Why is the US losing the war against the cartel?
Why cant they deploy their conventional troops, marines, army, airforce etc and just kill them all.
Honesty, i am a very practical person and i dont see how pussyfooting with busting up a meth lab every now and then in a long protacted and expensive campaign is better than outright wiping them out once and for all.
How are you going to stop new people from getting into the business? Do you plan on killing the entirety of Mexico?
cui bono
>i am a very practical person
Don't confuse oversimplification due to stupidity for practicality.
Youre not understanding.
If you kill enough people for doing something people will eventually stop doing it. Or at the very least stay out of the US and keep their business in mexico
>criticizing without giving a solution
Youre a retard. Dont speak if you cant give a solution to a presented problem and all you can do is whine
So, you have no idea what you are talking about, right?
Supply and demand nigger.
As long as Americans want to buy drugs, people in poorer countries will want to sell it too them.
>6 - 11 mil jews killed in ww2
>we still have jews
>Youre not understanding.
No, you're not.
This is supply side economics, with all of its flaws. You have an extremely lucrative drug market, especially in comparison of your alternatives if you live in Mexico.
You run around, killing the suppliers, while the demand is staying constant, and you get what happens any time supply dries up. Prices also go up, which incentivizes more people to get in the game, and you're right back where you started.
The penalties for getting caught making drugs are already pretty ghastly, most people in that market either are desperate enough not to care, or think they can get away with it. Upping the penalties even further isn't likely to deter too many people who weren't already deterred by the pre-existing structure.
You're plan is incredibly bad, and has about a hundred years of not working. Not to mention all the problems involved in actually carrying it out, given that there are little things like "Civil rights"and ïnternational diplomacy.
A better question would be why the US doesn't occupy Mexico long enough to build the infrastructure to make it not shit
25-year rule, asshole. Also, you are an idiot.
>M-MUH DIPLOMACY AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS
Only out of touch retards use this as an argument. While youre arguing with the UN over the rights of these drug smugglers they are raping and killing American citizens by the day. Typical retard leftist libcuck.
Have you seen Trump's campaign? There's enough hostility already towards those "parasites" south of the border as is.
How do you think any politician could sell a notion of
>We're going to invade our neighbor, knock over their government, and fend off insurgent resistance for 20 years, maybe more, so we can build a functioning government and economy out of OUR pocket, and no, I don't know how many trillions of dollars this will cost, all so that Mexicans can have better alternatives and won't need to run drugs.
You'd have people calling for your resignation by the end of the day.
>muh
>youre
>le leftist libcuck buzzword
Jesus christ.
...
Good, so you concede that the bulk of my argument is on point and that your idea is imbecilic.
I would suggest going back to grade school, but I strongly suspect that your mental facilities aren't developed enough for them to help you.
Also, given that you seem to be in favor of summary execution of Mexican drug runners in America. you will have to deal with more than just international soft resistance, you'll have the Supreme Court overturning your ridiculously unconstitutional "plan" within a week.
Nobody brought up the UN but you, idiot.
You're a fucking idiot m8. That guy's post was exactly correct and you had to shit all over it and persist in your misunderstanding just because you're all frustrated and feel compelled to spew buzzwords.
Its no suprised that out of touch retards whose never had theif families and friends beheaded in front of them by drugged up mexicans would even CONSIDER these people worthy of having civil rights.
The best thing we can do as a country is muster up the full might of the US and kill each and every cartel member throughout mexico and if the mexican government even CONSIDERS
stopping us then they are welcome to try but we will not stand by idly.
Truth is when i joined the special forces i took an oath to defend this country from any threat , foreign and domestic and right now we are being invaded.
The best we can do is kill each and every cartel member and any mexican that tries to stop us and no one will. Not the UN and not mexico,
SJW leftist libcucks need not apply
>killing the entirety of Mexico?
I like the way you think.
>mouth breathing mental child spews /pol/ buzzwords with no actual content every post
Every fucking time.
I agree with all of these, but wouldn't killing of the big names reduce the problem? everyone can be low level dealer, but international dealing can't be something that you simply do out of desperation.
>Do you plan on killing the entirety of Mexico?
Is it cheaper than the wall?
How is this related to Veeky Forums?
>Its no suprised that out of touch retards whose never had theif families and friends beheaded in front of them by drugged up mexicans would even CONSIDER these people worthy of having civil rights.
Once again, you're showcasing your ignorance. We have civil rights not to protect criminals, but to keep the U.S. government from arbitrarily killing or imprisoning people at a whim. It doesn't matter if they're worthy or not.
>The best thing we can do as a country is muster up the full might of the US and kill each and every cartel member throughout mexico and if the mexican government even CONSIDERS
stopping us then they are welcome to try but we will not stand by idly.
And when the president who discusses this gets impeached? When American trade relations collapse? When NATO falls apart and the Russians grab up pieces of Eastern and Central Europe? When the economy tanks as a result of above? For a "practical thinker" your idea has a lot of problems with it.
>Truth is when i joined the special forces i took an oath to defend this country from any threat , foreign and domestic and right now we are being invaded.
I have grave doubts that they would ever let imbeciles like you hold a gun, let alone be in any sort of elite formation.
>It's a retarded libcuck getting butthurt by argument in Veeky Forums episode
getting stale m8.
>libcuck
I don't get it.
But it isn't an argument and I'm not a leftie or a liberal. Nice continued buzzwords with no actual argument though.
