the Mexican Drug War

clover wrote:

Where's the line between "you break it, you buy it" and being the world's police force here? Actively intervening in Latin America has never gone well for the US.

Well, if you read my previous posts I think my suggestions beat "actively intervening" by a long shot. We aren't talking about sending marines or deploying an entire fleet to the shores but something more along the lines of diplomacy.

We're not so great at that one either, let's be honest...

I think it could have some effect if the United States thought of itself as a diplomatic powerhouse, or the global voice of reason, but that's a role we've botched or avoided for so long I wonder if it would have much credibility if we tried it. Regardless, adding a third theatre isn't likely to happen, good idea or no.

Yeah, sorry I dunno about the whole Venezuela thing, clearly there's some supply coming from South America and passes through Mexico but every year Mexico ramps up production of "home-made" drugs, to cut out the middle-man. I've never heard anything about efforts to fight Venezuelan production or cartels or anything.

I don't think you can kill supply without killing demand, which would be the perfect solution (imo) - i.e. legalize in the US (legalizing in Mexico wouldn't do anything without help from the US).

Yesterday they found a dead body down my street :/ Like walking distance. And the other day I heard a helicopter flying like really f*cking low, I was playing TF2 and all of a sudden I felt a breeze and a sound like a giant motor and there it was, almost outside my window. It was cool, but also a bit scary. Sound was impressive. But every time they're flying around, I know they're looking for someone, they already got a big shot guy like 5 minutes from my house.

Weird thing is that everyone experiences those things in small measures, but then you go "hm" and proceed about your day. Everyone wants to ignore it, which I guess is the healthiest thing since we can't do much as citizens (hell, even police/government can't). It just kind of puts a perspective on the value of your life in these times (apparently, not much)

DR GRiM wrote:

I am worried about your answers on the topic but not surprised. I am starting to believe you don't mind a narco-state actively undermining Colombia's effort to get rid of the problem. You complain it's not working but focusing on Colombia alone is probably part of the problem. No, wait. IT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. If I understand what you imply it's completely ok for the cancer to spread. So let's just give up and let those guys have a field day? You don't mind Cuba and Venezuela conspiring on all levels to send the region into chaos and promoting drugs and violence in Central America and Mexico?

I never said we focused on Columbia only. I merely pointed out that we've dumped more than $6 billion over the past decade into Columbia (the #1 producer of cocaine) and we haven't gotten any real results. Columbia still produces cocaine and it still makes it to American streets. That means the money American taxpayers spent to decrease or stop the flow of drugs from its source has been wasted.

We've spent billions more doing the same things in Mexico, Venezuela, and other countries and none of that has had any effect on the amount of drugs reaching our shores. It doesn't take a genius to realize that you either need to spend a sh*tload more money on the problem to move the needle (something we don't have the money for) or it simply doesn't work.

DR GRiM wrote:

1) Stop buying oil from Venezuela but it's a bit too late for that.

That's not going to ever happen, so it's pretty pointless to even bring it up. What should be clear from our history of dealing with governments sitting on top of oil supplies is that we will buddy up to and support some absolutely sh*tty people. Venezuela isn't going to be an exception to that rule.

DR GRiM wrote:

2) Speed up the interrogation process of defectors currently negotiating with the FBI and DEA agency. We're talking about one of the Supreme Court top dogs that had his hand in pretty much every dirty business you can think of and also other former key figures willing to talk. That magistrate gave an interview before surrendering to the FBI in Costa Rica and made sure he brought plenty of evidence but he isn't the first to cooperate so the US had time to do some research. Take it seriously, do your homework, hurry the hell up.

And he revealed that not only was he dirty as hell, but so was the Venezuelan Minister of Defense, the commander of the Fourth Armored Division of the Army, and the president of the National Assembly.

So what are we supposed to do with that information? Pull another Nicaragua, invade Venezuela to scoop up half the government and take them all back to the US to face drug charges?

As we're seeing in Mexico, there's not a lot America can do once an entire system of government is corrupted with drug money. Even removing those corrupt officials will do nothing because they will simply be replaced by others.

