And more likely to give the locals aidsThe UN would be more likely to conduct its own kidnapping and rapes.
The Americas Massive Battle Between Sinaloa Cartel and Mexican Army Ongoing After El Chapo's Son Captured, Mexican Air Support Battling Cartel AA Active
- Thread starter Bacle
- Start date
Because they lose *massively less* political face with U.N. peacekeepers than they do inviting a U.S. intervention.
They still won't because either cartels would subvert the peacekeepers, making the effort pointless, they would punish the leaders involved, which UN would be even less able to protect than a US intervention, or worst of all options, both.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
And cholera
I see no situation in which the US sending military to Mexico ends well.
Insurgencies, which is how the cartels will operate, are hard to fight. And they're corrupting every level of Mexican government and society.
We couldn't stop afghan goat herders with Rusty AKs after 20 years. We aren't taking down cartels without smashing up that country good and turning everyone down there against us.
And the all out war this creates will make our border situation 10x worse as refugees flow in.
Zach just wants war to feel important.
Insurgencies, which is how the cartels will operate, are hard to fight. And they're corrupting every level of Mexican government and society.
We couldn't stop afghan goat herders with Rusty AKs after 20 years. We aren't taking down cartels without smashing up that country good and turning everyone down there against us.
And the all out war this creates will make our border situation 10x worse as refugees flow in.
Zach just wants war to feel important.
Do you think we ate going to go full invader?
Fuck no. Working with the Mexican government.
The same government that's infiltrated by cartels. Not going to work.
Would be the first time we have done this to mexico
If we couldn't work with the afghan government to take out a bunch of goat herders in 20 years, we aren't going to uproot the cartels by working with the very government that is infiltrated and corrupted by the cartels.
This would be a bloody, fucked up disaster, that will cause a lot of innocent deaths and huge surges of refugees at the border.
And this is all assuming the Government of Mexico actually asked us to help. Which they won't.
Again.
We wouldn't do what we did in A-stan especially since service members have family down there. It would basically root out the corruption in thier government/put someone We know isn't on the payroll into office.
Because unlike a bunch of tribal lords we are forcing to be democratic, this is a country that already HAS an established government.
We also have done similar in Columbia, Grenada, and Panama.
Though the later two were us jist taking out the heads/capturing then
And when they fight back, people start dying, and refugees start fleeing. INCLUDING all the fleeing cartel members.
Congrats, you just spiked violent crime in the US by pushing a bunch of the cartel members into the US with the refugees.
This will only make our border crisis worse.
Then let's consider all the people who don't really like the cartels, but have decided they're better than the US soldiers busting up their neighborhoods and causing collateral damage.
If the mexican government asked for some help from the US to secure a few prisoners or something like that, that's one thing. Taking out the cartels requires an occupation. It will not end well. The US is bad at this. We have am utterly abysmal track record of "liberating" countries.
We have a pretty good relationship with Mexico, and don't have tk actually occupy the country.
We see a good amount of the Mexican military are willing to fight against the Cartels. And do these kinds things.
Hell this shit happens constantly.
Also, I am prettybsure the governments thay are more for fighting the cartels have been the right wing governments. They often have done better then the current Mexican one from my research.
Again, you are acting like we are just gonna go full desert storm.
We don't have to occupy when we are not far from home, we have full cooperation from the government.
Cartels are worse to the locals then Taliban are.
Correction, it's not that you couldn't, the people in charge weren't that much into taking out the whole bunch at all.
And yes, you would need to install an actually functional and cooperative government (or governor), that much is a given, and it's something lack of which was a mistake in Afghanistan.
Yes. At this point however, the cartel situation may well fit this description soon anyway without US intervention at all.
And all the migrants passing through or from Mexico will love the excuse of Mexico being a failed state to lawyer in their universal nobilitation from plain illegals to asylum seekers, the same way Libya migrants in Europe pull it off.
No you don't, and who do you think is going to physically take out the cartel's "boots on the ground".
Yes, and you don't know which part, which part is bribeable, and which part is blackmailable.
Sure, but when was the last time Mexico elected a right wing government?
Completely theoretical cooperation. I doubt it's going to happen as long as cartels have much say about it.
Exclusive: U.S. investigations into cartels paralyzed by standoff with Mexico
U.S. efforts to battle powerful drug cartels from inside Mexico have ground to a halt since January as strained relations between the two countries have frozen attempts to corral drug kingpins, according to current and former senior officials in both nations.
www.reuters.com
Mexico poised to curtail cooperation with U.S. in fight against drug cartels
"Passage of this legislation can only benefit the violent transnational criminal organizations and other criminals that we are jointly fighting," according to Attorney General William Barr.
www.cbsnews.com
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/CF2EPQY6OFMVRK6676F2H354GA.jpg)
Mexican president confirms closure of counter-narcotics unit working with U.S.
