• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Hit teams' attack US consular staff, families in Mexico: US

Times are bad in Mexico, but the latest attacks are acts of war. I am not against bombing runs on the homes of cartel members for starters. The way I see it, if the Mexican government can't do the job it needs to do, then we should do it for them.

Article is here.

Why would we bomb Mexico because of the cartels? The Mexican government does take it seriously, as they have military personnel all along the border. The cartels are powerful though, they can't be shut down in the snap of a finger.

I'm assuming American and Mexican intelligence agencies are working together on this, and that is probably the best way to get to the root of this.

I wouldn't call it an act of war because the Mexican government is not behind it.
 
That's a very "we can't" attitude.

We have been at this for 40 years.. what have we to show for it?

You have your approach, which is to mollify them by legalizing their trade and I have mine which is to destroy every nest of them we find and make their trade unprofitable.

You fail to realize "my" approach is to guarantee their trade is unprofitable, it is not an approach to "mollify" it is an approach to starve them, and any further generations of cockroaches out of existence by eliminating the black market.

I am not saying to bomb and stop. I am saying that we should respond with equal savagery and make joining a cartel synonymous with having a permanent bullseye on your back and the backs of everyone who has contact with you. Continual and relentless attacks on every known center of their activity.

this is already the case, they fight and claw their way to the top fully aware that there is a HUGE bullseye on their back, and that they are almost guaranteed to get killed - not just by a bullseye we place on them, but an even more real threat of getting offed by their rivals, or even by those that are closest to them. A fresh coat of paint on the bullseye changes nothing.

And no, we would not be attacking "countries". However, we could be working with them to attack specific targets.

Because countries that are already pissed at us for aerial herbicide campaigns and ground eradication are just going to let us waltz in and further decimate their Nation by dropping napalm wantonly.. sure makes sense :doh

Mexico, though, is obviously incapable or unwilling to deal with their problem and as they are directly on our border, I don't think we should brook any disagreement from them when we go after northern border operations. Period.

Actually Mexico is willing to deal with their problem, and are doing their damndest to do so with the resources they have and billions of US aide.. unfortunately the opposition receives significantly MORE in US aide.
 
Last edited:
Because countries that are already pissed at us for aerial pesticide campaigns and ground eradication are just going to let us waltz in and further decimate their Nation by dropping napalm wantonly.. sure makes sense :doh


Hyperbole much? No, it would not "decimate their Nations". Targeted attacks against opiate growing plantations...simple as that.

Actually Mexico is willing to deal with their problem, and are doing their damndest to do so with the resources they have and billions of US aide.. unfortunately the opposition receives significantly MORE in US aide.

Source and quote or it didn't happen.
 
It went from
jallman said:
We have to be able to find the plantations where they grow the plants to make the cocaine and heroine. Why aren't we napalming the hell out of those sites?

to
Targeted attacks against opiate growing plantations...simple as that.

move goalposts much??

Coca eradication in the Andes has been a dismal failure, the crops are nestled in valleys and mountain slopes that aerial campaigns cannot reach, there has been staunch opposition, and huge swaths of jungle -IE their national land, or Nation (pardon the poor word choice of Nation.. but their land is their nation)- have been poisoned. You really think these countries are happy with the US coming and spraying pesticides all over the place and devastating their land??

Look into Evo Morales and how he came into power, and get an idea of how popular this eradication is - if it is done by "choice" in these countries - it is done by heavy handed choice. Ask yourself.. would you be complacent, or do you think we as a nation would be happy if a third party came and started spraying our forests down with pesticides?? why would this be different in another country?

And you want to drop Napalm, and act incredulous when I suggest a country would take offense to that idea. wow.. really wow.



Source and quote or it didn't happen.

I am not playing your source it game when I cannot even tell what it is you want sourced, or why what is general knowledge even needs to get sourced. What I am supposed to give you info that the US is sending billions of aide and resources to Mexico to fight the drug war? or am I supposed to source the fact that Mexico is fighting the cartels in their country? Or am I supposed to be sourcing that billions upon billions of US dollars are going to drug cartels?
 
