Mass Deportation and Immigration Catch-All | CIA using drones to spy on Mexican drug cartels

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 32K
  • Politics 
Callatoroy said:
Mexico carrying out military operations in this country is a hypothetical that is a waste of time to consider. It won't ever happen as they can barely carry out a military operation in their own country. It doesn't matter how Mexico feels about it. They have sold their souls to the cartels. I believe you are correct in that we need to address the demand side at the same time as addressing the supply side and they can be done simultaneously. But you are woefully underestimating the effect killing cartel heads would have. Cartels aren't staffed by radicalized, brainwashed jihadists. They are staffed by rational thinking, often poor people who had no other economic options. They have a healthy fear of infinite military capability and power. We have the technology to minimize collateral damage so you are going to see how effective it can be.
Click to expand...
I see how that works. It's like if you go to a jungle river and kill one crocodile, all the others will just disappear.

It's absolutely stupid to try to stop the cartels outside the country. You can't do it and you'll only piss off everybody in the attempt.
 
These discussions...I always refer back to the good old days when the US decided spraying paraquat on Mexican marijuana fields would end the smuggling. Well it did. At the same time much more potent pot from Columbia and elswhere arrived with a big bump in sales and many of the pot cartels said fuck it, cocaine is much easier to bring in and we make way more money!

Prohibition, prostitution. Supply and demand. Blah, blah, blah.
 
finesse said:
I see how that works. It's like if you go to a jungle river and kill one crocodile, all the others will just disappear.

It's absolutely stupid to try to stop the cartels outside the country. You can't do it and you'll only piss off everybody in the attempt.
Click to expand...
"Outside the country"??? What does that mean?
 
grimes70 said:
These discussions...I always refer back to the good old days when the US decided spraying paraquat on Mexican marijuana fields would end the smuggling. Well it did. At the same time much more potent pot from Columbia and elswhere arrived with a big bump in sales and many of the pot cartels said fuck it, cocaine is much easier to bring in and we make way more money!

Prohibition, prostitution. Supply and demand. Blah, blah, blah.
Click to expand...
big difference between marijuana fields and fentanyl. Many people die from fentanyl without ever realizing they are ingesting it or without ever demanding it. It is no different than a terrorist attack.
 
How many cartel members would have to die in Mexico before the flow of fentanyl would be significantly stanched? How many dead Mexican citizens would be acceptable to Mexico with ZERO blowback to America? How much would Americans be willing to spend on this "drug war"? How many American soldiers could be lost before political blowback? What's the endgame of such a military strikes and how would you know if they were successful? What if they were not successful? Is there an option B or C? If 50% of the cartel "jungle" is obliterated does that legitimately stop the flow, limit it by some percentage? Or just allow for the movement of the drug making process to some other part of Mexico. How many US soldiers would need to stay in Mexico to make sure the "operation" was completed? For how long? At what risk to American soldiers and Mexican citizens and long term regional stability? Could folks not just hop down to Guatemala and continue the operation? How does the Mexican government feel about trade agreements with the US as long as US soldiers are occupying Mexican soil? So many questions. Callatoroy, do you have any answers to these questions?
 
Callatoroy said:
"Outside the country"??? What does that mean?
Click to expand...
Most fentanyl is brought in by Americans and not the cartels themselves. Prohibition of drugs, including alcohol, has always turned into a fiasco that led to a huge growth in the numbers and wealth of the illicit providers. The best way to deal with the drug problems are education and rehabilitation. That doesn't mean "Just say no." That's just saying that you're stupid. It means a clear look at the dangers and how and what to avoid.

As a means to pay for this and to mitigate the single thing that makes drugs the most dangerous, we need to legalize and tax them. The biggest killer is not knowing the dosage or the purity of the drugs you get on the street. Being available in known qualities and quantities would probably cut overdoses by 90% or more. And no one would be getting addicted because they got something they didn't want.
 
Callatoroy said:
big difference between marijuana fields and fentanyl. Many people die from fentanyl without ever realizing they are ingesting it or without ever demanding it. It is no different than a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point at all. Do you understand what the poster was saying? If you can't defeat marijuana smuggling by killing the plants, how can you possibly defeat fentanyl smuggling? Fentanyl is much easier to produce, can be done in small underground labs, and much easier to smuggle due to its insanely small volume.
 
