It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mexican president warns trump , do not go after the drug cartels

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The US are buying the drugs?
Mexico is a sovereign nation?
Kurds were left to themselves?

Send in the troops?

The cartels must be stopped, the wall must go on
But

Seems like a little bit of negotiation between the Mexican government and the US government needs to be introduced
Trump should have spoken with Mexico, a plan, an alliance before he opened his rathe large bag of opinion.

I like Trump a little bit but that was dumb

Three American women murdered...
Six American children murdered


I live on the far side of the world

Three women, six children?
Have you not read the history of the cartels

Do you really think that is the biggest crime, three women and six children
As I understand from watching tv, the US is at war and people are dying every day in the US because of the cartels

Now read and comprehend, I didn’t say don’t do anything, I said negotiate with Mexico so it doesn’t look like an invasion

Three women, six children, drugs probably kill thousands daily on your own soil never mind people going into cartel land in Mexico and picking a fight

Those women and children didn't choose to use drugs and risk death. Living in a Mormon village in Mexico was their only mistake. It shows the cartels are afraid of no one and even more so now that nothing is being done by the US to avenge deaths of innocent Americans.


“It shows the cartels are afraid of no one”
Thanks but I knew well before those women and children died that the cartels were afraid of no one
But they risked death by living in a hostile country and picking a fight

Irrespective, the cartels have been malevolent organisations for many decades
Nothing has been done for many decades

I am not saying nothing should be done, just do it properly
What’s your problem




posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well if the cartels really weren't afraid of anyone, then why would the Mexican President try and persuade Trump to "not go after them". Seems to me that the cartels are afraid of the US military under Trump.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: namehere
we created the problem of cartel's by destabilizing our neighbor's for decades, we have to fix it before it destroys our country sometime in the future.


This is very true,
Anyway drone strikes will probably start a war, terrorism in the streets of the US

By all means do something but do it properly

If I was a cartel boss I would consider bombing supermarkets, cinemas, funding ISIS in the US, not take it lying down

Do it properly



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I'm surprised we haven't dropped a few MOABs on the coca fields yet. Seems to me that would clearly give the cartels the sign that we mean business.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk




posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   
www.nytimes.com...


Arturo Sarukhán, a former Mexican ambassador to Washington, warned that the Trump administration could use the terrorist designation to block loans to Mexico from international financial institutions and even restrict imports to the United States from Mexico. But some analysts said that Mr. Trump’s announcement could force the Mexican government to strengthen its fight against criminal groups and the corruption that allows them to prosper. Mr. López Obrador has struggled to define a coherent security strategy, and violence has continued to soar during his administration. “This could also be beneficial for Mexico, since the United States can force Mexico to come up with a more serious security strategy,” said Guillermo Valdés, a former director of Mexico’s National Intelligence Center.
another option at trumps disposal if he wants to go with a scalpel instead of a cudgel ,and with the current terrorisim classifications instead of locking them up in us jails he could just send any cartel members we manage to capture to gitmo where they have no support network of localized prison gangs that they enjoy in us prisons. and there is always the financial option cut off all aid to Mexico if they dont want our help we take back the millions in aid we give them to fight the cartels, i mean if they dont want our help why should we give them a dollar? take that money and divert it to better border security explorer.usaid.gov... thats 293 million dollars they wont get now.

and if he REALLY wanted to be a bastard about it he could issue an executive order under the terrorism label and limit western union/wire transfers from the usa to no more then 1 or two payments a month going from usa to mexico and limit the dollar amount to something ridiculously low like say $50 a month and instruct border control to view any person carrying more then 100 dollars in cash trying to enter mexico to get "extra security checks" under the guise of national security ,and finally he could also issue travel advisories to Mexico to economically mess with the tourism Mexico depends on to fund various programs

www.federalregister.gov...

