Crime trump executive order cartels terrorists.

[ChosenOne]

I think you misunderstood my post that you just replied to because I was saying that the real answer is to go after the corporations, not the migrants.....

yeah if that was the intent of your post that was not clear to me.

I got that you agreed 'going after the corporations' would work but i thought you were saying "it would work and achieve the same ends as what Trump is trying to do with deportation'.

Like either Path A or Path B could work, which is why you agreed with my Path B.

I wanted to make clear Path A, simply focusing on mass deporting will NEVER solve the issue. New waves will always come because if you create job shortages with no punishment on the corporations they will gladly pay more to entice migrant workers to show up again.

 

[ChosenOne]

lol... What happens to every Mexican Government official or candidate that tries to stand up to the Cartels...

In Mexico, a wave of political murders ahead of elections eats away at democracy​

From September to May, 34 candidates or aspiring candidates have been assassinated, with most killings linked to drug cartels seeking to influence local elections.

In Mexico, a wave of political murders ahead of elections eats away at democracy

From September to May, 34 candidates or aspiring candidates have been assassinated, with most killings linked to drug cartels seeking to influence local elections.

www.nbcnews.com

The War on Drugs wasn't a full blown conflict... and was a total failure in the end.

The Mexican Government is completely incapable of standing up to the Cartels on their own. Anyone who sticks their neck out, ends up having their head removed.

Most of them are already working for the Cartels anyway....every level of government, from police, mayors to the highest members in the military. They have people on the inside everywhere.

Furthermore, will most Mexican citizens support the US basically invading their country, even if its to go after the Cartels? I think most would be insulted and extremely angry about it. Then we're dealing with a native population that now see the Cartels as the good guys... like when the US goes into Middle Eastern countries. Just fucking ugly.

So if the US Government (and it's citizens) don't have the stomach for a bloody fight, then it's best to not go in in the first place.

We can't do the bullshit that we do in the Middle East... half assed... It will have have to be a full blown war with the Cartels, knowing full well that US Citizens will be killed when the Cartels retaliate. Both in Mexico and on US Soil. I mean... go with air strikes, tanks, all of it... Overwhelming force like Bush Senior did to Iraq in the early 90's. Then get out and don't let the US Military linger in the country indefinitely.

Offer to provide security for Mexican Officials who are willing to stand up to the Cartels. Soldiers who can't be bought...

lol.. And even then, I bet the Cartels will be able to buy US personal. They have too much money.

My initial impulse is that it's bad idea to go after the Cartels. I don't think most people realize what consequences would be.

I thought the same thing when the US was fixing to invade Iraq. I'm conservative, but I absolutely don't agree with all Republican decisions. I was in back in Denver during for Iraq and I told my liberal friends Bush was grandstanding and i didn't he would be stupid enough to actually invade. Because what would be end game after Saddam was removed?

lol... I was fucking wrong.

I have a bad feeling about this....

Thanks for the interesting read. I enjoyed it and have read similar prior.

It does NOT address my questions to you in any way.

Ok taking all that in to account if you think that makes US action "necessary" what do you think US action can actually change or accomplish?

is it solely for a feeling of "revenge" or "Retribution" (theater)?

Or do you believe it can somehow end the problem?

 

[Source]

They are terrorists. Literally perfect groups to define as such.

Kill em where they stand.

The FTO designation is more likely to be used as restrictions on cartels “legitimate” businesses operations. Any shell corporations or fronts with ties to the cartels would not be allowed to move money with any banks that do business with us institutions. I doubt we are going to send troops into Mexico and start a war like that. The American people would not have the stomach for the repercussions.

 

[Scerpi]

Thanks for the interesting read. I enjoyed it and have read similar prior.

It does NOT address my questions to you in any way.

Ok taking all that in to account if you think that makes US action "necessary" what do you think US action can actually change or accomplish?

is it solely for a feeling of "revenge" or "Retribution" (theater)?

Or do you believe it can somehow end the problem?

