment. So, adding that up with the savings of 44 billion dollars every year, we'd actually need over ten million people getting the most expensive rehab every year to justify "the cost of treating addiction" as a viable argument against legalization.
Now, now, I know what you're thinking - But! but! what about medical expenses from OD's, impure drugs, and the cost of ER visits. Well, we already pay for all of that, but if drugs were legalized and regulated odds are we'd see at least fewer cases of spiked or impure drugs causing problems. If addicts have an easier time getting access to rehab and treatment perhaps there will be fewer OD's and ER visits, which in turn may end up lowering medical costs.
TL;DR - you're grasping at straws it appears. Unless you sincerely believe that, despite the very quick searches I've done providing a lot of evidence to the contrary, addiction costs will outweigh the gains of legalization.
|
On July 02 2012 05:54 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 08:37 Apolo wrote: I never understood the need to combat drugs. If people want to hurt their body, or just have some fun while hurting their body, or whatever the heck pleases them, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people, how the hecks should that be forbidden? Seriously, i'm glad i live in the first country to decriminalize drug use. You become a big trillionaire and pay for all emergency hospital visits from people suffering from drugs then propose this and no one will disagree kk.
Yeah, because people "suffering from drugs" now don't ever go to the hospital. I'm curious what you think someone "suffering from drugs" would go to the hospital for. Overdoses? They already do go to the hospital.
Not to mention, all of this is irrelevant because you're making the assumption that legalizing drugs will increase drug abuse. That claim is dubious at best. Despite the fact that the Netherlands has legalized marijuana, fewer adults report using marijuana there than in the US where marijuana is illegal.
And even if that were a valid reason to oppose legalization, you'd have to also be in favor of alcohol prohibition. Hundreds of thousands of people come to the ER every year in the United States for alcohol-related emergencies. If you think drugs should be illegal because they cause people to go to the hospital then you should think anything that causes people to go to the hospital should be illegal as well. Alcohol, fatty foods, action sports, swimming, you name it; anything potentially dangerous should be banned using your logic.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2012/2/3/2012231337778734_20.jpg)
Police have found the bodies of 14 men stuffed into an abandoned van near a gas station in northern Mexico.
Gabriela Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office in San Luis Potosi state, said the victims found outside the northern city of San Luis Potosi were likely kidnapped as part of a standoff between drug traffickers in the state of Coahuila, which borders San Luis Potosi and the US state of Texas.
The victims are believed to have then been taken to the state of Zacatecas, before being killed and dumped in San Luis Potosi.
The vehicle they were found in had been reported stolen in Coahuila.
"According to the initial information, everything indicates that it was the work of organised crime," Gonzalez told AFP by telephone. She was unable to say whether the men died of gunshot wounds or some other cause.
It is the first time San Luis de Potosi has been a scene of a massacre on this scale.
The bodies were discovered on Thursday after police received an anonymous tip, she said.
San Luis Potosi has been the scene of turf battles between the Zetas gang and allies of the Sinaloa drug cartel.
The groups split in early 2010, setting off a bloody battle for territory in northeastern Mexico. Another group, the Sinaloa cartel, later joined the fight as a Gulf Cartel ally.
Also in Mexico's north, attackers armed with assault rifles killed seven men drinking at a sports field on Wednesday night, Sinaloa state prosecutors said in a statement.
The men had just finished working and had gathered at the field to drink when they were attacked, the statement said.
Mexico has seen a growing number of mass killings, with the bodies abandoned inside cars or dumped on the side of the road, most in the states of Veracruz (east) and Tamaulipas (northeast).
Last month, 14 bodies were found in a vehicle in Veracruz.
Source
|
Narconomics From HR to CSR: management lessons from Mexico’s drug lords
+ Show Spoiler + MEXICO has 11 billionaires, according to Forbes magazine. Ten are often pictured smiling at charity dinners and other posh bunfights. One, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, has a rather different mugshot. Wearing a cheap anorak, he is pictured shivering in the rain inside the concrete walls of a high-security prison. Mr Guzmán, who is better known by his nickname El Chapo, or “Shorty”, is one of Latin America’s most successful exporters, having made perhaps $1 billion as chief executive of the Sinaloa drug “cartel”. There haven’t been many photos of El Chapo since he escaped from jail in 2001, hidden in a laundry trolley.
