Trump threatens to invade Mexico

[crimethink]

https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49

President Donald Trump threatened in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them, according to an excerpt of a transcript of the conversation obtained by The Associated Press.

[TroyOz]

Do it - and keep it.

[JohnQPublic]

Do it - and keep it.

Not sure we ever wanted it, nor want it now.

[osoab]

Do it - and keep it.


Only as a vassal.

[Neuro]

Why does Trump want to invade Mexico?
-Because he can!

[TroyOz]

Not sure we ever wanted it, nor want it now.

Why not? Mexico is a failed criminal state getting worse by the month. It is also an incredibly beautiful land. Many Mexicans would welcome it.

BTW, I live in a county that borders Mexico.

[Ares]

This is absolutely GOLDEN! LOL

According to a transcript obtained by AP of the phone call which took place on Friday morning between President Trump and his Mexican counterpart, Enrique Pena Nieto, and which was intended to patch things up between the new president and his Mexican peer a day after Pena Nieto called off his visit to the US, Trump threatened to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them itself.

The excerpt of the call did not make clear who exactly Trump considered "bad hombres," - drug cartels, immigrants, or both - or the tone and context of the remark, made in a Friday morning phone call between the leaders. It also did not contain Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's response. Nonetheless, the excerpt "offers a rare and striking look at how the new president is conducting diplomacy behind closed doors." As AP puts it, Trump's remark suggest he is using the same tough and blunt talk with world leaders that he used to rally crowds on the campaign trail.

"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there," Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. "You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it." The phone call between the leaders was meant to diffuse the escalating tension between Trump and Pena Nieto. The two have had a series of public spats over Trump's determination to have Mexico pay for the planned border wall, something Mexico steadfastly refuses to agree to.

A person with access to the official transcript of the phone call provided an excerpt to The Associated Press. The person gave it on condition of anonymity because the administration did not make the details of the call public. A Mexican reporter's similar account of Trump's comments was published on a Mexican website Tuesday. The reports described Trump as humiliating Pena Nieto in a confrontation conversation.

As Business Insider further adds, citing an interview between the Mexican news outlet Aristegui Noticias and Dolia Estevez, a journalist based in Washington, DC, who cited sources on both sides of the call, "It was a very offensive conversation where Trump humiliated Peña Nieto."

"I don't need the Mexicans. I don't need Mexico," Trump reportedly told the Mexican president. "We are going to build the wall and you all are going to pay for it, like it or not."

Trump hinted that the US would force Mexico to fund the wall with a 10% tax on Mexican exports "and of 35% on those exports that hurt Mexico the most," Estevez wrote in Proyecto Puente.



"He even complained of the bad role the [Mexican] army is playing in the fight against narco trafficking," Estevez, who writes for Forbes and is close to the Mexican journalist and anchorwoman Carmen Aristegui, said during an interview with Aristegui's eponymous news outlet. Trump "even suggested to [Peña Nieto] that if they are incapable of combatting [narco trafficking] he may have to send troops to assume this task," she said.



The US president "said he would not permit the drugs coming from Mexico to continue massacring our cities," Estevez added. She said Trump went so far as to say, "I really didn't want to go to Mexico last August," referring to Trump's visit to the Mexican capital last year.



Peña Nieto was accompanied on the call by people from his country's foreign ministry, while Trump was joined by "the famous son-in-law," likely meaning senior adviser Jared Kushner, and chief strategist Steven Bannon. Kushner is reportedly close to Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray, and they were seen as the likely go-betweens for the two governments.



"Before this unusual onslaught, Peña was not firm," Estevez said. "He was stammering."

This is where the AP's transcript comes in to fill in the remaining blanks.

* * *

As expected, Mexico's foreign relations department denied that account, saying it "is based on absolute falsehoods." The reason is obvious: if accurate, it shows just how little leverage the Mexican president has, if he allows Trump to talk in such a manner.

"The assertions that you make about said conversation do not correspond to the reality of it," the statement said. "The tone was constructive and it was agreed by the presidents to continue working and that the teams will continue to meet frequently to construct an agreement that is positive for Mexico and for the United States."

Trump has used the phrase "bad hombres" before. In an October presidential debate, he vowed to get rid the U.S. of "drug lords" and "bad people." "We have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," he said. The phrase ricocheted on social media with Trump opponents saying he was denigrating immigrants.

