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.


The Point of Collapse: Pakistan and Mexico on the Verge

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:11 PM

This was the original story from a few months back:

Original Story

In short, the military warned that the two states in the world in most danger of "sudden" and "total" collapse in 2009 would be Mexico and Pakistan.

Mexico has been well-covered on ATS. We can see that Mexico is teetering on the verge of a rapid descent into something resembling its Central American neighbors. With the rise of drug violence, and the possibility of mass amounts of refugees, there is significant concern growing in Washington about the situation.

Likewise, the other nation proposed to be on the verge of collapse is Pakistan. After the murder of Benazir Bhutto and the resignation of Pervez Musharraf, there has been a growing sentiment in Pakistan that they are drawing closer to another military state. Just as the economic situation has impacted the more developed west, so too has it slammed the Pakistani economy. There was a planned major protest in Pakistan, but the ruling party has sought ways to stifle dissent. Things are reaching a boiling point.

This Should Provide Some Background on the Pakistani Situation

So, in light of this, it looks like United States military intelligence is batting 1000 in its predictions. My question to you is, what do you think the outcome of these collapses will be? What should be the role of the United States and her allies in dealing with these crisis (which may affect tens of millions of people)? And, could these problems be part of a more sinister plan?

I hope to never have to post another "On the Verge of Collapse"-type thread. But, the way things are going, these two may just be the first of the dominoes. I think that the next few months are the big test to see if order or chaos will prevail. I'm not placing my bet on either one, I'm just interested to see the outcome.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 06:25 PM
US tends to solve such problems with violence or continued exploitation. Think about who produced this prediction-the army. Might they have a vested interest in seeing these scenarios manifest if nothing more than to prove themselves right?

I guess Sufism is on the rise in Pakistan as the whole anger is tiring people but w/ Pakistan Obama's hornballin' for an Afghani surge and that border seems unmanageable. So spillover would totally occur then. I don't think anybody wants to exploit Pakistan for it's copious amounts of resources. What do they have anyways? Cotton? And most of Pakistan wants to be a nonsecular Islamic State further continuing the Iranian Revolution. It's a bit regressive but they've seemed to pride themselves on their Islamicism sofar. US ought to quite meddling with them via drone plane bombs and it seemed obvious we killed Bhutto. Maybe not but somebody did. They probably just want some autonomy but the US isn't in that line of business.

Mexico is more important and I say completely overhaul or destroy NAFTA for everybodies sake and relocate all of their citizens.

I see both scenarios benefiting the Military Industrial Complex greatly. Mexico spillover in any semi-large way would be a great excuse for a NAU. And that trade corridor (in their twisted logic) solve some of the problems.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by Iago18

I agree these two will most likely be the first of the domino effect ... and i also believe that if oil prices don't go up, some "3rd world" country's whose main source of income is oil will also collapse ...

and to add it looks as if Europe is on the verge of collapsing as well ...

Protests are spreading through the European continent. Britain has put its own army on alert for fear of disruptions this summer by anarchists bent on class war with slogans like "burn a banker." Mass demonstrations show no sign of abating in France, Iceland, Ireland, Greece and other EU countries.

People here have politicized economic issues, perhaps because of a more thorough and diverse media environment, as well as an expectation that their governments have a duty to protect their people.

Eastern Europe is feeling the crunch the worst, with its currencies reeling. One such example is Hungary, which was once a model for how the free market can replace Soviet-bloc economics. Western Europe has so far declined to meet their requests for more bailouts.

There are also waves of protests under way in the east. Left publications report:

... thousands of demonstrators in Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria have attacked government buildings and called on their governments to resign as unemployment soars in Eastern Europe.

Experts predict a regional increase of 15 million to 18 million unemployed in the coming months, with no relief as jobs for immigrants disappear in Western Europe and the United States.

More Here

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by baseball101

Terrific point! It's really eye-opening to see how precarious the world looks when you take a step back to examine it.

