CIA and Pentagon Plan for Worse Case in Mexico

reply to post by holywar666


I believe a stand needs to be made, line up Armored Cavalry Troops across the line of the border and tell Mexico if there is one incident we will take care of it once and for all and we will not be responsible for collateral. This is serious and needs to be handled NOW!!!

I dont want war or blood shed but enough is enough. USA stop dancing around problems which you first seek political face in a solution. Just fix the problems and face can look in the mirror at the end of the day

thank god I live in Canada..

reply to post by holywar666


Note how American annexed a whole bunch of States. It was done through a war, but it also happened through a planned insurrection in California. Note the planned insurrection thing in Hawaii.

I think that most of you have enough sense to comprehend what I might be saying. If not, just look at the "spontaneous" insurrections in Egypt, Libya and Syria.

"Spontaneous" destabilization of Mexico a coincidence?

The easy fix is to repeal our antiquated drug laws.

People are dying all over the world because of our ban on naturally grown and produced drugs.

The blood from those 40,000 dead Mexicans is on our hands.

You know there was a time when I thought that a Western Hemispheric Union, could go head to head against the EU and China, and the Pacific Rim countries like India and places like Indonesia, and keep up with them in terms of globalization with regards to jobs and industry and that sort of thing.

And if we could not forge a complete union between North and Central and South America, then perhaps Canada, the US and Mexico.

A lot of jokes in there regarding our national pizza if we did. And we could build a new Washington DC, move the capital, to make it more union-like, and add a top tier of government.

The Navy could patrol the coasts, we could seal off the continent in times of need such as pandemic, and we would have natural resources from Canada, money and military from the US, and a good labor force south of the border.

But in order to do that we would need real men, and we just don't have any in government.

You know what would be fun would be to build a railroad from Alaska to the tip of Chile, and make a hotel on rails for tourism. Beside those tracks, you could develop it for trade and hauling raw materials etc. And you just create nuclear plants along it and make it electric, mag lev, high speed, and maybe even small nostalgic routes that cover some interior tourism spots and make the line itself a kind of neutral zone, so its like a cruise ship.
It may be very dangerous two blocks away, but where the train stops, you could leave a child on a bench for a few minutes and not worry that they will still be there. Completely safe. Like you never left home safe, yet you get to explore these other countries by traveling through them on the train. And that also opens doors to trade and commerce opportunities. And so then what about the drug trade? Well, I think that all you need is the kind of security at Disneyland, that is everywhere but not as visible as at a Casino in Vegas.

As long as people stay on the train route complex and designated areas, that is easy to police and make safe. When people leave that zone, THEN, they need to enter a foreign country and have to meet the requirements and face the dangers in those places on their own.

People who work on this huge line, would all have clearances. If someone needed to leave the zone for special circumstances, they have to wear a bracelet. So they can be tracked since they have not properly entered the country, gone through customs etc.
People build things within the zone, to attract the tourists that are on the train. So the tourists experience the culture of that country, and can shop and not have to leave the zone.

Thats what we need. Thats what we want because we have heard too many horror stories to want to travel down there on holidays with our families otherwise.

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by holywar666

 

Legalize all drugs and the cartels disappear.

How many Italian mob families are still making huge profits from bootlegging alcohol? None? Yeah...

I don't have to buy alcohol from the shady dealer from down the street, I can buy it from a company like Budweiser. Likewise, if all drugs were legalized, I wouldn't have to buy drugs from criminals, I could just buy them from entrepreneurs instead.

The cartels will never go away as long as there is a "black market" for any good or service. Any jackass who understands the basics of free market economics, or history, knows this.

So legalise narcotics, just because tabacco and alcohol is legal? It sends the message that narcotics are on par with the afforementioned, which they are NOT! They should be illegal but then we have the rich man "catch 22" syndrome taking effect.

The abuse of narcotics stems from OTHER PROBLEMS, which narcotics themselves are part of the problem. Native americans knew when and how much to use during their rituals and social gatherings among themselves, but our modern and unnecessarily complex society needs crutches to sustain itself. This is the underlying problem: mistreatment of races, lack of proper education, ultra-capitalism which puts money ahead of everything else.

