In the article they mention that the three most dangerous countries for reporters are Mexico, Syria and Iraq. Well no shit, those are the three nations the CIA/United States are systematically destroying for corporate greed, or do you really believe Assad on the eve of peace negotiations when everything is going his way would bomb his own people. That's insanity.
Well it's a question of framing. If America is in fact world's police man who protect the rights and freedom of all citizens of the world then America routinely bombs its own Arab citizens and destroys millions of lives to protect their rights.
Even from that perspective the US still doesn't use chemical weapons on people.
The only use of weapons of mass destruction by the US was in WWII, and nukes weren't consider off limits yet. Since then we helped to get them banned in as many places as possible, and in general find them too indiscriminate.
Just like the world community agreed chemicals were a bad idea after WWI. Countries using the WMDs use them once in one war and found them so reprehensible that everyone gets together afterward and an agrees that these are too much even in war against hated enemies.
Anyone using any WMD after the hard lessons about them have already been learned is so evil that it is trivially easy to get many armed nations, even those with only the loosest ties, to attack them.
I'm calling bullshit on your train of thought. Frame ain't reality, buddy. The magnitude of Assads participation in first inspiring chaos in Iraq, then purging the Syrian people, and an increasingly brutal hold to power, far out weight any minor US involvement.
We were talking about using WMDs. When I in fact showed that WMDs were used in the same country by perhaps your country you changed the target to Assad. Well okay, again framing:
> The magnitude of Assads participation in first inspiring chaos in Iraq,
The Iraq war would qualify as the BIGGEST factor in inspiring chaos in Iraq.
> then purging the Syrian people, and an increasingly brutal hold to power, far out weight any minor US involvement.
Assad is trying to hold on to legitimate power where the US is attempt to purge Syria of his government using terrorists relabeled freedom fighters who have destabilized the entire country. This began as a small movement during Arab spring which was mainly due to food price problems which were out of Assad's control due to the global economy. The situation has totally deteriorated due to American intervention, as it always does. If America never supported the so-called freedom fights, significant human life and livelihood would've been spared.
In the end I don't believe any one in the situation is a good guy. They're all scumbags playing realpolitik.
> Assad is trying to hold on to legitimate power where the US is attempt to purge Syria of his government using terrorists relabeled freedom fighters who have destabilized the entire country.
I think you are widely overestimating both the US involvement and its degree of control over the actors it has links to. I'd be surprised if the main sponsors of the various anti-Assad factions (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) had anything like firm control of the factions they are funding.
I think you don't understand just what America does in the world. Look up MKUltra, Bay of Pigs, the 73 Coupe in Chile, School of the Americas, Iranian-Contras, the BP/US/UK overthrow of Iran .. I mean the list is seriously as long as you want to make it.
The CIA created ISIS. The Congresswoman from Hawaii, who has visited Syria, even says as much:
I am not naive about what the US has done and still does. But reading a "list" is not nearly enough. Studying the US support to anti-Soviet forces will tell you much about how funding various insurgent groups goes, if the fact that US-trained forces have a disturbing tendency to sell their hardware to the highest bidder and have as yet to demonstrate any degree of success was not enough of a hint.
If you pay close attention, and consider the general rule about shitting on your own doorstep, Mexico's unchecked violence is China knocking.
It's really not in American interests to have a wave of violence destabilizing a neighbor that shares a border. China wants the Panama Canal, or something like it. China also has lots of mind bending chemicals it can dump into America, to slow things down economically, while profiting from the trade.
America doesn't want violence in Mexico because it fucks things up for Americans. China, on the other hand, does not give one single fuck about what happens in Mexico, because it's far away, and there are no direct effects.
When an external actor is capable of fanning these flames, it also shows Mexico how powerless America is, as far as keeping allies safe. America isn't the trouble maker here. The violence is pointed at America, given America's involvement in other places, like the middle east, as a check to those American power plays.
Is this not quite obvious? Just look at the geography, and the rest follows.
The US is running something like $100-200 billion through Mexico for drugs while simultaneously pumping tons of money into anti-drug policies (though, an order of magnitude or two less).
We're perfectly capable of destabilizing our own neighbors through unrealistic Puritanical policies, tyvm.
Mexico is a proxy war between US factions, as is the whole of drug trade in the Americas. It always has been.