DR GRiM wrote:

3) Be more vocal on the international scene about chávez regime, use what the US has left of their diplomatic leverage before the American States Organization is beheaded for good. Take that evidence to the UN like you mean to. Don't wait for Iran to fully transfer more technology to Venezuela because it's gonna end in the wrong hands. The FARC has been trying to acquire 50 kgs of enriched plutonium and came close. chávez recently bought 5 billion in russian weaponry and switched the de facto rifle to the AK-103 that uses the same rounds the AK-47 colombian guerrillas use. Unmanned drones are being built in Venezuela thanks to Iran and russian ground to air missiles in the wrong hands sounds like more trouble. See where I am going with this? You guys are fighting narcos that are being supplied in Venezuela...

Take what evidence to the UN? That Venezuela is a sovereign nation doing what sovereign nations do?

As a sovereign nation they can trade with whoever they please, including Iran or Russia or whoever. They can also exchange technology with whoever they see fit, not that unmanned drones, surface to air missiles, or AK-103s represent any military threat to the US.

As a sovereign nation they can back whatever group they want to. Hell, the US is in absolutely no position to tell other countries that they can't support non-governmental groups.

Given the tremendous clusterf*ck that was Iraq, we're not exactly going to be chasing tenuous claims that FARC was trying to acquire uranium. They could want it, but there's a massive difference between wanting it and being anywhere close to getting it (which they weren't). After all, if getting nuclear material was that easy there would be plenty of nation states who would have topped the $300 million Venezuela supposedly gave FARC to finance the deal.

We understand that Colombia is battling narcos being supplied from Venezuela. But there's no easy solution to that problem that doesn't involve the US massively ratcheting up our involvement--both monetarily and military support--in Colombia, a government we know to be compromised by drug money. If you haven't read the news lately, we're kind of busy trying to extract ourselves from Afghanistan and Pakistan--two nations who have a very similar dynamic as Venezuela and Colombia--and we aren't exactly looking to fire up another thorny regional conflict.

DR GRiM wrote:

4) As I said earlier, it's key to erradicate FARC and ELN guerrillas but if chávez is helping them you are wasting money, blood and sweat. 6 billion dollars isn't that much money given drugs generate far more directly and indirectly.

And just how are we supposed to do that, especially if you claim it should only involve diplomacy and not sending in the marines?

The reality is that to eradicate the FARC and the ELN the US would have to invade both Colombia and Venezuela because we can't trust the government or military of either, wage years and years of a counter-insurgency, and then maintain a strong presence for many more years until both Colombia and Venezuela could purge their civil, political, and military institutions of the influence of drug money.

We're currently burning through $10+ billion a month in Afghanistan to do a similar thing and we haven't had much success, even after a decade.

DR GRiM wrote:

5) Get that AWACS to patrol the border. Colombia is playing happy-tree-friends with Venezuela because of exporting debts chávez has been slow to pay. Time to show some teeth and to put some pants on.

How? The Panamanians told us we would no longer be allowed to use the base in Panama where we flew most of the AWACs flights from in the 2000s. Ecuador leased the airbase we had been using for a decade to the Chinese and told us to GTFO. Airbases in Aruba and Curacao require tens of millions of dollars of improvement before they could be used by the AWACs and that's only if we could convince the governments of those countries to do so, which is unlikely. We can't use bases in Colombia since the Colombian Supreme Court found that agreement unconstitutional.

Right now about the only way we could do that is fly the AWACs out of bases in Florida and we could only do that with tanker support. The rub with that is that our limited inventory of both AWACs and tankers is in hot demand elsewhere in the world.

Of course even if we somehow managed to get the AWACs flights going who would we give the information to?

DR GRiM wrote:

Got any better ideas?

Yes. Focus on the demand for drugs instead of worrying about where they come from.

That would require a comprehensive re-evaluation of the US's drug policies. The only thing that would really have any impact on the drug trade would be the legalization or extensive decriminalization of drugs in the US (and Europe). The odds of that happening anytime soon in the US is effectively (and sadly) nil.