Honestly? I have no idea if it will work.

These organizations are like cockroaches.

And like Afghanistan, once the US Military leaves they'll come right back out of hiding.

 

[ChosenOne]

Honestly? I have no idea if it will work.

These organizations are like cockroaches.

And like Afghanistan, once the US Military leaves they'll come right back out of hiding.

Well i feel confident in saying it would not work just as the War on Drugs in inner cities did not work, just as the War on Terror did not.

These are things supported by the Industrial military complex,, who with the end of the Cold War, saw their biggest revenue source plummet, and have instead pushed these forms of regional forever wars, as a way to replace lost weapons sales. They are supported by the 'Circuses not Bread' politicians who know you can distract a population by giving them blood and a circus, even as the actual problem is not only 'not fixed', but it gets worse and worse.

 

[terrapin]

yeah if that was the intent of your post that was not clear to me.

I got that you agreed 'going after the corporations' would work but i thought you were saying "it would work and achieve the same ends as what Trump is trying to do with deportation'.

Like either Path A or Path B could work, which is why you agreed with my Path B.

I wanted to make clear Path A, simply focusing on mass deporting will NEVER solve the issue. New waves will always come because if you create job shortages with no punishment on the corporations they will gladly pay more to entice migrant workers to show up again.

I think you just missed it man because that post was really clear. It's always been my position that we should be going after the people that hire them... for every reason I can think of that's a better approach.

First of all, we know where they work and trying to go after each immigrant is expansive but if you can target the corporations and get them to stop hiring them that's way less costly.

But also it shifts the narrative so that you're not demonizing immigrants and that's just a better approach for the immigrants also.

Once I realized the real problem are the businesses and corporations that hire them and that we could stop it, that's when I figured out we don't really want to stop it.


And that makes the demonization of immigrants. profoundly sinful to my mind because we're just using him as a scapegoat and slandering them and don't even really want the problem to be fixed.

 

[ChosenOne]

I think you just missed it man because that post was really clear. It's always been my position that we should be going after the people that hire them... for every reason I can think of that's a better approach.

First of all, we know where they work and trying to go after each immigrant is expansive but if you can target the corporations and get them to stop hiring them that's way less costly.

But also it shifts the narrative so that you're not demonizing immigrants and that's just a better approach for the immigrants also.

Once I realized the real problem are the businesses and corporations that hire them and that we could stop it, that's when I figured out we don't really want to stop it.


And that makes the demonization of immigrants. profoundly sinful to my mind because we're just using him as a scapegoat and slandering them and don't even really want the problem to be fixed.

I don't think so but it is not important anyway as we do agree after the clarification...

Agreed on The deportation thing. We know who hires them. We know where they work and going after the employers would cost infinitely less money and accomplish the same end....

But i see no way to read the above and that it is not suggesting there are two ways to "Accomplish the same end"...

And while i think you agree with the one end being 'deal with employers so they will not hire'... I think the only fair reading of the other end you are pointing at (accidentally it seems) is the 'Trump deportation method'??

But if you wish to clarify what the other way you intended was to "accomplish the same end" that i missed, i am listening.

 

[mkess101]

I don't fully agree but i think there are many grey areas where i might.

For instance i can believe it is wrong for Putin (Russia) or China to take neighboring lands by force just because they are stronger and it would be wrong for the US to do so, to. My view is not tied to who is strongest and if they were weaker and subject to it my view would not change. And that is because my view is principal based. i am saying these keyboard warriors WOULD change instantly if the US was subject to the the Might Makes Rule domination rule. Suddenly they would become principal based and see it is an issue of right and wrong.

Again, on this topic anyway, i was responding to a very specific thing and that was those pushing the idea that this would be the 'right' or 'moral' or 'just' thing for the US to do because Mexico won't (can't) control their border. They are not just saying 'we can because we are stronger' (which is more acceptable IMO) but need to feel they would be in the 'right' in doing do so.

it is that bubble they wrap themselves in that i am tackling.