For reference, Mexico only has a GDP of about $1 trillion, so hundreds of billions in drugs trafficking is a major economic influence on the country. The US invaded Iraq for about $100 billion per year.
Is it any surprise that giving cartels a level of funding required to wage a war, that accounts for a substantial portion of the host nation's GDP is going to mess the place up?
Amazing the the parent gets flagged, but this slips through. WTF are you even talking about, dude?
Puritans at war with... drug people? And you take issues with the post you replied to? Pot is calling kettle black right there. This is some colossal conflation.
Drugs do harm. It's not about tee-totalling nerds obsessing over out-dated sensibilities. The money that gets flushed on drugs is incidental to habitual use, and not a concerted effort to rebel against repressed, sheltered squares.
If much of the money heads south from two predominant channels originating in the U.S. this does not preclude foreign actors further fomenting violence, by fanning the flames for their own reasons.
You can rail against that idea, but then your own concept would be pathetically invalid, all the same.
> Drugs do harm. It's not about tee-totalling nerds obsessing over out-dated sensibilities.
The US's policy on drugs is an ideological one, not a pragmatic one.
1. Animals (not just humans) like to get fucked up. It's basically human nature to do drugs. (For reference, 70% of US adults have at least one drink each year.)
2. Policing substances (as opposed to treating it as a health issue with regulated supply) is ineffective and known to cause crime, destroy lives, etc. The US chooses the less effective method for ideological reasons.
My point is that Mexico would be a disaster because of a US ideological choice to fight a war with human nature, rather than work pragmatically with it, regardless of outside interference. This takes on the dimensions of an actual war in Mexico, between people looking to fill that supply through illicit channels and the ideologues looking to stop the supply. That one side is a spontaneous reply to market forces is what's sustained the conflict, since there is no "winning" as long as the demand exists.
Throwing a cup of gasoline on a forest fire isn't really changing the outcome.
Forget CIA conspiracy theory. This is just fallout from US problems. Mainly de-industrialization, health care tied to employment, and the War on Drugs.
The narco epidemic in Mexico is morbidly fascinating and thoroughly depressing as someone who's travelled to Mexico and loves the country and its people.
Two thousand firearms are illegally exported from the United States to Mexico per day, fueling the country's catastrophic conflict as much as the billions of dollars of demand created by the miserable failure that is drug prohibition. At dawn in a parking garage, an off-camera seller hands over a small arsenal of bubble-wrapped assault rifles and boxes of high-caliber military ammunition new from the factory. Thunder rolls and lightning flashes as the smuggler's car, laden with weapons, crosses the border with no questions asked, barely even rolling to a stop. "Drugs go up," Beriain says, "guns come down."
Lovely. He claims it's 2000 firearms per day, so more than 700000 per year. A 2013 article puts the number at around 250000[1]. Time for a war on firearms, maybe?
There's a large blackmarket in Mexico for firearms not all of these are going exclusively to cartels they sell them at 2-3x the price to whoever locally. Same in Canada, weapons smuggling is rampant because US truck drivers can stop off in a state that has no maximum buy limits and get a dozen handguns to sell at double the price once they cross the border.
Unless that truck driver is a resident of the state in question, no, they can't. Handguns can't be purchased unless you are a legal resident of the state. This applies to every state in the US.
Only in theory. Here in Florida, the traffic in undocumented firearms is huge. Websites for selling, flea markets, gun shows every month, etc. Most states are similar.
Perhaps the parent should have added a "legally" to his statement, but out of state handgun sales violate federal law unless they're done through a federally licensed firearms dealer.
in texas you can go on armslist.com and buy guns from individuals in a face to face sale. The only paper trail is your contact through armslist. no doubt they are taking advantage of this as well as having mules to legally buy the firearms.
The number of background checks should roughly track non-military firearm sales. There were 2.4m of those in March 2017 per the FBI [1]. (No, this doesn't speak directly to your question about manufacturing levels, but this does roughly track how many firearms are available for transfer.)
So yeah, there are more than enough guns in America to support this level of smuggling.
Beretta, who currently supplies the standard issue M9A1 handgun for the US Marine Corps, considers their military sales to be approximately 2% of total gross, so they're definitely doing more in civilian sales than military.
It's interesting why Canada has not suffered the same fate as Mexico? Could it have something to do with a Government that believes in the rule of law and a citizenry that respects that?
If I were to lay blame on anyone then I would have to lay it at the feet of the Mexican Government. There corruption has no boundaries. They bleed the Nation of not only it's wealth but it's future.
