Rick Perry suggests US military role in Mexico drug war

[frigidmagi]

bbc

Texas Governor Rick Perry - who is seeking the Republican nomination for US president - has said he would consider sending American troops into Mexico to combat drug-related violence.

Mr Perry was speaking during a campaign appearance in New Hampshire.

"It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border," he said.

Such a move would go far beyond current US involvement in Mexico's drugs war.

The suggestion is also likely to irritate Mexico's government over the sensitive issue, correspondents say.

Governor Perry gave no further details of what sort of possible military intervention he would consider.

"I don't know all the different scenarios that would be out there," he said.

"But I think it is very important for us to work with them to keep that country from failing".

Sovereignty
After the speech, the White House said it would continue its "historic level of cooperation with Mexico" to protect people on both sides of the border.


President Obama has backed Mexican President Felipe Calderon's campaign against the cartels
The Obama administration currently provides substantial material support to Mexican security forces, as well as close intelligence cooperation.

The US has also deployed National Guard troops to boost border security, and uses pilotless drone aircraft to gather intelligence inside Mexico.

Any deployment of US military forces on Mexican territory would almost certainly be unacceptable to the Mexican authorities.

Mexico lost around half its territory to the US after a war in the 1840s, and has since been very protective of its sovereignty.

The Mexican constitution also places strict limits on foreign intervention.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been pressing the US to do more to reduce demand for drugs among its citizens and to reduce the flow of weapons from the US to the cartels.

Correspondents say Mr Perry's comments may be aimed at showing he is tough on border security and illegal immigration - issues on which he has been attacked by other contenders for the Republican nomination.

Christ Almighty have mercy on us. Perry you're a fucking loon. Not only would this be unacceptable to the Mexican government who remembers the last time they let armed gringos into Mexico (we now call that part of Mexico Texas) but it's damn likely unacceptable to the Mexican people who remember a long history of armed foreigners getting into their shit.

Look I'm gonna say it. The easiest solution here is to legalize weed. I don't fucking want to, for a variety of reasons but what I want doesn't damn well matter does it? Not only are thousands of people dying over this, our society has gone ahead and decriminalized weed. It's gotten to the point where our government is ridiculously out of touch with it's poulace (this isn't all the government's fault, most of you keep refusing to vote and therefore your opinion means nothing politically). When your population refuses to follow a law despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent to both convince them (D.A.R.E and the cartoons of the 80s were among some of the best propaganda in post WWII times) and to force them through violence and threat... It's time to change the law no matter your personal opinion.

[The Cleric]

It's less harmful than alcohol and a great deal of prescription drugs. There's no real reason why it should be illegal.

[B4UTRUST]

From my understanding(take that as you will) one of the big reasons that it's been illegal for so long is the competition to Big Tobacco. Again, this is just my understanding of things I've read over the years.

[frigidmagi]

Actually I blame senior citizen votes, the vast majority of them are against legalization and they vote often and regularly. Whereas the parts of the population that is in favor of legalization sits on it's ass and whines instead. Let me say it again. Folks if you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter.

[B4UTRUST]

Actually I blame senior citizen votes, the vast majority of them are against legalization and they vote often and regularly. Whereas the parts of the population that is in favor of legalization sits on it's ass and whines instead. Let me say it again. Folks if you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter.

Fair enough. Though with those from the 60s and 70s coming up to that voting bracket you'd think they might vote differently? *shrugs*

[frigidmagi]

Those are the senor citizens now and they haven't voted differently yet. They had plenty of chances to in the 80s and 90s but instead chosen to start the War On Drugs. Which has worked just wonderfully in stopping drug use in the US hasn't it?

[B4UTRUST]

No, it hasn't been effective. However, the war on drugs isn't winnable . People who want to get high will find a way. By making it all illegal and doing the big show of "we're a drug free whatever" they're making it worse. It's the same thing as teaching abstinence-only sex education. Drugs are bad. So don't do drugs. Because if you do drugs, you're bad. Because drugs are bad. So don't do drugs. Mmmkay? This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

[Dark Silver]

....why am I getting a feeling of deja vu here?

I think we've had this discussion before on the board...


As for Perry, yeah....what can I say. He's insane. "We must get involved in Mexico!" when they are bitching that we're involve din Iraq and Afghanistan

[Stofsk]

Actually I blame senior citizen votes, the vast majority of them are against legalization and they vote often and regularly. Whereas the parts of the population that is in favor of legalization sits on it's ass and whines instead. Let me say it again. Folks if you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter.

But what's the point of voting if a billion dollar industry can get lobbyists in Washington to craft the laws they want or the loopholes they require for their business?

Maybe if people voted for left wing parties (and how many of those even exist?) and did so in numbers that actually mattered you may have a point. But even if people came out in droves to vote Democrat nothing would get solved, and that's a big part of the problem. Obama was voted in with a huge turnout and he came in to a Congress and Senate that was, at least nominally, in control of the Democrats. And yet all he's been is a huge disappointment to liberals all across America. I think there is a huge disaffection with politics and I don't know how you can solve it, because if Obama loses in 2012 the Democrats will take exactly the wrong lesson from it just like they did with the loss of control of Congress last year.

