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.


Mitt Romney- Latin American and Mexican Cartels - Why you shouldn't like him as much as Obama

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:07 PM
Yanno I realized I've been doing a bit of Obama hating lately, which isn't exactly how I feel. I hate them equally. Neither has fought in a war, but both like to comment on them and want to lead troops as POTUS. Disgusting. Anyhow, a little conspiracy about Romney and Obama and the border.

The Conspiracy

Romney and Obama Foolishly Ignore the War on Drugs

One of the least discussed issues in the presidential campaign is the war on drugs. That's unfortunate, because that crusade has been an expensive catastrophe both domestically and internationally. During the decades since Richard Nixon declared a "war" on illegal drugs in 1971, the United States has spent nearly one trillion dollars trying to eradicate the drug trade, filled America's prisons with nonviolent drug offenders, ruined millions of lives and undermined the Bill of Rights -- especially the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In short, a presidential candidate who is bold enough to advocate a reassessment of the war on drugs is likely to score both diplomatic points abroad and political points at home. Challenging the conventional wisdom would, of course, require political courage. But that is supposedly a quality we seek in a president. Governor Romney and President Obama have a prime opportunity to demonstrate that they possess that quality.

Maybe the ignoring is intentional?

Obam a Gave Guns to Drug Cartels, Romney Got Cash From Kill Squads: One is a Bigger Deal Than the Other

Left leaning website Democracy Now has run with a story linking the start-up money Mitt Romney used to found Bain Capital from Central American millionaires who have "extensive" ties to death squads that roamed El Salvador in the 1980s. Democracy Now says that as much as 40% of Bain's start-up money came from these Central American oligarchs who were looking for new investment vehicles in the states. They go even further to say that Romney knew of these connections, and had "misgivings" about accepting their money, but needed funding so, as all rich people seem to do, according to liberals, brushed morality aside to take the money.

The ridiculousness of this story will expose itself on its own. It is so outlandish Romney doesn't need to do much, defensively, to deal with it. However, it has opened up a perfect opportunity to bring up a certain bit of news that has faded over the last few weeks: Operation Fast and Furious.

Liberals don't like that Romney took money from Central American murderers? Well they probably hate it that Obama's administration sold Central American murderers thousands of working automatic weapons, and didn't bother to even track them! Last I checked, when you sell someone a gun, you are taking their money as well. So not only did Obama take their money, but he also gave them guns, so they could murder even more people, including at least one American citizen. At least Romney just took their money to help make other Americans rich. What did Obama's program accomplish, other than mass murder and assistance so the drug wars could expand even further in Mexico and into the American Southwest?

Why exactly is one worse than the other? It shows that they BOTH may support these criminals. Who exactly cares if Romney gets and gives cash, over Obama selling them weapons? It's a cyclic argument.

US sends 1,200 troops to Mexico border

Barack Obama, US president, will send 1,200 National Guard troops to the US border with Mexico and ask Congress for an additional $500m for border protection, part of the administration’s efforts to stop the flow of illegal immigration.

National Guard troops to leave Mexico border in June

WASHINGTON — National Guard troops that have helped beef up security along the southwestern border since last summer will leave as planned by the second week of June, the commander of the Arizona Guard told a House panel Tuesday.

Romney Rejects Sending Troops to Mexico to Fight Drug Cartels

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney disagrees with his fellow GOP presidential candidate Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the possibility of sending U.S. troops to Mexico to help fight the drug cartels.

Perry ignited a debate this past weekend when he stated in New Hampshire that solving the escalating drug cartel problem “may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of [U.S.] border.” Perry compared the situation to Colombia, where the U.S. military acts as a support unit in combating the war on drugs.

So who exactly has the better border policy? They both seem seriously lacking in my opinion on this topic. And actions speak louder than words. Especially with stories like these coming out.

Mexican Drug Cartels Have Infiltrated All Of These US Cities

Mexican drug cartels have infiltrated most major cities in the U.S.

The National Post used a Justice Department report to track the routes and goods of various cartels.

Just check out this chart.

The Border is Vanishing as Mexico Pushes North

Northern Mexico’s population has more than doubled since the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1994. The U.S. dollar is now a common unit of exchange as far south as Culiacán, halfway to Mexico City. Northern Mexico is responsible for 87 percent of all maquiladora (duty-free) manufacturing and 85 percent of all U.S.-Mexico trade. The northeastern Mexican city of Monterrey, one of the country’s largest, is intimately connected with the Texas banking, manufacturing, and energy industries. David Danelo, a former U.S. Marine now working for U.S. customs who has studied northern Mexico extensively and has traveled throughout all six Mexican border states, told me he has yet to meet a person there with more than one degree of separation from the United States. As he told me, “Northern Mexico retains a sense of cultural polarity; frontier norteños see themselves as the antithesis of Mexico City’s [city slicker] chilangos.”

So who is fighting what now? Seems to me Google is doing more to fight the Cartels than the Feds or Candidate Romney "claims" he would.