It's easy to play the victim and blame everyone else for your problems. Mexico has to take a hard look at it's system and find someone who is willing to deal with the corruption.
Well if you watched Narcos, cocaine had to transit from Columbia through Mexico. Seemed like every part of the feeding tube of drugs gets wrecked by it.
The amount of money at play is enough to corrupt anyone. IF you are working 40-50 hours a week for $80. And some one offers you $500 to just look the other way stating they don't want any trouble here, they don't even want to stop here, this is all going north, but with a clear hint there will be trouble here what are you going to do? Perhaps your kids are ill, need new clothes...
I would imagine it is because Canada was largely worthless (compared to the all of our southern neighbours) until the 20th century. In order to make money off of Canada long term infrastructure and colonial operations were necessary which meant the need for a strong government, compared to Mexico and much of South America which were much easier to plunder by their colonial overloads without as much investment.
Canada actually has a lot of organized crime (Sicilian & Calabrian mafia groups as well as biker gangs like the Hells Angels), it just isn't reported on much in the States. Not all drugs flow through Mexico: Cocaine often moves across the Atlantic from South America directly to the port cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Hamilton. Interestingly enough a lot of that cocaine then flows south to the US from Canada to cities like New York and Detroit.
The US-Canada border is more than twice the size of the US-Mexico border, yet has only 1/10th the amount of Border Patrol agents.
Canada has very lax anti-organized crime laws compared to the US, which is why the mafia has been able to thrive up there. Google the Rizzuto crime family for more info.
I wonder where more emphasis would work: Greater searches of stuff coming into America, or greater searches going out? stop drugs, or stop guns, pick one. Which would make the most impact?
When I crossed the border from US to Mexico in a UK registered red camper van, there was no border from US to Mexico. I was meant to hand in some documents to show the van and family had left the US but we managed to get into Mexico without seeing any US customs / border. Speaking to the Mexican side they said the US border controls was about 2 miles back up the road so we didn't bother and just carried on South.
So probably a bit of room for some searches on the US side
The solution is clear, de-escalate the war on drugs, reform sentencing guidelines, invest in treatment instead of interdiction.
Yet the incoming AG and his inner circle are intent on reversing the progress made to this end over the last decade or so, and instead want to take us back to the policies of the late 80s and 90s. We know where that got us. The private prison companies must be salivating over what's to come.
61 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadhttp://fightthefuture.org/article/america-and-the-mexican-dr...
In the article they mention that the three most dangerous countries for reporters are Mexico, Syria and Iraq. Well no shit, those are the three nations the CIA/United States are systematically destroying for corporate greed, or do you really believe Assad on the eve of peace negotiations when everything is going his way would bomb his own people. That's insanity.
Its going his way because he bombed his own people. Although for a full disclosure they are different ethnicity. Saddam Hussein did similar things.
The only use of weapons of mass destruction by the US was in WWII, and nukes weren't consider off limits yet. Since then we helped to get them banned in as many places as possible, and in general find them too indiscriminate.
Just like the world community agreed chemicals were a bad idea after WWI. Countries using the WMDs use them once in one war and found them so reprehensible that everyone gets together afterward and an agrees that these are too much even in war against hated enemies.
Anyone using any WMD after the hard lessons about them have already been learned is so evil that it is trivially easy to get many armed nations, even those with only the loosest ties, to attack them.
Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weapons_of_mass_destru...
No, just atomic bombs, agent orange, napalms, drones, depleted uranium, and diseases...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/14/the-united-states-used-d...
> The magnitude of Assads participation in first inspiring chaos in Iraq,
The Iraq war would qualify as the BIGGEST factor in inspiring chaos in Iraq.
> then purging the Syrian people, and an increasingly brutal hold to power, far out weight any minor US involvement.
Assad is trying to hold on to legitimate power where the US is attempt to purge Syria of his government using terrorists relabeled freedom fighters who have destabilized the entire country. This began as a small movement during Arab spring which was mainly due to food price problems which were out of Assad's control due to the global economy. The situation has totally deteriorated due to American intervention, as it always does. If America never supported the so-called freedom fights, significant human life and livelihood would've been spared.
In the end I don't believe any one in the situation is a good guy. They're all scumbags playing realpolitik.
