What ever happened to national security?

Jul 2009
5,682
412
Opa Locka
#1
As anyone not living under a rock (or maybe just outside North America) knows by now, what happens in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico. 1st we had kidnappings, then we had attacks on police and military personnel, then we started having territory actively sized, which lead to beheadings, which in turn lead to mass execution of not just criminal but political opponents and now? The latest coming out of Somalia 2.0 is car bombings, oh joy.

So when are we going to do something? To their credit, the State Department no longer recognizes this a matter of organized crime but rather spill over from an outright civil war with Secretary of State Clinton declaring the Cartels equivalent to the Mideast insurgencies, only in our own backyard (and in our house for that matter). But beyond that? A poultry 1,000 National Guard (read under trained and even more payed militia) troops and money we don't have. To Mexico's credit, they haven't been sitting on their asses, they've bypassed the compromised police with the still loyal military and have gone after the Cartels for the rebels they truly are but the sad truth is, said rebels are winning (so much so they even take the time out to fight each other). When is D.C. going to realize we're getting caught up in proxy fighting in what will likely go down in history as the Mexican civil War? When a Palestinian throws a rock, the Israelis send in an armored devision but when decapitated bodes start piling up on our streets, we call the overwhelmed (and in some cases compromised) cops. Am I the only 1 that sees a problem here?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/09/15/mexico.bicentennial/index.html?hpt=T2

More recently, narcotrafficking cartels have taken to setting off car bombs, an unprecedented event in the nation's drug wars.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
#2
As anyone not living under a rock (or maybe just outside North America) knows by now, what happens in Mexico doesn't stay in Mexico. 1st we had kidnappings, then we had attacks on police and military personnel, then we started having territory actively sized, which lead to beheadings, which in turn lead to mass execution of not just criminal but political opponents and now? The latest coming out of Somalia 2.0 is car bombings, oh joy.

So when are we going to do something? To their credit, the State Department no longer recognizes this a matter of organized crime but rather spill over from an outright civil war with Secretary of State Clinton declaring the Cartels equivalent to the Mideast insurgencies, only in our own backyard (and in our house for that matter). But beyond that? A poultry 1,000 National Guard (read under trained and even more payed militia) troops and money we don't have. To Mexico's credit, they haven't been sitting on their asses, they've bypassed the compromised police with the still loyal military and have gone after the Cartels for the rebels they truly are but the sad truth is, said rebels are winning (so much so they even take the time out to fight each other). When is D.C. going to realize we're getting caught up in proxy fighting in what will likely go down in history as the Mexican civil War? When a Palestinian throws a rock, the Israelis send in an armored devision but when decapitated bodes start piling up on our streets, we call the overwhelmed (and in some cases compromised) cops. Am I the only 1 that sees a problem here?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/09/15/mexico.bicentennial/index.html?hpt=T2
I really have to thank you for an evening chuckle, David. Several chuckles, in fact. The poultry National Guard was my favorite, though. Jesus, you meant paltry. I think I mentioned in an earlier thread that words really do matter, and especially when we're dealing with nothing but typed words on a screen. There's a world of difference between a laying hen and paltry. And yes, you're granted official permission to pick on my typos. God knows I commit some doozies now and then.

I don't know where you live, but I haven't seen decapitated bodies in my neighborhood (well, yeah, one last week, but it was a steer, and the Amish were to blame, and they gave me a roast because the damned butchering blocked my road for a while). Nor has Israel sent in armored divisions in response to a rock tossing (or devisions). Hyperbole is the refuge of those unable to defend their own thought processes.

Yes, we need to secure our southern border, but this is not a new issue. I've often thought we might be wise to annex Mexico. Lots of natural resources, and we're supporting millions of their citizens, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2009
5,682
412
Opa Locka
#3
I really have to thank you for an evening chuckle, David. Several chuckles, in fact. The poultry National Guard was my favorite, though. Jesus, you meant paltry. I think I mentioned in an earlier thread that words really do matter, and especially when we're dealing with nothing but typed words on a screen. There's a world of difference between a laying hen and paltry. And yes, you're granted official permission to pick on my typos. God knows I commit some doozies now and then.