Trump's comment was in line with the new administration's bullish stance on foreign policy matters in general, and the president's willingness to break long-standing norms around the globe.

While prior to his inauguration, Trump irritated China when he spoke to the president of Taiwan, breaking long-standing U.S. policy, and his temporary ban on refugees and travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries caused consternation around the world, nothing has created the level of bickering as the border wall, a centerpiece of his campaign. Mexico has consistently said it would not pay for the wall and opposes it. Before the phone call, Pena Nieto canceled a planned visit to the United States.

The fresh fight with Mexico last week arose over trade as the White House proposed a 20 percent tax on imports from the key U.S. ally to finance the wall after Pena Nieto abruptly scrapped his Jan. 31 trip to Washington.

Trump has since tasked his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner - a real estate executive with no foreign policy experience - with managing the ongoing dispute, according to an administration official with knowledge of the call. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May last week, Trump described his call with Pena Nieto as "friendly."

A White House spokesman did not respond to the AP's requests seeking a comment if Trump indeed threatened to invade Mexico.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-01/trump-threatened-send-troops-mexico-stop-bad-hombres-down-there

[crimethink]

The biggest beneficiaries of US administration of Mexico would be the Mexican people. If Mexico's vast wealth were shared with the people, they'd have zero reason to come up here. The regime in the Distrito Federal is wholly parasitical, and that's been the case for generations.

Trump is going to hunt down the leaker of this transcript, and have him/her out on their ass very soon.

[Stop Making Cents]

I like it! Finally a president calling them to task for 40 years of Mexico invading our nation and stealing from us.

[Joshua01]

The biggest beneficiaries of US administration of Mexico would be the Mexican people. If Mexico's vast wealth were shared with the people, they'd have zero reason to come up here. The regime in the Distrito Federal is wholly parasitical, and that's been the case for generations.

Trump is going to hunt down the leaker of this transcript, and have him/her out on their ass very soon.
What 'vast wealth'??

[Hitch]

You know, I've been thinking about this....

The Mexican drug cartels get 64 BILLION dollars in revenue from US drug traffic, each year!.

Trump builds a wall. Stops that. They have tanks, submarines, helicoptors, bombs....they would attack us. They are powerful. They have men,money, and willpower. They will not give up that revenue without a fight...mark my words.

Lot's of fighting at the border. It's going to happen. But....if Trump declares war, and launches an attack....early, and hits the cartels before they cross our lands....brilliant!

[crimethink]

What 'vast wealth'??

Minerals, including oil, gold, and silver. Most of the wealth is squandered into the elite's bank accounts.

[ximmy]

Minerals, including oil, gold, and silver. Most of the wealth is squandered into the elite's bank accounts.


kind of like here... (insert rolly eyes here)

[Hitch]

Trump needs to invade Mexico. We need to hit those bastards, hard. The cartels run the show, with their money and firepower. The gov has no balls. They are on OUR border. Fuck what the world thinks. Take care of this problem.

[Cebu_4_2]

Trump needs to invade Mexico. We need to hit those bastards, hard. The cartels run the show, with their money and firepower. The gov has no balls. They are on OUR border. Fuck what the world thinks. Take care of this problem.

Fuck it, put a wall up and either they take care of it or dont. Either way there is still a wall. It worked in China for thousands of years.

[Hitch]

Fuck it, put a wall up and either they take care of it or dont. Either way there is still a wall. It worked in China for thousands of years.

I agree. Part of me wants to help take care of their problem for them, though.

Let's liberate Mexico. Destroy the cartels and give the country back to the people. If I sat in the oval office, that's what I'd do. Who gives a shit what anyone would think, let them protest.. Destroy those bastards.

[Cebu_4_2]

I agree. Part of me wants to help take care of their problem for them, though.

Let's liberate Mexico. Destroy the cartels and give the country back to the people. If I sat in the oval office, that's what I'd do. Who gives a shit what anyone would think, let them protest.. Destroy those bastards.

Problem Pete is the establishment there is so corrupt (similar to the old USi) they can't really do anything without dying to the runners of the .gov. (drug runners) they have more power than the country can counter. This is where the wall can work. If they are blocked it will be the runners vs the .gov.

Remember they built their own wall on the south side VS Guatamala long ago. Berry told them to make it work or the USi would stop sending them funds.

