# what do you think about Rick Perry's sending soldiers into Mexico?



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Here's his statement:

"It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border,". This was said in one of his Presidential Whistle stop speech in Connecticut.

If he became president, if the new Mexican President asked for it, if the Mexican Government would allow it, and if the US public would support and pay for it?

Since I asked the question I'll take this opportunity to give my opinions. 

First of all the US Government would probably support it because it gives the industrial complex another place to use up supplies so the country would have to keep spending money. 

Second Mexico would probably support it because they would have an out. If something went wrong then it would be the fault of the US and if it worked then they could say that with all the extra help the job just got done sooner. 

Thirdly IMHO the only ones who would not support it are the soldiers who have to do the work. They probably would have similar 'rules of engagement' that they had in Southeast Asia. Don't shoot unless fired upon, keep civilians safe (how to determine which are civilians and which are combatants is to be determined at a later date). Knock three times before entering a home and announce yourself. OK OK that's not one of them but it could have been.

The drug war in Mexico is almost like a civil war, two sides very loosely defined killing each other for land and control. Do you realize that the US has not won a civil war since the invasion of Granada? It lost in Korea, it lost in Vet Nam, and it's loosing two or three (depending on who you talk to) other wars right now.

I know that I'll get some very hard feedback to what I have said. I know that some opinions will be very one sided (either yea or nay). I also know that this could get very heated but I'd like to ask everyone to remember to keep civil words on the paper and that everyone has a right to their opinion. No matter how nuts you might think MINE is. 

Please open and sensible discussion could prove very interesting. A bunch of rants and raves could just prove that we can't use this site for open discussion.


----------



## AlanMexicali (Jun 1, 2011)

*Soldiers*



pappabee said:


> Here's his statement:
> 
> "It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border,". This was said in one of his Presidential Whistle stop speech in Connecticut.
> 
> ...


 Just more of his silliness. It is obvious that no country with a powerful central govt. would allow such a thing to happen. This type of thinking on Perry's part shows what a jerk he is. Mexico is a proud nation and probably even more dedicated to is sovereign independence than most countries. How would you like another country's troops on US soil? I wouldn't and I bet most people here in Mexico and the US would not either? There is no threat to American interests going on and business is as usual. Big mouth jerks like Perry are a big part of the problem the US is suffering from lately.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

*Verrry Interesting*

I had not heard of the Perry Plan, not following the Republican campaign until it jells, (CNN has Cain-Romney in the lead[?]). That being said.

Some of us are old enough to remember living through, if not the Korean War, then Vietnam. We lost 53,000 Americans in a war that turned out to be for nothing. We left, there was a purge, we waited around for a while, then Vietnam became a tourist destination and a supplier of cheaply manufactured goods - a trading partner...but the cost was way too high.

At this point you may understand that as a youth I was opposed to this war, as a college student I was vulnerable to the draft and just could not understand why we were trying to fight something other foreign powers had given up on. Wars like that were futile and way too costly.

Now, as to the US sending troops into Mexico (again), it does give the M-I-C a new place to sell stuff and make more profit. But, on the other hand, some historians have said that was it not for WWII, the Roosevelt recovery would not have been as successful as it was. No, I am not saying we should have a war to help the economy...that is just plain foolish, but economically (and immorally) you could justify it.

Yes, it would give Mexico an opportunity to do like the Iraqis and the Afghans, sit back and let the US take the lead, spend the money, collect casualties and then, if it doesn't work, "not my job, man." (bad ethnic stereotyping). I for one am tired of sending our money and our people to other lands to fight battles which are not ours.

If Perry is serious about doing something about the problem, then let him put all that economic strength into finding a solution to the drug CONSUMPTION problem on the US side of the border. Instead of money for guns and troops and invasions, use money for education, health facilities, and exploring the effect of decriminalizing or legalizing, and regulating, drug use in this country, much on the model of alcohol consumption. Use the money and people power to establish new laws and regulations, with the infrastructures to support them. [That also can create jobs, without a gun.]

The effect of this is long term, and Americans have no patience for that. But if done, the reason for the cartels, the US market for drugs would be denied. Now many cartel members would then become what the bootleggers of Prohibition became: "distributors", but it would be legal, regulated and, let's not forget: taxed!