We're just reaching the point where a significant minority of the population is getting comfortable with the idea that marijuana is a fairly benign drug, but we have a long way to go before people will be comfortable with the idea of being able to buy coke, heroin, meth, and other harder drugs at the corner store. We're a Puritanical society at heart.

That doesn't bode well for Central and South American, though. Any problems the drug trade is creating in those countries is largely out of sight, out of mind here.

As a population we care more about Mexicans coming over our border to work here than we do about drugs doing the same. The rampant violence in Mexico doesn't make a dent in our media and our government until a border guard is shot with a weapon from a BATF sting operation.

And even then the knowledge that Mexican drug gangs are buying thousands of guns in the US and using them to kill people in Mexico isn't the main story. It's that an incompetent government agency did something ham-fisted with our God-given right to own guns and a heroic law enforcement official got killed in the process.

We won't take things seriously until we start seeing the same levels of drug-related corruption happening here. And even then there's no guarantee we'll do the right thing.

GRIM: pondering how effective your potential solutions to Mexican/Colombian/Venezuelan problem might be, I only have to consider how successful US has been at eradicating drugs production in a country which they have OCCUPIED outright. I am talking about Afghanistan, of course.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

GRIM: pondering how effective your potential solutions to Mexican/Colombian/Venezuelan problem might be, I only have to consider how successful US has been at eradicating drugs production in a country which they have OCCUPIED outright. I am talking about Afghanistan, of course.

That's a different situation, burning all of those crops would be an economic disaster for an already poor area, the last thing the US wants is more unemployed angry people there.

If the US could get Venezuela to do that politically then it wouldn't matter if increased anger and poverty led to increase violence. Win-win! For a slightly non-standard definition of "win".

Yonder wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

GRIM: pondering how effective your potential solutions to Mexican/Colombian/Venezuelan problem might be, I only have to consider how successful US has been at eradicating drugs production in a country which they have OCCUPIED outright. I am talking about Afghanistan, of course.

That's a different situation, burning all of those crops would be an economic disaster for an already poor area, the last thing the US wants is more unemployed angry people there.

Why, I think it's a very relevant situation which highlights the "reality on the ground" aspect of global policies such as this. Dependency of the local growers on opiate poppy as a cash crop is but one of the factors in a big, interconnected problem. Having practically unlimited choice of tools on hand, US were not able to solve this problem nonetheless, preferring to let it quietly fester in a relative lack of media coverage.

Just think of it again. US occupied the damn country, took upon the task of rebuilding the nation and threw unlimited resources at it, and still couldn't solve the problem.

Easy solution. Work on demand and meanwhile grow it / sell it in the US. Including opium. Undercut the sellers and work on the real problem, addiction.

OG summed it up for me. Just wanted to add the 'dont buy their oil' argument drives me positively nuts.

Oil isn't some luxury resource we bathe in for fun. Even if you boycott a certain countries oil there will be other countries happy to soak up their supply.

actual numbers of where the US gets their oil.

http://205.254.135.7/dnav/pet/pet_mo...

edit: just realized you could change oil to drugs in my post and its almost as applicable LOL.

I don't have the relevant link tho

OG_slinger wrote:

We won't take things seriously until we start seeing the same levels of drug-related corruption happening here. And even then there's no guarantee we'll do the right thing.

I realize my only posts in here are just comparisons to a part of American history I know a bit about, but there's ample evidence that once that violence spills gushes into our cities, there will be more enthusiasm among voters to end the war on drugs. Ater all, it wasn't the collective realization that banning alcohol didn't stop alcohol consumption that led to the 21st Amendment; it was a response to the trail of blood in all the major cities that lead to it.

Seems like the quote function is not working for me, meh.

Regarding OG's answers to my previous post:

1) You could buy the oil from Canada if that duct oil project ever comes to happen. You realize that the US has been giving all this oil money to chávez and he's been using it to f*ck you and the entire region, right? An asshole without money is just that, but with tons of cash it's a different problem.