Mexico's president said on Thursday that an elite unit which worked on narcotics investigations with the United States was closed last year, confirming a Reuters report, and alleging the group had been infiltrated by criminals.
www.reuters.com
So overall, i'm in the middle ground here. It could be done, but it would not be easy at all, unfortunately it also might need to be done because the cartel problem is getting slowly worse, and part of this is successive governments getting less cooperative due to political influence of cartels.
stephen the barbarian
Well-known member
yes you would.
the us military leadership is stupid enough that they'd throw away 20 years of lessons for political favors by the dems. you don't have someone like Jim Mattis or David Petraeus available to run such an operation, you have Mark Milley.
You do know the US is helping Columbia, which was horrible as well, and still somewhat is, and with thier government support.Correction, it's not that you couldn't, the people in charge weren't that much into taking out the whole bunch at all.
And yes, you would need to install an actually functional and cooperative government (or governor), that much is a given, and it's something lack of which was a mistake in Afghanistan.
Yes. At this point however, the cartel situation may well fit this description soon anyway without US intervention at all.
And all the migrants passing through or from Mexico will love the excuse of Mexico being a failed state to lawyer in their universal nobilitation from plain illegals to asylum seekers, the same way Libya migrants in Europe pull it off.
No you don't, and who do you think is going to physically take out the cartel's "boots on the ground".
Yes, and you don't know which part, which part is bribeable, and which part is blackmailable.
Sure, but when was the last time Mexico elected a right wing government?
Completely theoretical cooperation. I doubt it's going to happen as long as cartels have much say about it.
Exclusive: U.S. investigations into cartels paralyzed by standoff with Mexico
U.S. efforts to battle powerful drug cartels from inside Mexico have ground to a halt since January as strained relations between the two countries have frozen attempts to corral drug kingpins, according to current and former senior officials in both nations.Mexico poised to curtail cooperation with U.S. in fight against drug cartels
"Passage of this legislation can only benefit the violent transnational criminal organizations and other criminals that we are jointly fighting," according to Attorney General William Barr.Mexican president confirms closure of counter-narcotics unit working with U.S.
Mexico's president said on Thursday that an elite unit which worked on narcotics investigations with the United States was closed last year, confirming a Reuters report, and alleging the group had been infiltrated by criminals.
So overall, i'm in the middle ground here. It could be done, but it would not be easy at all, unfortunately it also might need to be done because the cartel problem is getting slowly worse, and part of this is successive governments getting less cooperative due to political influence of cartels.
The kasy right wing was the one that started the whole war on cartels two Mexican presidents ago. Same party that asked US to help with Poncho Villa.
The US would do a LOT better in thier back uard then across the ocean.
if only a dem wasmt in office
You do know Milley has Zero command right?
The Joint Chiefs have no command authority in combat. They are policy if that.
SecDef is the one who does the command on that level....
And we arnt throwing away what we know or training fir China. We are actively training to fight them
Looks like advisory role only, nothing like the anti-cartel ops that were done in Mexico couple decades ago.
Yup. And those are the only 2 right wing presidents in Mexico since about the times of Pancho Villa.
Something which cartels also know, and probably have taken their own conclusions from.
Cartels have also gotten rich and sophisticated enough to play political games effectively.
As such, i would say it's unlikely that barring USA outright installing such, there will be any right wing and/or seriously anti-cartel leadership in Mexico in the foreseeable future.
In theory. And not having dems do it is just about the first step towards not fucking it up.
stephen the barbarian
Well-known member
and right over your head, you fucking moron.
IF THE US MILLITARY GOES INTO N. MEXICO IT WILL MAKE THE EXACT SAME MISTAKES IT MADE IN AFAGISTAIN AND IT LOSE IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
YOU HAVE NO LEADERS. YOU HAVE SHITHEADS WHO WILL THROW YOUR LIVES AWAY AND THEN BLAME YOU FOR THEIR FAILINGS.
Moot point, as the shitheads in question won't go into Mexico in the first place.
Pocky Balboa
Well-known member
My former International Studies prof was a former CIA analyst during the Vietnam era and he always started the semester with "If any of you are thinking of going into the CIA, don't. You'll be drowning in a great sea of idiots and incompetents and trying to convince your bosses and most of your colleagues into any sort of sensible direction is about as useless as tits on a boar."
And the US would be more then willing to should we have someone competent enough to get invovled.
And Columbia has had a lot better at taking on the cartels there.
Fighting the cartels is something that is needed due to thier growing influence in doing things in yhe US.