Do a little research on that wall Pete and then report back. I actually learned stuff I didn't know by revisiting it.

[EE_]

..............

[TroyOz]

Minerals, including oil, gold, and silver. Most of the wealth is squandered into the elite's bank accounts.

As well as 6000 miles of coastline (warm water), 150 rivers, vast mountain ranges, and large agricultural lands. Corruption = poverty, nothing to do with the bounty of the land.

[JohnQPublic]

Why not? Mexico is a failed criminal state getting worse by the month. It is also an incredibly beautiful land. Many Mexicans would welcome it.

BTW, I live in a county that borders Mexico.

You would have to take responsibility for millions of Mexicans. You would have to bring their infrastructure up to US levels. Eliminating the narcos will be a war. It would be more daunting than West Germany absorbing East Germany. In the end it may be fine, but it would come at a huge cost. The only savings would be the cost of the wall (and Mexico is going to pay for that anyway).

I would rather annex British Columbia. They may come voluntarily, and would be a net gain. We could build AWAPA.

[cheka.]

some, including me, would say that they are already part of the plantation. federal reserve bank of ny and their one world currency, frn, can/do extract their wealth with little resistance

[crimethink]

kind of like here... (insert rolly eyes here)

The percentage is a lot higher down there.

[crimethink]

You would have to take responsibility for millions of Mexicans. You would have to bring their infrastructure up to US levels. Eliminating the narcos will be a war. It would be more daunting than West Germany absorbing East Germany. In the end it may be fine, but it would come at a huge cost. The only savings would be the cost of the wall (and Mexico is going to pay for that anyway).

I would rather annex British Columbia. They may come voluntarily, and would be a net gain. We could build AWAPA.

In no way do I suggest annexation. Just a protectorate. Take it over, remove the trash in the DF, and install US AND Mexico-friendly puppets.

[goldleaf]

Kinda like we've been doing in the mid-east? You're not running your country right, We'll come in and show you how to do it right.

[crimethink]

Kinda like we've been doing in the mid-east? You're not running your country right, We'll come in and show you how to do it right.

The chaos is Mexico is directly effecting the security of the United States. Not so in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[goldleaf]

You're right, the situation in Mexico does effect us but a lot of it was caused by us, NAFTA etc. We better be damn cautious or we'll have all those countries that hate us coming to Mexico's assistance.

[woodman]

This whole thing could be fixed immediately and easily by legalizing drugs and eliminating welfare. Bam!

[brosil]

We've already invaded twice so there is precident.

[Celtic Rogue]

I dont know where this invading Mexico comes from? What I read him to say wasnt .... he would send troops down there... he never actually said invade the border of Mexico He said that if the mexicans couldn't stop the "bad hombres" and cartel from crossing the border ... he would. However I am sure that if needed the US would make incursions into Mexico to kill cartel leaders. No way an invasion by our armed forces. More skillful manipulation by Trump in the art of the deal IMHO!

Mexican government says Trump never threatened to send troops to Mexico
Mexico's president, Enrique Pena Nieto, in Mexico City last month. (Marco Ugarte / Associated Press)



Kate Linthicum (http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-kate-linthicum-staff.html#nt=byline) and Cecilia SanchezContact Reporter (kate.linthicum@latimes.com?subject=Regarding:%20% 22Mexican%20government%20says%20Trump%20never%20th reatened%20to%20send%20troops%20to%20Mexico%22)


The Mexican government on Wednesday vehemently denied reports (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-pol-trump-mexico-call-20170201-story.html) that President Trump threatened to send American soldiers into Mexico during a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
Such a threat “did not happen during that call,” said a government statement released on Twitter Wednesday night.
"I know it with absolute certainty, there was no threat,” Peña Nieto spokesman Eduardo Sanchez said in a radio interview. “The things that have been said are nonsense and a downright lie."


The phone call between the leaders was intended to patch things up between the new president and his ally. The two have had a series of public spats over Trump’s determination to have Mexico pay for the planned border wall, something Mexico steadfastly refuses to agree to.
“You have a bunch of bad hombres down there,” Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt given to AP. “You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.”
A person with access to the official transcript of the phone call provided only that portion of the conversation to The Associated Press. The person gave it on condition of anonymity because the administration did not make the details of the call public.
A Mexican journalist reported the same thing, saying that Trump “humiliated” his Mexican counterpart. Agence France Presse subsequently reported (https://twitter.com/AndrewBeatty/status/826939895134507008) that the White House denies the conversation took place. Mexico denies it as well.
Whether it happened or not, someone in the Trump White House leaked this to the AP, and wanted people to believe that Trump spoke this way to the president of Mexico. It’s the lead story on Drudge right now. Think about that: the US president either threatened to invade Mexico, or wanted the public to think that he did — and in the process, told the Mexican president that he believed the Mexican army were a pack of cowards.