Google's Drug War vs. Mexico's Cartels

"Evil hiding among us is an ancient theme." - John Carpenter

Food for thought.
edit on 10-9-2012 by thesungod because: I to it, my bad

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 03:45 PM
I like that chart. Star and Flag.

The war on Drugs is like the War on Terrorism, neverending and never winable.
There will always be those that some government will label as terriorists and as long as there is a market for the drugs there will be someone willing to break laws to sell them. Drugs, Guns and Kids all sell very well on the international markets.

There is definately a conspiracy going on here. How deep do you want to dig?

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

I'm on ATS so I guess I'll go as deep into the rabbit hole as TPTB will allow.

Yanno I thought the right and left trolls would be all over this thread...

Guess not.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by thesungod

I may be jinxing you, they seem to avoid my threads and most of my posts.
I don't know why as yet.

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by RedmoonMWC

Nah, they avoid my threads too.

Though I fully admit I can be agitating, what with using facts and all.

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:22 AM
I have to give Mitt a half-point for saying he does not favor sending the military into Mexico. It would be worth many points to me if he keeps to that suggestion. Anyone who fights or favors the Drug War is perpetuating the no-win proposition and making matters worse. We would be extremely short-sighted to think those drug profits all end up in "Chapo's" or Ernesto's pockets. There are still players in this game that have been in it since at least the 19th century's opium operations, and now the are very highly placed in this family inheritance and key players in how this drug trading scam is to be run - and none of the profit scam works without prohibition.

One might be sympathetic with the war on drugs cause if only the effort was at least partially sincere. There may be sincerety to win over this drug scourge by some lower-level municipal or state-level law enforcement drug warriors but the people on top, the ones controlling the politics and conversation about this matter, They are in it for the GOLD. That would be the pure and simple of it except that the Drug War is also armor-piercing artillery against peoples' rights to privacy, a pass key into your livingroom.

Here is the "lana", the wool, what the wolf wears to raid the herd. The Drug War objective has never been about eradicating the drug trade, it has always been about controlling the drug trade. The wool, the lana, has been tailored into a cloak of altruism, the altruistic notion that "drugs are bad" so whatever effort we make against the drug trade is naturally "good." That just isn't true. It is pervasive but it is not true.

From the first off-site quote of your OP, "...that crusade has been an expensive catastrophe both domestically and internationally. During the decades since Richard Nixon declared a "war" on illegal drugs in 1971, the United States has spent nearly one trillion dollars trying to eradicate the drug trade, filled America's prisons with nonviolent drug offenders, ruined millions of lives and undermined the Bill of Rights -- especially the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures." As stated prior, that is just not the true motive involved, it was never about eradicating the trade, but the results of the drug war efforts as stated by that writer is very accurate. That article is pleading for drug war reform but is flawed with a very fatal and pervasive myth of the Drug War Scam that needs to be busted before anything truly positive can be accomplished. So much for "facts."

edit on 11-9-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

You obviously haven't seen the up tick of violence along the border that is beginning to encroach into my state of TX.

While I agree that the War on Drugs is a waste, I do believe that we need a War on the Cartels.

3 murders in Austin, TX have been attributed to the Cartels since JULY. I'm not even going to touch on further south or the other border states. Instead I'll just direct you here -> Mexican drug gangs - Not just a problem on the U.S. border. (An ATS thread)

It's a real problem.

ETA: Which I see you've already read... My bad!
to you.
edit on 11-9-2012 by thesungod because: see eta

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:07 AM

Originally posted by thesungod

While I agree that the War on Drugs is a waste, I do believe that we need a War on the Cartels.

I agree. It is bad. It is bad by design. Very little can be injected into society that is as de-stabilizing as the illicit drug trade. Many of the societal woes, perhaps the majority of them, can be attributed to the illicit drug trade. To make matters worse, many, many think like you that the War on Drugs is a waste. I agree too. It is not talked about much in the media because it is just not popular anymore. We will have to debunk the myth of the Drug War to make any progress on it.

Unfortunately, the Drug War and the illicit trade are not bad for everyone. Some very highly influential folks want to see both continue on at flank speed. It is intended as a "forever war" or until it all crashes and burns.

Truth is, the "cure" is killing more people and making life more uncomfortable for almost everyone than the "disease" ever could. Fight the cartels or break them. Your country supports them, arms them, and delivers their goods to the states. How much help do you need?!?

edit on 11-9-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:12 AM
Eh, while he unfortunately hasn't endorsed Arizona's brilliant solution to combating a White House which has done NOTHING to defend our Southern border, Mitt has at least committed himself to completing the border fence, increasing border patrol numbers and resources, and supporting the states in their attempts to build their own security against this menace.

As with so many issues this year, neither candidate is ideal, but Mitt is a clear upgrade. Really, that's more of a statement about just how weak on border defense and non-existent on combating illegal immigration Obama is than any sort of "Yay Romney" cheer.

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by burdman30ott6

Mitt Romney on Immigration

Actions speak louder than words, but he does have a very mixed record regarding immigration to be fair.

top topics


log in