In short modern society is TOO IMMATURE to be able to handle narcotics as it should. Prostitution, tabacco smoking and alcohol are easier to handle. The only thing more destructive than narcotics is gambling, especially if you can't afford to gamble.

Originally posted by deloprator20000


We could get rid of illegal plant-based drugs tomorrow, molecular biologists can create a selective pathogen that can kill only illegal drug plants. The pathogen could be a virus, bacteria, or fungi. It could be spread by spraying, insects, birds, animals, native weeds, put into fertilizer and water, etc.

edit on 8-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2012 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)

That is the most insane idea I have heard yet!

They would probably screw up and kill the whole rain forest. The oil from the Hemp plants cure Cancer and many other problems found in the human body, that is why it has been outlawed by the Corporation U.S.A on funding from the big pharmacy crooks.

God put everything on this planet we need without idiots in labs making bio-weapons in one form or another. Cancer drugs kill more people than they help and that is a FACT, yet they make billions off the drugs they push.

Weed has never killed ANYONE period.

This is the pot calling the kettle black, the USA is the largest state sponsored drug dealing country of them all. Find a copy of the Clinton tapes if you can. Whitewater was not about shady real-estate deals, it was all about how the Clinton's were smuggling drugs into Arizona and laundering huge amounts of money for the CIA. Many people died trying to blow the whistle on them.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
You know there was a time when I thought that a Western Hemispheric Union, could go head to head against the EU and China, and the Pacific Rim countries like India and places like Indonesia, and keep up with them in terms of globalization with regards to jobs and industry and that sort of thing.

And if we could not forge a complete union between North and Central and South America, then perhaps Canada, the US and Mexico.
A lot of jokes in there regarding our national pizza if we did. And we could build a new Washington DC, move the capital, to make it more union-like, and add a top tier of government.

The Navy could patrol the coasts, we could seal off the continent in times of need such as pandemic, and we would have natural resources from Canada, money and military from the US, and a good labor force south of the border.

But in order to do that we would need real men, and we just don't have any in government.

The U.S. Gobermnt has already moved many of it's intel offices to a central location. Denver. Colorado (Colorado being Spanish for colored). Denver has a Huge airport, and major highway running to Canada and Mexico. There is also talk on a Mexican, USA, Canadian currency. I believe what we have here is another example of Diocletian's Problem-Reaction-Solution. And the power that be are utilizing it for their nefarious agenda.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

In short modern society is TOO IMMATURE to be able to handle narcotics as it should. Prostitution, tabacco smoking and alcohol are easier to handle. The only thing more destructive than narcotics is gambling, especially if you can't afford to gamble.

You do realize alcohol is a drug also? And as a recreational drug when stacked alongside others it is considered neither relatively safe nor less prone to abuse.

Classification of drugs appears to have more to do with placing them in their most optimum classification for purpose of commerce. Those that are popular yet garden-variety and would have little commercial value in a free market are generally the ones placed in restricted or prohibited classifications where the prices can be artificially inflated. Those classifications apparently have little or nothing to do with the substance's beneficial qualities nor its potential for abuse.

reply to post by Violater1


"nefarious agenda" perhaps but still people have to put food on the table and pay the rent. The reality of globalization is that you have to compete globally. You can't opt out without instituting protectionist trade practices.

There is a right way to do something and a wrong way, and I would do it with bravado. Huge statues, big new city, new central government, and make it modern and built to last. Give it the necessary symbolic boost and start building nationalism right away with the usually secret society architecture etc.

America is the largest superpower in the world, so you make a great strong country as well with better control of borders and easier management etc. You see right now an American can invest in Canadian resources but what we need is more than that. We need cooperation and big dreams and big goals and instead of having the standing army over in the middle east, bring them home and transfer some of them to the Army Corp of Engineers and get them building dams and roads and train tracks.
Boost the Navy, and make treaties so that the Navy could in effect seal off North America right down to the Panama canal.

I think the experiment of the melting pot works to a degree but lets look at what it cost.

Is it better to be able to say, that you are essentially a Christian country? When you say that, does that mean that you think alike and act alike and have the same morals and ethics and have trained for how to get along with each other? I think it does, just like in India, they have a common identity as well. Same as in China.