Last edited:
It went from

to


move goalposts much??

Uh, to most native english speakers...they say the exact same thing. Plantations growing the plants that are turned into the drugs.

I don't know what goal posts you think were moved and to where but I am seriously starting to doubt the sincerity of your arguments now.
 
I am not playing your source it game when I cannot even tell what it is you want sourced, or why what is general knowledge even needs to get sourced.

No of course you wouldn't give sources. That's rather hard to do when you are making **** up and spewing conspiracy theories. :shrug:
 
Uh, to most native english speakers...they say the exact same thing. Plantations growing the plants that are turned into the drugs.

I don't know what goal posts you think were moved and to where but I am seriously starting to doubt the sincerity of your arguments now.

You went from coca and opium, to just opium. that is narrowing the goalposts a tad IMO.

Likely an omission on your part, just as I used poor word choice with "Nation" and also as what I think caused your "source it" statement I did not put quotes around "aide".

So I suppose we are both guilty of omissions and/or posting errors that changed the perspective of what we said :shrug:

I don't know what to tell you if you doubt the sincerity of my arguments, you don't have to, although they are quite sincere.
 
Last edited:
No of course you wouldn't give sources. That's rather hard to do when you are making **** up and spewing conspiracy theories. :shrug:

dude I do not know what you want sourced.
 
You went from coca and opium, to just opium. that is narrowing the goalposts a tad IMO.

Likely an omission on your part, just as I used poor word choice with "Nation" and also as what I think caused your "source it" statement I did not put quotes around "aide".

So I suppose we are both guilty of omissions and/or posting errors that changed the perspective of what we said :shrug:

I don't know what to tell you if you doubt the sincerity of my arguments, you don't have to, although they are quite sincere.

You are correct...it was an ommission of naming the pair when I mean both coca and opium.

Let's start there again. I don't see how targeting the entire operation, not just the fields, can be a bad thing. I don't mean pesticide the plants...I mean scorch the entire plantation...fields, buildings, manpower. Everything. And hit several at once.

These are crime organizations, not militaries. We have the advantage of discipline, manpower, and technology. Why we aren't making concerted, simultaneous attacks on their activity centers is beyond my comprehension.

Of course, do this in addition to policy changes like you mention, which I already stated.
 
You are correct...it was an ommission of naming the pair when I mean both coca and opium.

Let's start there again. I don't see how targeting the entire operation, not just the fields, can be a bad thing. I don't mean pesticide the plants...I mean scorch the entire plantation...fields, buildings, manpower. Everything. And hit several at once.

These are crime organizations, not militaries. We have the advantage of discipline, manpower, and technology. Why we aren't making concerted, simultaneous attacks on their activity centers is beyond my comprehension.

Of course, do this in addition to policy changes like you mention, which I already stated.

I would assume we do not have the intelligence, nor the ability to keep tabs on what and where everyone and everything is at once.

Starting in the jungles and looking at just coca.. we will leave heroin production out of this.. there are going to be thousands of super remote locations buried deep inside the jungles, well hidden, and spread out across numerous countries, countries with different tolerance levels to our presence (Bolivia is extremely cold to our Coca eradication ideas).

Deep in the mountain jungles in remote valleys and steep hillsides there are coca farms, there are also coca processing plants in the same geographical proximity that are very mobile, and very easy to pick up, move or reestablish. All you need is a pit in the ground lined with plastic to spread the leaves across, and a few chemicals to process it.

The logistics of pulling this off are mind boggling, we have been there trying to do exactly what you claim, we have been engaged in a long term eradication campaign in S. America to no avail, it is a logistical nightmare, and the production facilities are super mobile, and the crop is extremely widespread and culturally ingrained (thousands of years ingrained).

Even if we had permission to enter these countries and decimate their fields.. and yes their economy (like it or not it is their economy), the cost in manpower resources and money would be huge to accomplish this, and even IF we got all of it, it would be back again the following year awaiting our dedication to rinse and repeat. We have been attempting to do this for a long time, to no avail.