2) The information from that magistrate and those other key people could be solid enough to prove that Venezuela is -as a government- promoting drug dealing, laundering and terrorism and it might directly involve chávez. If I recall, the US constitution forbids any trade with countries involved in such activities but I'm thinking...maybe the US is willing to turn a blind eye on this.

3) Taking that evidence to the UN would prove Venezuela is a rogue state. You know that countries sign international agreements to fight drug trafficking and terrorism to be part of certain organizations, right? Mexico's gvt is at least fighting it and if Venezuela's is doing the opposite that's something worth mentioning. Doing nothing is leading to where we are now. Hint: It's not good.

4) Colombia is already very close to eradicating ELN and FARC but Venezuela is getting in the way by sheltering rebels and their leaders in their territory. When Colombia killed the 2nd in command in Ecuadorian territory it became a huge political issue. Nailing that guy in a foreign country was a big sovereignty disaster, sure, but because Ecuador is Venezuela's lapdog it became a bigger problem to the point that it made chávez move venezuelean troops to the colombian border to protect the FARC leads that were currently in VENEZUELA. Guerrilla leaders can be replaced, but out of the top ten leaders only 4 remain and every time one is killed the morale of the remaining troop goes down a notch going one step further towards implosion and eventually negotiating surrender. It's not that hard to understand, really. FARC and ELN are no hydra-like organizations, you don't need to kill all 10 heads at once to have it die but you need to kill them in a fast sequence to have the desired effect because the leads are chosen based on specific traits (charisma, bravery, efficiency to carry operations, intelligence, years in the organizations, etc). Not everybody in FARC and ELN can lead: most are just kids who were forced to join and have had no formal education of any kind.

5) Regarding the AWACS plane I seem to remember Colombia was trying to acquire one or two directly (I have to find the article). It's true the agreement you mentioned bounced but it implied building an american base in Colombia soil and that got messy. I don't see the current colombian government trying to turn that around in any legal way by any means. That plane could expose FARC movement troops in an almost real-time fashion considering satellites won't cut it (and rebels know how to avoid them). You don't need to give the info to anybody in particular but to the press and to blow it in the UN or American State Organization. Regarding operating in Curaçao, I don't think the Netherlands would mind but who knows?

The bottom line is that the US has lost allies in the region to a guy who is making friends with the worst of the worst and he is spreading the disease left and right. It's a no brainer, really: one thing is to help fighting a problem, another one is to be part of it. When everybody is fighting it you tend to get good results. When more people are doing the opposite you waste tons of time and money and don't get anything out of it. Now add to that that Iran could get a nuke ready by 2014 and that you never know when a dirty bomb could end up in the wrong hand and that it could make its way in the US. You're just tempting fate if you ask me by letting chávez do anything he wants. Yes, Venezuela can deal with whoever it wants but when they undermine UN sanctions to Syria and Iran it becomes something worth investigating. You wouldn't feel at ease if that new neighbor was friend with rapists, pedophiles and drug dealers because after all he's free to be friends with whoever he wants, right? I'd be far more than nervous, but that's just me.

Regarding fighting demand through legalization in the US: NO. I mean, you could always try but I don't see it remotely feasible. The moral implications in the US society alone make it impossible already. The legal barriers are also a huge NO. Do you plan on allowing soft drugs but forbidding hardcore ones? You'd still have to handle hard drugs dealers while I guess druglords would establish legit businesses through third-parties to make money in a legal way while giving them access to a really wide audience. How do you handle the side effects of drug abuse? Who's gonna pay for the medical expenses of all the people who will get too much of it? Pot alone can have nasty effects depending on its chemical balance, no way to effectively control that. Imagine if you could have access to drugs legally and it turns out certain batches have been tampered with with higher concentration of X or Y and you end up with dead people? You know the world is trying to get rid of tobacco consumption for a reason...it costs a fortune to treat patients of lung cancer and cigarettes are a kind of soft drug everybody over 18 can have access to. Granted pot is not addictive it could become a hip thing that would have severe repercussions in a society such as the US. As you mentioned there's also the 2nd amendment and that's bad enough to add to the mix already.

