http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/02/us-usa-campaign-mexico-idUSTRE7910BL20111002 Well they're right next door so as the mission creeps to occupying Mexico's northern states at least it'll be convenient. No having to ship troops and equipment half way across the world.
The long range plan of NAFTA was that Canada, the United States, and the United States of Mexico were suppose to merge into one economic entity and in time political as well. The shipping of American factories to south of the border was not to escape environmental laws but to build a stronger Mexican Middle Class. The idealist who envision this saw a world of more middle class, less poor and less violence. What we have in Mexico is madness. Something needs to be done not only for it is the right thing to do but also it weakens our present and shows a bleak future with drug gangs taking strongholds in our cities as I type this. Going in and killing people is not the answer. The problem is in the demand and a very careful examination needs to be done.
I have a couple of observations/opinions to make regarding the idea of sending our troops into Mexico to combat the cartels. First, we do that already... and have done it repeatedly since Reagan made it an American mission to combat the drug trade. Second, we wouldn't be in this situation if Reagan hadn't stepped-up the fighting in the first place. Reagan was an rabid anti-drugs believer and thought he could just 'send in the troops' to take care of the issue. So our tropps were sent overtly and covertly into every Central American and South American nation that had any large drug-growing and processing areas. Our troops went in and began the fight, destroying fields and facilities, killing any who dared to fight back. Any intelligent person should have been able to realize the outcome would be more violence. The growers had a choice, abandon the lucritive drug-trade or fight back. They armed themselves further, began hiring more people to provide defense for their facilities and ramped-up the killing of anyone opposed to them. I mean, what did Reagan expect?
Yeah, take the 'War On Drugs' into Mexico...that's a great idea. Is the War On Terror not enough? Let's work on the our side of the border first. Or maybe secure the border even before that.
Reagan actually did a great job. I do not know if you remember what was happening in the streets of major urban centers unitl the Feds with Regan's approval took the lead. The problem was that the CIA was making money off the drugs as well and Bush being Vice-President actually undermined Regan or his efforts might have been even more successful. The problem only grew with Vice-Presiident Bush becoming President for Arab oil money and drugs was a source of money and power alliances for that guy and then Clinton who felt whats the problem with drugs, getting high is cool and there would be a world depression if we took it out. A real general answer.
I agree. The demand for drugs in this nation is what causing the problem to be as large as it is. We have to take care of the demand and actually, Syria and arab terrorist make a ton of money off of drugs. It is more of a problem of terrorist durgs coming into the ports of new jersey then bombs. Got to face the demand issue and take care of it.
They had that war already. It was called the Great War and the slogan was the war to end all wars. It later became known as world war one. Guess you can figure out why.
Any idea on how? I shouldn't really ask that though, because no matter what is done to 'take care' of the demand issue in America, it isn't going to work. Even if the police killed every user they came across, they'd only be amping-up the fight. Users would feel the need to arm themselves even more, and take out the police before they could kill 'em. (see Reagan drug-war) There is no way demand is going to lower to levels that are manageable, or satisfactory to the anti-drugies. It's never going to happen.
Restricting use is the only way anti-druggies are going to have any type of true success. That could only occur when a quasi-legalization is involved though, something most are dead-set against. Demand will never cease, invoking specific penalties for usage while under a federally-managed health system would lower it though. Provided the users are willing to give a *poof!* about the penalties of course... some will, some won't.
I just noticed the Black Jack reference to Pershing. Takiji, most Americans do not even know of that man. Who went into Mexico and later led the troops in Europe during the Great War. I am impressed since I am with the understanding that you were born and raised in Japan.( Near the harbor where they kill the dophins I think). Anyway, Pershing was great in the Great War for he refused to let the American Troops fall under British or French command. Was a big thing then.
I am anti-drug, life can be so beautiful without it, but I really think they are gong to have to make some drugs legal with the over 21 thing and others the death sentence for dealing, money laundering, and bankrolling. As for addicts or users, no jail time only rehab. If they were caught doing a crime under the influence of the drug then a rehab detox center that is different from the other rehabs but theirs will be extended time for the crime where they will have to do some community work like planting trees or earning money to pay back into a victim fund ten fold. Just a few ideas.
I'd agree, treatment is the future... and the only real, viable way to reduce demand. The demand though, will never disappear entirely. It's in an animal's nature to 'test' things, to see what will happen when they disturb something, or touch it, or taste it, etc. In this case drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, etc. have been tested and the results are known to be intoxicating... giving the user pleasure, but at a cost. When these drugs are made illegal, some users search for other substances that might give them pleasure... but some of those are far more deadly. Name a substance and it's almost certain it's been injested, inhaled, or whatever to see if it can get you high. Take something like marijuana away for example, and some idiot might start smoking pencil shavings or lawn grass, or something else toxic. Huffers inhale paint (and other chemicals) fumes, sometimes not realizing the damage it does to your lungs and mind, or that it can kill instantly on the first use. I guess my point is that I'd rather see safer drugs being used legally than to see everyone shooting each other over it... while other people choke on paint.
Thanks for the compliment but I'm not so impressive. Born and raised right here in America. My partner was born and raised in Japan though and we have family there. I didn't know about Pershing's role in The Great War. I just remember that he led an American force into Mexico in an attempt to capture Pancho Villa. Now I know more because I just Wikied him.
It is very hard for me to be pro-drug legalization because I am very anti-drug use. But I think it is hard to say that the 'War On Drugs' has been any kind of success or good for the country overall.
