Trump is an idiot but I’ve always wondered why the u.s and mexico don’t join up and use the same force on cartels that they do on middle Eastern militants. If they went after cartels the way they do jihadists across the planet, there wouldn’t be cartels left
The approach the USA has taken to declare war on <insert anything> has been an abysmal failure. I am pretty sure every single campaign of war on x has ended with x being now even more prominent than before.
Sure but the I’m not expecting the u.s to change. I’m just saying why go across the planet to fight criminals instead of the ones on your continent, but I know the answer is oil. They fucked to my country for nothing but a foothold in the region, at least go fuck some cartel people
They’ll also fuck Mexico up while unsuccessfully fighting the cartels which is why the US military isn’t welcomed there. America’s invasion back in 1846 is still very much in the public’s consciousness there as well.
This means fixing the housing crisis, guaranteeing people jobs, food, water, shelter, and medical support. It means embracing harm reduction policy. It means ending the war on drugs.
Drug use is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Fix the health of society and the symptoms will disappear, and with it the cartels as well.
It’s not a meaningless war. It’s war for natural resources to allow CEOs pad their bank accounts with sweet, sweet government contracts to rebuilding this war torn nation. Also for oil.
Or we need to show another country how big our dick is by picking a fight with them.
Profits are always a risk-reward balance. If the risk goes up (druglords are more likely to be killed) but the price doesn’t, then the market goes away.
Most likely they would just up the prices and use the new profits to buy weapons to defend themselves though.
When a rival cartel gets weakened, there is less supply with the same demand. So another cartel will always use that to raise their prices. So the market never goes away.
There’s too much money in the drug trade.
Violence is a cost of doing business.
Thier children grow up safe in the United States, living in luxury from the poison we buy from them.
They literally have lobbyists working against drug legalization because it would destroy their captive market.
Marijuana is still illegal federally and way past Hearst’s hemp boycot to save his newspaper business, hint: it’s the cartels working against legalization via lobbying.
The truth is we’re winning against the cartels the same way we should have fought Al Qaeda, in the shadows. And by actually helping Mexico become less corrupt and more functional.
Sending the 101st in may be cathartic but it’s not the right move. If things go badly then we can always default to a military occupation. But it really shouldn’t be our first option. Or our second, or our tenth.
Notice how all the Middle East militants are gone after 20 years of American occupation? That’s why we don’t do that.
Tinfoil hat time: Also, significant forces on both sides of the border have a motive to keep the cartels running. Cartels spread money and influence around in politics, and they are black hole than has been used in the past to launder money and do other illegal shit for politicians. Not to mention, a (policy) restrictive border makes their business running drugs and people across the line more profitable and in-demand. Worst thing for the cartels would be open borders and an end to the war on drugs.
That’s not why the u.s won’t do it. I’m not saying it works but Americans aren’t gonna stop just picking a new target every decade or two, may as well go for cartels
The oligarchy profits off the drug trade. They also profit off the wars. If it’s happening, it’s being ALLOWED to happen, by the oligarchy, because it benefits them.
Trump is an idiot but I’ve always wondered why the u.s and mexico don’t join up and use the same force on cartels that they do on middle Eastern militants. If they went after cartels the way they do jihadists across the planet, there wouldn’t be cartels left
What are you talking about bub?
The approach the USA has taken to declare war on <insert anything> has been an abysmal failure. I am pretty sure every single campaign of war on x has ended with x being now even more prominent than before.
Sure but the I’m not expecting the u.s to change. I’m just saying why go across the planet to fight criminals instead of the ones on your continent, but I know the answer is oil. They fucked to my country for nothing but a foothold in the region, at least go fuck some cartel people
They’ll also fuck Mexico up while unsuccessfully fighting the cartels which is why the US military isn’t welcomed there. America’s invasion back in 1846 is still very much in the public’s consciousness there as well.
Just like there are not jihadists left… oh wait.