Other billionaires look down on Mr Guzmán. But unlike some of the entrepreneurs on Mexico’s rich-list, he seems to have weathered the American recession rather well. Conditions in his hideout in the Sierra Madre may not be luxurious, but his fortune is believed to have remained intact despite the efforts of the imbéciles on Wall Street that brought the Mexican economy to its knees in 2009. Armed with no more than a phrasebook and some Pepto-Bismol, Schumpeter went to the desert to see what lessons Mexico’s narcotraffickers might offer to other businesses.
These have not been easy times for the cartels, thanks to a declining American appetite for drugs. Encouragingly (at least from Mr Guzmán’s point of view), more American youngsters are smoking cannabis, much of which is imported from Mexico. But cocaine, the more valuable product, has been going out of fashion. America cut its habit by about a quarter between 2006 and 2010, according to the UN, and the number of employees failing workplace cocaine tests fell by two-thirds.
Dwindling sales in el norte are not unique to the drugs business. America’s imports of legal goods fell by more than a quarter in 2009, squeezing Mexican car factories as well as cocaine labs. But the cartels have been nimbler than legitimate businesses in switching to new markets. Eight out of ten legal exports still go to America, not down much from nine out of ten at the turn of the century. The cocaine business, by contrast, has switched its attention to Europe, which gets through twice as much coke as it did at the end of the 1990s. The average Brit now buys more than the average American, albeit of lower quality. Mexican sellers are also making inroads in Australia, another promising market.
The drug industry’s flexibility is partly due to its exemption from import duties. Whereas legitimate Mexican traders have free access to America and Canada via the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA), drug smugglers are granted tariff-free entry to every country in the world thanks to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which prohibits the regulation or taxation of their product. Pesky rules of origin, which prevent many Mexican manufacturers from selling goods in America, do not apply to Colombian cocaine processed in Mexico.
Granted, prohibition requires narcotics traders to dig the odd tunnel. But it spares them other headaches. Californian liberals recently proposed taxing Mr Guzmán and his colleagues up to $1 billion a year by legalising cannabis. Fortunately for the industry, conservatives voted to keep the thriving pot business tax-free. Red tape is minimal too: though America sees a million emergency-room visits a year from drug abuse, manufacturers see no need to invest in quality control when the penalty for selling contaminated cocaine is the same as for smuggling the pure stuff.
Mexican regulators have killed or imprisoned many of the country’s leading drug entrepreneurs since 2007. Last month the marines announced that they had nabbed Mr Guzmán’s son, known as El Gordo, or “Fatty”. It turned out to be a false alarm: the arrestee was a car salesman called Félix, whose only crime was to be plump. Such incompetence is common. As in other sectors, competent regulators are often tempted away by the higher salaries on offer in the private sector. Many traffickers start off as policemen; the Zetas mob began as an elite army unit.
On head-hunting (and -chopping)
Human resources are still a problem for the cartels, unsurprisingly given that more than 10,000 employees are violently retired each year. Junior vacancies are easily filled from the pool of 10m ninis, youths who ni estudian ni trabajan (neither study nor work). But Mexico’s poor schools—the worst in the OECD—mean that drug exporters face the same problems as other multinationals in attracting highly skilled workers. ManpowerGroup, a recruitment consultancy, found that 42% of legitimate Mexican firms reported difficulties filling vacancies. Most said they had to recruit expatriates to senior jobs. This is also true in the drug business: the Zetas have turned to former members of Guatemala’s Kaibiles special forces to satisfy a growing demand for experienced killers. Visa requirements, at least, are minimal.
