Mexico City's mayor who survived two drug gang assassination attempts found beaten to death and dump

[Curls]

I take it she was against them (obviously)

what did she accomplish while she was alive though? I hope to imagine a good amount.

[QUOTE=Satansick;38603640]She was probably raped before they killed her .[/QUOTE]

could have

but inappropriate to say really

[FreakyMe]

Please link photos of dead bodies.

It's pretty shitty to have pop up on your screen in the middle of class, and it's voyeuristic and unnecessary.

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=-Get_A_Life-;38603659]Because people pretending to care are the same buying marijuana from a dealer supplied by the drug cartels.[/QUOTE]

This is by and far the single most compelling argument against legalization to date.

When I pose this argument to pro-legalization folks, their retort is "Well we'll just stop the Marijuana from coming in to the country" or "If we're growing our own then we won't have to import dirty maxican marijuana." Both arguments drip with a foolish air of the naive.

Yes, it's terrible. The war on drugs is a failed project. Big ass jail terms for otherwise innocent joint smokers is a basic and hideous logical mistake. However if we try to fix this problem by somehow ripping the bandage off all at once, we sink an entire country that [I]we happen to border.[/I]

As for "Why not send our men to Mexico, instead of the middle east or the asian-pacific?!" It boils down to a lot of basic problems that come together very dramatically. Most members of drug cartels are by and large civilian in nature. They live with their families, do normal things, then for a few hours a day go out and rape and torture mayors because it's a nice job. We already have enough trouble with shooting insurgents, imagine shooting ordinary men who happen to just be bringing home bread to put on the table through "unsavory means." Then there are issues about the topography and makeup of the country that I am sadly not familiar enough with to talk in depth on.

Of course there's also the fact that Mexico is a country that [I]borders us.[/I] We risked no threat of retaliation when we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan because, and this may shock you, they are over three thousand miles from our borders and separated by an ocean. If tomorrow we had Abrams rolling around Mexico city looking for dirty cartel men, they could have gangsters dumping bodies over freeway bridges in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Pheonix and any number of principle American cities in the southwest and southeast. How do you respond to that? Lock up all the illegal immigrants from mexico? Well shit, someone around here is trying that already and well, that plan's going swimmingly even without the race-driven murder-fear.

There are many many many more problems with trying to give Mexico the full bootstamp, but for now the bottom line is "Holy god no that's a terrible idea."

Comedy edit: Third time really is the charm I guess.

[deltasquid]

Rest in Peace. She was brave, but I'm sure almost everyone saw this coming.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;38604224]This is by and far the single most compelling argument against legalization to date.

When I pose this argument to pro-legalization folks, their retort is "Well we'll just stop the Marijuana from coming in to the country" or "If we're growing our own then we won't have to import dirty maxican marijuana." Both arguments drip with a foolish air of the naive.

Yes, it's terrible. The war on drugs is a failed project. Big ass jail terms for otherwise innocent joint smokers is a basic and hideous logical mistake. However if we try to fix this problem by somehow ripping the bandage off all at once, we sink an entire country that [I]we happen to border.[/I]

As for "Why not send our men to Mexico, instead of the middle east or the asian-pacific?!" It boils down to a lot of basic problems that come together very dramatically. Most members of drug cartels are by and large civilian in nature. They live with their families, do normal things, then for a few hours a day go out and rape and torture mayors because it's a nice job. We already have enough trouble with shooting insurgents, imagine shooting ordinary men who happen to just be bringing home bread to put on the table through "unsavory means." Then there are issues about the topography and makeup of the country that I am sadly not familiar enough with to talk in depth on.

Of course there's also the fact that Mexico is a country that [I]borders us.[/I] We risked no threat of retaliation when we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan because, and this may shock you, they are over three thousand miles from our borders and separated by an ocean. If tomorrow we had Abrams rolling around Mexico city looking for dirty cartel men, they could have gangsters dumping bodies over freeway bridges in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Pheonix and any number of principle American cities in the southwest and southeast. How do you respond to that? Lock up all the illegal immigrants from mexico? Well shit, someone around here is trying that already and well, that plan's going swimmingly even without the race-driven murder-fear.