The U.S. Census Bureau, in contrast, estimates that monetary transfers from U.S. households to family and friends abroad totaled approximately $12 billion in 2008.[10] The available data suggest that the majority of consumers' international transfers from the United States are sent to the Caribbean and Latin America, and primarily to Mexico. Significant sums are also sent to Asia, and to the Philippines in particular.[11] In the United States, remittance transfers sent by non-bank “money transmitters,” depository institutions, and credit unions are generally subject to Federal anti-money laundering laws and restrictions on transfers to or from certain persons. Money transmitters are also subject to State licensing and (in some cases) State regulatory regimes. However, consumer protections for remittance and other funds transfers vary widely at the State level, and international money transfers fall largely outside the scope of existing Federal consumer protections. For instance, the EFTA was enacted in 1978 to provide a basic framework establishing the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in electronic fund transfer (EFT) systems. As implemented by Regulation E (12 CFR part 1005),[12] the EFTA governs transactions such as transfers initiated through automated teller machines, point-of-sale terminals, automated clearing house systems, telephone bill-payment plans, or remote banking services. However, prior to the new Dodd-Frank Amendments, Congress had specifically structured the EFTA to exclude wire transfers,[13] and transfers sent by money transmitters also generally fall outside the scope of existing Regulation E. As described in more detail below, these categories of transfers are believed to compose the majority of the remittance transfer market.
so if they dont play along we make it very very very hard to send money out of the country with out jumping through as many hoops as we can put in the way ,plus the USA really likes to sanction countries with known ties to terrorism

www.piie.com... if they dont want to let us help stop the cartels we can always assume they are working with/co opperating with/corrupted by the cartels

While economic sanctions alone may not dissuade terrorist groups, they may cause states that harbor and support terrorist groups to reconsider the extent of their support. The Libyan extradition of the two Pan Am suspects illustrates an important shift in state policy induced in part by economic sanctions. One of the first measures implemented by President Bush in the war on terrorism was aimed at disrupting terrorist finances. On September 23, he issued an executive order freezing the assets of named terrorists, terrorist groups, and terrorist fundraising organizations in an effort to weaken the financial lifeline of the al Qaeda network.2 To coordinate the activities of the various US agencies on the financial front, the administration created the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center in the Treasury Department. These measures carry on the tradition of past US counterterrorism efforts. Indeed, US counterterrorism policy, dating back to the early 1970s, has been heavily sanctions oriented. US counterterrorism sanctions policy rests on two primary legislative tools-the designation of state sponsors of terrorism and Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), and the presidential determination of Specially Designated Terrorists (SDTs).
so yeah does not have to be militarily orientated but financial in nature like say seizing/freezing the known drug lords accounts



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As if most drug users care about them self and won't seek out drugs if their first source is gone.

As long as there is a demand, s supply will exist.


Can't get a supply if there isn't a supply. Prices will skyrocket which will prevent many people from buying that particular drug. I rather see a bunch of 'pot addicts' (if that's even possible) vs heroin addicts all over this country.

Maybe you can't get rid of the demand but you can damn sure put a hurting on the supply to where it makes it a crap ton harder to get.




As has already been mentioned it's a supply and demand issue, there is a huge demand for drugs in America, assuming the cartels were eliminated you would have drug labs popping up all over the country and many many more people dying from drugs poorly made and contaminated.

These people have no damn clue!



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas




so yeah does not have to be militarily orientated but financial in nature like say seizing/freezing the known drug lords accounts


Then how will certain politicians be able to get their kickbacks?



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

Saying they are not afraid, yes more hyperbole I guess
They live on ranches and are mostly untouchable in Mexico
Obviously they are afraid of drone strikes and military assaults but some of their US street gangs don’t seem to be afraid

My point is that whatever is done must be well planned



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Allaroundyou

We are NOT going in. Please, that is never going to happen.


This can only mean we are going in. It’s funny. Normally I would say we would never do that, but if you say we won’t that means we definitely will.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Having a failed state on our southern border very much is our business. You don't think failed state elements are actually going to respect US sovereignty do you?



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Guyfriday

Saying they are not afraid, yes more hyperbole I guess
They live on ranches and are mostly untouchable in Mexico
Obviously they are afraid of drone strikes and military assaults but some of their US street gangs don’t seem to be afraid

My point is that whatever is done must be well planned



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As if most drug users care about them self and won't seek out drugs if their first source is gone.

As long as there is a demand, s supply will exist.


Can't get a supply if there isn't a supply. Prices will skyrocket which will prevent many people from buying that particular drug. I rather see a bunch of 'pot addicts' (if that's even possible) vs heroin addicts all over this country.

Maybe you can't get rid of the demand but you can damn sure put a hurting on the supply to where it makes it a crap ton harder to get.




As has already been mentioned it's a supply and demand issue, there is a huge demand for drugs in America, assuming the cartels were eliminated you would have drug labs popping up all over the country and many many more people dying from drugs poorly made and contaminated.

These people have no damn clue!