Public relations are delicate in a business which has caused about 60,000 deaths in Mexico in the past six years. That is why cartel leaders are very serious about corporate social responsibility. Senior executives remain free partly because people are unwilling to tip off the police. Fear is one reason; another is that drug lords spread their profits around. Contributions to the local constabulary are popular. Conspicuous philanthropy is also common. A gleaming chapel in Hidalgo state recently put up a bronze plaque thanking Heriberto Lazcano, head of the Zetas, for a donation. When the pope raised an eyebrow about such “narco alms”, a Mexican bishop, Ramón Godínez, replied that when Mary Magdalene washed Jesus’s feet with expensive perfume, he didn’t ask her how she paid for it. “There is no reason to burn money just because its origin is evil. You have to transform it. All money can be transformed, just as corrupted people can be transformed,” he said. With God as its money launderer, Mexico’s dirtiest industry should stay on a high.
http://www.economist.com/node/21559598?fb_ref=activity
So who's winning this war? What are the victory conditions? How will this ever end? Is the global appetite for narcotics or the global supply ever going to be eliminated?
|
Spain's interior ministry has arrested four members of a major Mexican drug-trafficking cartel, including the cousin of Mexico's most wanted man.
The four men, who belong to Sinaloa cartel, one of the biggest criminal organisations in the world, were arrested near their hotels in the capital Madrid, the ministry said in a statement on Friday.
The statement gave the names of the men as Jesus Gutierrez Guzman, Rafael Humberto Celaya Valenzuela, Samuel Zazueta Valenzuela and Jesus Gonzalo Palazuelos Soto.
But the statement did not say precisely when the arrests were made, and when called by phone ministry officials could not immediately give exact details of the dates.
The ministry said the cartel wanted to make Spain a gateway for operations in Europe, even carrying out test runs using shipping containers without drugs, said the Associated Press news agency.
But investigators managed to monitor many of the group's activities and intercepted a container carrying 373kg of cocaine in late July before moving in to make the arrests.
"Our country was going to be used as a point of entry for large shipments of narcotics," the ministry said in a statement.
Source
|
The war on drugs has been the most expensive failure in US history. It's amazing how people will cut government spending on its people for medicare, social safety nets and instead piss billions away on a useless war.
More people than ever do drugs per capita all over the world so that failed. More drugs are obviously produced and trafficked for this to happen so that also failed. What part of the drug war has even remotely worked. The War part sure has with thousands (sorry 10k a year in Mexico alone according to the link) of dead people from the drug trade. Not to mention thousands more who can't get proper medical care due to addiction and have no way out of the downward spiral of addiction.
Why not take the 44 BILLION and spend it on education and taking care of your people and not fill up your jails with non criminal kids who had a bad turn and turn them into hardened criminals the way the US prison system does (people call the US prison system Criminal University for a reason) and instead give them the help they need to turn into productive members of society. BUT HELL NO THATS SOCIALISM AND THATS COMMUNISM IN DISGUISE NOT IM MY COUNTRY!
Even the UN has said that drug war has failed.
Also how vague the net that makes drugs illegal is makes it even more bullshit. I can go pretend to have ADD and get essentially meth from my doctor. But holy fuck if I go and get a joint I can go to jail for a long. Seems like this is a balanced system.
But the inertia and the money made form busting dealers means that this useless won't end until at least the next generation.
This isn't meant to be country bashing but why are Americans so hesitant to help out their own country men? I mean most people where I live support In-Site (A place where addicts shoot up with nurses to ensure their safety and afree drug rehab with an incredible cost saving and life saving track record) and most americans who I have heard talking about call it insane the term used was Canuckistan on the news report iirc. I understand that right wing here is centrist south and left wing here is like hard core socialism in the states but it just seems like a huge gap in thinking for neighbours.
|
Why do they cut off legs/arms/heads etc? Why not just shoot them?
|
On August 11 2012 10:08 FryktSkyene wrote: Why do they cut off legs/arms/heads etc? Why not just shoot them? Because is getting shot or slowly being hacked apart scarier to you?
|
On August 11 2012 10:27 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:08 FryktSkyene wrote: Why do they cut off legs/arms/heads etc? Why not just shoot them? Because is getting shot or slowly being hacked apart scarier to you?