No, Perry is pandering, playing on fears of a Mexico the public sees thru the lens of the press. Invade Mexico? Send troops to Mexico? - Not in my lifetime, and the support not to do it could run the gamut from the Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Streeters, I think it would be that unpopular. eace:


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

Pure Lunacy! Mexico remembers the last US invasion and might just suddenly take back the US Southwest with internal help. I could imagine a sudden coalition of all the cartels, other gangs and the populace.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

RVGRINGO said:


> Pure Lunacy! Mexico remembers the last US invasion and might just suddenly take back the US Southwest with internal help. I could imagine a sudden coalition of all the cartels, other gangs and the populace.


In my opinion you hit the nail right on the head, that's the governor of Texas for you.

:clap2::clap2:


----------



## Grizzy (Nov 8, 2010)

I agree RV. I can see the cartels joining forces to banish any invading army and I would support it. The US has to learn to keep its nose out of other countries when they are not wanted. And I think they should take back most of the US southwest if this happens. Hell I will help fund that fight for Mexico if I can chip in a bit LOL.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

*Need Something*

This Perry/Mexico thing, the more I think about it the more it sounds like the Gay Marriage issue thing that drew out conservative voters in the 2004 election that re-appointed W as president: a simple call to simple people for a new boogeyman that they can rally around - the easiest way to find support for yourself is to become a "crusader" for a "cause" eg: 54-40 or fight! Remember the Alamo! Remember the Maine! - OK I'll relent on Remember Pearl Harbor!. 

But my point is, jingo-ism is the easiest way to get people on your side - facts, analysis and such doesn't do it - and that is the problem of the US electorate. Troops in Mexico - hogwash! Maybe Perry just doesn't have any really good ideas?


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

Ah, yes; 'The Alamo'. A bunch of yahoos, thrown out of their own states, went to Mexico, converted to Catholicism and became Mexican citizens to qualify for land, then caused trouble. Santa Ana quashed the revolt after offering them a chance to surrender and live; which they refused.
The Maine; I think we set that one up as an excuse to attack Spain for its holdings in the Caribbean, Philippine Islands, Florida, etc.
The attack on Mexico was pure greed.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

RVGRINGO said:


> Ah, yes; 'The Alamo'. A bunch of yahoos, thrown out of their own states, went to Mexico, converted to Catholicism and became Mexican citizens to qualify for land, then caused trouble. Santa Ana quashed the revolt after offering them a chance to surrender and live; which they refused.
> The Maine; I think we set that one up as an excuse to attack Spain for its holdings in the Caribbean, Philippine Islands, Florida, etc.
> The attack on Mexico was pure greed.


We all must remember one thing. Perry is a politician and has the Bush Machine behind him in Texas (and maybe the rest of the country as well). 

We also must remember that a good politician has to know how to use the people's wants, needs, desires and fears to his/her best advantage.

Also remember that Nazi Germany proved that if you tell a big enough lie, loud enough and often enough people start to believe you. Cry wolf until chicken little decides that the sky is truly falling down.


----------



## m55vette (May 21, 2010)

And maybe the Canadian military can slide south of their border to help clean up the drug problems in the US...


----------



## telcoman (Feb 11, 2010)

Well we do have a grenade now.


----------



## Mexicodrifter (Sep 11, 2011)

Simple. Decriminalize drugs. Why are we throwing peolple into jail and fighting a "War on DRugs" when it is as unwinable as the war on alcohol was in the 30´s. We have to wake up to what is really happening. No market, no sales.


----------



## conklinwh (Dec 19, 2009)

This basically a nonsensical discussion on a non-issue referencing yesterday's news, including Perry.
Won't happen! If only the US would focus on removing demand, stop the sale of automatic weapons(my Mexican friends say we must have very aggressive squirrels) and a decent worker program that works instead of inflammatory discussions then maybe things will settle down.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

conklinwh said:


> This basically a nonsensical discussion on a non-issue referencing yesterday's news, including Perry.
> Won't happen! If only the US would focus on removing demand, stop the sale of automatic weapons(my Mexican friends say we must have very aggressive squirrels) and a decent worker program that works instead of inflammatory discussions then maybe things will settle down.


AMEN, BROTHER. IT is a non-nonsensical idea and will disappear just as quickly as it emerged. But you and I agree that the rational sane alternative is to work harder on THIS side of the border on education, healthcare, legislation, etc. Wonder if any candidate is willing to say or do that? Takes ganas to propose that we actually do something.

Buena suerte


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Hi everyone,

I really didn't want this to get into a nasty contest. I just thought that many people would have opinions (and they did) and that it might be interesting in viewing those opinions. 

