It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.S. rattled as Mexico drug war bleeds over border

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:01 PM
Ending the war on drugs will just lower the cost to get them. There is no end to the war on drugs, the CIA depend on a lot of drug money to run their black ops programs and to keep the agency humming.

I would not be surprised if this was another inside job to cast fear into Americans to push a new agenda for border patrol and to divide Americans on the race issues. Now every legal Mexican will have to put up with crap from ignorant white Americans who are too stupid to tell the difference.

People just keep buying the bull#, doing drugs is a victimless crime, if people what to put nasty # in their body, let them. And the minute the # up their life and want help from the government, forget it. They are the ones who screwed up their lives by doing them.

But the moment you try to sell my kids the drug, then I say reopen Guantanamo and throw the dealers in it. Such a waste of money to spend the war on drugs, it's gotten us nowhere since started the campaign.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by The Brio Kids

You have a u2u awaiting you. Look up in the tool bar. It's red. That's a private message.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:16 PM
I tell you what... legalize the ganja and all wars will stop.

Oh as far as Texas goes...we welcome any cartels to try that crap up in the DFW area. Oh wait their cars couldn't make it that far up here.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:19 PM

Originally posted by The Brio Kids
but do u think burning the constitution is the best way to handle this type of stuff,

Wait, who said anything about burning The Constitution? Perhaps I skimmed over that part, and in all seriousness I would like to understand what you meant.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:23 PM
Excuse me?
Read a history book, look up the name Anslinger he is the man who set us down the road to drug prohibition. Nixon started the modern drug war, but he couldnt have done it without Anslingers prohibition because all the propoganda was there set in peoples minds Nixon hardly had to do anything just repeat what was already said.

God I wish the T&C's werent so strict so I could explain this let me give it a go though.

Anslinger selected one thing to prohibit he demonized it and made it illegal. This one substance which he made completely illegal is the most widely "talked about" in the United States, in fact all the other substances out there known as hardcore dont amount to this one particular thing. There would be no need for a drug war if this one thing was legal. This one thing is the life force of the drug war, the hardcore things are only "mentioned" rather than "talked about".

Because of Anslinger and Nixon mexico suffers from Americas drug war. They made the most popular product illegal, we had to get it from somewhere and mexico, morocco and some other places were there to fill americas gap. Guess what the public has supported the drug war since it began only now in recent years has support gone down.

This is way too difficult to explain without breaking these stupid effing rules. I know it may not make sense but its the best I can do sorry guys.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by caballero]

[edit on 1-3-2009 by caballero]

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:29 PM
Now I do agree, marijuana should be legalized. At least to the point where you don’t spend jail time for using are possession. The harder stuff, coc aine, heron, opium should definitely be regulated and users should be registered. It all should be taxed. Anyone manufacturing meth or crack should be put in jail. Personally I believe with the legalization of marijuana other harder drugs would lose users.

I read last week that a government sting operation made 750 arrests across the country and 59 million dollars worth of product was seized. Was this really a big accomplishment? It costs on the average of $46,000 a year to house these people in prison. That’s $34,000,000 dollars per year, not even counting other fee’s. So are we winning? So are we paying?

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by auntie_11k

That kind of talk will get this thread deleted. Its against the very strict very stupid T&C's.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by skeptic_al

Yes actually. Don't be afraid. Even animals can smell fear.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:04 PM
it's probably not even drug related. probably just people that are starving and they dont' want to tell us about it.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:09 PM
In the so-called War on Drugs - the drugs have won.

Making them illegal only increases the price tenfold. This means a junkie or coke addict has to work full-time to support his habit. This means street crime, break and enter, gangs.

It also means drug dealers become millionaire very quickly and con assert more power on governments than the business community.

European countries where marijuana usage is not a crime experience less problems not more.

The well-intentioned but wrong-headed Christian conservatism fueled making drugs illegal, and created a Prohibition that never ends.

A newer more insidious problem is the CIA and Wall Street became addicted to the free flowing undeclared profits from the international drug trade.

There's a reason the first place the US invaded after 9/11 is Afghanistan. Where do you think the opium comes from. To make things worse, the bad guys over there are now using the vast proceeds to fight the Americans there,

It's become inextricably woven into the world economy, and the sham War on Drugs is just to placate the uptight public. The US is not only the primary customer, it's respected institutions do the money laundering.

I don't even like or advocate the use of drugs, but something has got to give - and soon.

The money tied up in fighting a losing battle that only encourages high level criminal activity benefits neither the average working person paying the price or even the tens of millions of addicted.

A rational approach to finding a solution is out there, but do we have honest enough politicians and enforcement agencies to implement it?