There are many many many more problems with trying to give Mexico the full bootstamp, but for now the bottom line is "Holy god no that's a terrible idea."

Comedy edit: Third time really is the charm I guess.[/QUOTE]

Fix that by sending in some Europeans instead

That ocean will prevent them from dumping corpses in the Thames and Seine

[sp]no I'm not being serious.[/sp]

[FreakyMe]

It's not a [I]terrible [/I]idea, though.

[[Seed Eater]]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;38604224]
When I pose this argument to pro-legalization folks, their retort is "Well we'll just stop the Marijuana from coming in to the country" or "[U]If we're growing our own then we won't have to import dirty maxican marijuana[/U]." Both arguments drip with a foolish air of the naive.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I understand how this one in particular would be naive? If it's produced and regulated in the US, then in theory what would the Cartels have to sell? What would their market be? If you're worried about sinking the economy there by removing a large chunk of the income, then I'd argue to you that you wouldn't see that- you'd see a Colombia, where, when the major cartels were eliminated through violence and economic strangulation, the creation and distribution of drugs turned into a local thing and not an issue of massive violent organized paramilitary groups and corrupt officials. There is a chance that we could see failings for much of the average Mexican workers, but it's not like they make the majority of the profit- unlike in Colombia where the decentralized production of cocaine has brought more income in to more lower-class people, rather than to individual druglords. The best option to keep this sort of thing happening would be to legalize and regulate in Mexico and the US, and put the production in the hands of smaller Mexican growers and individual workers, like is the case in Colombia.

The only other alternative to removing the market is really opening new ones- in Mexico, for the workers, so they have a safer and better source of income and won't be forced to turn to the Cartels to survive.

[DoctorSalt]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;38604224]This is by and far the single most compelling argument against legalization to date.

When I pose this argument to pro-legalization folks, their retort is "Well we'll just stop the Marijuana from coming in to the country" or "If we're growing our own then we won't have to import dirty maxican marijuana." Both arguments drip with a foolish air of the naive.

Yes, it's terrible. The war on drugs is a failed project. Big ass jail terms for otherwise innocent joint smokers is a basic and hideous logical mistake. However if we try to fix this problem by somehow ripping the bandage off all at once, we sink an entire country that [I]we happen to border.[/I]

As for "Why not send our men to Mexico, instead of the middle east or the asian-pacific?!" It boils down to a lot of basic problems that come together very dramatically. Most members of drug cartels are by and large civilian in nature. They live with their families, do normal things, then for a few hours a day go out and rape and torture mayors because it's a nice job. We already have enough trouble with shooting insurgents, imagine shooting ordinary men who happen to just be bringing home bread to put on the table through "unsavory means." Then there are issues about the topography and makeup of the country that I am sadly not familiar enough with to talk in depth on.

Of course there's also the fact that Mexico is a country that [I]borders us.[/I] We risked no threat of retaliation when we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan because, and this may shock you, they are over three thousand miles from our borders and separated by an ocean. If tomorrow we had Abrams rolling around Mexico city looking for dirty cartel men, they could have gangsters dumping bodies over freeway bridges in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Pheonix and any number of principle American cities in the southwest and southeast. How do you respond to that? Lock up all the illegal immigrants from mexico? Well shit, someone around here is trying that already and well, that plan's going swimmingly even without the race-driven murder-fear.

There are many many many more problems with trying to give Mexico the full bootstamp, but for now the bottom line is "Holy god no that's a terrible idea."