If the world is collapsing (We can still back off the brink IMO). Then it will spread from those nations that are on the Third/Second-World cusp. Nations like Mexico, Pakistan, Nigeria, and the Ukraine. Your point about oil is absolutely right. Should we really be pursuing alternative energy sources if that might cause destabilization elsewhere? Frankly, I'm not qualified to take a stance either way.

I do agree with Moonsouljah as well in seeing that the problems in Mexico are more "important" to the interests of the United States. I'd be wary, however, of thinking that anyone aside from ammunition dealers will benefit from a destabilization. Though I am critical of both Bush and Obama over the mismanagement of the economy, I truly think that they have the nation's best interest at heart. If they don't/didn't, then we are in for a really bad ride, and I would prefer not to think that way (even if it is true).

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by baseball101

Yeah I was going to mention the whole Eastern Europe thing but was too busy about Mexico and Pak.

The markets have been rebounding pretty well this week but Europe did have alot tied up in -Surprise- dumb investments in Eastern Europe. If you've ever been to France it's a boiling pot of racial tensions between the old Frenchies and their new migrants who come from French colonies. I went to buy *something* once in the Parisian ghettos as I was staying with a Moroccan friend and he told me to stay in the car. They're rough.

I guess Morocco is doing pretty well though.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:38 PM
I was recently in Europe for a prolonged period of time. It was interesting to watch the change in the protests in just the period I was there. Now, according to one of my friends who is still over there, there is an escalation in the amount of violence in these protests. Likewise, there is also a rise in the amount of weapons being wielded by the protesters.

I find that the Europe question may be answered over the summer, in that there will be significant Islamic unrest if Israel begins any incursions into the West Bank or Lebanon. Hopefully cooler heads may prevail, but it might be a very hot summer across Europe (and it's as dry as kindling over there)

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:28 AM
We need to bring our troops home from iraq and put them on the mexican border with stk orders. Mexico is the biggest enemy we have and it's gonna get worse when their economy collapses.

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:07 PM
reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45

I'm not sure that we can say that Mexico, itself is our enemy. The government of Mexico is, in my opinion, is actually trying to contain the problem. Granted, even with military on their side of the border, they are not actively stopping the flow of illegal aliens into the United States. So, I could agree to a compromise saying that Mexico is our ally when it suits them. I'd have to say that the current Mexico is preferable to the United States than a collapsed third-world drug-state.

That said, I do not want the United States to begin moving army divisions to the border. National Guard is one thing, but, I, along with the founders of the United States, disagree with having any form of standing army within the borders of the United States.

Does anyone see History repeating itself? Rome c.a 100BC. Financial turmoil followed by a century of dictators and corruption. Letting a standing army mobilize in the United States is a step in a dreadfully dark direction (in the view of history). Granted, the situation has not yet reached Caesar, nor is the situation identical to two-thousand years ago, but, there are striking historical similarities to the decisions that are being made now.

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 02:53 PM
So, I thought that I would update this thread with some of the more recent developments in these two nations.

We All Know About the Numbers in the H1N1 Outbreak

And the Taliban Offensive in Pakistan

I find it tremendously interesting that our Army Intelligence in the United States were already calling these national destabilizations even before the seemingly random events occurred.

The economic impact of H1N1 have yet to be felt in Mexico, but, I see any progress made against the cartels being rolled back as quickly as they came. This disease has given the cartels time to regroup.

Likewise, the Taliban Offensive in Pakistan, even if it is eventually beaten, has worked to destabilize the Pakistani government. This government was already on the verge of plummeting, and now that has intensified.

The questions to ask: Will India sit by and allow Pakistan to fall? Will the United States allow Mexico to fall? What would be the ramifications of a Taliban-style Islamic authority in Pakistan, or a right-wing military junta coming to power after the defeat of the Taliban?

Just points to consider.

new topics


log in