PDA

View Full Version : Mexico's drug war



Tyrsmann
1st April 10, 09:46 PM
There has been alot of news regarding Mexico's drug war lately. The cartels are even going after the Mexican Army.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/lt_drug_war_mexico

I'm starting to think that we need to be more worried about this. I mean how long before they start getting aggressive with the U.S. border patrol and other U.S. agencies that handle border security. Generally I'm for staying the hell out of other countries' clusterfucks. But when something this dangerous is this close to our own border maybe we should see if the Mexican government won't let us take a more active role in helping them with the Drug Cartels.

That is assuming we have the resources to do so in a substantive way at the moment. What the goings on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

mrblackmagic
1st April 10, 10:52 PM
Ahhhh! That joke is funny because we never could control the influx of drugs from Mexico! You're a funny man!


On a serious note, google-fu Los Zetas.

elipson
2nd April 10, 04:45 AM
There isn't a whole lot the USA could do to stop the drug war, short of legalizing marijuana and coke.

Military involvement isn't realistic. Law enforcement is already underfunded and US agencies could never muster enough manpower to take on the Cartels outside the USA. Both options create problems with Mexican sovereignty.

All you can do is sit back and cheer on one side or the other.

Cullion
2nd April 10, 09:08 AM
If they get aggressive with the US border patrol, or do anything else that could be construed as a threat to US sovereign power within it's own borders, I expect they'll be made a very public example of, very quickly. And I suspect they know that.

Phrost
2nd April 10, 10:20 AM
If?

They've been in an open war with the border patrol for a few years now. There have even been armed incursions over the border. It's just getting hushed up in the press for reasons unknown.

Cullion
2nd April 10, 10:23 AM
Holy smokes.

Surely that represents a military, rather than a law-enforcement threat?

Doesn't your military have hundreds of thousands of loyal Spanish-speakers who'd be quite capable of conducting any necessary undercover work ?

You should make a nasty example of these people. Arnold Schwarzenegger-style.

Cullion
2nd April 10, 10:25 AM
Oh, but that would be 'unilateral' and hence not fit the agenda of signing 'cross border law enforcement treaties' in the interest of turning NAFTA into something just like the EU.

Fearless Ukemi
2nd April 10, 10:28 AM
If?

They've been in an open war with the border patrol for a few years now. There have even been armed incursions over the border. It's just getting hushed up in the press for reasons unknown.

The reason it is being hushed is because then more people will not support a North American union. Yes, people actually want that union.

Cullion
2nd April 10, 10:36 AM
<dick move> If it's being hushed, where did you hear about it? </dick move>

My guess is that it will go 'mainstream' as soon as they've got a cross-border law enforcement treaty lined up that drives a cart and horses through the constitutions of the US and Mexico, and the GOP-backed Tea Party 'tards will scream for the treaty to be signed.

Ajamil
2nd April 10, 02:52 PM
National media rarely reports on it. It was big in AZ. Last I heard they were using RPGs on the border patrol - who are barely more organized than rednecks with automatic rifles in pickup trucks.

elipson
2nd April 10, 03:42 PM
My guess is that it will go 'mainstream' as soon as they've got a cross-border law enforcement treaty lined up that drives a cart and horses through the constitutions of the US and Mexico, and the GOP-backed Tea Party 'tards will scream for the treaty to be signed.

Not gonna happen for the same reason its unlikely in Canada; the general population is rabidly paranoid about US encroachment on their sovereignty. I also don't think anyone in the US government wants to be responsible for enforcing the law in Mexico.

There have been some high level cross border engagements with Cartels, but they rarely make headlines, only when things get REALLY entertaining does the media give it some serious air time. I do remember one from last year where some narcos with AR's had a running gun battle with border agents. One of the Narcos was suspected to be a Mexican soldier or LEO (I'm just going by memory here).

Also, search for "border agent machete attack" and have a look at the pictures.


The reason it is being hushed is because then more people will not support a North American union. Yes, people actually want that union.
There may be some Americans who want that Union, but North or South of the border it's a political suicide pill.