Mike F

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:11 PM
Legalizing these things would only shift the profits from one group to the other.
Apparently the WoD group is more powerful than the peoples will.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Metallica Bob
Legalizing these things would only shift the profits from one group to the other.
Apparently the WoD group is more powerful than the peoples will.

I would rather Walmart profit from selling drugs than people who behead others and send them to their families.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by David9176

The war on drugs have been waged for years now, as long as when the Reagan administration. Frankly, this problem will never go away. Its just getting more heated recently, because all the cartels are consolidating their power and fighting for the control of drug smuggling routes. It's mainly the Juarez cartel and the somona cartel that are fighting out all over mexico right now. The US has been funding mexico for years trying to get rid of this problem, but frankly with the corruption in the police and politics there has been no solution. The cartels have a golden rule, either you take the bribe or you die. After awhile, most of these cops, judges, politician take the bribe then rather die. And the president of Mexico until recently has finally started to wage a semi proper war against these drug cartels, but its a little too late. You wanna know how powerful these drug cartels are? The Mexican government once was training a paramilitary fighting force sort of like our version of the DEA to battle these drug cartels.

They are called Los Zetas are a para-military group of former GAFE (Airborne Special Forces Groups) soldiers they deflected and joined the drug cartels and now the drug cartel uses this group as hit men and enforcers. Trained solders working for these cartels. These drug cartels earn like 20 million dollars a week in revenue. The more high tech the government gets, the more high tech these drug cartels get. We aren't talking about a band of hoodlums trying to make some small chump change. These cartels are well funded and organized world wide criminal organization and are responsible for probably 3/4 of all the drugs that come into the US and many other countries. Frankly, I blame corruption and bad government policy on this. In a world where everyone likes to point fingers, thats all they are good for. Pointing fingers, now look at where the problem has gotten us.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:23 PM
Folks, please let us STAY ON TOPIC.

The discussion of legalization has been prohibited here. I may not like it but I can accept it.

The topic is about the actual fighting and lawlessness spilling across our borders. Our Sovereign state and national borders. This is totally unacceptable to me, a red-blooded Texan. We, the united STATES of America must not allow this to go unanswered. Foreign enemies must be halted, and since the national government averts their eyes then it is up to the many STATES to take issue.

Some people laugh and mock that an armed People can not take on such foreign Druglords. Certainly our government has hampered us with far too many restrictions on our freedoms, but have no doubt that the People can still protect themselves if only they set their mind to it.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by caballero

yes we all know the guy was a douche bag, the equivalent to our bush for this generation.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:31 PM
When every the topic of drugs come up, it never fails, someone brings up the "We've got to legalize it" argument as if they will stop the problem. The number one problem is the IDIOTS that use the drugs to start with. Stop using them, end of problem. Those that want to legalize drugs don't have a clue what a burden this would be to our system, as bad as it already is. First off, Cigarettes are legal and highly taxed, but guess what, the taxes that are levied against them don't even come close to paying for the billions in dollars in associated health cost, property, damage, lost work etc... In the U.S. we loss approximately 440,000 people a year to cigarettes, first hand smoke, not counting second hand. Alcohol is also taxed as well and when used beyond moderation causes significant damage to the individual and often others, i.e. vehicular deaths etc... I'm a health care professional,and medical researcher, who has cared for thousands of individuals that have suffered from these two substances alone. I also work in an inpatient acute care mental health facility. Alcohol use to be the number one drug of admission in acute care, now it is marijuana, this being secondary to the increased potencys that have developed over the past thirty years. In the United States, acute Marijuana intoxication is the number one cause of admission in 15-25 years olds in acute mental health. I always hear this fallicy from my patients that Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. Statistically speaking, these guys need to read something other than "High Times" for an information source. In the United States, Marjiuana is the number one drug found in murders, it use to be alcohol but that changed several years ago. So much for the mellow out theory. Actually violence is a big component of Marijuana intoxication. Both Marijuana and Alcohol disinhibit behavior, and the drunker / more stoned you are the more disinhibited you become. Alcohol is a metabolic poision and once a certain level is reached you effectively pass out or become violently ill and you crash. Marijuana doesn't have as strong a gross motor effect but it still slams the brains behavior / thought centers, shutting off those silly little buffers, which turns your typically little gang banger from a scraper into a killer. A recent report out by the World Health Organization (this week) showed that the UK, Australia, and Netherlands had the highest rates of violent crime in the industrial world, above the U.S. Isn't that odd? I thought every body in Amsterdam was just chilling out. The statistics on drunk driver fatalities also has shown that approximately 40% of U.S. drivers also had dope in their system. When broken down by age, it is significantly higher in the under 30-somethings. One more thing to think about, regarding dope, is time is system. Alcohol metabolizes out of the system in the matter of a few hours. Marijuana remains in the system for days, weeks, months, depending on the concentration smoked. So this being said, these individuals that have social conduct issues, i.e. your psychopaths, antisocials, or whatever you want to call them, are running around with a chemical on board increasing their potential for violence, in places like schools, malls, etc... (day light hours), increasing that risk that we or one of our family members may become a back stop for one of their stray bullets. One last thought about dope, if they did regulate it who would be allowed to use it. About the only people that could use it would be slugs who had no job or license. I can't think of a profession where being stoned would be tolerated, let alone accepted. Yea, that would be a hell of a productive individual, I'd hire him- NOT. Food for thought, what do you think the drug cartels and dealers would do if they didn't have a market? Don't think running out and getting an Education is their priority. Maybe the Government feels the drugs are the lessor of the evil.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:36 PM
I don't do drugs now and haven't done them for quite a while since my job piss tests on a regular basis. Now when I was younger I did quite a few and when I wasn't offshore I was either stoned or drunk for two weeks. We used anything We could find because well We just wanted to get screwed up. We had our preferences but once again since it was hard to come by We used what We could find. So its of my opinion that the people that use drugs just want an escape. So wouldn't it make sense to legalize the drug that does the least amount of damage and has the lowest addiction. I mean come on tobacco is addictive as hell but the buzz sucks and I also don't care about puking in the commode after a heavy night of drinking......