[frigidmagi]

Why should the Democrats veer left? The left wing part of our population is the one that can't be bothered to vote! You think I'm kidding? In 2008 131 million Americans voted. In 2010? 80 million. Guess who stayed home? The blunt point of the matter is if you're a politician you can count on right leaning parts of the population to vote regularly in every election like clockwork. Hate em if you want, they vote. So people listen to them.

The left wing of America's population? Votes once every 8 years or so and then runs home weeping when they don't automatically get everything they want. If I'm a Congressman I can't depend on their support unless I live in a place with next to no right wing elements. Since my whole thing is about getting elected.... Why should I cater to people who won't keep me in office?

Are the Democrats left wing compared to Europe, Canada or Australia? No. But we're not fucking in Europe, Canada or Australia so why are we judging our politics by those standards? I mean why those places and not Japan, or India or even Brazil? Those are democracies to, fuck India sets a world record for largest election ever... Everytime there's a national election and so far? They are considered pretty damn clean elections. But I'm veering from the point.

No Established Party Will Veer Left As Long As the Left Leaning Portion of America Stays Home More Often Then It Votes. No New Left Leaning Party Will Be Established Unless the Left Leaning Portion of the Population Gets Off It's Pampered Rosy Ass. And Frankly? I'm sick and tired of hearing everyone whine about it.

Fuck you people, I voted, I wrote letters, I kicked and screamed and everyone looked at me like I was a jackass and then had the gall to be shocked that the teabaggers won!

This is a Democracy! If you want something? You have to organize, scream, push and vote often and regularly or it doesn't happen. You can whine all you want but if you're not a voting block that can be counted on no one cares about you. End of story.

[Stofsk]

Why should the Democrats veer left? The left wing part of our population is the one that can't be bothered to vote! You think I'm kidding?

No, but I think you're wrong. The left is part of the Democrats base, and the Democrats have been steadily ignoring their base for years now. You referenced 2008 and 2010 as though the drop off in numbers means that the left is somehow become disinterested. Or maybe they're tired of voting for the same fucking politicians who don't even represent their interests anymore? If I was American I sure as shit wouldn't vote for any Democrat who's proved he's little better than a Republican.

'Get out and vote!' Yeah, vote for who? Doesn't matter if you're Democrat or Republican, they're both in the pocket of big business lobbyists. 'Organise! Kick and scream!' Yeah, guys are doing that on the streets of New York - I hope it works and gets someone to sit up and pay attention, but what's the real bet that things will change?

And you're right, politics in the US isn't like it is here in Australia. But that's not my point. You accused the left of being whiners but seriously, what's the basis for that? If my MP doesn't represent my interests why for fuck's sake should I give him my vote? If I was an American, that doesn't change just because I have a Congressman instead. The names, titles, even the system changes but the basic calculation remains the same. Or should I just vote blindly and stupidly without considering the candidates or their platform or what policies they support or don't support? And how do I get that representative or potential representative's ear? Write a letter? How many actually read it? Unless I'm a lobbyist what hope do I have?

[frigidmagi]

I must disagree with you. First of all, while I hope the wall street sitters are the start of something big, or at the very least the beginning of a necessary reaction to the Tea Party... They're not very organized or at times very coherent. Granted the Tea Party isn't coherent at first either but they got more money. But you got to start somewhere right?

Stofsk, let me be blunt. Politicians do listen to their voters, but only the ones they believe they can count on. It's one of the reasons why firearms will never be banned in the US, because the crosssection of the population that backs legal firearm ownership makes it their acid test, they donate, vote and scream based around it. Meanwhile the crosssection that supports say, legalizing weed, does not do anything but spastic action at best and the majority of that demographic never votes. There's a pattern here.

As for my basis? I hear a constant stream of bitching in real life, on the internet, in the newspaper and so on and so forth... But until the Wall Street Protest I saw damn little action. People bitch about Democrat Politicians abandoning them, but refuse to vote in mid-terms (2008 and 2010 were not isolated events, but representive of a pattern, the groups that traditionally support the left tend to stay home more). And in the US at least there are remedies for traitor politicians, they're called primaries. One will note that in 2009 and 2010 the tea party used those primaries to rather brutal effect and the threat of further use actually has "moderate" republicans marching to their beat. This isn't magic. This isn't something only the right can do.

Additionally, where did I say the left had to vote Democrat? I don't care if they all vote for the Looney Monster Party. Just go vote, organize, make groups. There are still ragged remains of Socialist parties and even a damn Communist Party still in the US! If they got a surge of support bet your ass that someone will notice and and react accordingly. As it stands however your average politician outside of a few very liberal areas (New England, Parts of California, College and Union Towns) believes that the left wing voters aren't good enough to keep him in a job and guess what?

Politicans for the most part do what keeps them in a job. If they don't they're replaced by those who do. Sitting at home as been the left's tactic for years now and it bloody well hasn't worked has it?