Thanks for telling us "NO". Now I know that I'm wrong for even thinking it.

DSGamer wrote:

Thanks for telling us "NO". Now I know that I'm wrong for even thinking it.

My personal opinion. Had no idea I was salting some wounds here.

DR GRiM wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Thanks for telling us "NO". Now I know that I'm wrong for even thinking it.

My personal opinion. Had no idea I was salting some wounds here.

Not old wounds. Caps lock and single word sentences tend to shut down discussion.

Dr Grim, we actually *use pot* as a medical treatment in many places in the States, so your fearmongering regarding marijuana seems out of date. I'd be happy to explore this facet in more depth in its own thread.

Additionally, this has to be mentioned every time the idea of "not buying oil from that one guy" comes up, so I'll do it: oil is a global market. If America shifts all its purchases to other places, it does not change the price, nor does it mean Venezuela (this is also true for Iran) suddenly can't sell its oil. And there's dozens of reasons why people don't want the Keystone Project anyway. I'd also be happy to explore this facet in more depth in its own thread.

DR GRiM wrote:

1) You could buy the oil from Canada if that duct oil project ever comes to happen. You realize that the US has been giving all this oil money to chávez and he's been using it to f*ck you and the entire region, right? An asshole without money is just that, but with tons of cash it's a different problem.

So we should replace the 13% of our daily imports of oil that we get from Venezuela with much more expensive oil extracted and synthesized from oil sands in Canada and which is then pumped through a pipeline that doesn't exist (and, even if it were to be built, would primarily be used to transport the oil to where it could be sold on the global market and exported)?

As I said before, we have given lots of money to assholes (and even work hard to support their corrupt governments) because of oil. Chavez is no different. The realpolitik is that we need the energy and we'll deal with whoever can give it to us.

DR GRiM wrote:

2) The information from that magistrate and those other key people could be solid enough to prove that Venezuela is -as a government- promoting drug dealing, laundering and terrorism and it might directly involve chávez. If I recall, the US constitution forbids any trade with countries involved in such activities but I'm thinking...maybe the US is willing to turn a blind eye on this.

Again, how are we going to replace 13% of our daily oil imports if we stop trading with Venezuela?

And you're also overlooking the fact that we have a long history of dealing with governments that support the drug trade. Just look at Panama and Noriega. We supported him for three decades before deciding he had outlived his usefulness. We're currently propping up the Afghan government with full knowledge that they're being funded by the opium trade, which we've told our troops to turn a blind eye to.

DR GRiM wrote:

3) Taking that evidence to the UN would prove Venezuela is a rogue state. You know that countries sign international agreements to fight drug trafficking and terrorism to be part of certain organizations, right? Mexico's gvt is at least fighting it and if Venezuela's is doing the opposite that's something worth mentioning. Doing nothing is leading to where we are now. Hint: It's not good.

The UN can't get enough votes to declare the Syria government--who's conducting the wholesale slaughter of portions of its citizens--a rogue nation. What makes you think it would be able to declare Venezuela a rogue nation?

Also, in order to make that happen, the UN Security Council would have to sign off on it and, considering the US is one of the Security Council's permanent members, I don't think we'll be voting for trade sanctions against Venezuela anytime soon, especially when those sanctions would hurt our economy. Not to mention that Russia and China wouldn't vote for sanctions either because they are very much against setting any track record allowing the UN to muck with the internal affairs of other countries lest someone get the idea of doing the same to them.

