They've needed their asses kicked for 70 years. Fuck Mexico.

ClaifChris will be here in a few to tell us they've already invaded.

OK, we surrender. Take back Texas and we will call it even.

ClaifChris will be here in a few to tell us they've already invaded.

Mexico always seemed like a poor nation where most Americans would not want to live but then along came the Tea Party folks who seem determined to turn America into a place just like it.
Low taxes, small government.

Shouldn't it be Mexican Drug Cartel declares war? This could easily be resolved by the legalization of drugs taking the money and the power away from the cartels...

Since the cartels own the government, the army, and the police, can't we just leave it at Mexico?

Since the cartels own the government, the army, and the police,

We know about the United States, but what about Mexico? =P

Letusprey,

While that may have been true in the past the current bloodshed seems to be indicative of the lack of support from the Mexican gov't. The gov't crack down both internally and externally is shaking loose those violent and dangerous criminals.

#4 | Posted by danni

Danni,the government will happily accept your donated money to apply to taxes. Put your money where your mouth is.

Yeah, invade Mexico, So you can have a 100 million refugees crossing into the US seeking asylum.

"Mexico always seemed like a poor nation where most Americans would not want to live but then along came the Tea Party folks who seem determined to turn America into a place just like it.
Low taxes, small government."

That's about as valid as when pepole say Obama wants to turn us into the former Soviet Union.

Mexico's problem is that their government is sold out to criminals who run drug cartels rather than criminals who run corporations such as the criminals who own the GOP and the DNC.

Why doesn't the Mexican government turn the tables on the drug cartels and put a bounty on the heads of their leaders?

Mexico's problem is that the vast majority is so poor that they see little advantage in siding with law enforcement. It isn't too much different than Americans during prohibition.

Mexico's problem is that their government is sold out to criminals who run drug cartels rather than criminals who run corporations such as the criminals who own the GOP and the DNC.

They're all controlled by the same globalist bankers.

You can say the same thing about the US.

Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor
No. 3 U.S.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images, Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Gini score: 40.8
GDP 2007 (US$ billions): 13,751.4
Share of income or expenditure (%)
Poorest 10%: 1.9
Richest 10%: 29.9
Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%: 15.9

The share of income for the top percentile of Americans was 23.5% in 2007, the highest since 1928, according to Emmanuel Saez, a Berkeley economist who won the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal in April. Income for the top 0.01% hit a record-high 6.04%. And the recession may be exacerbating income inequality.

Chalk up a good weekend for Texas gun dealers.

"Why doesn't the Mexican government turn the tables on the drug cartels and put a bounty on the heads of their leaders?"

Probably because it isn't legal.

The Colombian govt had to set up death squads to go after Pablo Escobar's friends and family before they could finally get to him.

Mexico will almost have to fight a civil war to get rid of their problem.

Mexico's problem is that their government is sold out to criminals who run drug cartels rather than criminals who run corporations such as the criminals who own the GOP and the DNC.

-------------

congratulations on the smartest post i've seen here in months.

Mexico always seemed like a poor nation where most Americans would not want to live but then along came the Tea Party folks who seem determined to turn America into a place just like it.
Low taxes, small government.

#4 | Posted by danni at

geez danni.

Mexico will almost have to fight a civil war to get rid of their problem.

#17 | Posted by Sully

nope because obama will extend a hand to them and they will fall in line just like iran has, right?

"nope because obama will extend a hand to them and they will fall in line just like iran has, right?"

you know how i know yer dumb?
you compare drug cartels to standing governments.

nope because obama will extend a hand to them and they will fall in line just like iran has, right?

I thought "axles of weevils" Bush took care of all the bad guys in the world, like the taliban, al queda, lil' Kim, the mad ayatollahs. I guess, depending on the meaning of "take care of" he did. Handing the ayatollahs Iraq, forgetting about the taliban and al queda and making sure lil' kim got his I-pods and congac after setting off his nuke...