Comedy edit: Third time really is the charm I guess.[/QUOTE]

Legalization won't happen in one fell swoop regardless. To me it looks like states will legalize medical use (some will fully legalize, like Colorado) and over the course of a few election cycles the Federal government will ease up on prosecuting over marijuana use, and eventually it's likely many states will allow a very regulated market to function.
I could be wrong here but I think the markets will move more towards larger corporate-sized growing ops, which will cut into cartel profits. We won't explicitly stop the weed from Mexico, but we can make it not worth the effort, similar to how Valve doesn't sweat pirates because steam is a better service than its competitors.

In other words, could you elaborate on your point?

[Mingebox]

It is times like this I am reminded of the great philosopher Nicholas Cage and his insightful dissertation on the current state of affairs of our vibrant and diverse neighbors to the South[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XakM2MQX41w[/media]

[Nerfer]

She is a brave woman.

I hope her death counts for something though, and is not overlooked.

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38604498']I'm not sure I understand how this one in particular would be naive? If it's produced and regulated in the US, then in theory what would the Cartels have to sell? What would their market be? If you're worried about sinking the economy there by removing a large chunk of the income, then I'd argue to you that you wouldn't see that- you'd see a Colombia, where, when the major cartels were eliminated through violence and economic strangulation, the creation and distribution of drugs turned into a local thing and not an issue of massive violent organized paramilitary groups and corrupt officials. There is a chance that we could see failings for much of the average Mexican workers, but it's not like they make the majority of the profit- unlike in Colombia where the decentralized production of cocaine has brought more income in to more lower-class people, rather than to individual druglords. The best option to keep this sort of thing happening would be to legalize and regulate in Mexico and the US, and put the production in the hands of smaller Mexican growers and individual workers, like is the case in Colombia.

The only other alternative to removing the market is really opening new ones- in Mexico, for the workers, so they have a safer and better source of income and won't be forced to turn to the Cartels to survive.[/QUOTE]

Let's suppose a hypothetical scenario for a moment.

I own a shoe factory in the nation of Aleph. The country next door, Bora, outlaws shoewearing for religious reasons. Over the years, I produce massive piles of shoes. Far more than I could ever need. My single purpose for this is to export these shoes. I devise many clever and sneaky ways of getting my shoes in to Bora from Aleph, and in spite of a truely awe inspiring campaign of anti-footware by the Bora people I turn a tidy profit while controlling the shoe industry.

Now it's modernity. Bora is on the cusp of legalizing perhaps, sandals. Not wholesale shoes yet, but a start. Many Bora thinkers believe they will control the massive profits I've been raking in by starting their own clever footwear ventures. In Aleph, the government is considering sponsoring young investors to start their own sandal making factories to try and flood me out of the market.

The problem is, I control the market. Not only do I control it, I control it and have means of coercion to make sure that I dominate the market. If the Aleph men open sandal factories, nothing stops me from infiltrating them, buying them, or controlling them and subsuming their profits. (Likely through corruption or force if I must!) If the Bora men try their own start ups, I can simply crush them with a superior volume and quality of product. A superior volume and quality that I have maintained for years even under the pall of illegality!

Now the Bora men are in a pinch. I've still got the reigns of the horse of production, and they cannot even arrest people for wearing my sandals! "Oh, well just regulate the factories," I hear you say. How? The men in Aleph have tried for years to stop me wholesale and I survived them, this just gives me a second layer of safety. And any basic business man can tell you more regulations on an industry, in say, Bora, drives up the costs of production when you have to comply. What's that? Driving the sandal makers in Bora to thin profit margins works in my favor? I'm glad you're a step ahead of me.

So, this turns in to a hilarious flop. I am poised to rake in even greater profits as more tepid Bora men are willing to wear MY sandals, all the while I have to put less resources into concealing MY sandals from the Bora authorities simply because I may masquerade under the guise of being a Bora sandalmaker. Meanwhile, the money the Bora lawmakers hope to rake in is nowhere to be found and a very sizeable portion of the Bora populace is uncomfortable with the new fad of sandal wearing and what it means for the future.