DR GRiM wrote:

4) Colombia is already very close to eradicating ELN and FARC but Venezuela is getting in the way by sheltering rebels and their leaders in their territory. When Colombia killed the 2nd in command in Ecuadorian territory it became a huge political issue. Nailing that guy in a foreign country was a big sovereignty disaster, sure, but because Ecuador is Venezuela's lapdog it became a bigger problem to the point that it made chávez move venezuelean troops to the colombian border to protect the FARC leads that were currently in VENEZUELA. Guerrilla leaders can be replaced, but out of the top ten leaders only 4 remain and every time one is killed the morale of the remaining troop goes down a notch going one step further towards implosion and eventually negotiating surrender. It's not that hard to understand, really. FARC and ELN are no hydra-like organizations, you don't need to kill all 10 heads at once to have it die but you need to kill them in a fast sequence to have the desired effect because the leads are chosen based on specific traits (charisma, bravery, efficiency to carry operations, intelligence, years in the organizations, etc). Not everybody in FARC and ELN can lead: most are just kids who were forced to join and have had no formal education of any kind.

A couple of things. First, you need to explain to me how you will be able to eliminate ELN and FARC without invading Venezuela. You've repeatedly said that it should be handled diplomatically and without the need for the US Marines to invade, but I seriously doubt there's a diplomatic solution. Even if the UN declared Venezuela a rogue state and slapped it with sanctions, it would take years and years for them to have any noticeable effect (if then). Iraq survived more than a decade of rigorous sanctions.

Second, we've been killing "top al Qaeda leaders" for over a decade now and they always seem to be replaced. The same would be true for ELN and FARC. Again, if you want to "kill them in a fast sequence" you are talking about direct military intervention, which is something that we as a nation are looking to get out of, not into.

Hell, we have the same exact problem in Afghanistan that Colombia is facing because the folks we're fighting there are protected by the Pakistani government. We've failed to solve that problem when we have more than a hundred thousand US troops in country and we're spending $10 billion a month there. What makes you think it would be any different in Venezuela?

Third, for the ELN and FARC to be truly eliminated, the current Venezuelan government would have to be taken down and replaced. Short of Venezuelans doing that themselves, it would require a massive military intervention. And that would mean that US troops would have to do it. And there's a whole loads of issues around that: Who's going to pay for it? Who's going to replace Chavez? How long will our troops have to be there?

We've had our experience with regime change in Iraq and I don't think we're anxious to repeat the experience anytime soon.

DR GRiM wrote:

5) Regarding the AWACS plane I seem to remember Colombia was trying to acquire one or two directly (I have to find the article). It's true the agreement you mentioned bounced but it implied building an american base in Colombia soil and that got messy. I don't see the current colombian government trying to turn that around in any legal way by any means. That plane could expose FARC movement troops in an almost real-time fashion considering satellites won't cut it (and rebels know how to avoid them). You don't need to give the info to anybody in particular but to the press and to blow it in the UN or American State Organization. Regarding operating in Curaçao, I don't think the Netherlands would mind but who knows?

I doubt we'd sell AWACs to Colombia considering we've kept that technology very close to our vest. That doesn't mean Colombia couldn't buy the technology from another sources, but that's not really our problem. If Colombia needs that equipment to wage its counter-terrorism operations then its government should acquire it. It shouldn't wait for the US to give it to them or rely on them to fly the reconnaissance missions its military needs.

Beyond that, it's not really up to the US to provide the Colombian government with all this additional military support. Technically, we'd only be concerned about using AWACs information to track and intercept drug shipments. Troop movements would not be our concern.

DR GRiM wrote:

The bottom line is that the US has lost allies in the region to a guy who is making friends with the worst of the worst and he is spreading the disease left and right. It's a no brainer, really: one thing is to help fighting a problem, another one is to be part of it. When everybody is fighting it you tend to get good results. When more people are doing the opposite you waste tons of time and money and don't get anything out of it. Now add to that that Iran could get a nuke ready by 2014 and that you never know when a dirty bomb could end up in the wrong hand and that it could make its way in the US. You're just tempting fate if you ask me by letting chávez do anything he wants. Yes, Venezuela can deal with whoever it wants but when they undermine UN sanctions to Syria and Iran it becomes something worth investigating. You wouldn't feel at ease if that new neighbor was friend with rapists, pedophiles and drug dealers because after all he's free to be friends with whoever he wants, right? I'd be far more than nervous, but that's just me.