It has been estimated that there are 100,00 members/soldiers in the carious Mexican Cartels , so umm you were saying about manpower? Sure we have technology, but in a guerrilla war? conventional armies and our technology are ineffective in a war with this army, we cannot hope to identify all the players, and it is in their interest to remain hidden. They are in the cities of Mexico.. we may get away with drone rocket strikes in the rural areas of Pakistan, but you really think this will go over well in the middle of downtown mexico city or Nuevo Laredo? You want concerted strikes on their activity centers, their activity centers are on the streets of Mexico.. I highly doubt Mexico will sit by and allow us to come in and risk that kind of Collateral damage.

I could continue.. but to do what you propose and even dream of having an effect it would take an IMMENSE amount of dedication and resources, we would have to invade, occupy, and engage in guerrilla war in numerous countries on the scale of our current presence in Afghanistan.

Never mind that the next year there will be a new crop and (provided we killed off every aspiring Mexican foot soldier, MS13 in Guatemala, cartels in Columbia, ect, ect.) there will be some group that will step up somewhere to fill the void.. there is too much money to be had, and too much poverty in the world for people to not risk getting killed for such lucrative rewards.

Quite frankly.. the cost of eradicating the problem is too high, we as a nation will never ever want to pony up and pay the full cost (it is bad enough that ~1 trillion dollars has been dedicated to this war already) in manpower, resources, money, and self policing of our country to eradicate the problem,

We don't need to, there is a much simpler, much cheaper way to go about it, a way that does not relinquish control to nefarious elements and the black market which is fueling the Mexican violence, but we do not have the stomach for that either and many see it as giving up, or as caving in to a drugged fueled nation, when in reality it is just picking our battle wisely, and starving out and eradicating the criminal problem so that we can then focus on dealing with the drug problem.

edit to add link to cartel number estimates:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/100000-foot-soldiers-in-cartels/
 
Last edited:
HjnRe: 'Hit teams' attack US consular staff, families in Mexico:b US

Times are bad in Mexico, but the latest attacks are acts of war. I am not against bombing runs on the homes of cartel members for starters. The way I see it, if the Mexican government can't do the job it needs to do, then we should do it for them.

Article is here.

My mother's brother lives in El Paso and he's having an effing party in Juarez tomorrow. My mother and father just informed me about this and they are attending. She said that she was aware of the increased violence. WTF are they thinking?? I feel sick.
 
I would assume we do not have the intelligence, nor the ability to keep tabs on what and where everyone and everything is at once.

Starting in the jungles and looking at just coca.. we will leave heroin production out of this.. there are going to be thousands of super remote locations buried deep inside the jungles, well hidden, and spread out across numerous countries, countries with different tolerance levels to our presence (Bolivia is extremely cold to our Coca eradication ideas).

Deep in the mountain jungles in remote valleys and steep hillsides there are coca farms, there are also coca processing plants in the same geographical proximity that are very mobile, and very easy to pick up, move or reestablish. All you need is a pit in the ground lined with plastic to spread the leaves across, and a few chemicals to process it.

The logistics of pulling this off are mind boggling, we have been there trying to do exactly what you claim, we have been engaged in a long term eradication campaign in S. America to no avail, it is a logistical nightmare, and the production facilities are super mobile, and the crop is extremely widespread and culturally ingrained (thousands of years ingrained).

Even if we had permission to enter these countries and decimate their fields.. and yes their economy (like it or not it is their economy), the cost in manpower resources and money would be huge to accomplish this, and even IF we got all of it, it would be back again the following year awaiting our dedication to rinse and repeat. We have been attempting to do this for a long time, to no avail.

It has been estimated that there are 100,00 members/soldiers in the carious Mexican Cartels , so umm you were saying about manpower? Sure we have technology, but in a guerrilla war? conventional armies and our technology are ineffective in a war with this army, we cannot hope to identify all the players, and it is in their interest to remain hidden. They are in the cities of Mexico.. we may get away with drone rocket strikes in the rural areas of Pakistan, but you really think this will go over well in the middle of downtown mexico city or Nuevo Laredo? You want concerted strikes on their activity centers, their activity centers are on the streets of Mexico.. I highly doubt Mexico will sit by and allow us to come in and risk that kind of Collateral damage.