[B]Concise Form: [/B]Legitimate producers only beat illegitimate producers when they offer a truely superior product and don't have to worry about competition. In the case of Valve, they are a, unfortunately, very similar to a monopoly. They are a GOOD monopoly, but they act as a monopoly none the less. The claim you can beat out Cartels is tanamount to saying "Why not smack Microsoft with an anti-trust lawsuit so that we can get more OS brands?" I look around, and I see very few Linux users.

[Xenomoose]

[QUOTE=Satansick;38603640]She was probably raped before they killed her .[/QUOTE]

Even if that's true, there's a reason why they didn't state it in the article. It's the same reason everyone who read that post hates you now.

[GarrettFox]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;38604224]
As for "Why not send our men to Mexico, instead of the middle east or the asian-pacific?!" It boils down to a lot of basic problems that come together very dramatically. Most members of drug cartels are by and large civilian in nature. They live with their families, do normal things, then for a few hours a day go out and rape and torture mayors because it's a nice job. We already have enough trouble with shooting insurgents, imagine shooting ordinary men who happen to just be bringing home bread to put on the table through "unsavory means." Then there are issues about the topography and makeup of the country that I am sadly not familiar enough with to talk in depth on.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, so being a dick is just their day job. They clock in at the rapist center and put on their protective rapist hat and get right to work.

Trying to be understanding of their situation and I'm just not seeing it. Still totally okay with a hellfire hitting their car.

If air strikes are too damaging to the surrounding areas, we are on pretty decent terms with the Mexican government, so using ground forces should be reasonably easy. Especially given the proximity to the United States, and the presence of roads capable of supporting armored vehicles. Being able to put a bunch of armored vehicles on a train and send them to roughly where we need them in Mexico is not a happy thing for anyone on the Cartel side.

I'd say overall the topography is very forgiving for our purposes.

[quote]Of course there's also the fact that Mexico is a country that borders us. We risked no threat of retaliation when we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan because, and this may shock you, they are over three thousand miles from our borders and separated by an ocean. If tomorrow we had Abrams rolling around Mexico city looking for dirty cartel men, they could have gangsters dumping bodies over freeway bridges in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Pheonix and any number of principle American cities in the southwest and southeast. How do you respond to that? Lock up all the illegal immigrants from mexico? Well shit, someone around here is trying that already and well, that plan's going swimmingly even without the race-driven murder-fear.[/quote]

Come on over, gentlemen. Learn what happens when you bring your cartel bullshit north of the border. Go ahead, try to kill a mayor in the US. Hell, you'll probably even manage it, but you won't like what happens afterwards.

[Exooodus]

Her daughter now has no parents :/

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=GunFox;38604870]Oh, so being a dick is just their day job. They clock in at the rapist center and put on their protective rapist hat and get right to work.

Trying to be understanding of their situation and I'm just not seeing it. Still totally okay with a hellfire hitting their car.

If air strikes are too damaging to the surrounding areas, we are on pretty decent terms with the Mexican government, so using ground forces should be reasonably easy. Especially given the proximity to the United States, and the presence of roads capable of supporting armored vehicles. Being able to put a bunch of armored vehicles on a train and send them to roughly where we need them in Mexico is not a happy thing for anyone on the Cartel side.

I'd say overall the topography is very forgiving for our purposes.

Come on over, gentlemen. Learn what happens when you bring your cartel bullshit north of the border. Go ahead, try to kill a mayor in the US. Hell, you'll probably even manage it, but you won't like what happens afterwards.[/QUOTE]

This thread would like to meet you: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1228466[/url]

We do not magically discern which evil Cartel demons are infact evil Cartel demons and not Jose the farmworker who keeps your dinner from rotting in a field. I can think of no time in history where an enemy sharing a common ethnicity with innocents did not do especial or grievous harm to the innocents.