Juarez used to be a wonderful place. Now it is a shithole. I would buy a couple women and rent a cheap room and feel like a king for under 100 bucks. That has changed, now you risk your life just crossing the border.

We should send in deep cover special forces and start killing the drug warlords and their associates.

rwd

We should send in deep cover special forces and start killing the drug warlords and their associates.

rwd

#24 | Posted by rightwingdon

Agreed. It has become a national security issue.

"Yeah, invade Mexico, So you can have a 100 million refugees crossing into the US seeking asylum."

Reminds me of something an American told me years ago. The American government wanted to annex Baja California from Mexico. These days they can't just send the army in and take what territory they want so they were thinking of buying it (this was when the States had money) from Mexico. Until someone pointed out that if they did, they'd probably annex half the population of Mexico too.

President Obama on Sunday expressed outrage at the drive-by slayings

Dumb shit, they wern't drive-by slayings.

Nothing new. Just a few more victims of the War on Some Drugs.

"We should send in deep cover special forces and start killing the drug warlords and their associates."

The military approach has been used in Latin America for decades, dummy. The negative results are obvious.

Will the killing of three people with ties to the U.S. consulate in Ciudad Juarez change that? The White House has already commented on the deaths, saying that President Obama is "deeply saddened and outraged by the news." The State Department is allowing its consular staff to leave cities along the border. Another 13 people were killed Saturday in the fabled resort town of Acapulco four of them beheaded. Mexican journalists are being terrified into silence. It certainly feels like we are entering a new phase of conflict.

And that's just Mexico, a relatively strong state. Countries in Central America are being overwhelmed by the traficantes. Guatemala just arrested its drug czar and national police chief for stealing some 1,500 pounds of cocaine from the drug dealers, and it's not clear whether the government there is strong enough to win this fight.

So what is Obama going to do about it? His administration has asked for $450 million from Congress to bolster Mexico's security and counter-narcotics forces with new equipment, including helicopters and surveillance aircraft, as an extension of George W. Bush's Merida Initiative. That's on top of the $700 million Congress allocated for 2008 and 2009. Central America has gotten another couple hundred million. Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Venezuela outlined a number of other related initiatives during his recent congressional testimony.

If you ask me, it all seems like doubling down on a failed strategy a typical example of trying to solve a social and political problem through military and technical means.

#4 Danni> Low taxes, small government.

Danni never met big, wasteful government spending that she didn't like (unless those in charge have an 'R' after their name).

HINT TO DANNI & OBAMA: CUT THE SPENDING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!

"The military approach has been used in Latin America for decades, dummy. The negative results are obvious."

You can't stop drug activity all together with the military approach. But you can bring down the more violent drug lords using military techniques. What is the point? Some devils are worse than others. The drug lords in Colombia now aren't setting off car bombs in cities the way Escobar did, for example.

#16 Northguy3> Chalk up a good weekend for Texas gun dealers.

Yeah, it's terrible that all those automatic weapons including Chinese and Russian military rifles, grenades and such are being sold by Texas gun dealers to Mexican gang bangers and drug cartels. If only we had a background check or some kind of gun control at the state or federal level, or perhaps an 'assault weapons' ban.

I know it must be true because Obama's people have said as much.

"But you can bring down the more violent drug lords using military techniques"

Big deal. They always have, and always will have, replacements as long as it's profitable.

#23 Jackass> I would buy a couple women and rent a cheap room and feel like a king for under 100 bucks. That has changed, now you risk your life just crossing the border.

Were those women for sale or did you just rent them awhile? Sounds like a great way to build meaningful, longterm personal relationships with the opposite sex, eh?

Why the war on drugs in Colombia may never be won

Jackass:...Were those women for sale or did you just rent them awhile? Sounds like a great way to build meaningful, longterm personal relationships with the opposite sex, eh?

#35 | Posted by AKat at 2010-03-16 04:07 PM

...ClaifChris will be here in a few to tell us they've already invaded.

#1 | Posted by Ron_Karate at 2010-03-15 12:26 PM

It's a done deal.