I think when it comes down to it its the old farts that need to die off before we see some common sense in this country. As a matter of fact its funny how the ones that said screw morals and abused the drugs are the ones trying to claim the moral high ground.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:42 PM
I heard on the news the other day the mayor of Phoenix (I think, don't quote me!) who indicated that the majority of the abductions are illegal immigrants, and that a lot of the violence taking place on our land is "Mexican on Mexican" violence. Basically, drug wars and turf wars from what I gathered. Americans are being caught in the crossfire, but most of the abductions and violence has involved Mexicans, not Americans.

The question is the trajectory of this violence. If Mexico erupts into a full-fledged civil war, and by all accounts, it appears that this is a distinct probability, the question becomes whether we have the national will power to protect our borders. From reading the news reports, it appears that a mini-civil war has already erupted there, and doesn't appear to be getting much better.

The U.S. government came out with a recent report that stated that Pakistan and Mexico are the two most unstable regions of the world right now. I agree with the earlier post that these drug cartels are utilizing highly sophisticated weaponry, which is what I had read in other news articles. This is not some low-tech street gang - These are highly organized paramilitary drug cartels.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by Mozzy

Here's my take on it. Call it a conspiracy theory, or what will you, but I honestly believe that our government wants things with Mexico to become terribly out of hand, so we have an excuse to invade Mexico and take it over somehow.

Think I'm kidding? I'm serious, and here are a few reasons why:

1. Ok, I live in the Phoenix area, and I've lived here for almost 6 years now. When I first moved here, I could not figure out why on earth Arizona allowed our border to be so open. We seemed to be INVITING the illegal aliens in. If you live anywhere in Arizona, anywhere you look, you can tell the undocumented workers from the citizens. Not just because of their language or the way they look, but it's the jobs they stay out of the spotlight. I'm not saying that they're not nice people, because the majority of them are, but hello.....there are hundreds of thousands of them here in Phoenix alone who are illegal.

This blew my mind. I mean hello....we're fighting a war against terrorism, and the patriot law has been enacted (supposedly to catch terrorists), yet the ENTIRE SOUTHERN BORDER is wide open!! They even found arabic newspapers in the desert a few years ago. This should have told them that there were people other than Mexicans migrating into the US through our southern border.

2. Ok, so fast forward to 2007, and Janet Napolitano, our govenor, tried to over-ride the people of Arizona when we called for stricter regulation of immigration with proposition 200. We, the voters, voted for it...because we were tired of the illegal immigrants sucking up so much of our public funds . Yet Napolitano wanted to veto it. We figured it was because she didn't want to lose the votes from got it... illlegal immigrant population.

3. Ok, now fast forward to 2009. Who gets nominated for Secretary of Homeland Security? Janet Napolitano, who did NOT enforce any kind of immigration policy while governor of Arizona. When she was governor, I'm telling you, the idea of border enforcement was a total joke. And SHE gets nominated and confirmed for Secretary of Homeland Security?

Whoa... For years, I had been saying that it's obvious the Feds must WANT the illegal immigrant population up here....and it seemed to be true.