I think you are widely overestimating both the US involvement and its degree of control over the actors it has links to. I'd be surprised if the main sponsors of the various anti-Assad factions (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) had anything like firm control of the factions they are funding.
The CIA created ISIS. The Congresswoman from Hawaii, who has visited Syria, even says as much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qdf2WH4g9k
It's really not in American interests to have a wave of violence destabilizing a neighbor that shares a border. China wants the Panama Canal, or something like it. China also has lots of mind bending chemicals it can dump into America, to slow things down economically, while profiting from the trade.
America doesn't want violence in Mexico because it fucks things up for Americans. China, on the other hand, does not give one single fuck about what happens in Mexico, because it's far away, and there are no direct effects.
When an external actor is capable of fanning these flames, it also shows Mexico how powerless America is, as far as keeping allies safe. America isn't the trouble maker here. The violence is pointed at America, given America's involvement in other places, like the middle east, as a check to those American power plays.
Is this not quite obvious? Just look at the geography, and the rest follows.
We're perfectly capable of destabilizing our own neighbors through unrealistic Puritanical policies, tyvm.
Mexico is a proxy war between US factions, as is the whole of drug trade in the Americas. It always has been.
For reference, Mexico only has a GDP of about $1 trillion, so hundreds of billions in drugs trafficking is a major economic influence on the country. The US invaded Iraq for about $100 billion per year.
Is it any surprise that giving cartels a level of funding required to wage a war, that accounts for a substantial portion of the host nation's GDP is going to mess the place up?
Amazing the the parent gets flagged, but this slips through. WTF are you even talking about, dude?
Puritans at war with... drug people? And you take issues with the post you replied to? Pot is calling kettle black right there. This is some colossal conflation.
Drugs do harm. It's not about tee-totalling nerds obsessing over out-dated sensibilities. The money that gets flushed on drugs is incidental to habitual use, and not a concerted effort to rebel against repressed, sheltered squares.
If much of the money heads south from two predominant channels originating in the U.S. this does not preclude foreign actors further fomenting violence, by fanning the flames for their own reasons.
You can rail against that idea, but then your own concept would be pathetically invalid, all the same.
The US's policy on drugs is an ideological one, not a pragmatic one.
1. Animals (not just humans) like to get fucked up. It's basically human nature to do drugs. (For reference, 70% of US adults have at least one drink each year.)
2. Policing substances (as opposed to treating it as a health issue with regulated supply) is ineffective and known to cause crime, destroy lives, etc. The US chooses the less effective method for ideological reasons.
My point is that Mexico would be a disaster because of a US ideological choice to fight a war with human nature, rather than work pragmatically with it, regardless of outside interference. This takes on the dimensions of an actual war in Mexico, between people looking to fill that supply through illicit channels and the ideologues looking to stop the supply. That one side is a spontaneous reply to market forces is what's sustained the conflict, since there is no "winning" as long as the demand exists.
Throwing a cup of gasoline on a forest fire isn't really changing the outcome.
The narco epidemic in Mexico is morbidly fascinating and thoroughly depressing as someone who's travelled to Mexico and loves the country and its people.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epid...
This book has more of a focus on American pharma industry but still has lots of interesting insider insights.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28187234-wolf-boys
Who needs CIA conspiracy theories?
[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24...
Someone should tell them that firearms can be reloaded...
--NRA member
So yeah, there are more than enough guns in America to support this level of smuggling.
1 - https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_mo...
If I were to lay blame on anyone then I would have to lay it at the feet of the Mexican Government. There corruption has no boundaries. They bleed the Nation of not only it's wealth but it's future.
It's easy to play the victim and blame everyone else for your problems. Mexico has to take a hard look at it's system and find someone who is willing to deal with the corruption.
The US-Canada border is more than twice the size of the US-Mexico border, yet has only 1/10th the amount of Border Patrol agents.
Canada has very lax anti-organized crime laws compared to the US, which is why the mafia has been able to thrive up there. Google the Rizzuto crime family for more info.
So probably a bit of room for some searches on the US side
Legalizing drugs?
Yet the incoming AG and his inner circle are intent on reversing the progress made to this end over the last decade or so, and instead want to take us back to the policies of the late 80s and 90s. We know where that got us. The private prison companies must be salivating over what's to come.
Indeed, we might say the new administration is like Christmas for them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/opinion/under-mr-trump-pr...
With sugar plums dancing in their heads:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/05/trump-sets-priv...