a sudden insurrection or a coup in Mexico would be a surprise to Obama

the growing instability in Pakistan is a deliberate slow-burn situation, & Obama is already on board with increasing troops in neighboring Afghanistan & he's also brow beating NATO into commiting more troops
to deploy in Pakistans next-door-neighbor


despite the rhetoric of opening channels for dialogue with Iran,
Obamas 3-ring-team seem unphased with the new & up-to-date assessment that Iran already has enough enriched uranium to produce one bomb.


the domestic financial breakdown, and the resulting economic & social-economic upheavel is the anticipated near term 'crisis' that was forecast by the VP ...

Biden may well stump speach that Obama has survived the early administration 'Crisis' he forecasted earlier, thus giving both Obama & himself as the 'Administration' a few Atta-Boy's & self praise

I have no idea if this is to be the "challenge" soetoro is going to have to face but some good may come of this yet. Perhaps the United States will realize that the "war on drugs" is a complete and utter failure and finally put an end to the whole charade. Maybe, just maybe, they will realize that all the "war on drugs" is doing is making murder profitable. It may take the collapse of an entire country to prove this point to whomever is in charge but eventually the drug war is going to get so massive, so damaging and so expensive that there will be no choice but to end it. Maybe they will choose to end it now; Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

TheAssociate

So what happens if Mexico were to collapse? We do have a good idea to the number of Mexican and other Latin American migrants making their way to and from Mexico. We know that the Mexican drug smuggling gangs control the borderland with the US on the Mexican side. Riots? Drought? Famine? Where do these people go?

If history tells me anything it is that guys like Alexander of Macedonia and the Romans sent their armies to the other side of the world to wage war. While they looted the temples and profited from taxes in gold and grain they neglected the issues in their homeland. Alexander was near Afghanistan when the generals back home divided Macedonia for themselves. The Romans were attacking the Parthian Empire while the Vandals were making their way to Africa.

I find more connection between the US and Rome and the Mongols. The major agriculture providences of Rome, which fed its huge army, were Sardinia, Siciliy and Africa (what was then Carthage now present day Tunisia). When the Vandals in 453 AD were able to force their way through France, Spain, across the Strait of Gibraltar and into Africa they took control of the large corn provinces. With control of about 1/2 of Rome's wheat supply the Vandals now held the Roman army hostage. After this event the Roman empire began to dissolve; it split in two and the western half was eventually overran with barbarian kings, the age of Antiquity ended and the Dark Ages began.

The Romans neglected the German invaders on the borderland since the time of the first Caesar when he made his way to the Rhine and began to wage war with the hostiles. The Romans further neglected as to why these Germans were in pursuit of their land. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries AD were periods of mass migration of Germans. They did not come to mow the lawn of Roman citizens or pick up their trash but instead were running from Central Asian Turks. When the Turks overgrazed their grassland and with the horse being their way of life they sought new grassland, logically.

The pinnacle of the Turk inasion was led by Atilla int he 5th century. Though never capable of reaching Rome his invasion force led to a mass migration of German tribes throughout the northern parts of the Roman empire. The Romans did nothing to thwart the invaders. The Roman army of the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries grew proportionally larger with respect to German infantrymen. Today in the US we see such an increase in our labor force with respect to immigrant labor from Latin America. Godforbid that we scare away such cheap labor by taking military action against the growing threat of gangs, rebels and government corruption, or worse yet drive in millions of unwanted immigrants.

If Mexico collapses more than likely a wave of immigration will take place - immigration by the millions. These people won't be looking for work, won't be looking to start up communities. These people will look for food, water and shelter. Texas and California have became the two largest agriculture producers of the US, and are major industrial and academic states.

Migration could split the US into two parts: north and south. Not an old division of the northern Union and southern Confederacy, but a southern half comprising border states, and at its core are Texas and California, New Mexico and Arizona.

This country has a growing central authority in Washington DC where the US government now aims to centrally control all financial decission within a handfull of large banks, this financial crisis has become a bank merging boom. There are two ways to deal with a collapse of Mexico: war, famine and genocide or the North American Trade Union (NAFTA). Any war on US soil will most likely lead to internal divison and further to civil war. To preserve the union we must unite Canada and Mexico with the US and create a new capital in Kansas City.

The threat is real or we're being fed BS to support NAFTA, but I like the idea of KC as a capital.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Silence is Golden]

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Silence is Golden]

Originally posted by Silence is Golden
So what happens if Mexico were to collapse? We do have a good idea to the number of Mexican and other Latin American migrants making their way to and from Mexico. We know that the Mexican drug smuggling gangs control the borderland with the US on the Mexican side. Riots? Drought? Famine? Where do these people go?

I can't think of a better reason than this to lock our border down, and then start a very robust foreign work program as we slowly get control on the illegals already here. One good start would be a volunteer discloser program that would put them into the system and allow them to stay. If they do not disclose then they face deportation with no chance to return legally.

I feel sorry for the people of Mexico, but I need to back Americans first.

Alexander was near Afghanistan when the generals back home divided Macedonia for themselves. The Romans were attacking the Parthian Empire while the Vandals were making their way to Africa.

The difference is we can have our troops back in a week and Alexander would need a year, but I think your point is we are looking over the horizon while right next door could easily be our biggest security issue.