I could continue.. but to do what you propose and even dream of having an effect it would take an IMMENSE amount of dedication and resources, we would have to invade, occupy, and engage in guerrilla war in numerous countries on the scale of our current presence in Afghanistan.

Never mind that the next year there will be a new crop and (provided we killed off every aspiring Mexican foot soldier, MS13 in Guatemala, cartels in Columbia, ect, ect.) there will be some group that will step up somewhere to fill the void.. there is too much money to be had, and too much poverty in the world for people to not risk getting killed for such lucrative rewards.

Quite frankly.. the cost of eradicating the problem is too high, we as a nation will never ever want to pony up and pay the full cost (it is bad enough that ~1 trillion dollars has been dedicated to this war already) in manpower, resources, money, and self policing of our country to eradicate the problem,

We don't need to, there is a much simpler, much cheaper way to go about it, a way that does not relinquish control to nefarious elements and the black market which is fueling the Mexican violence, but we do not have the stomach for that either and many see it as giving up, or as caving in to a drugged fueled nation, when in reality it is just picking our battle wisely, and starving out and eradicating the criminal problem so that we can then focus on dealing with the drug problem.

edit to add link to cartel number estimates:

EXCLUSIVE: 100,000 foot soldiers in Mexican cartels - Washington Times

That's all a nice little mealy mouthed way of saying we should just legalize drugs because "we can't" fight the cartels and that is something neither I nor most Americans will accept. If it takes a presence equal to that of Afghanistan, then it should be our next priority if the killings continue.

I think you have idea that the cartels have some disciplined army at their disposal...that they have some will to fight a protracted war with us if it actually comes to open warfare.

One thing we have never done is demoralize them, terrorize them, and exterminate them. I don't care if we do it with bombs, I don't care if we do it with swat teams, I don't care if we do it with little assasinations here and there. All that I care is that we do it. There are so many options at our disposal that I cannot fathom rolling over on our backs and allowing their trade to continue unimpeded by simply legalizing their trade.

If we do legalize their trade, what do you think their response is going to be? Do you think they are gonna just let little shops open and cut into their profit? Do you think they won't attempt to intimidate and extort and control the growing industry that results? I mean, you seem to think there's this vast network of 100k soldiers working for them, all sitting in little holes just ready to pounce...what makes you think they wont be used to strong arm businesses?

No, we attack ruthlessly and at every opportunity. Make it a mark of misfortune for anyone to be tied to them. You can cry legalize it all you want but in the end these thugs understand violence and that's how they should be responded to.
 
You are under the impression that legalizing it would allow their trade to continue.. the reason to legalize it is to eliminate their trade.

The only people whose trade would continue would be a few farmers that will be growing the coca/opium to feed their family regardless. There already is a legitimized LEGAL opium production setup in place, it is a legitimate source of income for many, and a legitimate source for prescription drugs across the world, there is no need for criminals or cartels in the production chain..

You are stuck thinking that somehow criminals would still be in charge.. no the point of legalizing drugs is to get them out of the loop, to put them out of business, their presence is intolerable and unacceptable, our motives are the same our approaches different.

A comparison: Are mafias and gangs still in charge of Alcohol production, importation, distribution?? How long did they stay in business after prohibition was repealed? this is the exact same thing.. legalize and only let legitimate businesses participate. No more money for cartels, no more money for gangs, no more criminals selling to kids in our schools, no more kids in our schools being enticed into gangs by the allure of drug money.. I could go on, but it would start getting beyond the scope of this thread.

Drugs are bad, I want drug abuse to go away, we have a drug problem in this country, I want to treat it, we cannot treat it when we are also creating and fighting a massive unnecessary criminal problem alongside our drug problem.
 
Last edited:
Whenever black market supply goes down, street prices and trafficker profits go up. That reinforces all the conditions that lead to violence like this. Unless we can make the plant species totally extinct, attempts to remove the supply will continue to cause more problems than they solve. The best way to fight the WoD is to focus on lowering demand through education and deglamorization, but not incarceration because drug abuse is a medical problem, not criminal.
 