It’s easier to fight a gang than an ideology. It would work out better I think
Not really. Just as killing a person doesn’t kill an ideology, killing a person also doesn’t kill the profit motives for cartels.
If anything it makes the problem worse. Because you’ve suddenly freed up territory in a very lucrative black market.
The solution to the drug problem is to instead kill the motivations people have for doing the drugs in the first place:
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction
This means fixing the housing crisis, guaranteeing people jobs, food, water, shelter, and medical support. It means embracing harm reduction policy. It means ending the war on drugs.
Drug use is a symptom of an unhealthy society. Fix the health of society and the symptoms will disappear, and with it the cartels as well.
could also give people free healthcare so they can afford real medication.
Or just kill the poor people by sending them to any meaningless war. /s
It’s not a meaningless war. It’s war for natural resources to allow CEOs pad their bank accounts with sweet, sweet government contracts to rebuilding this war torn nation. Also for oil.
Or we need to show another country how big our dick is by picking a fight with them.
Profits are always a risk-reward balance. If the risk goes up (druglords are more likely to be killed) but the price doesn’t, then the market goes away.
Most likely they would just up the prices and use the new profits to buy weapons to defend themselves though.
When a rival cartel gets weakened, there is less supply with the same demand. So another cartel will always use that to raise their prices. So the market never goes away.
Why do you reply to my comment with something that has nothing to do with my argument?
It is the exact same topic
When Bush first went into Iraq, he described it as a Crusade. For some crazy reason, people in the Arab world weren’t thrilled with this language.
There’s too much money in the drug trade. Violence is a cost of doing business. Thier children grow up safe in the United States, living in luxury from the poison we buy from them. They literally have lobbyists working against drug legalization because it would destroy their captive market.
Marijuana is still illegal federally and way past Hearst’s hemp boycot to save his newspaper business, hint: it’s the cartels working against legalization via lobbying.
https://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/8/headlines/hilary_clinton_says_us_cant_legalize_drugs_because_there_is_too_much_money_in_it
Create a problem and claim yourself to be the best solution. “Drugs are bad. Give us more power to combat it!”
Point the finger at 5 immigrants every day and ask the power over 300 million people to fix it.
The Mexican politicians don’t want their families brutally tortured and killed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking_allegations
Removed by mod
The truth is we’re winning against the cartels the same way we should have fought Al Qaeda, in the shadows. And by actually helping Mexico become less corrupt and more functional.
Sending the 101st in may be cathartic but it’s not the right move. If things go badly then we can always default to a military occupation. But it really shouldn’t be our first option. Or our second, or our tenth.
Removed by mod
Notice how all the Middle East militants are gone after 20 years of American occupation? That’s why we don’t do that.
Tinfoil hat time: Also, significant forces on both sides of the border have a motive to keep the cartels running. Cartels spread money and influence around in politics, and they are black hole than has been used in the past to launder money and do other illegal shit for politicians. Not to mention, a (policy) restrictive border makes their business running drugs and people across the line more profitable and in-demand. Worst thing for the cartels would be open borders and an end to the war on drugs.
That’s not why the u.s won’t do it. I’m not saying it works but Americans aren’t gonna stop just picking a new target every decade or two, may as well go for cartels
Don’t shit where you eat.
Militants like the Taliban?
Yeah, if we couldn’t exterminate the Taliban, it stands to reason we wouldn’t be able the exterminate the cartels.
The oligarchy profits off the drug trade. They also profit off the wars. If it’s happening, it’s being ALLOWED to happen, by the oligarchy, because it benefits them.
Because Americans are too racist to support meaningful cooperation with Mexico.
They have to get far enough away from the western journalists so their massive volume of atrocities isn’t in the public consciousness.
because this is not a planet made only for you and yours fucking imperialist
Funny, your likely white, colonialist ass saying that to a native person.
You can be anyone you want to be on the Internet can’t you, tough guy
Even a racist asshole
Question : what/who stopped him? How?