Nightmare scenario? Trump/Mexico

Post Reply New Topic

If I may be so bold as to link to this comment by user jimmy m in another thread.

To summarize the situation, President Trump has apparently designated Mexican drug cartels in general, or a specific cartel (not clear on this point) as terrorists. In response, he has suggested that the U.S. might act on its own to enter Mexican territory and take action against them, if the Mexican government doesn't itself act against them (as though it hasn't already done so many times).

I should point out that the victims of this undeniably horrific attack (see the link and its associated thread) are arguably not American except on paper (how they have managed to maintain this dual citizenship and pass it down across generations despite a century of living full-time in Mexico is beyond me) and are also not proper Mormons despite being identified as such in news reports. In fact, the sect they actually belong to, FLDS, has generally gotten bad press until now (that the same media are portraying them as victims). Does nobody remember Warren Jeffs?

The fact is that such a cross-border action would be a violation of Mexico's sovereignty and an act of war in most peoples' opinion. If the Mexican government has any self-respect they would resist such an attack in the way any other government would respond to a foreign invasion. Although it's possible they are so cowed nowadays that they won't.

Imagine an armed conflict with Mexico in which American troops/commandos (depending on whom the government actually sends) die. Does this not concern anyone? Suppose the US government then publicly blamed those deaths on Mexico. Would you accept that judgment unquestioningly?

I think that Mexico's sovereignty is going to be irrelevant here. I think that the US government is treating Mexico's wishes to look the other way on the cartels invading the US is being treated the same as ordering the mexican army to invade.

Could you possibly more specific on what you mean by cartels "invading" the US? They are organized criminal organizations and certainly they extend their influence across our border as much as they can. Inevitably, some of their activity will involve bloodshed like all organized crime. There are also plenty of domestic mobs in the US and they operate basically the same way. Although I am NOT one of those people who directly equate organized crime with capitalism, I can't help thinking that a cartel seeking to operate in a neighboring country isn't that much different in principle from a multinational corporation (except of course they disregard all "official" authority when conducting their business).

This is not terrorism by any definition of the term that I know of. I am not aware of anybody setting off bombs in shopping malls or walking into churches and shooting worshipers at the behest of the Sinoloa Cartel. This is absolutely outside their purview because it doesn't serve their ends in any way. Neither are the cartels sending armed commandos across the border to attack our military. So I don't see any "invasion" here.

If people commit crimes in the US, then US law enforcement is primarily responsible for responding, whether those people are American or not or if they are taking orders from someone in another country. Now AFAIK Mexican authorities have supported US authorities in their efforts to interdict this activity, primarily by sharing intelligence of a higher quality than Americans acting on their own could possibly obtain. And I think this emphasizes my original point. An uninvited armed incursion into Mexico, organized by the US Government, to attack Mexican citizens no matter how morally repugnant they are to you or me, is a violation of Mexico's sovereignty and tells Mexicans we have no respect for them as a nation. After that, what will motivate the Mexicans to cooperate with us in ways that I described earlier? There's no question in my mind that we won't be worse off than we were before.

Before I get too lengthy in explaining, I would like to ask your opinion of a hypothetical making the issue strictly a US affair. If I were to make regular trips to somewhere such as Colorado where recreational use of marijuana is legally sold then bring it into a different state like Alabama where even medical use of marijuana is extremely tricky, should I have any fear of consequences in that case?

The US has been basically doing the same in other countries for decades.

I see your point maxe and was concerned when the press and posters did not seem to get that these are Warren Jeff's people, who practice spiritual marriages with girls as young as 13. And also have to push the young men out, so the old men can have multiple wives.

Almost everything DT says causes concern and destabilizes the world. I just don't know what can be done about it.