Except it doesn't really work like that in practice.

If you traffic cocaine (powder or crack) in relatively small amounts, there is a mandatory sentence of 5, 10, or 20 years in federal prison depending on amount. That's pretty ****ing harsh. Despite that, prosecutions for both powder and crack trafficking have risen steadily over the past 15 years.

We already have insanely high penalties for these things. They don't work.



I think you're mistaken about how cocaine sentencing actually works. The disparity that you initially referred to only deals with drug traffickers, not casual users. In fact, the reforms that you're theoretically backing would actually have the effect of reducing punishment on low level users like you're referring to.



Saying it doesn't make it so. I just don't get why you think this. We already have insanely harsh drug laws in this country. Why would making them harsher do anything positive?

Notice how I am trying to suggest focusing on the USERS of the drugs, not the traffickers. In fact I would suggest not busting the traffickers at all, and only bust the users. It would make it easier to find the users as well.

I also dont believe that low level users are being punished in the US. How much time did Yasmine Bleeth do for cocaine use? or most people who get caught with an 8 ball. (personal use).
 
How many decades have we been at war with various cartels already? Kill one leader, or take out one cartel, and 5 wanna be's go to war to replace the one that got killed. It is war with a hydra, cut off one head and you get multiple replacements - and survival of the fittest means they just get bigger and badder. So long as there are billions of dollars of black market proceeds to kill or be killed for, then the cartels and the violence will continue, regardless of how ferociously we play whack-a-mole.

You just told us how to defeat the cartels. The way Herculous killed Hydra was after cutting a head off he'd burn the neck so nothing would grow. What we need to do is kill the cartel members and their families so that people won't join any cartel unless they want for them and their family members to be killed:twisted:
 
Instead of invading Mexico, we should just end the Federal war on drug users.

This isn't going to keep the drug lords in check. We need to take extreme measures against these drug-dealing sons of bitches.

For each American that dies we need to kill 5 gang members and three members of the drug lord's family.
 
Re: HjnRe: 'Hit teams' attack US consular staff, families in Mexico:b US

My mother's brother lives in El Paso and he's having an effing party in Juarez tomorrow. My mother and father just informed me about this and they are attending. She said that she was aware of the increased violence. WTF are they thinking?? I feel sick.

You should try and stop them any way you can.

It is very dangerous there.
 
It has been suggested here to lighten penalties on casual drug users.

I say charge them with the murders of the drug cartels and build special jails for them.

They are why the cartels are willing to kill innocent people to keep their business going.

Do you people realize, for example, the head of the Sinaloa Cartel in Culiacan lives in a nice neighborhood next to many innocnet people that may or may not know what he does.

You are willing to bomb his house and kill everybody around him.

We are not talking about Afghanistan here where the people are living in a desert.

These are nice neighborhoods. Doctors, lawyers and professionals.

How many innocent people are you willing to kill to get to the head of the cartel which will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Here in Mexico there are so many small groups killing people now, just killing the head of the Sinaloa Cartel won't get anything done.

How do you identify them when they never show their faces, always under hoods??????? Who are they and where do they live? Nobody knows. Always using stolen vehicles so no trace to anybody.

Tell me how we find and kill them.

What is being done about gangs in your area. Same thing. Should you bomb their houses and kill everybody around them? I bet you wouldn't just in case there is a gang member living next to you that you don't know about, or somebody that is identified as a gang member whether they are or not. Same bomb, same death.
 
Ethereal said:
Instead of invading Mexico, we should just end the Federal war on drug users.
This isn't going to keep the drug lords in check
Why not? Ending alcohol prohibition did. Not having prohibition on other drugs continues to. (i.e. how many caffeine drug lords have you heard of?) What makes you think this would be any different?

It has been suggested here to lighten penalties on casual drug users.

I say charge them with the murders of the drug cartels and build special jails for them.
Well in that case, I say charge the prohibitionists with murder because they're the ones who implemented the draconian policies which led to the rise of these drug cartels. Not really, but just saying that cuts both ways.

