Should the U.S. armed forces take out the Mexican drug cartels?

Which organizations kill more Americans: Islamic terrorist groups or Mexican drug cartels? Obviously, it’s the cartels — by far.

They’re thought to be responsible for 90 percent of the heroin, coc aine, methamphetamines and fentanyl smuggled into America. About 70,000 of our fellow citizens die from drug overdoses each year — more than died in the entire Vietnam War.

The cartels are largely in control of human trafficking, which is transforming the demographics of our nation and costing a vast fortune in public and private resources. Many Americans are victimized by illegal aliens who break additional laws after arriving here.

Compared to the cartels and the harm they cause us, the jihadis seem almost friendly. Yet where do we find our armed forces engaging in combat? Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa. Don’t get me wrong; I think jihadis are a very serious threat and should be killed whenever and wherever possible.

But maybe it’s time to consider direct action against the Mexican cartels, too. Mexico’s government is unable or unwilling to effectively fight them, so we’re justified in taking our own action to alleviate the problem.

A good start would be to identify their leadership at all levels (probably already done by the DEA) and start killing or capturing them, preferably the former. Something like Task Force 121 would be ideal, using the same tactics employed against "high-value targets" (HVT) in Iraq. The USAF, AH-64 Apache helicopters and Reaper and Predator drones could support the special ops task force and take out HVTs when possible.

The Mexican military and police would be warned not to interfere and would not be tipped off about upcoming actions. If they interfere they’ll be destroyed, by conventional ground units if necessary.

All cross-border traffic between Mexico and the USA, both legal and illegal, would be prohibited until the cartel threat is drastically reduced. U.S. ground forces — authorized to use lethal force — would be deployed along the border to deter all would-be crossers and asylum seekers. Land mines would be planted along the border. Warning signs in Spanish, PA systems repeatedly warning about the mines and a publicity campaign about them in Mesoamerica would hopefully persuade people not to attempt a crossing.

All suspected cartel members in the USA and Mexico would be incarcerated and their money and property seized. Mexican banks would be forced to open their books to U.S. forensic accountants, who would ID cartel money for seizure.

While we’re at it, we might want to take out MS-13 and give El Salvador a chance at normalcy. We would have to round up the ~10,000 MS-13 gang members in America, and the roughly 50,000 worldwide members.

I’m not sure how to treat captured cartel and MS-13 members. Should they be considered enemy combatants and held without trial as long as they’re deemed threats, or tried by U.S. military tribunals? The best thing would be to kill them in combat; they’re evil creatures who prey on others and commit the most gruesome crimes imaginable.

The world and U.S. liberals would consider such actions crimes against humanity, but we would enjoy a substantial decrease in overdose deaths and human trafficking, and Mexico might have a chance to reform its utterly corrupt society.

a reply to: Scapegrace

You are basically advocating for unilateral military action on the soil of a sovereign nation for the sole reason that you don't like the reality of supply and demand?

Have we learned nothing from the past?

All that would do is create a vacuum that others would be quick to exploit. Without boots on the ground, the whole enterprise would be up, and running again, in a matter of months.

If we can't get the Mexican government to intercede (which they won't, because it's a boon to their economy), the thing to do is a hard, strict close of the border. Nothing, and nobody in without search.

How many American politicians will the army have to take out too?

If you don’t think some are on the payroll of the cartels.....

You don’t think the cartel has made the offer, you either can take some cash each month, or we can kill your family..

I am not saying all politicians who are open boarder friendly are on the take, some are followers and other are just plain stupid, but it makes sense that some American politicians are on the take .

no. everybody loses. people will die on both sides

There is Precident .

In 1915 Poncho Villa launched a raid on Columbus New Mexico causing death and damage . ( cartels do this every day with retaliations ) In response to the damage and deaths the US launched a expeditionary force that went to Mexico to try to capture poncho .

I’m good with that let’s go hunting.


Here’s an interesting little quirk.

In 1918 negotiations were made between Nogales AZ and Nogales MX in which they agreed upon a permanent barrier .

“ good fences make good neighbors “

I sure as hell would like to see history repeat itself this time .

There is a simple solution to the drug problem.. we should legalize everything and if people want to overdose and die, that is their prerogative.

We have a winner! This member right here ^^^^

ETA I'm not advocating letting people die but legalising everything would remove a large part of the problem. The criminality and violence for example.

a reply to: Scapegrace

How do you identify the cartel people from the ordinary Mexicans? Or just shootem all and let God sort em out?

Well considering the actual head's of this snake are both Mexican and American government entities. If the military waged war on the cartels they would essentially be fighting the CIA and Mexican authorities.

That said I suggest indiscriminate drone strikes an anything crossing the border both directions that so much as smells like the cartel or American spooks.

Drugs flow into America.
Money and guns flow into Mexico.
It's a very lucrative business that almost no one wants shut down.

a reply to: JAY1980

I agree. Like one hand in the puppet show attacking the other.

"Walmart Declares War on Taco Bell in Latest Round of Border Dispute."

a reply to: Scapegrace

Should the U.S. armed forces take out the Mexican drug cartels?

That won't happen. The CIA aka the real Drug cartels need their puppets aka Mexican cartels to run their operations.

A conflict like that would turn into Afghanistan and vietnam all over again.

The only way to get rid of something is to go full sherman or blitzkrieg and steam roll over everything and rebuild. But history has shown that's a terrible tactic and in the end war is bad for everyone.

Mexico needs to deal with the drugs themselves like Colombia did, but even they are still struggling, because people want drugs.

a reply to: Scapegrace

Legalize all drugs.

Regulate and tax them like tobacco and alcohol.