North America has already lost its identity to a large degree because we didn't specify that we were a Christian area, and as such have become a Heinz 47 varieties. With little enclaves of landed immigrants who have brought their country and culture into the area.
So you get a lot of conflict and class wars and gangs and crime and unemployment and social strife and economic strife.
I am not talking about prejudices I am merely talking about cultural conflicts.

So to me a more nefarious agenda is to lose your country to foreigners. As nice as they might be, um who wants to give them your country? No one. Everyone has a country, and a culture and to try to maintain your country and culture in another country, is just another form of invasion.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

In short modern society is TOO IMMATURE to be able to handle narcotics as it should. Prostitution, tabacco smoking and alcohol are easier to handle. The only thing more destructive than narcotics is gambling, especially if you can't afford to gamble.

You do realize alcohol is a drug also? And as a recreational drug when stacked alongside others it is considered neither relatively safe nor less prone to abuse.

Classification of drugs appears to have more to do with placing them in their most optimum classification for purpose of commerce. Those that are popular yet garden-variety and would have little commercial value in a free market are generally the ones placed in restricted or prohibited classifications where the prices can be artificially inflated. Those classifications apparently have little or nothing to do with the substance's beneficial qualities nor its potential for abuse.

edit on 9-4-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

Can I ask in what countries are narcotics legal? In the middle east and asia they actually have the death sentence for narcotic dealers and jail sentences for the users.

That likely means narcotics are more dangerous for the average user than tabacco and alcohol!

We are all doomed in the next coming months.. I suggest everyone to be prepared!

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
The easy fix is to repeal our antiquated drug laws.

People are dying all over the world because of our ban on naturally grown and produced drugs.

The blood from those 40,000 dead Mexicans is on our hands.

Columbia and Panama also had problems with narcotics. FARC(probably with the cia's help) made tons of money with coc aine and bought weapons to fight their right wing governments. Communism and drug dealing, who would have thought?

Or Manuel Noreiga who was a cia plant and dictator of Panama, and later turned his back on america due to disagreement on "the cut" he got and because he wanted to nationalise the panama canal. The cia funded the opposition movements but had to get him the hard way. George Bush Sr locked him up in a federal jail in florida.

America is the biggest user of narcotics but it does not mean other nations don't benefit from this artificial monopoly of the ultra-rich controlling everything. I think people are likely jumping to premature conclusions of the scope of the problem and its solutions. More thought is necessary!

Originally posted by Rocketman7
reply to post by Violater1

 

"nefarious agenda" perhaps but still people have to put food on the table and pay the rent. The reality of globalization is that you have to compete globally. You can't opt out without instituting protectionist trade practices.

I respectfully differ on instituting a protectionist paradigm. The first attempt to protectionism, was by President Thomas Jefferson. This was called The Embargo Acts of 1807. It failed miserably, even to the extent of causing more war with the French and British. Historically, additional attempts to protectionism have failed, including the current policies of this and past administrations.
With protectionism, restrictions on goods and labor cause major distortions in the markets, and indeed shrink them.

So to me a more nefarious agenda is to lose your country to foreigners. As nice as they might be, um who wants to give them your country? No one. Everyone has a country, and a culture and to try to maintain your country and culture in another country, is just another form of invasion.

Invasive if it becomes problematic for other citizens. Within the confines of your home or park ie Bar Mitzvah and Bat Mitzvah, Quinceañera, Adhaan ect., no problems.
My 2 cents (5 cents if read in Canada ).
Back on topic.
The powers that be, regardless of their location or nationality, are usurping the American gobrmnt and military to gain power and money. They have no problem with exploiting the emotions or well being of one nation's people against the other (s).

Something people might not realize is that you can classify Canada and the US as Olympian types, and Mexico as Titan types of people.

So both Canada and the US like democratic government, big fat penguins walking around making loud pronouncements and an oligarchy.

Mexico would be happier with a king, since Titans are a monarchy. So a king or any strong leader like a general or a emperor suits their culture.

In Canada Quebec is different from the rest of Canada because they too are Titan leaning. So you have a different form of law and a different culture and the patron system.
www.thefreedictionary.com/Patron

Same as in Mexico.

So if you tried to unite the area, the best you could would be like Canada and that part of Canada that is Quebec. A love hate relationship that we have had since our inception.
So Mexico would be a state, but a nation state in the union, and as such it would have its own government.