For instance i think if you talked to top officials in China they would say 'if you can enforce it you get your way and right now America can enforce it and we have to all follow their way.' But those same Chinese officials believe within a few generations China will dominate and i do not think their view will change one iota. They will have the force and they will believe that is all that is needed for them to get their way. They will be consistent on that and fuck your claimed water way or air rights if you cannot enforce it.

I may not like the result of CHina's consistency (if i was still alive) but i would note they are consistent.

I think that's extremely optimistic about China (they have a myriad of their own issues that will stick with them for generations, but that's another discussion) but if someone truly thinks it's the "moral" thing to do specifically because we have the ability to do it--then I agree that's ridiculous. I cannot imagine someone wording it that way, but if they did that's just dumb.

What I'd imagine would be a common view is that it's moral because they believe it will save lives in the long run and punish some of the worst actors on earth. The fact that we'd have the ability wouldn't define the morality, it would simply allow for the action to take place.
A comparison would be the US dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people believe the act of us doing that was "moral" or "right" because they think it saves lives in the long run and ensured a world where Imperial Japan didn't become a global power. The fact that we attained the ability to obliterate their cities first isn't what made it "right" in anyone's eyes. That fact just allowed us to act first.

It's not as much "might makes right" as it is "might gives the mighty the options that others don't have".

 

[Scerpi]

Well i feel confident in saying it would not work just as the War on Drugs in inner cities did not work, just as the War on Terror did not.

These are things supported by the Industrial military complex,, who with the end of the Cold War, saw their biggest revenue source plummet, and have instead pushed these forms of regional forever wars, as a way to replace lost weapons sales. They are supported by the 'Circuses not Bread' politicians who know you can distract a population by giving them blood and a circus, even as the actual problem is not only 'not fixed', but it gets worse and worse.

No argument here... the establishment Democrats and Republicans do the bidding of the military industrial complex.

 

[ChosenOne]

I think that's extremely optimistic about China (they have a myriad of their own issues that will stick with them for generations, but that's another discussion) but if someone truly thinks it's the "moral" thing to do specifically because we have the ability to do it--then I agree that's ridiculous. I cannot imagine someone wording it that way, but if they did that's just dumb.

they do not word it that way but what they do is give a bunch of rationalizations for why it is right and ok and some push the idea of 'necessary' for the US to take unilateral action and attack in Mexico.

My point being i respect those more who simple say 'we do because we can' or 'might makes right'. then seeing others trying to argue it is right to do for ... 'reasons'.

What I'd imagine would be a common view is that it's moral because they believe it will save lives in the long run and punish some of the worst actors on earth. The fact that we'd have the ability wouldn't define the morality, it would simply allow for the action to take place.
A comparison would be the US dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people believe the act of us doing that was "moral" or "right" because they think it saves lives in the long run and ensured a world where Imperial Japan didn't become a global power. The fact that we attained the ability to obliterate their cities first isn't what made it "right" in anyone's eyes. That fact just allowed us to act first.

It's not as much "might makes right" as it is "might gives the mighty the options that others don't have".

Good points if that is what they mean. that is not how i read them but in the case where you are correct (if) , your point stands.

Just as an aside the Hiroshima Nagasaki 'needed to be bombed' fails on all levels. It assumes a binary that does not exist which is that you 'do not bomb them and they continue the war causing more deaths (not just of Japanese but also Americans) ... OR.... you bomb them (yes horrific) but in the end the cost in lives is lower.

Even if point 2 is true (i think it could have been) the binary ignores Option 3.

Option 3. Drop a bomb off shore to Japan, close enough to do serious damage but no where near the horror that followed but that would send Japan a clear and undeniable message of what would follow, if they did not surrendor.

And that is what the US actually did in choosing those cities away from Tokyo and where the Emperor was. They used them to send a signal, but just chose population centers when they did not need to.