Venezuela is far down the list of US priorities right now. We're still trying to get ourselves out of what we got into after 9/11. Things like saying that Iran will give FARC nuclear capabilities are simply fantasies at this point and fantasies designed to get us to use force against Venezuela. We already did that in Iraq and it didn't go well for us.

DR GRiM wrote:

Regarding fighting demand through legalization in the US: NO. I mean, you could always try but I don't see it remotely feasible. The moral implications in the US society alone make it impossible already. The legal barriers are also a huge NO. Do you plan on allowing soft drugs but forbidding hardcore ones? You'd still have to handle hard drugs dealers while I guess druglords would establish legit businesses through third-parties to make money in a legal way while giving them access to a really wide audience. How do you handle the side effects of drug abuse? Who's gonna pay for the medical expenses of all the people who will get too much of it? Pot alone can have nasty effects depending on its chemical balance, no way to effectively control that. Imagine if you could have access to drugs legally and it turns out certain batches have been tampered with with higher concentration of X or Y and you end up with dead people? You know the world is trying to get rid of tobacco consumption for a reason...it costs a fortune to treat patients of lung cancer and cigarettes are a kind of soft drug everybody over 18 can have access to. Granted pot is not addictive it could become a hip thing that would have severe repercussions in a society such as the US. As you mentioned there's also the 2nd amendment and that's bad enough to add to the mix already.

I've already said legalization would be difficult, but the only way to actually solve the issue of the drug trade is to address demand. Again, this discussion started with me saying that nearly 50 years of the US focusing on the supply side of the drug trade hasn't had any results. Drugs are more readily available and cheaper now than they were.

The reality is that we cannot cut off the supply of drugs. Even with our support, the Colombian government has not been able to reduce the amount of cocaine it produces. In fact, the amount of cocaine it produces has gone steadily up. It's the same in every country throughout the region.

I simply don't understand why you think that the elimination of the ELN, FARC, or even Chavez would change that dynamic. As long as people are willing to pay for illicit drugs, other people will supply them. The names of the players might change, but the underlying problem would still exist.

Seth already answered the part about oil. And uhh yea not sure if you want to just buy Canadian oil when you then figure out how much marijuana were sending you guys also. Can't boycott everyone unless the US is going to wake up in a magical oil free utopia tomorrow.

As for the part about marijuana I almost fell out of my chair laughing. The only part that was accurate is there not being enough moral want to legalize pot so you cant really just declare it legal without a huge backlash. An uniformed ignorant backlash but yea.

DR GRiM wrote:

Imagine if you could have access to drugs legally and it turns out certain batches have been tampered with with higher concentration of X or Y and you end up with dead people? You know the world is trying to get rid of tobacco consumption for a reason...it costs a fortune to treat patients of lung cancer and cigarettes are a kind of soft drug everybody over 18 can have access to. Granted pot is not addictive it could become a hip thing that would have severe repercussions in a society such as the US. As you mentioned there's also the 2nd amendment and that's bad enough to add to the mix already.

Its marijuana. Get a grip. Legally and 'bad batches' is an oxymoron. Part of the point of legalization would making sure certain standards and quality controls would be in place. Honestly how often do you hear about bath tub gin poisoning anymore?

Started a new thread about Venezuela: http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

The quote function is not working for me, grrrrrrr.

DR GRiM wrote:

Started a new thread about Venezuela: http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

The quote function is not working for me, grrrrrrr.

That is because of the anti-spam measures for new users. The function will kick in, even retroactively, in a couple days.

Mexico's President-Elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, doubles down.

Far from “re-envisioning” the approach taken by outgoing President Felipe Calderon, credited with having launched the crackdown on the country’s drug cartels in 2006, Peña Nieto is preparing the Mexican people for a major escalation. It is a shift that could draw in military forces from Mexico’s neighbors, including the United States.

Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847. The country’s constitution bans foreign troops from its territory. But Mexican officials have been quietly developing strategies for circumventing these prohibitions.