Phrost
2nd April 10, 05:14 PM
Holy smokes.

Surely that represents a military, rather than a law-enforcement threat?

Doesn't your military have hundreds of thousands of loyal Spanish-speakers who'd be quite capable of conducting any necessary undercover work ?



Posse Comitatus.

Phrost
2nd April 10, 05:15 PM
I do not want a North American Union.

However, I'd like a "Union of Genuinely Democratic States", all of which tell the UN to go fuck itself.

elipson
2nd April 10, 05:28 PM
Don't most countries do that already?

elipson
2nd April 10, 05:39 PM
The LA times has some of the best English language coverage of the drug war, but they sensationalize it a lot in order to sell more.

This is an interesting story today
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-mexico-gunbattles2-2010apr02,0,1269440.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews+%28L.A.+Times+-+Top+News%29

It's becoming obvious that the Mexican government is beginning to face an insurgency and not just a criminal threat.

Despite all this, my friends in Mexico all say that the media is making things worse than they actually are. National homicide figures are lower now than 10 years ago in Mexico, except that now they are much more interesting because they are part of a larger narrative of the drug war, and they are usually very brutal.

Cullion
2nd April 10, 07:14 PM
Not gonna happen for the same reason its unlikely in Canada; the general population is rabidly paranoid about US encroachment on their sovereignty. I also don't think anyone in the US government wants to be responsible for enforcing the law in Mexico.

There have been some high level cross border engagements with Cartels, but they rarely make headlines, only when things get REALLY entertaining does the media give it some serious air time. I do remember one from last year where some narcos with AR's had a running gun battle with border agents. One of the Narcos was suspected to be a Mexican soldier or LEO (I'm just going by memory here).

Also, search for "border agent machete attack" and have a look at the pictures.


There may be some Americans who want that Union, but North or South of the border it's a political suicide pill.

'General population' doesn't get a meaningful vote in these issues. You'll see.

Cullion
2nd April 10, 07:15 PM
Posse Comitatus.

Not applicable when there's a clear and present military threat of invasion via a land border. You might as well invoke 'posse commitatus' over Pearl Harbour. Except this time it's an infantry invasion over a land border. They're bringing lethal force to play against your border guard. What kind of faggot are you exactly?

Oh yeah, I remember, you're a suburban gun collector who watches lots of TV and thinks the Taleban are his biggest security problem. Keep on dreamin' on.

It's time to wake up.

elipson
2nd April 10, 07:28 PM
So now you're an expert on Canadian and Mexican politics as well?

I guess I shouldn't be suprised though. You do know EVERYTHING about everything.

Cullion
2nd April 10, 07:34 PM
I'm still waiting for the refutation.

I won't hold my breath. You usually end up agreeing with me once you've had enough time to think about it anyway.

elipson
2nd April 10, 10:10 PM
What's there to refute?
You're making a left field statement about the politics in a country you know nothing about in a situation that is unlikely to occur anytime soon.

I say the population wouldn't stand for a government trying to form a North American Union with the United States, you say the will of the population has no impact on that kind of decision. The only way either of us will be proven right is if some Canadian politician takes the suicide pill and runs on a platform of Integration with the US, or alternatively pulls a sneaky pete and pushes this through without mentioning it during the election, in which case we will see how the populace reacts in the following election.

But what would I know about Canadian politics? I mean, its not like i've written several papers about the outcome of a North American Union, and it's not like I've had to listen to nutty conspiracy theorist Canadians who interpret every piece of cross border cooperation as the beginning of a US takeover of Canada.

You are doing what you always do. Making grandiose statements about shit that is practically impossible to prove and continue arguing it rhetorically until people get tired and leave the argument, giving you the mistaken impression that they agree with you.

I absolutely believe that in the distant future there will be a single world government (if we haven't killed ourselves by then) but I think it's a LONG ways off. However, there is no way in Hell Canada would enter into a junior partnership with the US when it's clear we would lose FAR more than we would gain. The values of our societies are sufficiently different enough to make the idea "unpalatable", to say the least, to just about any Canadian. This fact is so obvious that it's clear to any Canadian who has ever given the idea any thought whatsoever.