The only argument i can see against my Option 3 above would be someone saying Japan would not surrender seeing that fireball just offshore, and with the mass destruction the winds would do, which i simply believe would not be the case. If the Emperor can surrender because he recognizes he will die and Japan will be destroyed thru the bombing of those cities, he would easily see the same undenyable threat of the offshore blast.

 

[mkess101]

they do not word it that way but what they do is give a bunch of rationalizations for why it is right and ok and some push the idea of 'necessary' for the US to take unilateral action and attack in Mexico.

My point being i respect those more who simple say 'we do because we can' or 'might makes right'. then seeing others trying to argue it is right to do for ... 'reasons'.


Good points if that is what they mean. that is not how i read them but in the case where you are correct (if) , your point stands.

Just as an aside the Hiroshima Nagasaki 'needed to be bombed' fails on all levels. It assumes a binary that does not exist which is that you 'do not bomb them and they continue the war causing more deaths (not just of Japanese but also Americans) ... OR.... you bomb them (yes horrific) but in the end the cost in lives is lower.

Even if point 2 is true (i think it could have been) the binary ignores Option 3.

Option 3. Drop a bomb off shore to Japan, close enough to do serious damage but no where near the horror that followed but that would send Japan a clear and undeniable message of what would follow, if they did not surrendor.

And that is what the US actually did in choosing those cities away from Tokyo and where the Emperor was. They used them to send a signal, but just chose population centers when they did not need to.

The only argument i can see against my Option 3 above would be someone saying Japan would not surrender seeing that fireball just offshore, and with the mass destruction the winds would do, which i simply believe would not be the case. If the Emperor can surrender because he recognizes he will die and Japan will be destroyed thru the bombing of those cities, he would easily see the same undenyable threat of the offshore blast.

For sure. I didn't mean to paint any of these things as binary. There are absolutely an almost infinite number of potential actions for all of these scenarios that involve conflict.

 

[Claude]

Who funds the cartels? Americans
Who arms the cartels? Americans
Some cartels even had military training from US Special Forces.

Sounds like a dog chasing its own tail. I don't know the scope of the terrorist label, but full on military intervention is a pointless (and highly risky) excercise that doesn't solve the root cause. Plus, this isn't the middle east. There's a serious chance of retaliation from cartels that could endanger americans in US soil. They are heavily armed, rich and they manufacture the drugs americans consume. I mean how hard could it be for them just to poison a batch of meth/cocaine?

Better to defund them. Reduce drug demand, cut off their supplies, stop gun smuggling. That's much more effective than military intervention.

 

[Claude]

Edit: double.

 

[Adamant]

The right and the left have become so childish and divided that they resemble a couple very close to divorce in that neither side is willing to admit their own wrongs and both sides exaggerate the other's wrongs. So I can't just accept your criticism of the left here wholeheartedly.

There are scum on the Republican side too. They're called RINOs.

 

[Deorum]

They are terrorists. Literally perfect groups to define as such.

Kill em where they stand.

Look at Gomez over here seemingly issuing threats, salivating at the prospects, and injecting race into the conversation.



So, like, Terrorists?

 

[I Am Legion]

Well i feel confident in saying it would not work just as the War on Drugs in inner cities did not work, just as the War on Terror did not.

These are things supported by the Industrial military complex,, who with the end of the Cold War, saw their biggest revenue source plummet, and have instead pushed these forms of regional forever wars, as a way to replace lost weapons sales. They are supported by the 'Circuses not Bread' politicians who know you can distract a population by giving them blood and a circus, even as the actual problem is not only 'not fixed', but it gets worse and worse.

Can you also agree that doing nothing and leaving everything status quo does not work either? Deporting criminals, especially gangs, and then pressuring the foreign governments with tariffs and trade sanctions, as well as holding aid hostage is better than turning your backs and ignoring it. Only an idiot would think that leaving the border as porous as it was the last 4 years wouldn't have ramifications with drug smuggling. I agree going after corporations is a big part of a semi solution. But so is getting rid of migrant criminals that are facilitating cartels.