High-ranking advisors suggest one strategy would be to develop a “multinational” military force comprised of American, Colombian and Chilean military advisors to work with Mexican marines and special forces under an international mandate.

Yeah. American troops in Mexico couldn't possibly go bad. Unbelievable.

Aetius wrote:

Mexico's President-Elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, doubles down.

Far from “re-envisioning” the approach taken by outgoing President Felipe Calderon, credited with having launched the crackdown on the country’s drug cartels in 2006, Peña Nieto is preparing the Mexican people for a major escalation. It is a shift that could draw in military forces from Mexico’s neighbors, including the United States.

Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847. The country’s constitution bans foreign troops from its territory. But Mexican officials have been quietly developing strategies for circumventing these prohibitions.

High-ranking advisors suggest one strategy would be to develop a “multinational” military force comprised of American, Colombian and Chilean military advisors to work with Mexican marines and special forces under an international mandate.

Yeah. American troops in Mexico couldn't possibly go bad. Unbelievable.

Wow...

Aetius wrote:

Mexico's President-Elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, doubles down.

Far from “re-envisioning” the approach taken by outgoing President Felipe Calderon, credited with having launched the crackdown on the country’s drug cartels in 2006, Peña Nieto is preparing the Mexican people for a major escalation. It is a shift that could draw in military forces from Mexico’s neighbors, including the United States.

Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847. The country’s constitution bans foreign troops from its territory. But Mexican officials have been quietly developing strategies for circumventing these prohibitions.

High-ranking advisors suggest one strategy would be to develop a “multinational” military force comprised of American, Colombian and Chilean military advisors to work with Mexican marines and special forces under an international mandate.

Yeah. American troops in Mexico couldn't possibly go bad. Unbelievable.

Welp, we're screwed.

Mex wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Mexico's President-Elect, Enrique Peña Nieto, doubles down.

Far from “re-envisioning” the approach taken by outgoing President Felipe Calderon, credited with having launched the crackdown on the country’s drug cartels in 2006, Peña Nieto is preparing the Mexican people for a major escalation. It is a shift that could draw in military forces from Mexico’s neighbors, including the United States.

Mexico has not had foreign troops on its soil since the U.S. invaded in 1847. The country’s constitution bans foreign troops from its territory. But Mexican officials have been quietly developing strategies for circumventing these prohibitions.

High-ranking advisors suggest one strategy would be to develop a “multinational” military force comprised of American, Colombian and Chilean military advisors to work with Mexican marines and special forces under an international mandate.

Yeah. American troops in Mexico couldn't possibly go bad. Unbelievable.

Welp, we're screwed.

Welcome Mexico, our 51st state!

Mex, have you considered leaving the country for a while?

Vector wrote:

Mex, have you considered leaving the country for a while?

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/ivHRk.jpg)

Mad Mex is going to take them all on.

I've never had an Avatar but strongly considering that one...

Mex wrote:

I've never had an Avatar but strongly considering that one...

Yes you did. You had one at one point that disturbed so many people (by content and the fact that you had an avatar) that you took it off soon afterwards. How do I remember these things?

Edwin wrote:
Mex wrote:

I've never had an Avatar but strongly considering that one...

Yes you did. You had one at one point that disturbed so many people (by content and the fact that you had an avatar) that you took it off soon afterwards. How do I remember these things?

Because we (I remember this as well) can't forget what has happened. We are the memory of GWJ. Now that Rat Boy is no longer among us.

I wonder if immigration from Mexico is tighter.

We are the shaman of the goodjer tribe that tell the oral histories of our people.

Vector wrote:

I wonder if immigration from Mexico is tighter.

Currently, it's at near zero net immigration - and the only reason many people aren't going back is, ironically, because of stepped up border enforcement.

Mull over that last point for a minute. If Congress had done nothing to secure the border over the last two decades — if it had just left the border alone — there might be as many as 2 million fewer Mexicans living in the United States today, Massey believes.

“If the United States had set out to design a dysfunctional immigration policy,” he wrote in 2007, “it could hardly have done a better job than it did.”