So you see to accomplish everything you just institute a larger federal government over the present system.
And the power in the area rests with the democratically elected government since we don't have a king or queen and haven't had one except for the ones in England.

To really make it work, you can't expect to change people. The US and Mexico have been side by side for 200 years and they have not melted into one type of people yet, but America and Canada are almost impossible to tell apart. The reason being they both have Olympian leanings as opposed to Titan leanings.
Understanding that is the key to effectively ruling these countries.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Can I ask in what countries are narcotics legal? In the middle east and asia they actually have the death sentence for narcotic dealers and jail sentences for the users.

There are various classifications for control of substances. Cocaine and methamphetamine are available with a prescription as well as many varieties of opiates. Cannabis is classified as having no know beneficial uses and is strictly prohibited; and although some US states have legalized it for medical use the federal government does not recognize the state's classification.

That likely means narcotics are more dangerous for the average user than tabacco and alcohol!

Actually it means nothing of the kind. Alcohol is strictly prohibited in some Middle East countries and elsewhere. In case you are a minor and have no experience with alcohol or tobacco I would like to caution you that either one, especially alcohol, is nothing that should be regarded nor used lightly. There are very dangerous consequences regarding their use regardless of their legal status.

I am assuming you are using the term "narcotics" in a very general and not a strict sense where not all illicit substances fall into that category. And although "legal" those substances are all controlled substances and not available for just anyone to purchase like bubble gum.

Originally posted by Violater1

I respectfully differ on instituting a protectionist paradigm. The first attempt to protectionism, was by President Thomas Jefferson. This was called The Embargo Acts of 1807. It failed miserably, even to the extent of causing more war with the French and British. Historically, additional attempts to protectionism have failed, including the current policies of this and past administrations.
With protectionism, restrictions on goods and labor cause major distortions in the markets, and indeed shrink them.

Absolutely wrong! A certain amount of protectionism is necessary a)to protect the national economy and b)to collect funds so that the need for direct taxation is reduced. Global trade does not stop because of tariffs, it just levels the playing field and gives the locals a chance to compete with nations that have a low standard of living and thus lower wages, which means multi-national corporations will rush to exploit thus undercutting the nations with a higher standard of living(more expensive salaries/wages).

I don't think anyone would have a problem with sustainable globalisation, but it needs to be as responsible/ethical as possible. Asian companies should be able to compete with american companies and vice versa.

Why do you NOT FIND chineese brand merchandise at WalMart, but find tons of american brand merchandise MADE IN ASIA

This is not something anyone wants, except maybe some lunatics. A war in Mexico vs. drug cartels or drug cartels that get control of some or all of the Mexican government and military would be a nightmare. It's an enormous country and unlike places like Iraq or Libya, which are half-way around the world, the spillover problems like refugees and such would affect the U.S. directly and in a bad way.

I think it's a very real problem, not something being ginned up by the media or our government for some other nefarious purpose. The last thing I want is another foreign intervention, but should Mexico collapse or maybe lose control of its northern regions (and I think it's a very real possibility), then the U.S. has to be ready with contingency plans.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Something people might not realize is that you can classify Canada and the US as Olympian types, and Mexico as Titan types of people.

Mexico would be happier with a king, since Titans are a monarchy. So a king or any strong leader like a general or a emperor suits their culture.

In Canada Quebec is different from the rest of Canada because they too are Titan leaning. So you have a different form of law and a different culture and the patron system.
www.thefreedictionary.com/Patron

Same as in Mexico.

So if you tried to unite the area, the best you could would be like Canada and that part of Canada that is Quebec. A love hate relationship that we have had since our inception.
So Mexico would be a state, but a nation state in the union, and as such it would have its own government.

You do realize we have a "President" here in Mexico, with two houses of congress and a democratic republic? Our form of government is not wholly unlike that of the USA, in fact we are officially Estados Unidos Mexicanos which would translate to United States of Mexico similar to Estados Unidos Americanos as they are known to us.

I would venture that a common language and culture makes the US and Canada more similar. Quebec and Mexico are both non-English speaking areas with their own cultural heritages.

Instead of taking a train through the area try getting out and mingling with the people instead. You might learn something about them. No country is entirely safe but I have not found Mexico to be particularly dangerous, no worse than the US and safer than many places there.