Should you have any fear of consequences? I suppose if authorities in Alabama are determined to arrest and prosecute people for possession of "recreational" amounts of marijuana, then you stand some chance of that happening to you if you're stupid enough to get caught. As to whether you morally deserve to face consequences because you acted wrongly, frankly I couldn't care in that way although I would feel sorry for the good citizens of Alabama if their tax dollars are being spent on that type of "nuisance law" enforcement. I am not the type of person who becomes upset at the thought of people breaking laws and escaping punishment. If somebody is committing violent crimes against innocent people, all I care about is that they put him where he can't hurt any other people. In fact, I'm 100% OK if they "accidentally" fatally shoot him in the process of apprehending him (assuming of course there's no ambiguity regarding his identity, a very big assumption indeed). I am not upset Jeffrey Epstein is dead and escaped facing justice. I'm just glad he's gone and that's OK with me. OTOH if landscapers come to our house I don't give a flying banana whether the people they bring with them to lay mulch or whatever are in the country legally or not. That might be somebody's problem but it sure isn't mine. If they want me to pay them cash that's fine with me. I just don't care.

Does that answer help?

The point in asking about the above hypothetical was to both A) make a point that I most likely would get arrested in that scenario, and the cartels are doing the same thing but with more deadly substances than weed, I have heard it is nearly impossible to overdose on marijuana but very easy to die from using coke or heroin like the cartels bring in B) the cartels and people they do business with directly to get the stuff on the streets are well known for violence.

In that scenario you could be arrested but the odds against it are very high indeed (especially if you're white although I have know way of knowing that).

As for coke and heroin, first I should stress that I don't use any "drugs" besides alcohol and I never used anything stronger than hashish, and that many decades ago. But concerning coke and heroin. First it's my impression that coke is less dangerous than commonly believed. Even crack might not be all it's "cracked up" to be. Americans got much of their "understanding" of this from the Nancy Reagan "just sayo no" years and the truth is probably somewhat less extreme. As for heroin, if it were up to me, when people become addicted, I would simply have my state supply them with whatever quantity of pure, safe heroin they need until they're ready to try rehab. But in that situation we also have to accept the reality that some people will never recover, even if they try. It's just too hard for some people (some people have just as much as a problem with tobacco addiction). In which case, they should just be able to get their fix indefinitely. Much better than having to enter the criminal underworld (BTW things aren't nearly as grim for wealthy addicts!). Fentanyl is a different matter. It's so toxic apparently that few people to my knowledge intentionally seek it out, and if they do, it will probably kill them in short order. Anyway I don't think the Fentanyl is coming from Mexico, or primarily from Mexico.

When I say the state (and I mean one of the 50 states not the Federal government) should supply heroin, I still think it should be illegal to traffic in it (or fentanyl) privately, just so that's clear.

But I don't really see what relevance all this has to my OP and/or Mexican sovereignty.

Drugs and violence are big parts of why the OP mentioned treating cartels as terrorists. As I understand, Mexico is more liberal about substance use and distribution than the US. I am not sure how accurately various things on TV are, but I have seen a few shows about how easy it is to drive to Mexico and buy things like amphetamines and opioids over the counter at Mexican pharmacies.

As for what you said about lacking certainty about drugs, I haven't used anything firsthand anymore than what you have tried, but I have seen others who have messed up their lives on various things like coke and opioids. I have even witnessed a couple of drug related deaths. I also should point out that the idea of distributing drugs in safe rations to prevent overdosing doesn't sound as effective as a different solution of hiring a sober person to watch over the user and administer some kind of drug aimed at counteracting the substance being used if problems do occur.

I understand that you call Mexico sovereign, however they also receive some financial assistance from the US. I would call it if they want to make Fentanyl an over the counter substance in Mexico that is their perogative, but if they want to receive assistance from the US, they should be willing to assist the US in keeping Fentanyl under tighter control as far as making it into the US.

The bottom line goes into the variation of the Golden Rule that goes: "Whoever has the gold makes the rule" and if Mexico is receiving some gold from the US, then it translates to the US being able to make a rule if Mexico wants to continue receiving this help.