The pinnacle of the Turk inasion was led by Atilla int he 5th century. Though never capable of reaching Rome his invasion force led to a mass migration of German tribes throughout the northern parts of the Roman empire. The Romans did nothing to thwart the invaders.

I agree, nonviolent invasion will do countries in and we are seeing it in France and England right now. We can easily see it in America if Mexico crumbles. Right now we have illegals making up about 8% of our population, so what if that number climbs to 20% and we started to see parts of the country like the western states at 50% or more as a start. This would be Mexico taking America one state at a time in a slow migration, with that migration would come everything else in Mexico that is putting that country right now in dire straits, also even though we need workers from Mexico the jobs available are maxed out now and so millions more would be out of work and rioting for food etc.

There are two ways to deal with a collapse of Mexico: war, famine and genocide or the North American Trade Union (NAFTA). Any war on US soil will most likely lead to internal divison and further to civil war. To preserve the union we must unite Canada and Mexico with the US and create a new capital in Kansas City.

Do you live in Kanas? hehe

How about this...

Though I'm against legalizing drugs, what if we made drugs legal, and put the control at the state level for supply and sales. This would allow states to produce pure drugs and sell them at a cheaper price than what illegal drugs cost. With that profit it could be used for state level programs. This overnight would kill the drug cartel market in America, and most likely kill their control over Mexico and other countries. This would also generate funds for the states outside of taxes.

Along with this we lock down the border and charge a fee for immigrant work visas that would provide revenue to build and continue the entry controls at our borders. Charging a much cheaper fee than what a coyote runner charges while allowing working to actually not need to work in hiding would kill that whole problem too.


[edit on 22-2-2009 by Xtrozero]

While Mexico has had a past history of violence, sedition and rebellion in its northern reaches (i.e. Poncho Villa) the current gang problem derives from outside its borders. During the 1980's, the Reagan administraton began a 'War on Drugs' campaign to rid American streets of gangs, violence and drugs. The effort included domestic programs such as D.A.R.E. and foreign programs launched in countries where illegal substances were being produced.

Columbia was at the heart of the War on Drugs. Cartles had waged a bloody battle against the national government and local farmers. Power was derived from both bribes and execution of politicians and other public officials and the extortion of small farmers with threats of violence if they did not grow drug crops. The cartels were exporting their drugs via cesnas into various parts of the southern US and by boat in the southern Florida Keys and Miami (hence Miami Vice).

The War on Drugs however did not destroy the large farms where drug crops were being grown. Either the US failed to destroy these farms or more liley had no intention to have these farms destroyed. The largest success of the War on Drugs has been the change in supply routes used by the cartels to export their drugs.

Supply routes through Miami have largely been stopped by US forces and the cartels now use a massive land route from Columbia, through Panama and on into northern Mexico where the drugs can then enter the US across the massive and nearly unpopulated desert border.

In order to control the smuggling of drugs, gangs have resorted to the same violent tactics practiced by Columbian cartels. Mexican gangs wage their war with a powerful arsenal of AR-15's, AK's, MAK90's, RPG's, grenades, mortars and plastic explosives. Where have these weapons come from? The US.

The US is now the largest supplier of weapons to northern Mexican drug gangs. The US does not sign weapons deals or treaties with the Mexican gangs, they simply walk into US gun shops, apply to purchase weapons, secure cash during the standard waiting period and then purchase the weapons. An even more popular method to purchase weapons without waiting periods and background checks by simply purchasing weapons from US citizens, gun groups and religous groups.

If Congress were to enact gun laws we would hear that our 2nd amenment rights are being taken away. If Congress were to enact drug task forces to go after the gangs we would hear about a violation of sovereign rights. This situation will not be solved until the gangs have the law under their control. I have mentioned to my brother several times that after 9/11 we should have invaded Mexico, why does Mexico get a reprive when it comes to being labeled a state sponsor of terror?

Originally posted by Silence is Golden

The US is now the largest supplier of weapons to northern Mexican drug gangs. The US does not sign weapons deals or treaties with the Mexican gangs, they simply walk into US gun shops, apply to purchase weapons, secure cash during the standard waiting period and then purchase the weapons. An even more popular method to purchase weapons without waiting periods and background checks by simply purchasing weapons from US citizens, gun groups and religous groups.

Yeah, sure buddy. They just walk into gun shops here, and buy grenades, rpg's, and plastic explosives.

The idea of Mexico losing control of Sonora or any territory infested by the cartels is not detrimental to the war on drugs. In fact, I consider it to be precisely what the US needs to militarize the border, and compel the Mexican government to authorize joint military ops into sovereign Mexican territory. The last thing the cartels should want is to lose the cover they have by being under a foreign government or in another countries sovereign territory. That's what's keeping the US at arm's length. If the cartels push their own government past the brink of collapse, then they can deal with the US military in a no-hold knock-down slugfest. None of this operating out of some sand lot on the other side of the globe, military units can fly right out of bases in Texas and decimate the cartels.

Reagan's "war on drugs" was completely undermined by Ollie North. It never attempted to put cartels out of business only to use them to fund clandestine guerrilla forces. If Obama is confronted by a collapsing Mexican government then he can really drop the hammer on these cartels.