But I guess none of this matters because the New World Order of bankers and Jews are orchestrating all this on purpose just to throw us off. Tell us again Cullion how the world is controlled by this evil entity.

Robot Jesus
2nd April 10, 10:59 PM
'General population' doesn't get a meaningful vote in these issues. You'll see.


the only people who would want a union are the united states citizens. in this merger Canada and Mexico would loose comparative advantage. Canada is a resource rich country that exports their goods to America, which is then shipped to Mexico to be manufactured my Mexico's cheap labor.


Canada and Mexico have nothing to gain from this, from the elites to the poor we would all suffer.

in all likelihood an invasion is more likely to be successful.

Cullion
3rd April 10, 03:10 AM
I say the population wouldn't stand for a government trying to form a North American Union with the United States, you say the will of the population has no impact on that kind of decision. The only way either of us will be proven right is if some Canadian politician takes the suicide pill and runs on a platform of Integration with the US, or alternatively pulls a sneaky pete and pushes this through without mentioning it during the election, in which case we will see how the populace reacts in the following election.

The populace would do almost nothing.



But what would I know about Canadian politics? I mean, its not like i've written several papers about the outcome of a North American Union, and it's not like I've had to listen to nutty conspiracy theorist Canadians who interpret every piece of cross border cooperation as the beginning of a US takeover of Canada.

I don't care about your papers. You're just not that bright, and they wouldn't be any good. All you do is regurgitate information without original thought. You want mindless ad-hominem, you can have it.



You are doing what you always do. Making grandiose statements about shit that is practically impossible to prove and continue arguing it rhetorically until people get tired and leave the argument, giving you the mistaken impression that they agree with you.

Um.. this assertion is quite testable. I don't think you actually read or understood much of what I said. But I'm all for trading insults. Let me read back over your 'erudite' comments on climate science for entertainment before getting back to you.



I absolutely believe that in the distant future there will be a single world government (if we haven't killed ourselves by then) but I think it's a LONG ways off. However, there is no way in Hell Canada would enter into a junior partnership with the US when it's clear we would lose FAR more than we would gain. The values of our societies are sufficiently different enough to make the idea "unpalatable", to say the least, to just about any Canadian. This fact is so obvious that it's clear to any Canadian who has ever given the idea any thought whatsoever.

Everything you've just said applies to most countries in the EU.



But I guess none of this matters because the New World Order of bankers and Jews are orchestrating all this on purpose just to throw us off. Tell us again Cullion how the world is controlled by this evil entity.

Jews? Grow up.

elipson
3rd April 10, 12:41 PM
The populace would do almost nothing.
Again, making statements that are likely unprovable. This doesn't win arguments.


Um.. this assertion is quite testable.
It's only testable if some politician actually tries it. You really think that's going to happen anytime soon?


I don't think you actually read or understood much of what I said. But I'm all for trading insults. Let me read back over your 'erudite' comments on climate science for entertainment before getting back to you. You're changing the subject.



Everything you've just said applies to most countries in the EU.
I wasn't aware the EU entered into a junior partnership with the US.

And I would love to know the similarities of how more than a dozen countries with no single hegemon imposing its will on them in a political union is the same as the relatively tiny Canada and Mexico forming a Union with one of the two remaining super powers in the world. Single countries within the EU couldn't impose their will on shit. It's more like a collection of old ladies arguing about what way to run the neighbourhood, and then settling on a hodgepodge comprosime of ideas that no one really wants. Compare this to a Union with the US, where the US will likely just juxtapose its political and economic will over anyone that joins into it (no disrespect to the Americans here, we just like to make our own decisions, naturally). The fact that you are comparing the EU with a North American Union is fucking hilarious and proves you are just trying to rehash your old arguments into situations which you don't know anything about. Like usual.


I love this place. Anytime I feel fighty I can come stir up Cullion and be entertained for hours.

Cullion
3rd April 10, 02:56 PM
Again, making statements that are likely unprovable. This doesn't win arguments.

It's not at all unprovable.



It's only testable if some politician actually tries it. You really think that's going to happen anytime soon?