I meant does it mean anything to cut off a head or is it just for fear? I thought I heard somewhere that cutting off the tounge means they talked to police or something?
|
On August 11 2012 11:32 FryktSkyene wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2012 10:27 tokicheese wrote:On August 11 2012 10:08 FryktSkyene wrote: Why do they cut off legs/arms/heads etc? Why not just shoot them? Because is getting shot or slowly being hacked apart scarier to you? I meant does it mean anything to cut off a head or is it just for fear? I thought I heard somewhere that cutting off the tounge means they talked to police or something? Oh I didn't hear about that. My bad.
|
At least five people have been killed in the western Mexican state of Michoacan after armed men launched daring grenade attacks on federal police in the region.
In the city of Nueva Italia, drug-gang members burned vehicles on streets, set up road blocks and opened fire on police officers on Friday.
According to Mexico's public security ministry, police responded with gunfire to repel attacks, killing five gang members and injuring five officers.
Authorities have not confirmed if any police were killed in the firefight.
A local Michoacan newspaper, Cambio, reported assailants also attacked a nearby hospital as they looked for injured police.
Violence spread into the municipality of Apatzingan as police gave chase. Assailants blocked area roads and highways with burnt-out vehicles to impede pursuing police.
Source
|
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The Mexican Navy has captured one of Mexico's most wanted drug bosses, the head of the Gulf Cartel, the government said late Wednesday, in the latest high-profile arrest in President Felipe Calderon's crackdown on organized crime.
The government said it would reveal more details about the capture of Jorge Costilla, alias "El Coss," early on Thursday. Such figures are often paraded in front of the media, handcuffed and dressed in flak jackets.
A government security source said Costilla was detained in Tampico in north-eastern Mexico, where the cartel was active, without putting up a fight. The U.S. State Department had a reward of up to $5 million for Costilla's capture. No other details were immediately available.
Last week, the Mexican Navy captured senior Gulf Cartel member Mario Cardenas, alias "Fatso," also in the north-eastern state of Tamaulipas where Costilla was caught.
Source
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Has the new President explained his plans to deal with the drug war?
|
The Mexican Navy said its marines killed the leader of the country's most ruthless drug cartel in a gunfight, identifying him by his fingerprints. But in an embarrassing twist, a state prosecutor on Tuesday said gunmen later burst into a funeral home and stole the dead man's body.
The corpse's theft raised doubts that the cartel leader, Heriberto Lazcano, had been slain. A U.S. official said the U.S., which had a $5 million bounty on Mr. Lazcano, was checking DNA samples provided by Mexico to confirm his identity.
Mr. Lazcano, known by his nicknames as "Lazca" or "el Verdugo," (the Executioner), deserted an elite Mexican army unit and rose to head the Zetas, which is considered to be Mexico's most brutal cartel.
If confirmed, Mr. Lazcano's death in a firefight along a road in the northern border state of Coahuila would be a huge victory for the Mexican government and another triumph for the Navy, which has been responsible for many of the blows dealt to the country's powerful drug cartels.
However, many analysts said Mr. Lazcano's apparent killing was likely to lead to a rise of violence, as rivals within the organization fight for control while fending off attempts from competing cartels, a pattern that has been repeated with other criminal organizations.
The events come just two months before President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto takes office. The new leader has vowed to keep going after drug traffickers, while concentrating on lowering violent crimes that have a big impact on the population, such as homicides, kidnappings and extortions.
The Mexican Navy said one of its patrols ran into a convoy carrying Mr. Lazcano on a road about 80 miles west of Laredo, Texas, on Monday. It said a firefight began when the marines were attacked by grenades thrown from a moving vehicle. One Navy marine was wounded, and two of the gunmen were killed. The Navy said it seized an arsenal of weapons including rocket-propelled grenades.