When there is no more demand for Mexican drugs because it's produced locally. The cartels will practically disappear.

Prohibition always leads to illicit sales and mafia. We know this and are just watching history repeat itself. Again.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: JAY1980

I agree. Like one hand in the puppet show attacking the other.

"Walmart Declares War on Taco Bell in Latest Round of Border Dispute."

They'll lose swiftly because their hot, prepared food pales in comparison to our fresh every 15 minutes nacho fries, tomatoes, pico de galo, chipotle, jalapeno, and ranch sauces. Our loaded nacho boxes are a site to behold, then devour. Betcha can't finish the entire box.

If you do, you'll be uncomfortably full all night with gastrointestinal grief the next day. Not because of our ingredients but because you ate entirely too much. It was that good. Live mas is the company motto, "Live more". We deliver more flavor, more nachos, more calories and absurd amounts of sodium. Live more mas, then pass away early mas from too much mas.

It's the same for cartels. Mas doses, mas cheaper prices. Hey, you only live life once and there's no afterlife, this is it. You might as well indulge in your vices until it kills you but when it does, it was your own fault for lack of self control.

That last sentence holds truth; it comes down to a product being sold legally or illegaly that is bad for your health and your life. It can mess your life up and send you to an early grave. The pull of it is immense, it's banking on your brains inability to control cravings, to treat symptoms that are temporary, mental, or perhaps indeed real and rooted in health science. Yes, you'll be miserable without your dose or your tacos and burritos, but only for a time.

Can you moderate your intake? Can you quit and make it through the detrimental effects on your brain, body, social and professional life? Did you not exert sufficient self control to stop it from reaching that level? The current accepted opinion is that it's unfortunately your fault for letting it happen, not the salesman. To say it's the salesman's fault is overreaching into people's lives and very liberal.

What's next, raising taxes to help the addicts and morbidly obese with free healthcare programs? Sounds very liberal to me, and we don't like those. Diametrically opposed to anything they do. The solution is to attack the cartels with a military campaign or let the addicts die. They're not so worried about the obese because the federal government gets billions in luxury tax from fast food every year.

These drugs however don't get taxed, this was the problem with marijuana. Prescriptions that fuel and kill addicts were okay for decades because of the taxation on them. It's only recently that opioids had to be reined in because the social problems from it became too great. Below that bar, however, was perfectly acceptable for the money it generated.

a reply to: Scapegrace
The old defeated cartels will be replaced with new cartels. There is way too much profit from the drug trade. Some of these kingpins make billions. Military intervention would lead to a lot of killing, not to mention the political mess, for no real gain.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Scapegrace

You are basically advocating for unilateral military action on the soil of a sovereign nation for the sole reason that you don't like the reality of supply and demand?

Have we learned nothing from the past?

All that would do is create a vacuum that others would be quick to exploit. Without boots on the ground, the whole enterprise would be up, and running again, in a matter of months.

If we can't get the Mexican government to intercede (which they won't, because it's a boon to their economy), the thing to do is a hard, strict close of the border. Nothing, and nobody in without search.

Although a rational idea in a perfect world, it doesn't take into account that the CIA is moving most of the drugs to fund off-the-book projects for fun and profit. Hell, when Chavez was alive a 6 month tour was $300k and $50k a Cia head, trying to stop the drugs moving to maracaibo and then on up to Florida and Texas by minisub, or by plane to other Cia controlled airports further inland. At least that's what a little bird told me lol.

Eta: a lot of the drugs come in on commercial mule flights from Lebanon, turkey, etc. Used to be Syria in the 80's and 90's. Again, all Cia controlled and in this case not Mexico :-)

Cheers - Dave

Besides, nations have sovereignty over themselves and their citizens. In every country of the world where drugs or other harmful products and ways affect us negatively, they react as if being invaded and rightly so.

Would Mexico stand aside and be made a female dog in the world's eye for letting someone come in and bomb, kill people? If one innocent citizen is killed, just one, it's an entirely new game. One does not simply do surgical strikes on U.S. soil to take out anything. Drug production, human traffickers, even terrorists.

The idea of invading Mexico to take out the cartels is rooted in the fantasy of President Trump's administration being all powerful, ethically and morally right in all things. That's what's being perpetuated in some circles but it isn't factual or realistic, just part of the propaganda and political climate among a section of his supporters.

It's a novel idea, might solve the problem, but then we'll need liberal healthcare to help the addicts that we invaded Mexico to save. Are you okay with paying higher taxes to help the addicts if attacking the cartels for their sake took place?

First, anyone who says the solution is to legalize drugs is an ignorant moron at best.

These drugs are destroying people's lives, there is a freaking reason why they are illegal.

Legalized pot in Colorado did not result in all pot being produced and sold at authorized outlets. Only tourists buy from those. The illegal drug trade is at least as big as it ever was there so learn your facts before saying legalizing will shutdown cartels and illegal drug trade.

The cartels that produce and sell these drugs are some legit evil people that murder, rape, torture people without a second thought. They are a threat to humanity as long as they exist.

Yes, we should annihilate the Cartels and if CIA is involved, get rid of them too.

The cartels are just following good business ethics , supply and demand.

When the US isn't the number 1 consumer of all narcotics, the cartels will move elsewhere

a reply to: r0xor

You just couldn't help yourself could you?

You just had to bring Donald J into a conversation about a problem that existed long before the current administration, and will exist long after Trump is gone.

Ppl with TDS really need to get some help. Their hatred is spilling over into, and clouding judgement on completely unrelated things.

Question: What day does the fourth of July
fall on this year?

Answer: Trumps a dangerous idiot.