I don't know where you live, but I haven't seen decapitated bodies in my neighborhood (well, yeah, one last week, but it was a steer, and the Amish were to blame, and they gave me a roast because the damned butchering blocked my road for a while). Nor has Israel sent in armored divisions in response to a rock tossing (or devisions). Hyperbole is the refuge of those unable to defend their own thought processes.

Yes, we need to secure our southern border, but this is not a new issue. I've often thought we might be wise to annex Mexico. Lots of natural resources, and we're supporting millions of their citizens, anyway.
The hyperbole was intentional, a bit of comedy to illustrate my point. As for annexing Mexico we did, then we gave the poorest, over populated and underdeveloped land back, keeping the rest.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
#4
The hyperbole was intentional, a bit of comedy to illustrate my point. As for annexing Mexico we did, then we gave the poorest, over populated and underdeveloped land back, keeping the rest.
Hyperbole with a bit of inaccuracy for flavoring, eh? If you're referring to Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California, Mexico was hardly overpopulated at the time of our acquisition of those territories. Most of North America was underdeveloped at that time, though, so I'll give you that point.

Mexico's current and past problems have very little to do with the United States, and very much to do with oppression early on by Catholics, and an unstable and corrupt government (or series of governments).

Truth is, if you do a bit of research, Mexico has the potential to be a wealthy nation. The natural resources are certainly available for development. Once again, it comes down to stewardship, a concept you seem to be unable to grasp in this thread or others.

As for our past annexations of Mexican territory, you fail to notice that we merely annexed land that had been formerly annexed by other Europeans, who had, previously, appropriated the same land from earlier folks.

Try again, David. Study up first, though.
 
Jul 2009
5,682
412
Opa Locka
#6
Mexico is a wealthy nation. It just has very lopsided wealth distribution.
Ya they have lots of money (why do you think Spain wanted it so much) but really that's not the issue, spill over from their increasingly brutal civil war (28,000 dead so far) is.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
#7
It was wealthy at discovery, and still is, yup. It has the potential of being much wealthier, and has squashed that potential for a lot of years due to corruption and a misinformed electorate (no, David, an electorate is not related genetically to poultry, although it might be an arguable point in some cases).

State control and ownership of mineral wealth has certainly not helped Mexico, nor has state control of land ownership.

Somebody help me out here. I think the OP author was trying to take an indirect jab at Israel, but my BS Interpreter is malfunctioning at the moment.
 
Aug 2010
230
0
#8
Ya they have lots of money (why do you think Spain wanted it so much) but really that's not the issue, spill over from their increasingly brutal civil war (28,000 dead so far) is.

You might want to apply your spillover idea with the same degree of liberalness with Arabs as you are attempting with Mexicans. Consistency in expressed thought is important. And I'm still trying to figure out your point, not an easy task. It seems you want the U.S. to do something about Mexico. What, specifically?
 
#9
Ya they have lots of money (why do you think Spain wanted it so much)
Spain wanted Mexico's money?

The various european powers who at one time or another controlled what is now Mexico (including Spain) wanted the natural resources. Gold and silver were high on the list.

but really that's not the issue, spill over from their increasingly brutal civil war (28,000 dead so far) is.
That's the number of dead killed since 2006. Pretty impressive number.

Sure, we need to secure the border. That's a no brainer. If we want to reduce that number of murders the swiftest way to do so is to legalize heroin and cocaine.
 
#10
It was wealthy at discovery, and still is, yup. It has the potential of being much wealthier, and has squashed that potential for a lot of years due to corruption and a misinformed electorate (no, David, an electorate is not related genetically to poultry, although it might be an arguable point in some cases).

State control and ownership of mineral wealth has certainly not helped Mexico, nor has state control of land ownership.

Somebody help me out here. I think the OP author was trying to take an indirect jab at Israel, but my BS Interpreter is malfunctioning at the moment.
Yeah, the government has continualy mismanged Pemex (often as a result of graft) and it has hurt the Mexican economy and has limited the world oil supply because of their lack of infrastructure development.
 

Similar Discussions