a reply to: WeAreAWAKE
This is what I would say to your friend...
First of all, many people like to think that these matters can be separated from other issues pertaining to governance, the behaviour and intent of
intelligence agencies over successive administrations, and other matters which may at first seem to be unrelated, but are, in fact, fundamentally
indivisible from the particular facet of life being examined.
It is simply a fact that the CIA are partially responsible for the state of things south of the US/Mexico border. There is no argument to be made
against that position, because the number of leaders of South American nations who have been offed or deposed by assassins and aggitators, or hounded
out after economic hitmen from North of the border savaged their economies, is extensive and well documented.
It is also a fact that cartels have connections within the intelligence services, and that some elements of the intelligence community even support
cartel operations by way of providing material support, in exchange for either drugs, or money, or both. This comes by way of the same terminal
stupidity that sees the intelligence community supply weapons and money to rebel groups in the Middle East, despite the historical evidence suggesting
very strongly indeed, that this method of operation is about as effective as a marshmallow steam roller.
When a nation or its intelligence agencies, its military industrial complex or its other businesses, or all of these factions at once, conspire to
destabilise and render weak another nations government, the nation whose covert aggression causes issues for the population of the victimised nation
or nations, has a responsibility to those who have been effected by the stupidities of those power structures.
In a democracy, and by that I mean a nation which votes for its leaders, rather than being dictated to by unelected individuals (no cop out I'm
afraid, republican folks), the people are responsible for their choice of government. They have a responsibility to choose leaders who will not only
provide stable circumstances in which lives of the citizens can play out in pleasant and orderly fashion, but do so without bringing dishonour and
shame upon the nation itself which is best avoided by having a government which does not interfere with other governments, except when the threat
posed by another nation is a) military and b) actually posed by the nation itself, not a group within it who do not speak for anyone but themselves.
The US FAILS to keep to this simple formula, and so has no business complaining at the amount of immigration, legal or otherwise, that occurs at its
borders. I should also point out, that more people cross the US/Mexico border heading south these days, than head north.
More to the point, your buddy should recognise that his nation has, without provocation worthy of the response, made life impossible to live in so
many countries, in multiple continents, that the nation should expect, accept, and welcome the opportunity to do right by those most affected by the
perfidy and corruption of their overwhelmingly powerful state, and the reason I believe that, is because unless the American people start voting for
decent, moral, incorruptible, anti-corporate, pro-worker, pro-peace, anti-war and anti-globalisation candidates, unless the people of the US take
their nation away from the idiots who have been running it, they should be made to take responsibility for their abject laziness where maintaining
proper governance is concerned.
When your leaders do something wrong, it IS your responsibility to make amends. You voted for these idiots, these warmongers, drug runners, gun
runners, hitmen, and economic hatchet men, whether Republicans or Democrats. It is therefore absolutely just that your nation take responsibility for
the poor choices of its citizens, with regard to its leadership.
Now, you can argue that you have no responsibility of that kind what so ever, that you are free to maintain your life, liberty and freedoms at the
expense of people in other countries, you can argue that your choices have no consequences and that your justification for supporting the violent
hegemony which exists in American foreign policy regardless of who leads at the time, is entirely solid and has no weak link in it. You can argue
that. But you will be gigantically wrong at all times and in every possible way.
That is what I would say to your friend.