Yes. In steps. You're not going to wake up and suddenly find you live in a new country. There will be gradual integration, and at every step people who say 'hey this is obviously a federalisation project to create a new supra-nation' will be told they are paranoid or xenophobic. Then their predictions will come true 5-10 years later at each step. You'll get used to thinking of various Canadian politicians who signed treaties obviously against your own country's long-term interest as liars and traitors before you organise much to do anything about it. Oh yes, it will come to pass.



I wasn't aware the EU entered into a junior partnership with the US.

It didn't, I was pointing out that the US, Mexico and Canada are likely to undergo the same gradual integration process that occurred in the EU.



And I would love to know the similarities of how more than a dozen countries with no single hegemon imposing its will on them in a political union is the same as the relatively tiny Canada and Mexico forming a Union with one of the two remaining super powers in the world. Single countries within the EU couldn't impose their will on shit.
It's more like a collection of old ladies arguing about what way to run the neighbourhood, and then settling on a hodgepodge comprosime of ideas that no one really wants.

The EU is an ill-conceived attempt to create a sovereign country of itself. It will be attempted in North America too. I don't think you understand much about the EU, but that's to be expected.



The fact that you are comparing the EU with a North American Union is fucking hilarious and proves you are just trying to rehash your old arguments into situations which you don't know anything about. Like usual.

You've still brought nothing to the discussion other than ad-hominem. My knowledge of North American politics is certainly greater than your knowledge of European politics. Unquestionably.

Although I can understand why you're tempted to rebel against my judgement, like a teenager against their father. I'm an alpha male, and you're a frustrated loser, so it's natural. Fortunately, I am patient, wise and all-forgiving. Look, if you need something explaining to you, why not just ask politely?

mrblackmagic
3rd April 10, 03:12 PM
Holy smokes.

Surely that represents a military, rather than a law-enforcement threat?

Doesn't your military have hundreds of thousands of loyal Spanish-speakers who'd be quite capable of conducting any necessary undercover work ?

You should make a nasty example of these people. Arnold Schwarzenegger-style.

Why didn't we think of that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas)

elipson
3rd April 10, 03:30 PM
Although I can understand why you're tempted to rebel against my judgement, like a teenager against their father. I'm an alpha male, and you're a frustrated loser, so it's natural. Fortunately, I am patient, wise and all-forgiving. Look, if you need something explaining to you, why not just ask politely?

Bahahahahahaha!!!

You know Cullion, sometimes your pompous self-righteousness is genuinely entertaining. You don't know anything of Canadian politics, but as usual this doesn't stop you from trying to convince everyone that you do.

Cullion
3rd April 10, 03:33 PM
I'll explain anything to you that you want. But you have to ask nicely.

elipson
3rd April 10, 04:09 PM
Give me a quick rundown on the state of federal politics in canada, in regards to the minority government, the effectiveness of the opposition groups, the tenuous hold on power the PM has at the moment, and the effect the Olympics had on parliament hill.

I'll publicly and genuinely compliment you if you can give an answer that is plausible and shows good understanding.

elipson
3rd April 10, 04:09 PM
Man did we ever de-rail this thread.

Cullion
3rd April 10, 04:39 PM
Give me a quick rundown on the state of federal politics in canada, in regards to the minority government

Harper's Conservatives were the largest block with 36% of the vote in 2006. They don't play so well in urban areas, but they're ahead of the Liberals in Quebec (although far behind the Bloc Quebecois). Harper called an election in 2008 to try and strengthen his hand because he was having to rely on making deals with opposition to get legislation passed. He managed to slightly increase the size of his minority government.



the effectiveness of the opposition groups

I think it's dependent on whether the NDP and the Liberals can form a coherent alliance. The Liberals have been gaining ground recently according to IPSOS polls, but there's a way to go before the next federal election.



the tenuous hold on power the PM has at the moment

He's not actually in as much trouble as some people would like. His demise keeps being predicted, and he hasn't achieved a majority, but he's survived a lot longer than anybody expected.


and the effect the Olympics had on parliament hill.