You're not wrong.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Trump better have an alternative to the drugs provided by the cartels, to feed to Americans


Marijuana is already in full production in the legal states proving enough for eveyone.

And most other drugs as well...Americans make way better quality product.

The excuse that its Americans demanding the drugs is a lie and just a way to spin it on Americans



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As if most drug users care about them self and won't seek out drugs if their first source is gone.

As long as there is a demand, s supply will exist.


Can't get a supply if there isn't a supply. Prices will skyrocket which will prevent many people from buying that particular drug. I rather see a bunch of 'pot addicts' (if that's even possible) vs heroin addicts all over this country.

Maybe you can't get rid of the demand but you can damn sure put a hurting on the supply to where it makes it a crap ton harder to get.




As has already been mentioned it's a supply and demand issue, there is a huge demand for drugs in America, assuming the cartels were eliminated you would have drug labs popping up all over the country and many many more people dying from drugs poorly made and contaminated.

These people have no damn clue!




You're not wrong.

The cartels are a problem no doubt. But the idea that you you can do a few drone strikes is ridiculously naive. People think there are just a few fields to take out, there aren't enough drones/resources.

Are they planning on hitting South America too! Do they think this is a Mexico exclusive problem?

No, there is a problem, but this is a dumb solution.
edit on 30-11-2019 by vonclod because: Geographical error



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

I agree, and even not they carpet bombed the whole of South America, drugs would simply be sourced elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

LOL! What a joke...


Mexicans elected AMLO, as Lopez Obrador is popularly known, in large part because he promised to reduce the nation’s alarming homicide rate and stem the drug-related violence by employing a different and more effective response. He would eliminate corruption (in part by setting a non-corrupt example for Mexican officials to follow). He would legalize marijuana and some other drugs, weakening the underground economy that sustains the cartels. He would create a national guard. He would offer welfare payments to entice the poor away from lives of crime. And he would refrain from the most violent responses to crime.


www.latimes.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The US DEA is already operating in Mexico, so there are US boots on the ground, but they are a civilian police force not military.

That is the thin red line that seems to have gone over many peoples heads.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BoneSay

originally posted by: Bloodworth
wap.business-standard.com...

Trump said he wants to wipe these drug dealers and murderers off the planet.

The new Mexican president says not so fast?

Why would he be against the u.s. dealing with drug cartels if the Mexican government shows no competency in doing so?

And is the reason legitimate.....?








Oh please, he never said that, he doesn’t want an invasion by us army, that’s what he said. You all should be ashamed for trying to lie like that

Even the dumb article says so



We are not going to allow that armed people act in our territory. Armed foreigners cannot intervene in our territory. We will not allow that," Lopez Obrador said.


Say he doesn’t want the us to use the cartels as an excuse to invade Mexico is not same as saying he doesn’t want the army to go against cartels

And the us is the one who keeps the cartels and drugs going lmao

Americans should have some shame and stop trying to pretend they are victims or they did not create the problem

Right, it’s our fault that Mexicans supply 90 percent of the fentanyl, heroin and Cocaine in this country. I suppose if we really wanted to stop it we could shoot-to-kill anyone crossing the border illegally, plant land mines, build a huge wall and summarily execute anyone caught smuggling drugs through a port of entry.

Also, how the hell would Mexico stop the U.S. armed forces from wiping out the cartels? We may not be able to get all of them or stop them completely, but I’ll bet we could hurt ‘em badly after dealing with terrorists orgs like al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State for almost 20 years. Heck, the U.S. military is able to go toe-to-toe with China or Russia; Mexico would be a piece of cake.

What if we completely shut down trade with Mexico and closed the border? That could motivate them to get tough with the cartels, especially if we’re helping. If they don’t want our help, they don’t get to trade with us or have their jobless citizens work in the USA. Good luck employing all those young Mexicans they keep spawning! We could also cut off their remittances — the biggest source of foreign income they have. We could expel all their illegal emigrants living here. Mexico desperately needs us.

Did I mention I’m sick of Mexico and it’s constant complaining? It’s the worst neighbor in the world. To hell with them.



posted on Dec, 1 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scapegrace
I suppose if we really wanted to stop it we could shoot-to-kill anyone crossing the border illegally, plant land mines, build a huge wall and summarily execute anyone caught smuggling drugs through a port of entry.

Or you could kill every American citizen that is a junkie.

Got eugenics?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join