Okay, let's say you can't sympathise with Raul the Day-Raper. That's fine. Let's blow him to hell. Let's blow him and the nice little suburb he lives in with all of his mexican friends straight to hell. Not even with drones. Tanks do it pretty well actually! Holy shit now Mexico's a warzone. When we study patterns of movement by refugees from Warzones (Because holy fuck I certainly don't want to live in a warzone!) they usually move towards more peaceful and stable countries.

Which countries border Mexico again, and have stable, warfree envrionments? Right. Well shit. Okay, more Mexicans in say, Guatamala is good I guess.

And sure, we're on good terms with Mexico. So now that we're such buddies, I'm sure they're willing to turn over their autonomy so we can impose something of a military police state to help them clean up. I'm sure that will fly well with every nationalist or liberal thinker, and is completely sustainable in the long term.

[orcywoo6]

This mexico shit needs to stop. Now.
Fuck the cartels.

[GarrettFox]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;38604992]This thread would like to meet you: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1228466[/url]

We do not magically discern which evil Cartel demons are infact evil Cartel demons and not Jose the farmworker who keeps your dinner from rotting in a field. I can think of no time in history where an enemy sharing a common ethnicity with innocents did not do especial or grievous harm to the innocents.

Okay, let's say you can't sympathise with Raul the Day-Raper. That's fine. Let's blow him to hell. Let's blow him and the nice little suburb he lives in with all of his mexican friends straight to hell. Not even with drones. Tanks do it pretty well actually! Holy shit now Mexico's a warzone. When we study patterns of movement by refugees from Warzones (Because holy fuck I certainly don't want to live in a warzone!) they usually move towards more peaceful and stable countries.

Which countries border Mexico again, and have stable, warfree envrionments? Right. Well shit. Okay, more Mexicans in say, Guatamala is good I guess.

And sure, we're on good terms with Mexico. So now that we're such buddies, I'm sure they're willing to turn over their autonomy so we can impose something of a military police state to help them clean up. I'm sure that will fly well with every nationalist or liberal thinker, and is completely sustainable in the long term.[/QUOTE]

Orrrrrrrr Mexico, now having access to the US military, can direct them. Which is the only way the agreement ever works. They choose the assignments, the US carries them out using the level of force they request. Obviously if they request something that simply isn't feasible, the request can be denied.

Unilaterally making the decisions would never work. Mexico wants to be rid of the problem, it just doesn't have the tools necessary. We give them the tools, they fix the problem. We're happy. They are happy.

Mexico already makes heavy use of its military for law enforcement purposes, so while the use of foreign forces is never a welcome concept, I think the use of foreign forces which are directed by your government and are used solely to destroy a pandemic and ridiculously dangerous criminal element that has been slowly destroying your country for decades is an acceptable trade off.

[Plonker]

ur drugs are shit i'd rather sniff a pensioners bum crack than that powder u make what now cartel

[Thelurker1234]

why focus on the middle east when our brother just south of us is having awful problems like this.

edit: especially cause mexico is expected to get much bigger economically along with turkey and a few others, would be good to have them as stable friends.

[stawicki]

[QUOTE=Medevilae;38603258]Are you suggesting US military occupation of Mexico?[/QUOTE]

We would probably end up losing guns to the gangs and training their gang members some more.

[smeismastger]

So can anyone here explain exactly why US hasn't already stepped up their "War on Drugs" and brought some serious sledgehammer on the cartels? I mean if you tracked down Osama bin Laden and killed him then I doubt you would have much trouble finding and eliminating cartel bosses and their commanders hiding in plain view, living in huge mansions.

I'm not even talking about some crazy grand scale use of ground forces, but precision strikes with special forces. What's the reason holding back such action? Way too high risk (many members of the cartels are ex-military), Political reasons? Futility? (the head figures get replaced eventually)

[Crazy Ivan]

[QUOTE=GunFox;38605092]Orrrrrrrr Mexico, now having access to the US military, can direct them. Which is the only way the agreement ever works. They choose the assignments, the US carries them out using the level of force they request. Obviously if they request something that simply isn't feasible, the request can be denied.