Seriously though. If there's one lesson to be learned from the WoD failure, it's the fact that harsh penalties don't affect the rate of drug use, they only make the drug problem worse than it already is. That's because prohibition mischaracterizes drug use as a criminal problem instead of a medical problem. Like using a screwdriver to turn a bolt, prohibition is simply the wrong tool for the job.
 
It has been suggested here to lighten penalties on casual drug users.

I say charge them with the murders of the drug cartels and build special jails for them.

They are why the cartels are willing to kill innocent people to keep their business going.

Do you people realize, for example, the head of the Sinaloa Cartel in Culiacan lives in a nice neighborhood next to many innocnet people that may or may not know what he does.

You are willing to bomb his house and kill everybody around him.

We are not talking about Afghanistan here where the people are living in a desert.

These are nice neighborhoods. Doctors, lawyers and professionals.

How many innocent people are you willing to kill to get to the head of the cartel which will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Here in Mexico there are so many small groups killing people now, just killing the head of the Sinaloa Cartel won't get anything done.

How do you identify them when they never show their faces, always under hoods??????? Who are they and where do they live? Nobody knows. Always using stolen vehicles so no trace to anybody.

Tell me how we find and kill them.

What is being done about gangs in your area. Same thing. Should you bomb their houses and kill everybody around them? I bet you wouldn't just in case there is a gang member living next to you that you don't know about, or somebody that is identified as a gang member whether they are or not. Same bomb, same death.

Yo entiendo que va hacer muy dificil. Pero hay que usar intelligencia cuando pelias algo como los narcos. Por eso yo creo que debemos de preguntar para ayuda de los gringos. Que nos mande soldados de las esforcias especiales que tienen la experiencia para peliar los narcos.

Tambien es tiempo que Mexico usar el dinero que ganan de Pemex para comprar armas modernas. Y probalamente tambien necesitan comprar avionas que no tienen mas de 40 anos. Deben de comprar algunos avionos como los Migs o Su de rusia, los avionos son baratos y tambien buenos. Pero es una cosa terible que la militar de mexico no tiene nada bueno para sus soldados.
 
Last edited:
Yo entiendo que va hacer muy dificil. Pero hay que usar intelligencia cuando pelias algo como los narcos. Por eso yo creo que debemos de preguntar para ayuda de los gringos. Que nos mande soldados de los esforcias especiales que tienen la experiencia para peliar los narcos.
Uuh, burrito? :2razz:
 
Why not? Ending alcohol prohibition did. Not having prohibition on other drugs continues to. (i.e. how many caffeine drug lords have you heard of?) What makes you think this would be any different?


Well in that case, I say charge the prohibitionists with murder because they're the ones who implemented the draconian policies which led to the rise of these drug cartels. Not really, but just saying that cuts both ways.

Seriously though. If there's one lesson to be learned from the WoD failure, it's the fact that harsh penalties don't affect the rate of drug use, they only make the drug problem worse than it already is. That's because prohibition mischaracterizes drug use as a criminal problem instead of a medical problem. Like using a screwdriver to turn a bolt, prohibition is simply the wrong tool for the job.

Lets talk specifically about Marijuana prohibition.

One of the major differences between those who made liquor during prohibition (who were mostly family farmers who needed to make money during the depression) was they were not criminals (although criminals supplied the liquor once it was made into the cities).

One of the biggest reasons you can't just legalize pot, is because the suppliers and the growers are on the whole criminal operations. If yah legalized it, do those suppliers and growers suddenly become Legitimate?
 
Lets talk specifically about Marijuana prohibition.

One of the major differences between those who made liquor during prohibition (who were mostly family farmers who needed to make money during the depression) was they were not criminals (although criminals supplied the liquor once it was made into the cities).

One of the biggest reasons you can't just legalize pot, is because the suppliers and the growers are on the whole criminal operations. If yah legalized it, do those suppliers and growers suddenly become Legitimate?

But also what do you do when the criminals do not care for human life? Now that all of a sudden it is legal, will that make killers into non-killers? Those killers are a product of where they grew up, and many of them will not stop killing until they are killed or in prison.
 
Back
Top Bottom