4. Ok, lets go back in time a bit. In the 1980's, when Bush Sr. started his "Just say no" camppaign, and the massive war on drugs started in full force (which cracks me up, because like many on here have said, the CIA is obviously involved in the running of illegal substances), the US govt made it clear that if any country in South America want ANY monetary aid from the US, you had to have a policy of prohibition when it came to drugs

.Well, if politicians actually studied history (which they don't) they would have probably figured out that prohibition doesn't work. Just look at the alcohol prohibition in the 1920's-30's. So I don't know why they thought it would be any different with other substances.

Sure enough, we've seen now for the last 10 years that the problem of stuff coming up from south of the border has gotten worse, and MORE VIOLENT. Yet, they continue their policies of the "war against drugs."

Why? As long as those substances are illegal, those who profit will continue to profit from the sale and trade of those substances. So....maybe they wanted to drive it underground for CIA funding.

Plus, now I'm getting to the good part. If we add this all up, what do we get?
1. An ongoing federal policy of lax enforcement when it comes to illegal immigration, despite the fact that illegal immigration costs us billions of dollars in extra costs.
2. a policy of continuing the "war against drugs" that costs us trillions of dollars, with not much effectiveness.
3. A secretary of Homeland security that was selected for the post despite the fact that she has a reputation of looking the other way when it comes to illegal immigration. And who hasn't spoken up ONE BIT since the violence has started to escalate along the border these past few weeks. (There is almost a state of civil war between the drug cartels and the Mexican government at this point.)

4. We have the current energy crisis. Natural resources are in high demand again. We keep hearing Obama talk about how we have to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil.

So, what happens if you put 1, 2, 3, and 4 together? It seems to me that our government is clearly, clearly, clearly waiting for an "event" to happen on the border, which will give our military an excuse to go in and take over Mexico.

Why? Mexico has thousands of miles of pristine coastland, TONS of natural gas and oil resources. We go in, take them over (annex them) and we also have a much easier southern border to defend. Look at the southern border of Mexico compared to the southern border of the US.

This is why they haven't built a wall. If they build a wall, tensions can't rise between the US and Mexico. If tensions don't rise, shooting can't erupt between the US and Mexican citizens. If shooting event doesnt happen, a military invasion can't happen.

Isn't it funny, in the trillions in the economic stimulus bill, no money at all was set aside to build a wall on the southern border. It could have employed a LOT of unskilled workers to do something like that....but no.

This, in my opinion, is also why they let so many illegal Mexican immigrants join our Military. If you had plans to invade Mexico in the near future, wouldn't it make sense to have a lot of Mexican citizens in your army, to make it easier for the Mexican citizens to accept the US army when we invade?

I think the reason why we haven't seen national guardsmen sent to the border, is because our government WANTS an excuse to invade and go in.

Which, quite frankly, is fine with me. We have so much of their population over here, and we're giving them so much welfare and free healthcare (at least here in Arizona, we are) we might as well get something in return for it. Oil and natural gas for welfare....sounds fair to me. Plus, right now, the poor Mexicans are very, very oppressed by the very rich who own the majority of land over there. The reason so many of them come up here is because there is no way to get ahead in Mexico. So, we bring the "American dream" to Mexico.

That's my guess as to why there have been no troops sent to the border.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by nikiano]

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:45 PM
reply to post by LostNemesis

reply to post by Impreza

Your way of thinking is absurd. Caballero is right and this "drug war" is engineered. You guys think that the Mexican people are against the American people, and you think you will have to defend yourselves. You guys think that the "cartels" are after you, and your family. What you have not bothered to do is to stop and realize that the people that get kidnapped, the people that get killed, are all in someway or another connected to this conflict. The people that get killed probably deserved it. They really must have pissed somebody off. Those "women and children" who get caught in the crossfire, are obviously related to whoever screwed up with these cartels, and unfortunately, they may just be American, just of Mexican descent.

What you fail to realize is that this supposed spillover, is not a spillover, it is what is meant to happen. Have you ever been to jail, and specially in the southern states? Who do you think controls the streets? Who do you think makes deals with them? It is not a spillover because cartel related executions have always existed in the states. The difference is that this time, the media is sensationalizing it to blend this problem in with the whole border issue in order to inflame emotions, such as what has happened to you. Your first reaction to this is "secure the border or we will!" or "Damn those Mexicans trying to take over!" Ridiculous I tell you....the cartels have been in the states since the beginning thanks to CIA efforts. What do you think was the purpose of the U.S.'s crusade down in the all of the South American countries these past 50, 60 years?

If you cannot see that this has been a long time coming, than I would advice that you do some more research into how the U.S. cartel has managed to screw up many a countries to the south including Mexico.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in