They discussed changing the wording of your national anthem to make it more 'gender neutral'. Faggots.



I'll publicly and genuinely compliment you if you can give an answer that is plausible and shows good understanding.

No you, probably won't, but the people who matter will know and appreciate my glory.

elipson
3rd April 10, 07:45 PM
No you, probably won't, but the people who matter will know and appreciate my glory.
lol.

You just can't accept a compliment can you?

His tenuous hold on power is connected with his pro-rogueing of parliament during the Olympics, putting him behind the liberals in the polls. The only thing stopping his government from falling is that the opposition doesn't want an election at the moment. It's so bad the Liberals have resorted to making sure enough people stay home during parliamentary votes so that they can vote against Conservative legislation, but not by enough votes to trigger an election. It's hilariously stupid and depressing watching the Liberals be such pussies.

I commend you on your brief summary (:aetsch: ), although I'm not entirely convinced you didn't wikipedia your answers.

Cullion
4th April 10, 07:03 AM
God forbid that I cheated by reading. What do you take me for?

Look, there are powerful people who want an NAU very much like the EU. (No, it's not a jewish conspiracy). I've seen how a people's democratic will can be subverted
and thwarted in the construction of the EU. I'm warning you, it's going to be tried over the pond too. You'll be shocked by the degree to which 'anti-NAU' politicians outright lie and end up being 'forced' to sign things (about a decade before being awarded a generously-paid position in the NAU bureacracy which they don't have to face an open vote for).

elipson
4th April 10, 01:55 PM
I will gennuinely agree with you that there are those who are looking for an NAU. In my opinion, it's most likely highly placed Americans who will benefit from it. It takes very little research at all to understand how much Canada or Mexico would lose in such an arrangement, and it's a LOT.

But I don't think you appreciate the level of resentment at the idea amongst the general populace. There isn't a single Canadian or Mexican who doesn't know damn well what Manifest Destiny means. We start teaching our kids in elementary school what it means and that we shouldn't trust America in regards to our sovereignty (Americans themselves are fine of course).

As long as America is obviously going to be the controlling partner in such an arrangement, its not going to happen. I do believe that historically speaking we are moving towards a one government world (probably centuries away).

Cullion
4th April 10, 04:02 PM
I will gennuinely agree with you that there are those who are looking for an NAU. In my opinion, it's most likely highly placed Americans who will benefit from it. It takes very little research at all to understand how much Canada or Mexico would lose in such an arrangement, and it's a LOT.

But I don't think you appreciate the level of resentment at the idea amongst the general populace. There isn't a single Canadian or Mexican who doesn't know damn well what Manifest Destiny means. We start teaching our kids in elementary school what it means and that we shouldn't trust America in regards to our sovereignty (Americans themselves are fine of course).

As long as America is obviously going to be the controlling partner in such an arrangement, its not going to happen. I do believe that historically speaking we are moving towards a one government world (probably centuries away).

I don't think you appreciate a few things about my experience as a European, and our history with this. It's much more analogous than you realise. You will feel this conspiratorial, but I believe that those highly placed Americans are quite capable of co-opting your political elite to work against the interests of the 'ordinary' Canadian, often whilst vehemently denying that they're doing any such thing.

It's happened in Europe many times. Look at the history of the ratification of the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty as just one, contained, example.

elipson
6th April 10, 01:03 PM
Didnt one such constitution get shot down by a referendum within the past few years?

Cullion
6th April 10, 01:27 PM
No. They changed the name of the document from 'constitution' to 'treaty', whilst leaving the contents substantively the same.

Ireland's constitution required a refendum on such treaties, so they were made to vote again. The voting stops once the EU get a 'yes', you see.

The other Western countries' political elites simply didn't offer their populations second votes and signed the treaty.

In our case, Our current prime minister (Brown), after promising us a referendum on the constitution (under media pressure), decided that the treaty was too complex an issue to put to a public vote and just signed it. He actually used the phrase 'too complex an issue'.

The Czech president held out for a long time after receiving a large petition and thousands of letters from his public about it, but he was forced to sign it by his parliament in the end.