[Ares]

I wonder if this is Trumps way of finding out who the leakers are. Provide a false transcript to find out who leaked it, while the real transcript is only given to loyal advisors.

[jimswift]

This whole thing could be fixed immediately and easily by legalizing drugs and eliminating welfare. Bam!

^ ^ ^ Pretty much this.

These policies have to end: "The War on Drugs", "The War on Poverty", "The War on Terror", "The War on Illiteracy"

You end these type of policies and a lot of problems quickly fix themselves.

[boogietillyapuke]

These policies have to end: "The War on Drugs", "The War on Poverty", "The War on Terror", "The War on Illiteracy"

You end these type of policies and a lot of problems quickly fix themselves.

Abismal failures one and and all. Anything they declare "War" on, be assured that the only thing that will change.....is the weight of your wallet.

[singular_me]

more money for regime change, we have heard this for centuries now

I just corrected one word
These policies have to end: "The War on Drugs", "The War on Poverty", "The War on Terror", "The War on literacy

the perception of "mexico being a failed criminal state" reminds me of the color range, that westerners truly regard their own gov as less corrupt as which of the rest of the world

Looking forward to the US ending its NATO alliance though




Why not? Mexico is a failed criminal state getting worse by the month. It is also an incredibly beautiful land. Many Mexicans would welcome it.

BTW, I live in a county that borders Mexico.

[crimethink]

White House: Trump comments on Mexico 'lighthearted'

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_MEXICO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-02-09-24-57

President Donald Trump warned in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart that he was ready to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them - comments the White House described as "lighthearted."

The White House said Thursday that the comments, in an excerpt obtained by The Associated Press from a transcript of the hourlong conversation, were "part of a discussion about how the United States and Mexico could work collaboratively to combat drug cartels and other criminal elements, and make the border more secure."

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the details publicly, described the conversation as "pleasant and constructive."

"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there," Trump told Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt given to the AP. "You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."

The comments came last Friday in a phone call between Trump and Pena Nieto. The excerpt from the transcript did not detail exactly whom Trump considers "bad hombres," nor did it make clear the tone and context of the remark.

The Mexican government said "the negative statements" reported in the AP story "did not occur during" the call.

[TroyOz]

more money for regime change, we have heard this for centuries now

I just corrected one word
These policies have to end: "The War on Drugs", "The War on Poverty", "The War on Terror", "The War on literacy

the perception of "mexico being a failed criminal state" reminds me of the color range, that westerners truly regard their own gov as less corrupt as which of the rest of the world

The brutality the Mexican people face in Mexico is not comparable to life in the US. There is an evil going on in Mexico that is beyond the pale - inhuman does not describe it.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/Photos-show-destruction-from-10-years-of-Mexican-6621726.php#photo-8910331

[singular_me]

I am not discussing that, what I mean is that as long as we do not address our own misery and corruption, nothing will change

the lesser evil (moral relativism) never wins and because of it the world is going from bad to worse.

Thinking otherwise will benefit the NWO internationalists and interventionism. we just can't get rid of the NWO when endorsing its mindset.

End the drug war and ALL the global trade agreements instead. That is the way to go. For both sides.

I am working on a doc exposing human organs trade, and I can tell you that it is a lot worst than what you are portraying.

'No compromise' is what we must aim at.

