EPTSadly, no country moves or has ever moved around armies unless it's for their gain.
Mexico's Drug War - Page 44
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
Sadly, no country moves or has ever moved around armies unless it's for their gain. | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything. A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution. At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history. | ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
On March 17 2013 10:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution. At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history. Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea? | ||
|
Influ
Germany780 Posts
On March 17 2013 10:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution. At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history. Doing something good like fighting communism, terrorists weapons of mass destruction? I wish I could read something like that and still take people seriously. | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
On March 17 2013 10:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution. Attempts at overwhelming and killing off the cartels have been going on for what, 30 years now? How many more decades will it take for goverments to realize that it doesn't matter how many cartel members you kill and/or put in jail, because for as long as it is profitable new people will always step up. Legalize drugs, tax their sales and watch the cartels completely disintegrate because their main and often only source of income is destroyed. Of course, the legalization will never happen, because both the cartels and the goverment agencies fighting drugs have way too much at stake to take on the status quo. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On the Mexican side the Cartels offer 401k's, Education, excellent pay, Health benefits, even paid vacations! Something the government has a hard time providing when it comes to jobs and fighting poverty. Calderon made an excellent point when asked why he didn't legalise and tax the drug trade, he stated that it was a good idea but would not really change things as the trade always goes North anyways and that the United States consumes such a large portion of narcotics that it actually dictates prices worldwide, with a few exceptions such as Hash which is primarily European narco(?). The Cartels are not fighting over distribution rights inside Mexico but routes OUT of Mexico and into the states. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On March 17 2013 10:57 Influ wrote: Doing something good like fighting communism, terrorists weapons of mass destruction? I wish I could read something like that and still take people seriously. First of all, Mexico is an allied country of the US, not an enemy, as the countries associated with your claim were. Right away, your snide remark falls through. Continuing, the intent of that was never fighting communism, terrorists, or WMDs (the WMDs are a pure lie at that). The intent was imperialism. That other stuff was an excuse. However, there is some merit to the terrorism part in regards to Afghanistan. If the intent of an incursion into Mexico was purely to remove the cartels without all the US corporate and political-instituted hegemony, as I specifically stated, it would be a very good cause, one practically unseen in history, since military conflict is almost always fought in the nation's own interest. Let's not be ironic though. It took 75 years (since the official founding of Germany) and countless wars started and/or instigated by the Germans until war, destruction, and genocide, unseen in modern history, by Germany finally came to an end. This isn't even speaking on the various Germanic kingdoms before unification. On March 17 2013 10:47 Arnstein wrote: Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea? Theoretically, from the pot advocacy camp, would this happen. If it were true, action would have been taken long ago. Also, fyi, the cartels are based in Mexico, not the US. Even if it did affect their US operations by some margin, their operations in Mexico and everywhere else would be perfectly fine. On March 17 2013 11:08 Jago wrote: Attempts at overwhelming and killing off the cartels have been going on for what, 30 years now? How many more decades will it take for goverments to realize that it doesn't matter how many cartel members you kill and/or put in jail, because for as long as it is profitable new people will always step up. Umm the overwhelming has been attempted by Mexico, the very country run by the cartels, meaning, nothing has been done. No action in Mexico has been taken by the US, and that's the kind of action that would make any sort of difference. The only solution is a US force to annihilate the cartels and restore Mexican government to a position of stability and control such that any budding attempt at cartels are easily extinguished. Otherwise, Mexico is fucked for good. | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
| ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On March 17 2013 14:28 UdderChaos wrote: If you legalized drugs wouldn't you basically make what the cartels do legitimate? The cartels have the power, influence, people, infrastructure and supply to instantly become the biggest corporations in the drugs industry and because of the demand they would quickly become some of the richest businessmen in the world. Sure the violence would probably stop but is it really ethical to give men who are horrifically immoral, who order the torture of women and children to their own end of greed, a "way out" in the form of becoming incredibly rich business men with no repercussions? And if you think that people like mcdonalds and nike have immoral CEO's imagine what a cartel member with lobbyist powers would be like, god forbid. This is true. Very good point. The cartels would simply explode and become a lot larger than they already are, not just in Mexico, but abroad. This makes them exponentially more powerful. Ironically, legalizing drugs would do a lot more damage than it would resolve. Cartel members already have lobby powers in Mexico. It's one of the primary reasons why Mexico is in a rather dystopian state. Having the same happen in other countries, especially the USA, would be absolutely disastrous. | ||
|
Solarsail
United Kingdom538 Posts