In a news conference, Coahuila Attorney General Homero Ramos said a group of gunmen raided the funeral home where the two bodies were being kept, stealing the cadavers. Mr. Ramos said the assailants forced the funeral-home director to drive a hearse away with the body inside.
Some Mexicans worried that the body's theft would lead to conspiracy theories, as happened in 1997 when the late drug kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes, known as the "Lord of the Skies," died while undergoing cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance.
"Once more what could have been a success in the war against organized crime becomes a problem when the body is 'stolen,' " wrote Juan Ignacio Gil Anton on a Mexican political blog. "It happened with the Lord of the Skies. Will it happen with Lazca?"
Mr. Lazcano's apparent killing would be the third major blow to the Zetas in recent weeks. On Sept. 26, Iván Velazquez Caballero, a Zetas kingpin known as "El Talibán" or Z50, was captured in a shootout in San Luis Potosí. This past Sunday, officials detained Salvador Martínez Escobedo, who Mexican authorities blamed for the barbaric slaughter of 72 migrants on a secluded ranch in the border state of Tamaulipas in 2010.
Mr. Lazcano's apparent death clears the path for Miguel Angel Treviño, known as Z-40, a Lazcano rival, to lead the Zetas.
Mexican officials said Mr. Lazcano's apparent death may have been tied to the Oct. 3 killing, also in Coahuila state, of José Eduardo Moreira, the son of the state's former Gov. Humberto Moreira, an ex-head of the Institutional Revolutionary Party and close Peña Nieto ally.
The government responded to that killing last week by deploying 1,500 Navy, Army and federal police to pacify the state, which it considered increasingly lawless. It is unclear if the surge led to Mr. Lazcano's death.
Mr. Lazcano's apparent death would likely boost the fortunes of the Sinaloa cartel, led by Mexico's most powerful drug dealer Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmán.
George Grayson, a Zetas expert at the College of William & Mary who wrote a book on the gang called "The Executioner's Men," said the Gulf Cartel, which was weakened during a vicious war there in 2010, has largely regained its footing in the state of Tamaulipas and is likely to renew fighting. "I don't think the killing will reduce violence in the north, if anything it will accelerate it," Mr. Grayson said.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578045900966762928.html
Zetas cartel leader killed by Mexican marines. And looks like his corpse has been stolen as well.
|
Just a question, why is Mexican Navy achieve so much? Isn't their focus on the maritime?
|
VIENNA, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Mexico is making progress in its fight against powerful drug cartels and they are becoming weaker as the crime bosses are killed or jailed, the interior minister said on Monday.
Since 2009, about two-thirds of those identified as Mexico's 37 most- wanted criminals that year have either been killed or face legal action, Alejandro Poire said.
"I think that is an indication that the top level of these organisations is no longer capable of doing what (it was) capable of doing only three years ago," he told reporters during a U.N. conference on cross-border crime.
"Also at the immediately lower level we are systematically bringing down some of the most dangerous criminals."
Earlier this month, Mexico said it killed Heriberto Lazcano, the leader of the brutal Zetas gang and the most powerful kingpin to fall in the battle against cartels.
The Zetas have carried out some of the worst atrocities in a drug war that has killed some 60,000 people during President Felipe Calderon's six-year term, which ends in December.
Source
|
On October 10 2012 16:09 furymonkey wrote: Just a question, why is Mexican Navy achieve so much? Isn't their focus on the maritime?
I don't claim to know anything about Mexican armed forces but i guess it works out like how the US armed forces are.
Marines are for combating in sort of "Man to Man" and usually they are better trained at these tasks
While the army is usually a support type (Artillery/tanks, but since this is their home country artillery and tanks would be a bit dangerous to civilians)
But i seriously can't imagine what its like to be a Mexican Marine, you are fighting your own people who you vowed to protect its practically a civil war in the streets.
|
So they kill a boss of a cartel? a new boss arises, then what.. such a waste of effort. They're never gonna be able to get rid of all the supply, they do nothing to change the demand for the substances yet expect things to go differently after all these years.
|
|
|
|