The brutality the Mexican people face in Mexico is not comparable to life in the US. There is an evil going on in Mexico that is beyond the pale - inhuman does not describe it.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/Photos-show-destruction-from-10-years-of-Mexican-6621726.php#photo-8910331

[EE_]

The brutality the Mexican people face in Mexico is not comparable to life in the US. There is an evil going on in Mexico that is beyond the pale - inhuman does not describe it.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/border-mexico/article/Photos-show-destruction-from-10-years-of-Mexican-6621726.php#photo-8910331

Funny how we hear so much about ISIS cutting off heads, but hardly ever hear about the same in Mexico

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1298027.1364162048!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/mexico.jpg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/photo/2010-06/12/13346434_11n.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_m4Iw1nizK_4/TLnsS3XanAI/AAAAAAAABDU/2BJ4RmBIazw/s400/zetas57.jpg

https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/158217d1272261817-mexican-mafia-cartel-del-golfo-vs-zetas-dsc00269.jpg

[singular_me]

actually one doesnt need to invade mexico, what will cost billion again, just show this on TV, and americans will finally take responsibility, guaranteed



Funny how we hear so much about ISIS cutting off heads, but hardly ever hear about the same in Mexico

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1298027.1364162048!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/mexico.jpg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/photo/2010-06/12/13346434_11n.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_m4Iw1nizK_4/TLnsS3XanAI/AAAAAAAABDU/2BJ4RmBIazw/s400/zetas57.jpg

https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/158217d1272261817-mexican-mafia-cartel-del-golfo-vs-zetas-dsc00269.jpg

[Jewboo]

Funny how we hear so much about ISIS cutting off heads, but hardly ever hear about the same in Mexico



http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/106762/4648599-3824262571-horri.jpg


Explains how the mexicans took over nigger gang neighborhoods in Southern California so easily.

:D

[Jewboo]

This whole thing could be fixed immediately and easily by legalizing drugs and eliminating welfare. Bam!

How will the niggers pay for their legalized drugs without welfare?

[woodman]

How will the niggers pay for their legalized drugs without welfare?

Real fucking easy. They will be dirt cheap, high quality and maybe the stupid ones will weed themselves out of the gene pool thereby increasing the quality of life on this planet.

[woodman]

Real fucking easy. They will be dirt cheap, high quality and maybe the stupid ones will weed themselves out of the gene pool thereby increasing the quality of life on this planet.

It is an established fact that where drugs have been decriminalized, crime has gone down as has drug use.

[Neuro]

It is an established fact that where drugs have been decriminalized, crime has gone down as has drug use.

Drug use, probably didn't go down, but criminality certainly did.

[Bigjon]

From Jim Stone (http://82.221.129.208/baasepaget8.html)

NEW TREND IN MSM LIESDrudge got punked by this, so it can happen to anyone. Here's the deal:Wishful liberals and other assorted communists (whoever) want to create the image that Trump has no faithful people surrounding him. And their latest attempts at this have come in the form of "leaked transcripts" of phone calls to world leaders, which were provided by "moles in Trump's staff." PROBLEM: The transcripts are fake.
Yesterday, one such attempt at this was launched against Trump by someone who wanted to undermine Mexican relations. Supposedly, in a call to Pena Nieto Trump threatened to send troops to Mexico to "take out some bad hombres" in the drug cartels because "Mexico's troops were too afraid to do it themselves". It went viral. Even Drudge posted it. But as it turned out, no such thing was ever said, and in fact Trump's call to Pena Nieto went extremely well.
Now there is a report about a leaked transcript with Australia's PM that once again "showed Trump as being rude and pushy". We already got the heads up with a fake report regarding Mexico, if you see any report about a phone call not going well, treat it with the greatest skepticism.
Whoever is doing this has a direct pipeline into the heart of the media apparatus. And they are spewing absolute crap, completely dreamed up garbage in the hopes of inflicting as much damage as possible. The Mexican media vetted the "troops in Mexico" report and called it pure crap. The story then fell over everywhere like a stack of dominoes. My original report on this is farther down this page.
CNN: TRUMP IS TRYING TO CULL US FROM THE HERD!Trump has blacked out CNN from reporting on White House issues. "I'm not going to sit around and engage with people who have no desire to actually get something right".The Trump administration has stopped 100 percent of all appearances of all spokespeople for the administration on CNN. CNN has fired back, stating that it was an open attempt to destroy the network's ratings and to "cull CNN" from the media herd. But my take is that Trump did not initiate this, CNN staffers brought it on themselves with dishonorable reporting - a fact which could be seen by a one eyed three legged dog.
Fake news bust: Trump did not threaten sending troops to MexicoDrudge may have fallen for a headline. Prominently on his front page, in huge red letters, there is a headline about Trump threatening Pena Nieto with sending troops into Mexico because "he won't handle the cartel situation" and because "Mexican troops are too afraid to face the cartels"PROBLEM: When you actually read the AP report Drudge linked, it says that one small news outlet in Mexico, and one source in America made the claim. AP said they had access to the entire phone call and nothing of the sort was said by Trump. So most likely Drudge fell for fake news. That can happen to anyone now.
UPDATE: THE MEXICAN MEDIA IS REPORTING THE STORY. THEY ARE SAYING IT IS NOT TRUE. They are also reporting that the Mexican government is saying it is a lie hatched by two news sources, one in Mexico and one in the U.S. The AP report that also casts doubt on the story is Here (https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49)
Ok, the Mexican report got more detailed. Here is what they think spawned it all (but there is no real proof this is actually it:) The cartels feel threatened by Trump. So they are inventing fake news stories, and releasing them with plants they have in the media at the highest levels possible. The goal is to stifle Trump by making the Mexican people believe he is after all of them, rather than only the cartels. By doing so, they hope to stop Trump from taking them down by making the Mexican people resist every effort Trump makes to nail the cartels.
My take is that it might not be the cartels themselves, but liberals and other assorted liars who want to damage Trump in any way possible.
I was shocked by the headline on Drudge, saying Trump really did say it, and am glad it ended up being fake because if it was not, Trump would be off his rocker. Troops in Mexico would be the last political situation we need right now.