BoonetheAiredale said:
How many cartel members would have to die in Mexico before the flow of fentanyl would be significantly stanched? How many dead Mexican citizens would be acceptable to Mexico with ZERO blowback to America? How much would Americans be willing to spend on this "drug war"? How many American soldiers could be lost before political blowback? What's the endgame of such a military strikes and how would you know if they were successful? What if they were not successful? Is there an option B or C? If 50% of the cartel "jungle" is obliterated does that legitimately stop the flow, limit it by some percentage? Or just allow for the movement of the drug making process to some other part of Mexico. How many US soldiers would need to stay in Mexico to make sure the "operation" was completed? For how long? At what risk to American soldiers and Mexican citizens and long term regional stability? Could folks not just hop down to Guatemala and continue the operation? How does the Mexican government feel about trade agreements with the US as long as US soldiers are occupying Mexican soil? So many questions. Callatoroy, do you have any answers to these questions?
Click to expand...
Why go after Al Qaida or isis? Way more of them than 10 drug cartels. Certainly killing 1 just breeds 10 more right? Quit thinking of fentanyl as a drug and start thinking of it in terms of terrorism because that is what it is? This isn’t cocaine or meth.
 
finesse said:
Most fentanyl is brought in by Americans and not the cartels themselves. Prohibition of drugs, including alcohol, has always turned into a fiasco that led to a huge growth in the numbers and wealth of the illicit providers. The best way to deal with the drug problems are education and rehabilitation. That doesn't mean "Just say no." That's just saying that you're stupid. It means a clear look at the dangers and how and what to avoid.

As a means to pay for this and to mitigate the single thing that makes drugs the most dangerous, we need to legalize and tax them. The biggest killer is not knowing the dosage or the purity of the drugs you get on the street. Being available in known qualities and quantities would probably cut overdoses by 90% or more. And no one would be getting addicted because they got something they didn't want.
Click to expand...
Right. That’s worked so well in liberal cities where drugs are basically legalized. Portland is the model we want to follow right.


Again, you are thinking of fentanyl in the wrong terms. Many don’t even know they are taking it. I’ve seen how the left deals with the fentanyl crisis. 70,000 a year dead. Now you are about to see how the right deals with it. Mexico can help and get our help in return or they can remain cowards and get the fuck out of the way. In either case trump is going to act.
 
Callatoroy said:
Right. That’s worked so well in liberal cities where drugs are basically legalized. Portland is the model we want to follow right.


Again, you are thinking of fentanyl in the wrong terms. Many don’t even know they are taking it. I’ve seen how the left deals with the fentanyl crisis. 70,000 a year dead. Now you are about to see how the right deals with it. Mexico can help and get our help in return or they can remain cowards and get the fuck out of the way. In either case trump is going to act.
Click to expand...
12 steps brother 12 steps. I know you can do it!
 
Callatoroy said:
Right. That’s worked so well in liberal cities where drugs are basically legalized. Portland is the model we want to follow right.


Again, you are thinking of fentanyl in the wrong terms. Many don’t even know they are taking it. I’ve seen how the left deals with the fentanyl crisis. 70,000 a year dead. Now you are about to see how the right deals with it. Mexico can help and get our help in return or they can remain cowards and get the fuck out of the way. In either case trump is going to act.
Click to expand...
Oh fuck off. My wife is a psychiatrist who does medication assisted therapy for addicts. She knows all about people who take fentanyl laced pills. Almost nobody who dies does so unknowingly. They might not know which of the drugs they take has the lethal dose, but they all know it's coming eventually. They can't stop. It's a disease.

Blaming the opioid crisis on "the left" is so fucking dishonest and disrespectful to the victims as to make me sick. By FAR the steepest increase was during Trump's first term, but the problem goes way back to W's administration and even further back to Purdue Pharma. I first read about "hillbilly heroin" in the early 2000s. Opioid use is not the fault of the left or the right. It's a complex social phenomenon with a multiplicity of causes.

There are no cities other than Portland where drugs are "essentially legalized." And it's not true of Portland any more. As I've said before, a major difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals learn from their mistakes and conservatives try to deny reality to avoid admitting they made one.
 
Callatoroy said:
Guessing you are unaware of people who die because they were unaware the drug they ingested was laced with fentanyl
Click to expand...
You completely ignored the progression of the very conversation you were having.

The post you responded to said that education and legalization of most illicit drugs would be a better way to address fentanyl.

Your response was to take a shot at liberal cities and state that most people don't know they are taking fentanyl.

That was the point in the legalization comment. If the other illicit drugs that you seem to be "ok" with were legal and well regulated, practically nobody would be taking fentanyl and certainly almost nobody would be getting it unknowingly.
 
Callatoroy said:
Guessing you are unaware of people who die because they were unaware the drug they ingested was laced with fentanyl
Click to expand...
That’s my point. People dying from fentanyl are buying illegal drugs, whether it’s cocaine or Vicodin or whatever. If the fentanyl didn’t kill them and they got caught they would be arrested. If you want to stop fentanyl deaths make the drugs they are buying legallly available, and they could get the real thing from a pharmacy with quality control, honest dosages. Don’t bomb the cartels, just put them out of business by making their goods available legally in the US
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top