On March 17 2013 14:28 UdderChaos wrote: If you legalized drugs wouldn't you basically make what the cartels do legitimate? The cartels have the power, influence, people, infrastructure and supply to instantly become the biggest corporations in the drugs industry and because of the demand they would quickly become some of the richest businessmen in the world. Sure the violence would probably stop but is it really ethical to give men who are horrifically immoral, who order the torture of women and children to their own end of greed, a "way out" in the form of becoming incredibly rich business men with no repercussions? And if you think that people like mcdonalds and nike have immoral CEO's imagine what a cartel member with lobbyist powers would be like, god forbid. It worked in Northern Ireland. A very small number of top people went unpunished, and in return NI has a functioning economy and there has been over ten years of peace relarive to before. | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
| ||
|
Foblos
United States426 Posts
| ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On March 17 2013 14:13 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: First of all, Mexico is an allied country of the US, not an enemy, as the countries associated with your claim were. Right away, your snide remark falls through. Continuing, the intent of that was never fighting communism, terrorists, or WMDs (the WMDs are a pure lie at that). The intent was imperialism. That other stuff was an excuse. However, there is some merit to the terrorism part in regards to Afghanistan. If the intent of an incursion into Mexico was purely to remove the cartels without all the US corporate and political-instituted hegemony, as I specifically stated, it would be a very good cause, one practically unseen in history, since military conflict is almost always fought in the nation's own interest. Let's not be ironic though. It took 75 years (since the official founding of Germany) and countless wars started and/or instigated by the Germans until war, destruction, and genocide, unseen in modern history, by Germany finally came to an end. This isn't even speaking on the various Germanic kingdoms before unification. Theoretically, from the pot advocacy camp, would this happen. If it were true, action would have been taken long ago. Also, fyi, the cartels are based in Mexico, not the US. Even if it did affect their US operations by some margin, their operations in Mexico and everywhere else would be perfectly fine. Umm the overwhelming has been attempted by Mexico, the very country run by the cartels, meaning, nothing has been done. No action in Mexico has been taken by the US, and that's the kind of action that would make any sort of difference. The only solution is a US force to annihilate the cartels and restore Mexican government to a position of stability and control such that any budding attempt at cartels are easily extinguished. Otherwise, Mexico is fucked for good. That's a little insane. And to respond to your mid section, no. The cartels have something like 90% of their drugs going into the United States. This means that they would lose 90% of their business if it were legalized in the US. It doesn't matter where the business is based if the place you are selling isn't interested or has legal alternatives. You would functionally cut off their entire money supply. And killing all of them is a stupid solution. Remember when the US dismantled the Medellin and Cali cartels? New cartels took their place. If there is a demand and there is money to be made someone is going to try to meet that demand and get rich. | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
On March 17 2013 15:34 Foblos wrote: I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but drug use is pretty bad in a society. Narcotics always have extremely negative consequences for society (such as China and the Opium addiction it had), and so while I can understand the logic that legalizing drugs would help to destabilize the power of the cartels, I don't understand how that is actually beneficial for the society. It seems to me that, since the cartels have already dug in deep and gotten a lot of people addicted, you either keep the cartels and all the bad things that come with them, or you allow people to fully indulge in their addictions and allow your society to break apart. For me, I don't see legalizing drugs helpful. Total prohibition helps no body but the people selling the drugs. It didn't work for alcohol and it obviously isn't working now. Drug use is at an all time high, the cartels in Mexico can afford small military from the drug money and the US penal system is choking on small time drug charges. Not to mention the Trillion+ price tag for the war on drugs. Drugs being illegal allow the dealers to charge incredible rates on the drugs because of the scarcity and the risk involved. This means they get rich as hell. Saying that if drugs were legal addicts could indulge is incredibly stupid. I'm sorry but it just is. People who are genuinely addicted to a substance could not care less if it is legal or not. It's not like people are waiting for drugs to be legalized so they can finally satisfy their meth addiction. Their bodies require the drug to function. A heroin addict was talking about withdrawal and he said it felt like someone was pouring liquid metal all over his skin and a little hit would make it all go away instantly. Something like that makes you ignore the laws. Drugs are not a criminal issue they are a medical one. Making these people criminals does not help society in any way. It just drains money into prisons (which btw are complete failures in the US) and from useful things such a rehabilitation which can make addicts useful members of society. Proper education about drugs that doesn't blatantly lie to kids would be much better too. Telling kids that pot melts your brain/makes you stupid/physically addictive/major hallucinogen is just counter productive. When they actually do smoke a joint they will realize that their brain didn't leak out of their ears and they didn't start sucking dicks for weed money they will wonder what else was bullshit in the anti drug program. DARE is a dismal failure, kids who did the dare program had higher drug use rates than kids who didn't. Take the drug money away and the cartels stranglehold in Mexico will loosen. 80%+ of their profits come from drug money. Obviously legalizing pot which is relatively harmless is a completely different animal than legalizing something like Crack. But it is something that needs to be discussed because the drug was has been a dismal failure. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On March 17 2013 15:34 Foblos wrote: I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but drug use is pretty bad in a society. Narcotics always have extremely negative consequences for society (such as China and the Opium addiction it had), and so while I can understand the logic that legalizing drugs would help to destabilize the power of the cartels, I don't understand how that is actually beneficial for the society. It seems to me that, since the cartels have already dug in deep and gotten a lot of people addicted, you either keep the cartels and all the bad things that come with them, or you allow people to fully indulge in their addictions and allow your society to break apart. For me, I don't see legalizing drugs helpful. If you look at countries that have legalized or decriminalized hardcore drugs like Opium, Heroin, etc. you will find that the rates of use go down. I think it was the Dutch prime minister or something who after a few years of it being decriminalized/legal said that the rates of marijuana and other drug use had declined and they had succeeded in making drugs uncool. Drugs become something that is looked down on as a public health issue. As an addition to that, I have no problem if someone wants to indulge on their addiction as we should all be able to choose what we do with our own body. I think we educate our population they will make the right decision, and if they make the wrong decision we can help them overcome their addictions if they want it, or make them if it becomes a criminal issue if they start committing crimes due to their drug use. Also before it comes up. Treatment for drug addicts is much less expensive than keeping people in prison. So don't worry about your tax dollars being wasted on drug addicts, because you will be wasting less money as opposed to keeping those same drug addicts in prison for two reasons. One, It costs less per individual. Two, there are less individuals with drug problems. And that's just the economic argument. I would go further as to say that treating your fellow man properly would be worth it even if it cost more, but the fact is that its not only the right thing to do morally, but also financially. Anyone who is interested more should read this book http://www.amazon.com/Voters-Handbook-Effective-Solutions-Americas/dp/0984275223 It's a former California Judge who talks about a variety of social/legal issues and gives his (awesome) solutions to many issues such as drugs and prisons. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On March 17 2013 16:26 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: That's a little insane. And to respond to your mid section, no. The cartels have something like 90% of their drugs going into the United States. This means that they would lose 90% of their business if it were legalized in the US. It doesn't matter where the business is based if the place you are selling isn't interested or has legal alternatives. You would functionally cut off their entire money supply. And killing all of them is a stupid solution. Remember when the US dismantled the Medellin and Cali cartels? New cartels took their place. If there is a demand and there is money to be made someone is going to try to meet that demand and get rich. THEIR drugs still come in. It just makes business a lot easier for them, which empowers them further. You're imagining that the cartels would suddenly lose out to someone else. No, they would adapt and keep their monopoly. Killing them off is not a stupid solution. You don't defeat a problem by pulling out a couple weeds. That doesn't solve anything at all. Complete elimination is the resolution. Only by completely wiping them out in one fell swoop and restoring Mexican government can any future cartels be nipped right as they are budding. Taking out a couple while the rest thrive accomplishes nothing, since other cartels still exist to fill in the gap, or facilitate the growth of growing ones. That's why wrecking Medellin and Cali did nothing. | ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
On March 17 2013 17:30 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: THEIR drugs still come in. It just makes business a lot easier for them, which empowers them further. You're imagining that the cartels would suddenly lose out to someone else. No, they would adapt and keep their monopoly. Killing them off is not a stupid solution. You don't defeat a problem by pulling out a couple weeds. That doesn't solve anything at all. Complete elimination is the resolution. Only by completely wiping them out in one fell swoop and restoring Mexican government can any future cartels be nipped right as they are budding. Taking out a couple while the rest thrive accomplishes nothing, since other cartels still exist to fill in the gap, or facilitate the growth of growing ones. That's why wrecking Medellin and Cali did nothing. So you basically want to open up a second Iraq right next to the US... It's gonna get ugly really fast if the US does get involved on that scale. Drone strikes incoming... What else will provide the 90% of the money? It's not like the cartel would ignore stuff even if its significantly less profitable than drugs when there is significant demand there for it. | ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
On March 17 2013 14:13 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: First of all, Mexico is an allied country of the US, not an enemy, as the countries associated with your claim were. Right away, your snide remark falls through. Continuing, the intent of that was never fighting communism, terrorists, or WMDs (the WMDs are a pure lie at that). The intent was imperialism. That other stuff was an excuse. However, there is some merit to the terrorism part in regards to Afghanistan. If the intent of an incursion into Mexico was purely to remove the cartels without all the US corporate and political-instituted hegemony, as I specifically stated, it would be a very good cause, one practically unseen in history, since military conflict is almost always fought in the nation's own interest. Let's not be ironic though. It took 75 years (since the official founding of Germany) and countless wars started and/or instigated by the Germans until war, destruction, and genocide, unseen in modern history, by Germany finally came to an end. This isn't even speaking on the various Germanic kingdoms before unification. Theoretically, from the pot advocacy camp, would this happen. If it were true, action would have been taken long ago. Also, fyi, the cartels are based in Mexico, not the US. Even if it did affect their US operations by some margin, their operations in Mexico and everywhere else would be perfectly fine. I was talking about legalizing EVERY drug, and in Mexico, not US. | ||
| ||