I really don't think that Perry (if elected) would send troops into Mexico, that the US government would allow it, that the newly elected Mexican President would request them, nor would the American public approve of it.

As a former resident of Texas I have become very familiar with Perry and his 'foot in mouth' tactics. Hey, he was governor when the governors mansion burnt down after the state canceled the insurance on it. Typical Perry sh-t.

The one thing that's come out of this thread is that many people feel that it's the US's requirement to reduce the market for drugs in the US and the ability to transfer AK47 squirrel guns into Mexico. 

From an outside stand point it was fun to watch and see the different reactions but I think that it's just about run its course and time to be put to bed. Perry will probably get the nomination and I'll be that much happier living in Mexico. :deadhorse:


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

Courteous discourse triumphs once again - That's All Folks!


----------



## lasmsp2mx (Jun 18, 2010)

I don't think there is a chance in hell Perry will ever be President. Stange things are happening in this country but I don't think that will be one of them.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

Prohibition has been shown to be a failed policy. If America is truly the land of the free, then why prohibit people from using the drug of their choice? After all, nicotine and alcohol are legal (so far). You cannot legislate morality.
The US has troops stationed in over 150 countries. We have invaded sovereign nations as pre-emptive strikes to prevent further hostilities. Recently, it has been reported that 100 combat troops will be sent to Uganda and there are attempts to start a war with Iran. 
The militarization of our police forces has brought down a reign of terror on our own citizens. Law enforcement writing their own warrants, deadly attacks on innocent people wrongfully targeted and no accountability towards the offenders.
"Gunwalker" and "Fast and Furious" have shed some light on the dark side of this conflict. 
I am still hopeful that things will change, that people will finally tire of the oppression and throw off the shackles as they did before.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2011)

*Most recent commentary*

Wowser. I dont have the energy to comment on every point. But the drug use thing caught my eye first. If using any mind altering substance affected nobody but the user, directly or indirectly, I would have no objections to your position. But such is not the case and so I must object. The consequences are a matter of degree. Hence, caffein, nicotine, and alcohol are tolerated. I am not of the Timothy O'Leary mindset of, "If it feels good, do it."


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

Following that line of thinking, you would have to make tobacco and alcohol illegal. Also, foods that are are less nutritious and more fattening and cars that spew carbon monoxide and go faster than the speed limits.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

Read again: 'matter of degree'.
I'll also choose not to be taxed to treat 'druggies'. It doesn't work. 
I won't feed one, I won't hire one, I won't mourn one.
We used to have places to put 'crazies' & didn't spend too much doing it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2011)

Read my post again and then tell me which line of thinking you are referring to. If on the other hand you are just trying to stir my bucket, don't waste your time.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

You said that the use of mind altering substances affects others besides the user so you object to legalization. I replied that with that line of thinking you would have to ban ALL those substances that affect others besides the user, as well. Even the ones that are now tolerated.
No, I am not trying to stir your bucket. I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of prohibition and attempts to legislate morality.
There was a time when America stood for individual freedom. That is the keystone of our foundation. Sadly, that is no longer the case. That includes the freedom to put whatever substances into one's own body that one chooses. To have the government step in and say "if you are caught using these particular substances, you will be prosecuted" while allowing other substances to be legal is hypocritical.
If carried out to the extreme, any activity that endangers one's safety would have to be outlawed, hence the comment about cars. Dan Wheldon was just killed in an Indy style auto race, that affected his family, should we outlaw auto racing? Skydiving? Swimming? 
When you have a Mexican drug lord thanking present and past US presidents for keeping drugs illegal so he can get rich, I think it's time to rethink our drug policy.
David Henry Sterry: Mexican Drug Lord Officially Thanks American Lawmakers for Keeping Drugs Illegal


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Monty Floyd said:


> You said that the use of mind altering substances affects others besides the user so you object to legalization. I replied that with that line of thinking you would have to ban ALL those substances that affect others besides the user, as well. Even the ones that are now tolerated.
> No, I am not trying to stir your bucket. I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of prohibition and attempts to legislate morality.
> There was a time when America stood for individual freedom. That is the keystone of our foundation. Sadly, that is no longer the case. That includes the freedom to put whatever substances into one's own body that one chooses. To have the government step in and say "if you are caught using these particular substances, you will be prosecuted" while allowing other substances to be legal is hypocritical.
> If carried out to the extreme, any activity that endangers one's safety would have to be outlawed, hence the comment about cars. Dan Wheldon was just killed in an Indy style auto race, that affected his family, should we outlaw auto racing? Skydiving? Swimming?
> ...