[TroyOz]

This whole thing could be fixed immediately and easily by legalizing drugs and eliminating welfare. Bam!

Through the drug trade and other criminal activity, the organized criminal Cartels have seized power in Mexico. Legalizing drugs, at this point, would not disempower the Cartels, anymore than repeal of Prohibition ended the power of the Mafias - in fact, it could be argued that Mafias (Jewish primarily) are more powerful than ever, having taken over legitimate businesses using the same ruthless methods (banking, insurance, pharma, media, etc.) - with good PR departments.

The Cartels are entrenched and the only way they will be defeated is by a stronger force - and nothing in Mexico can do it.

[woodman]

Through the drug trade and other criminal activity, the organized criminal Cartels have seized power in Mexico. Legalizing drugs, at this point, would not disempower the Cartels, anymore than repeal of Prohibition ended the power of the Mafias - in fact, it could be argued that Mafias (Jewish primarily) are more powerful than ever, having taken over legitimate businesses using the same ruthless methods (banking, insurance, pharma, media, etc.) - with good PR departments.

The Cartels are entrenched and the only way they will be defeated is by a stronger force - and nothing in Mexico can do it.

I disagree with your assessment in that you state the cartels would not be disempowered by the legalization of drugs. They certainly would. The only reason they are in power is because of the artificial vacuum provided by the illegal status of drugs. I do agree that organized crime takes a foothold and is difficult to eradicate. This is because, as you did state, it sets roots in business and government. The only way to weed it out is to attack its' sources of nutrition, in this case money from illicit activity. So you see, decriminalizing drugs is the best start to eradicating these vile criminals by denying them the source of their power. Money. As far as criminality and corruption, i.e. organized crime, Mexico has always been a moral cesspool and will remain so as long as the society there tolerates it. But why wage a war on the populace? This is what the drug war really is, a war on innocent people.

[palani]

There is no need of a wall from El Paso to Brownsville. The Rio Grande forms a riparian barrier. West from El Paso all that is needed is a chalk line and a contract offer to deter people crossing. The offer should be structured as "If you engage in cross border incursions of any form we will consider that to be an incident that will start an international war". Then you sit back and monitor. Any incursion is an acceptance of your offer.

Walls are not effective. Contracts are.

Once they know the way it works they will make a diligent effort to keep those cross border incursions down.

However, threats are the actions of a criminal.

[7th trump]

There is no need of a wall from El Paso to Brownsville. The Rio Grande forms a riparian barrier. West from El Paso all that is needed is a chalk line and a contract offer to deter people crossing. The offer should be structured as "If you engage in cross border incursions of any form we will consider that to be an incident that will start an international war". Then you sit back and monitor. Any incursion is an acceptance of your offer.

Walls are not effective. Contracts are.

Once they know the way it works they will make a diligent effort to keep those cross border incursions down.

Hahahahahaha...............do you think the bolshevics would play your silly game?
How about the inner city black and Mexican thugs from robbing you at gun point?
How about ISIS? Do you think they would accept your pathetic offer?

You make a great idiot democrat.

You just cant fix palani (stupid).