 

[ChosenOne]

Can you also agree that doing nothing and leaving everything status quo does not work either? Deporting criminals, especially gangs, and then pressuring the foreign governments with tariffs and trade sanctions, as well as holding aid hostage is better than turning your backs and ignoring it. Only an idiot would think that leaving the border as porous as it was the last 4 years wouldn't have ramifications with drug smuggling. I agree going after corporations is a big part of a semi solution. But so is getting rid of migrant criminals that are facilitating cartels.

of course. No one is arguing doing nothing is a solution.

We should also all agree that simply because 'doing nothing' does not work that we should not then just do 'other things that do not work' simply so we can say 'we are doing something'.

The issue is that government often does not want a solution and in fact is lobbied behind the scenes by powerful interests (the military industrial complex, etc) to do things that will exasperated the problem and make it worse increasing their profits.

That is why the For Profit Prison Complex, is the biggest lobby group always pushing politicians to criminalize and make jailable offenses of non violent and minor crimes. They want more and more people to go to jail to drive their bottom line.

If indeed the US will punish Mexico for a porous border then they should lead by example and target their own porous border and all the guns flowing into Mexico that cause as much problems as the drugs do coming the other way.

But we know the US will never do that, and we know most US citizens will not even want it done. Why not? Because they know the US would fail and then it would make the US look guilty as well in this issue when what they want is to demand Mexico fix it and to blame them ONLY when they fail.

 

[cincymma79]

This is incredibly optimistic, the cartels are several times wealthier then Ukraine was in peace time. This isn't some walk in the park.

This isn't going to be happening two oceans away so the consequences won't be our problem. The refugees will be coming here. The reprisals will be happening on our own soil. The fight will take longer than a single president's term, if it ever stops.

We shouldn’t deal with cartels because they’ll kill more people here than they currently are. Great argument.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Why are we assuming that the Trump administration would not work with the Mexican military on this though? My entertaining of this solution has always included cooperation with the Mexican government. I never once thought we should declare war on the Mexican government.

Labeling them a terrorist group allows us to go after them financially also. I wouldn't be in support of our military declaring war on Mexico. I would be in support of a combined effort between the Mexican government and the United States to get rid of cartels.


However when I started this thread wanting people's positions on it I thought they were still growing cocaine in fields that could be burned down and easily spotted via satellite and other intelligence. I didn't realize that basically nobody is growing cocaine anymore and that it's all done in labs and that does make the entire issue from a military perspective completely different..

I envisioned the military killing cartel leaders and burning down their crops. If we're talking about guerrilla warfare within Mexican cities, I don't think that's going to work either... That sounds a lot like trying to get rid of Hamas in Israel where all you end up doing is slaughtering and killing significantly more innocent people than the criminals. The situation there is an absolute atrocity and if we sent our military into Mexican cities to wage war with cartels that just seems like a quagmire of innocent deaths....

It just all depends on how it's implemented and whether or not you have the full support of the Mexican government in order to implement it and how.


But then we'd have to face some really hard questions because there's no way this solution would work unless we were providing clean drugs for American citizens cooked in American labs so that the cartels had no power. You could probably convince me that's an okay solution if every cent of the profit for those drugs went to drug rehab centers to get people sober.

FWIW the US collaborated with Colombia to get rid of FARC and drug dealers such as Pablo Escobar. It wasn't perfect but it worked to a great degree. The problem is that the way Trump is talking seems like he is going to order a bunch of surprise drone strikes on Mexico. That's basically an act of war. While it's obvious that Mexico will not fight back, in a military sense, it's a recipe for disaster as it would only alienate a important partner.
A collaboration to finish off the Cartels, that's great.

For example, a large percentage of weapons used by the cartels are legally bought in the US and smuggled. The US could easily stop that.

 

[evergreenrider]

Why would he enlist? Is our military short on enlistees?

Yes? There's a reason they lowered standards, physical requirements, courting women, gays, and trans. They absolutely have an enlistment problem lolol