Unilaterally making the decisions would never work. Mexico wants to be rid of the problem, it just doesn't have the tools necessary. We give them the tools, they fix the problem. We're happy. They are happy.

Mexico already makes heavy use of its military for law enforcement purposes, so while the use of foreign forces is never a welcome concept, I think the use of foreign forces which are directed by your government and are used solely to destroy a pandemic and ridiculously dangerous criminal element that has been slowly destroying your country for decades is an acceptable trade off.[/QUOTE]

This will be my last comment on this article and this thread in general.

This is a benign but overly simplistic view of how "Military" works. It's like treating an army as if it were a resource akin to pounds of cotton or gallons of milk. Trying to enmesh two different armies for a war that one has literally only abstract value in, has not once in history been shown to work effectively.

No matter how you case it, it would escalate to a military occupation of Mexico that mirrors Vietnam with the added bonus of being close enough that shockjournalists don't have to book plane tickets for the action.

It's easy to suggest methods of behavior for militaries, like "using a level of requested force" or "denying a request" but that seems to suggest something strangely simple about how a military works. Let's say that storming a city block known to be held by Zetas would DEFINITELY cost us a platoon of riflemen but would wipe out all Z's in that city block. This is not a videogame where you get to abstractly make that choice and commit, then wear laurels on your crown because you won. This is the world where the consequences long after the "match" matter. The property damage, civilians losses, soldiers lost, and overall portrayal of the action by the media all factor in.

"Okay okay okay" you say, "Let's just give mexico DA TOOLS." I want to know if you're familiar with the lend-lease programme. Or for that matter the Mujhadeen armament programme. Or Operation TooFastTooFurious. It seems all we learn from history is that arming someone else does not fix problems, it just arms someone else. There is this great concept of "let them fix their mistakes" but that entails that they have the capability and lack the means. If that were true, then why do the Cartels have fleets of tanks, aircraft and subs at their command? I would certainly imagine at one time they lacked the means but their capability seems up to snuff.

We can spend days getting into the fine details of a softcore terror war on the American front, but there is no scenario that is not blisteringly simplistic that ends in a net increase of happiness, safety or profit in the short or long term.

[Chocolate.]

At least she died dignified

[Nerevar982]

[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/mexico1.jpg[/img]

Why is it censored if she's fully clothed?

[Jeep-Eep]

[QUOTE=Nerevar982;38605751][img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/mexico1.jpg[/img]

Why is it censored if she's fully clothed?[/QUOTE]

Because the newsies don't want to even risk a fine?

[OrionChronicles]

Why didn't she have security forces? You'd think after two assassination attempts she'd get some troop protection or bodyguards.

[Mlisen14]

[QUOTE=Kid Cudi;38603749]Some things are just better unsaid dude.[/QUOTE]

I think it would be a terrible thing if the media started omitting mentions of rape for decency's sake. If rape is being used as a weapon in the drug war it should be written about (not that it's necessarily the case here).

[GarrettFox]

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;38605483]This will be my last comment on this article and this thread in general.

This is a benign but overly simplistic view of how "Military" works. It's like treating an army as if it were a resource akin to pounds of cotton or gallons of milk. Trying to enmesh two different armies for a war that one has literally only abstract value in, has not once in history been shown to work effectively.[/quote]

Korea worked out about as well as could be expected, actually.

[quote]No matter how you case it, it would escalate to a military occupation of Mexico that mirrors Vietnam with the added bonus of being close enough that shockjournalists don't have to book plane tickets for the action.[/quote]

Minus the part where the US military occupies anything other than military facilities.