I must disagree with you. American NEVER stood for individual freedom. It stood for the freedoms of the landed gentry. Let’s first start out with a little bit of history (you all know how I love to do this). 

When the US was first founded less than 17% of the residents (so called Americans as opposed to the Indians) were qualified to vote. The only people who qualified were white male property owners. It’s interesting that the Constitution says that the people who can vote for the members of congress are the ones who can vote for the members of their states assembly so there was no federal law stating exactly who could vote. An example of “States Rights” 

If American was founded on individual freedom what about the freedom of the 83%?
Oh that figure comes directly from a Wikipedia on the original freedoms. 


Dan Wheldon's death was a tragic accident and one that could have been avoided if he was not racing. The problem there is that he WANTED to race. This was the profession that he choose. Should we close all the oil rigs in the ocean or should we stop the building of all high rises because, according to ISO (Insurance Services Org.) those are the two most dangerous jobs in the world. Even more so than 'space cadet'.


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

pappabee said:


> ........... The only people who qualified were white male property owners.


Actually, they had to be* white, over 21, male, property owners and belong to the Anglican Church* in the early Virginia colony, and others.


----------



## joaquinx (Jul 3, 2010)

pappabee said:


> American NEVER stood for individual freedom.


Never is a big word and not to be used lightly. Reading the Bill of Rights, I read individual freedoms as: Freedom of speech, freedom from and of religion, right to bear arms, limits on search and seizure, due process of law, speedy and public trail, jury trial, and prohibition of excessive bail. Certainly these are individual freedoms and not reserved for a land owning class.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

joaquinx said:


> Never is a big word and not to be used lightly. Reading the Bill of Rights, I read individual freedoms as: Freedom of speech, freedom from and of religion, right to bear arms, limits on search and seizure, due process of law, speedy and public trail, jury trial, and prohibition of excessive bail. Certainly these are individual freedoms and not reserved for a land owning class.


Freedom was reserved to those who can vote and in the beginning that was white, male. landowner. Believe me that share-cropper on that NY farm had no rights of individual freedoms. What ever the farm owner gave to them, that's what they got. (I will admit that for the most part land owners treated their share-croppers very well because they brought in money without must work from the owners.)

To RV's comment church membership was required in only 5 of the original colonies and the age restriction was in 10. 

As the country matured those rights we granted to more and more citizens. Here is a little listing of how some of those rights matured.

"All persons born or naturalized" "are citizens" of the US and the US State where they reside (14th Amendment, 1868)

"Race, color, or previous condition of servitude" - (15th Amendment, 1870)

"On account of sex" - (19th Amendment, 1920)

(For federal elections) "By reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" - (24th Amendment, 1964)

"Who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age" (26th Amendment, 1971).

You see how long it took and there are still amendments waiting to be passed. The US has an evolving constitution which I feel is very good. This is the beauty of our form of government. It can grow, mature and correct itself. Things that a lot of other types of government can't.


----------



## m55vette (May 21, 2010)

I think I'm more worried about what Anita Perry thinks at this point, she seems to be taking charge of Rick's opinions.


----------



## Monty Floyd (Aug 31, 2010)

pappabee said:


> I must disagree with you. American NEVER stood for individual freedom.


Then we disagree.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2011)

*Nit Picking*

Monty: I find your comments to be nit picking, exagerations and a diversion. I am no longer up to that type of interaction. I am sure others enjoy a good piddling contest but not I. Adios.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

Chapala Payaso said:


> Monty: I find your comments to be nit picking, exagerations and a diversion. I am no longer up to that type of interaction. I am sure others enjoy a good piddling contest but not I. Adios.


You are skating on the edge of violating rules against personal attacks. Let's keep the discussion on topic and not on assessments of other's contributions.


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2011)

*Noted*



TundraGreen said:


> You are skating on the edge of violating rules against personal attacks. Let's keep the discussion on topic and not on assessments of other's contributions.


Your observation has been noted. SInce I am new to this site, may I ask if it is politically correct oriented?


----------



## LuckyCharmz (Oct 19, 2011)

RVGRINGO said:


> Pure Lunacy! Mexico remembers the last US invasion and might just suddenly take back the US Southwest with internal help. I could imagine a sudden coalition of all the cartels, other gangs and the populace.


That's right! Don't get the Mexicans mad. Collectively, they are pretty humble and peaceful people but when they get pushed far enough they incite revolutions.


----------