[palani]

do you think the bolshevics would play your silly game?
Are there bolshevics in Mexico? I didn't know that.

And as to a 'silly game': In the world of honor and dishonor I know it is considered very honorable to keep your word.

I have posted before the usefulness of the Fox one dollar stamp in forming a contract. What you don't realize (cause I have never bothered to inform you) is that when I use the stamp as substance and to validate the contract I am binding myself to do precisely what I say and no more nor no less. The other guy? All I can say is he has gotten notice and if he hasn't bothered to inquire then he has agreed.

In the world of bankruptcy and dishonor I would have say you are currently in first place in my book.

[crimethink]

I disagree with your assessment in that you state the cartels would not be disempowered by the legalization of drugs. They certainly would. The only reason they are in power is because of the artificial vacuum provided by the illegal status of drugs. I do agree that organized crime takes a foothold and is difficult to eradicate. This is because, as you did state, it sets roots in business and government. The only way to weed it out is to attack its' sources of nutrition, in this case money from illicit activity. So you see, decriminalizing drugs is the best start to eradicating these vile criminals by denying them the source of their power. Money. As far as criminality and corruption, i.e. organized crime, Mexico has always been a moral cesspool and will remain so as long as the society there tolerates it. But why wage a war on the populace? This is what the drug war really is, a war on innocent people.

Many do not know that during the Third Reich, possession and consumption of most drugs was legal. If they found "decriminalization" to not be burdensome to the State, why can't America?

Personally, I would like to see possession to be decriminalized, and only major trafficking for hard shit (meth, heroin, etc.) kept criminal - but with punishments that, as Jimmy Carter said, are not worse than the offense itself.

I would not want to see a war on the Mexican people - at least the decent ones, which are a majority. Lightning strikes against the Hydra in the Distrito Federal would solve almost all of the Problem. The cartel is protected by the Mexican "government."

[keehah]

Is a US Special Military Operation incoming?

nbcnews.com: Mexico president rebukes calls for U.S. military action against cartels as an 'offense' (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/mexico-president-rebukes-calls-us-military-action-cartels-offense-rcna74200)

March 9, 2023
MEXICO CITY — Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador on Thursday rebuked calls from some U.S. lawmakers advocating military action in Mexico against drug cartels, describing the proposals as threats to Mexican sovereignty.

“We are not going to permit any foreign government to intervene in our territory, much less that a government’s armed forces intervene,” Lopez Obrador said during a regular news conference.

The kidnapping of four Americans — two of whom were killed — in a northern border state intensified calls from Republican lawmakers in Washington to take a tougher line on organized crime.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, on Wednesday released a message in Spanish on Twitter asking López Obrador why he opposes a proposal the congressman introduced in January authorizing military force targeting drug cartels in Mexico.

“In addition to being irresponsible, it is an offense to the people of Mexico,” López Obrador said during the news conference, adding that Mexico “does not take orders from anyone.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Monday in a Fox News interview that it was time to “put Mexico on notice”msn.com: MTG co-sponsors Dan Crenshaw bill to 'declare war' on Mexican drug cartels (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mtg-co-sponsors-dan-crenshaw-bill-to-declare-war-on-mexican-drug-cartels/ar-AA18D5mw)
Mar 14
msn.com: 'Not just a right wing thing': AOC snaps at left-wing 'rumors' she hosted a military recruitment event (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/not-just-a-right-wing-thing-aoc-snaps-at-left-wing-rumors-she-hosted-a-military-recruitment-event/ar-AA18UnKo)
(https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2031%20D ecember%202021%20%28rev%2027%20January%202022%29%2 0corr%20EN_0.pdf)Yesterday

ukraine.un.org: Conflict-related civilian casualties in Ukraine (https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2031%20D ecember%202021%20%28rev%2027%20January%202022%29%2 0corr%20EN_0.pdf)

Total conflict-related casualties in Ukraine in 2014-20217

OHCHR estimates the total number of conflict-related casualties in Ukraine from 14 April 2014 to 31 December 2021 to be 51,000–54,0008: 14,200-14,400 killed (at least 3,404 civilians, estimated 4,400 Ukrainian forces, and estimated 6,500 members of armed groups), and 37-39,000 injured (7,000-9,000 civilians, 13,800–14,200 Ukrainian forces and 15,800-16,200 members of armed groups).