[quote]It's easy to suggest methods of behavior for militaries, like "using a level of requested force" or "denying a request" but that seems to suggest something strangely simple about how a military works. Let's say that storming a city block known to be held by Zetas would DEFINITELY cost us a platoon of riflemen but would wipe out all Z's in that city block. This is not a videogame where you get to abstractly make that choice and commit, then wear laurels on your crown because you won. This is the world where the consequences long after the "match" matter. The property damage, civilians losses, soldiers lost, and overall portrayal of the action by the media all factor in.[/quote]

Two military forces often do have issues when working as a unified unit. This is why NATO exists. It standardizes the crap out of everything and lets everyone work as a single unit.

Mexico isn't a member nation of NATO, but it is a close ally of the United States that has had a significant portion of their military trained by US forces. Cooperation, particularly for such a low intensity conflict, would be reasonably easy.

Deciding on "levels of force" would certainly be simple. "Hey blow this guy up with a drone" vs "we will need infantry to accomplish this" isn't exactly rocket science. Clearly a great deal of effort and intelligence needs to be processed in order to determined exactly where and how to strike, but that is always true and is not at all unique to this situation.

[quote]"Okay okay okay" you say, "Let's just give mexico DA TOOLS." I want to know if you're familiar with the lend-lease programme. Or for that matter the Mujhadeen armament programme. Or Operation TooFastTooFurious. It seems all we learn from history is that arming someone else does not fix problems, it just arms someone else. There is this great concept of "let them fix their mistakes" but that entails that they have the capability and lack the means. If that were true, then why do the Cartels have fleets of tanks, aircraft and subs at their command? I would certainly imagine at one time they lacked the means but their capability seems up to snuff.[/quote]

"The tools" refers to the use of US forces, not our hardware. The cartels do not have fleets of military vehicles. I'm sure they have a lot of modified boats and planes, and even a decent amount of homemade armored vehicles, but they are nothing compared to a properly equipped military.

[quote]We can spend days getting into the fine details of a softcore terror war on the American front, but there is no scenario that is not blisteringly simplistic that ends in a net increase of happiness, safety or profit in the short or long term.[/QUOTE]

They will quickly lose steam once the cash flow stops. Again, not ideology.

[Badunkadunk]

[QUOTE=smeismastger;38605436]I mean if you tracked down Osama bin Laden and killed him then I doubt you would have much trouble finding and eliminating cartel bosses and their commanders hiding in plain view, living in huge mansions.[/QUOTE]

Didn't we stumble on Osama out of nowhere in his giant mansion fortress? Then again we also knew exactly where Pablo Escobar was at all times and nobody wanted to act because any action was met with retaliation not on the government, but on random people on the streets. I think it escalated into just his gang bombing cars every day and defectors of his personal army just killing off and holding Pablo's family hostage and butchering anyone affiliated with him.

[thisispain]

if only more people were as brave as her. it sucks how powerless many of us are to stop this shit

[yawmwen]

[QUOTE=GunFox;38604870]
If air strikes are too damaging to the surrounding areas, we are on pretty decent terms with the Mexican government, so using ground forces should be reasonably easy. Especially given the proximity to the United States, and the presence of roads capable of supporting armored vehicles. Being able to put a bunch of armored vehicles on a train and send them to roughly where we need them in Mexico is not a happy thing for anyone on the Cartel side.

I'd say overall the topography is very forgiving for our purposes.
[/QUOTE]

the problem is that you are just hitting a small part of the cartel, which is their "enforcers, soldiers, security" sort of wing. there is a much larger part to the cartels, which is where the meth is cooked; where the marijuana is grown; where the cocaine is refined. now im all for getting rid of the average thug on the streets, but by trying to eliminate production you are literally destroying the livelihood of people who are innocent of any moral wrongdoing. a lot of people have no choice but to work the fields or die, to work the factories or starve.

the problem is that a lot of people's lives depend on the production and distribution of these illicit substances. to simply label the cartels as full of thugs and launching a military campaign against them you are also going to create a very serious economic problem for a lot of people