Perry would send US Troops to Mexico

A Scary story. Having talked recently about how he would not send US troops into badly planned operations, he now says he this. Another backwards step in the war on drugs.

I hope this thread will remain up as it is about the polotics of a potential presidential candidate, which show a willingness to deploy troops beyond the limits of his recent statements.


www.washingtonpost.com...

Friends - to comply with T's and C's please lets keep this on topic and not discuss the use of drugs. This is about the polotics of a potential presidential candidate. Thank you.

Yet another reason to not vote this nut into office. Why is it all of a sudden people think using the military is the best way to solve problems? The Mexican president told us the best way to fight the cartels legalize drugs.

reply to post by Shamatt

What's so new and scary about this? We've done the very same thing in Columbia for a number of years!
Just because Mr. Perry might want to send troops into Mexico to help combat the drug cartels, doesn't mean it MUST be an ill conceived plan.

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Shamatt

 

What's so new and scary about this? We've done the very same thing in Columbia for a number of years!
Just because Mr. Perry might want to send troops into Mexico to help combat the drug cartels, doesn't mean it MUST be an ill conceived plan.

See ya,
Milt

I didn't imply it is an ill conceived plan BECAUSE he was proposing it, that would be dumb. I am saying it is ill conceived, and he happens to be the one proposing it. I would have posted this story regardless of who was proposing it. It is still the wrong solution. And it is also counter to previous statement he hhas made, as you can see in the attached article. These are the points. Please don't assume I am as shallow as the average citizen.

reply to post by Shamatt

First you called the article:

A Scary story.

Then, at the end of the very first paragraph, you said:

Another backwards step in the war on drugs.

Those are the only two things you said regarding the "heart" of your sourced material:

“It may require our military in Mexico,” Perry said in answer to a question about the growing threat of drug violence along the southern border. Perry offered no details, and a spokesman, Robert Black, said afterward that sending troops to Mexico would be merely one way of putting an end to the exploding cartel-related violence in the region.

Source
I originally asked:

What's so new and scary about this?

You ignored that question, and responded with:

I didn't imply it is an ill conceived plan BECAUSE he was proposing it, that would be dumb. I am saying it is ill conceived, and he happens to be the one proposing it.

Because I said:

Just because Mr. Perry might want to send troops into Mexico to help combat the drug cartels, doesn't mean it MUST be an ill conceived plan.

There was no discussion of a proposed "plan", yet you jump to the conclusion that: It HAS to be an ill conceived plan, with no explanation as to why you may feel that way.

You seem to only be "parroting" some of the comments made by third parties mentioned in this article, without any thought of your own.

That indicates to me that you are, indeed, MORE "shallow" than "the average citizen"!

Let me give you a chance to redeem yourself:
Why do you feel that sending American troops to help the Mexican government combat the drug cartels, MUST be an ill conceived plan?

See ya,
Milt

Dude you are not clever. Just because you can play with the structure of what has been written and twist it all around.

You Implied something which I had not stated and I rebuked that. You now use that rebuttal as an excuse to tell me I am not answering your questions and that in fact I am somehow evading the point and am only able to regurgitate the opinions of others. Nice tactic but I can see through you mate.

You are not big and clever trying to play tricks on me like this. Please be straight with me - as I am with you. You accused me of saying this was a dum idea BECAUSE it was his idea. That is what your post said. I disagree with that. Please stick to the facts.

Why is it a dumb idea? Well, look at every other country in the world where the US is using it's troops to apply it's influence. How well are those plans going?

There is a 50 year history of the war on drugs failing miserabley. There is a 50 year history of the US imposing it's drugs policies on the world, and the problem - whichever way you measure it - is an order of magnitude worse now than it ever was in the past. The only countries in the world which do not have this problem running aout of controll are the countries which have implemented some sort of legal controll over the market. There is only 1 way to win this war and that is not to fight it. Sending in US troops would turn mexico into a bigger blood bath than it already is, and it would not acheive the goals it set out to. Just as no other tactic ever employed in the war on drugs has ever had any success. That is why this is a stupid plan. Not, as you implied in your previous post, because of who is suggesting it.

Please be honest and direct when chatting with me.

This is a terrible idea unless Mexico invites the US military in. It would damage the US foreign image even more than it is now. However, the idea is not a surprising one; the US has a long history of interfering in other nation's internal affairs. As three modern examples, I'll point to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. I really don't want to see Mexico added to that list.

It's one thing to go in to Mexico if they ask for American help. It's altogether another thing to unilaterally decide for them.

reply to post by Shamatt

DUDE,

1) YOUR title for this topic is: "Perry would send US Troops to Mexico"!

2) The only quote your source directly attributed to Mr. Perry is: “It may require our military in Mexico,”

Right at the "get go", you took Mr. Perry's off handed response to a question out of context, and construed it to mean something completely different than it actually does.

Next you "read" an implication into a very simple question, that clearly isn't there. My QUESTION does not accuse you of "saying this was a dum idea BECAUSE it was his idea"! That is something YOU came up with all by yourself! I only included Mr. Perry's name in that question because he is the one who made the comment, that YOU brought to our attention.

If you really had an "IQ over 160", I wouldn't need to explain that to you! I AM a member of "Mensa International", and have never met a "genius" that would state something as stupid as "I cant spell and Im proud of it". That comment only indicates indolence, not a higher level of intelligence!

You finally did answer my question. Though it does show that you are "only able to regurgitate the opinions of others", I will accept it. Thank you! You have just shown how acutely "shallow" you really are.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Breif reply to you:

If I misunderstood your line "Just because Mr. Perry might want to send troops into Mexico to help combat the drug cartels, doesn't mean it MUST be an ill conceived plan. " then sorry.

If you read that line again now, especially with the word MUST in capitols, I think you can easily see how I was misslead into thinking you were saying that I think it is dumb BECAUSE he thought of it. No? Come on - you are clever, you must be able to see that?

Just because He wants to do it, doesn't mean it is ill conceived.

So I will accept that, if you tell me so, you were not implying that. I thought you were. Don't blame me for misunderstanding when what you wrote was ambiguous.

Any opinion I may have is mine, not the regurgitation of anyone elses message. If what I beleive tallies with what others beleive it does not mean I am regurgitating their beleifs. That is a shallow accusation.

I turned down my invitation to Join MENSA. They wanted to charge me an annual membership and I decided that was a clever scam, considering I never get involved with any of their activities or meetings. I sat the entrance exam as my landlord at the time was a teacher, and he sort of talked me into it.

I am not proud of not being able to spell. I am proud of being HFA and Dyslexic. It is that that pride in being "special", (Combined with my inteligence) which has permitted me to be so succsesfull despite my disabilities. It is rude of you you to question them, I have spent 40 years battling this, and I think I have learned to do pretty well. No?