Should the US start training military to handle violent gangs in other countries?

No. You've been screwing up the world militarily, economically and installing puppet governments for the last 60 years and are responsible for most of the international unrest, violence, destabilisation etc...we see today.


The US method of dealing with gangs is clearly a failure, why would any other nation want your intervention given the track record? The US armed and created these cartels, rebels and ran coke/crack to the States in the 60s - 90s. In Iraq and Afghanistan they partnered with the biggest warlords/drug trafficking (heroin and hash) tribal leader Mazar-I-Sharif.


Please do the world a favour and stop.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

IIRC when England outlawed slavery they allowed their navy to attack, board, capture other ships involved in the slave trade and possibly execute the captains (& senior officers??) of the vessel. IDK if this is sensationalized Hollywood story line, but I think this is historical fact.

I don't see why the US couldn't do something similar with these gangs and cartels that are either undermining their official governments or taking hostile actions towards the US (sending drugs, gangsters, etc to the US).

If you are refering to the blockade of Africa then guess which nation did not agree to partake with it

Times up, oh it was the USA but now we have someone from the USA making demands of other nations with the threat of military action, more freedom bullets for all

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU


Who helped create the drugproblems we have today? Wasnt that the CIA?

Absolutely!

www.darkestpatterns.com...

Yo, you're diggin fo troof, there's never been more in one page than that there.

Should the US start training military to handle violent gangs in other countries?

Get rid of them here. Then reassess.

Ms-13,Russian,Ukrainian,Chinese,Mexican Drug cartels.

Top five.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Well, in theory, this is the job of the UN. So the UN would have to intervene when a state fails causing a humanitarian crisis.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: IAMNOTYOU


Who helped create the drugproblems we have today? Wasnt that the CIA?

Absolutely!

www.darkestpatterns.com...

Yo, you're diggin fo troof, there's never been more in one page than that there.

No kidding. I think they fit an entire book on a single page!

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The U. S can't even control violent gangs within its own borders...

Exactly, we need the troops at home to protect citizens from Antifa and other left wing gangs that openly advocate violence against civilians.

So your now calling for martial law but only against those whose politics you don’t like.

Hmmmm.....

Are you saying you support Antifa’s politics?

I don’t think average Americans likes these people. They are violent and create instability and anarchy while opposing duly elected officials on both sides of the aisle.

a reply to: Metallicus

Are you saying you support Antifa’s politics?

No I am asking why the hell you think martial law is the answer.

You do realise of course that you just came out and said you support martial law to suppress the politics of those you disagree wth right?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

WTF?!

You're not supposed to make sense.

We already have Asymetric warfare doctrine, built over the last 15 years.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Irishhaf

Yeah!

"Our" militarized Police State isnt militarized enough yet!

FFS America is dead judging how lost "Above" Top Secret is anymore.

You think America is a police state right now?
I can think of a few nations you should pay a visit to, we can still speak out against the president and congress without fear of immediate incarceration or worse.

Are we on the road to a police state, yea I wont argue that, but your high as a kite if you think we are a militarized police state right now.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I would not support such a thing.

Turn it on its head and consider the other view... suppose that a different country (say, Zimbabwe or even China) sent its military into the United States to shut down inner city gangs.

How would you, a citizen, feel about seeing the military of another nation marching around our streets, heavily armed -- and who don't speak our language? Don't these very qualities make them very good targets for organized guerrilla tactics?

Who designates and identifies the cartels/gangs to be targeted? How do you know they're not targeting political enemies rather than thugs? What happens when a resistance develops not from the gangs but from the people who don't like foreign soldiers running around?

And finally, foreign soldiers often commit equally bad abuses, as news items about the UN Peacekeepers and about American servicemen have shown. Admittedly these are a small percentage, but as this news story about the rape and kiling of a 14 year old and her family by a gang of 5 US soldiers shows the military experience can create real monsters.

How do you keep the monsters out of the policing?

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I'm not sure if there are other countries that have such problems with gangs as the Central American, Mexican and some South American countries

The Divided States of North-America maybe, which are infamous, world-famous for their gangs, where all that Gang crap started and was brought to the middle- and south americas and the rest of the world? Where is Mara Salvatrucha/MS13 coming from, and from where were their members deported to, mainly El Salvador? Where is the KKk coming from? Where are Hells Angels coming from, Bloods and Crips, etc, etc?

I guess the motherland of all that gang crap is still number one with having problems with it´s Gangs.
There might be more violent gangs elsewhere on earth, but it´s the divided states of north america, where every town with three inhabitants has an own gang.

They already have. It is called "war". Been done a couple times in U.S. history...The U.S. Army has fought an "army" more than one time, and won already, twice. The rest/are and have been, "mobs". Have always been. Easy, wrappings for The U.S. Army. ... Unless the U.S. marines want to make a "name" for themselves. Then it becomes a "war". Which is funny? Because U.S. marines only fight "battles"? ..

Gangs, mobs, rebels? Already in operation "training". You're a day late, and a few bucks, short. Been done, awhile back,
... Been there, done it!
Military is "trained" to fight, period! "Other countries", are circus acts. Always have been. Only U.S. marines think they have fought "wars/battles". "Violent gangs" Are the NAZI SS to the U.S. Army, an easy weekend. "Antifi" is a fun "holiday", Saturday, to a US. Soldier...only current "law", prevents much needed action...

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
...but something much smaller somewhat like a peace keeping mission that the UN does.

Right..so.. basically what you're talking about is the UN... O_o

I know a lot of people will complain that it isn't our business and we need to stay out of it,

Yes. It isn't the US' responsibility to police world and, here's a shocked for you - we don't WANT you to police the world.

So if the problem has gotten so bad that people are leaving by the 1,000's then that seems to show that the government has failed. It is a failed state. That is good reason to send in military to help maintain peace and uproot out the gangs.

Yup. Worked well in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq. No. I think the US should work within the legal framework of the UN and other countries. Going on their own and essentially 'invading' another country isn't good for anyone. Unless some proven attack by said country against the US occurs, which sure - go for it.

But for the the US to 'decide' to go in and...police another country? Who do you think you are to make that decision?

the US armed forces has no real experience in dealing with gangs, and therefore trying to train others in something they don't actually know is rather silly. that type of training would be better served by the police who actually do deal with gangs. although they are rather unsuccessful at it, so how much value would even their training be?

now of course if you are equating the gangs in central and south America to insurgents, which the military does deal with that would be a different story. but to train their forces, or even to sent the military in to help deal with the situation would first require, being invited in to do so by the rightful governments of those countries (preferably publicly, so their can be no doubt that they were in fact invited to do so). i can see the US lending a helping hand if invited, especially if said countries were to at least help offset the costs of said help.

in reality though this type of thing would be best run through the UN, as that could actually be considered a part of their actual mandate. and could then use troops from multiple countries to help deal with the situation. of course the UN would have to ditch their typical no contact approach they are so fond of in peace keeping duties. doing so would also stop any questioning of the US basically trying to take over said countries, if they were to help out.

yet i certainly don't recall those countries even asking for any help. and thus for anyone to just send in troops would be a legitimate issue. even if those troops were to effectively deal with the problem. so since there have not been any invites, it really is a moot point.