>buzzwords
>300 confirmed kills
>spelling errors
>"why don't we just kill them all?! If you don't want to kill them all you're just a softie, nevermind the fact that no-one is bringing up human rights, but instead is pointing out that this would be hugely impractical, I'll continue to strawman you as a "lib-cuck SJW""
Wow, you're really putting the 'special' in 'special forces,' huh?
He probably thinks ROTC means he's special force, instead of just... Special.
>"No, seriously guys! /pol/ is actually really smart! They make valid points! Stop strawmanning!"
fucking triggered much bitchboy? go shoot some bb guns in your bedroom about it faggot. make sure you don't hurt yourself or mommy will have to take you to the doctor.
Threads like this or the pro-commie threads made me realize that all /pol/ regulars are absolute morons, regardless of political stance.
>still incapable of talking in anything besides buzzwords
Jesus Christ.
>still
thats my first post in this thread retard. you're ideas are fucking stupid and you should shut up
>Do you plan on killing the entirety of Mexico?
It would help
>its that easy
yeah lets just kill em all
>you're ideas
now I know you're retarded
Because the CIA is balls deep in the drug smuggling business.
the guy on the left:
>no confio en nadie mucho menos en
PUTAS
>I trust nobody even less in
WHORES
i feel you brah
This isn't Veeky Forums. 25 year rule nigga.
Also
>US is losing the war against he cartel
[citation needed]
>all these retards responding to bait
Did you people just blow in from Reddit or have you just been sheltered from Australian prime time?
Spoken like a true Americunt
the problem with killing big names is when things get expensive. people who profitted off the drug market to that point carry armies everywhere, travel without being noticed and probably have quite a few heirs to keep the business going if they get assasinated
>killing mexico will end the drug problem in the US!
faggot, what about south america? what about eastern europe? are you willing to send the US into an international war with every big drug country in the world? knowing the consequences for this are 100x times bigger than if you didin't do shit?
AAWWWWWWWWWWW THE RIGHTIST WHO WILL SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM DESPITE KNOWING NOTHING ABOU ANYTHING EXCEPT POL MEMES IS HEREEEEEEEEE
i say lets kill every american citizen so no more need to smuggle drugs into us!
"SPECIAL" forces
you sound like a very edgy 13 year old, go play gta
Like when CIA smuggled drugs into usa to fund its faggotry? those drug cartel monies means more to your goverment than ur or ur familys life
In all fairness, civil rights was a mistake. When a good majority of people no longer act in the best interests of their host country, the host country should be able to crack down on them and take control for whatever amount of time is needed to get them back on track.
i.e. we have 40% obesity among women
where are the work camps for fat women?
Wasn't this literally the opposite of what you guys (should've) learned in: Vietnam (first 8 weeks),Iraq,Syria,Afghanistan,Libya and Iran?
God fucking damned, no wonder last time you won a war was in 1948.
by that logic 100% of the population should be killed and replaced with AI
you think you are special and you wouldnt be in a work camp?
its pretty hard to win against your allies :^)
what you think the whole situation just popped up by it self? in reality it was fabricated by people on both sides of the border with profit being the main cause ideological belifes being second
His on earth does that follow?
>hurr you support putting criminals in prison?!
>How do you know YOU won't wind up in prison hmmmmm really makes you think
>In all fairness, civil rights was a mistake.
No it isn't.
> When a good majority of people no longer act in the best interests of their host country, the host country should be able to crack down on them and take control for whatever amount of time is needed to get them back on track.
And civil rights don't prevent that. Civil rights force the government to prove its case. To demonstrate that these people actually are harmful, instead of just the president or the police chief or whomever saying that someone's a threat and throwing said person in prison.
It's to provide a chec on the government, not (primarily) to help people get away with shit.
>i.e. we have 40% obesity among women where are the work camps for fat women?
And what basis are you using to determine that obese women are somehow a threat or detrimental to the country and should have their rights taken away?
OP can you please stop posting? You're making all of us look bad. It's people like you that make it impossible to post any right-wing opinion without being told to go back to /pol/.
Winning the war on drugs is easy. Just legalise (or at least decriminalize) all drugs.
but what about muh Grenada. Its has only 100k people? y-yea but GOD BLESS AMERICA
honestly, just lowering the punishment for drug usage is enough, its seriously bullshit that a person who has lost his life's way thanks to heroin or crack is sent to jail and then forbidden from taking most jobs, all he can do is go back to taking crack again.
Read the following story. Tell me if the government is on a good path here.
The headline is actually enough to get the jisst of it.
washingtonpost.com
I prefer Singapore's approach. Criminalize them so badly that we will make public examples of you and execute you if you do drugs.
You're trying a little too hard m8. With trolling you need to have lighter touch.
I like Singapore's approach too but Singapore is a city-state and thus easier to police than a country of hundreds of millions.
This.
Ideally you're so close to opinions that people actually have that you can ignite an argument lasting hundreds of posts with just one comment.
Im dead serious tho.
Illegality is the only reason why drugs render such huge profits.
I think it'd be pretty easy to dry up the well pretty quick by enacting these insanely tough laws to keep the country and cities cleaner.
See the real problem with it would be is that it would automatically get people of colour more often. So the left would say, "omg that's racist." Yes, it's racist that they break the law way more often. How about we just kill some people right now so that everyone gets the fucking memo.
A city without drugs is just a much cleaner more beautiful place to live where you don't have to hear the odd story of a man hopped up on bath salts eating another mans face.
Me doing drugs doesn't affect you at all. Why should it be illegal?
Pls give an argument that isn't based on the current illegality of said drugs.
Surrendering is not the same things as winning.
>the degradation of public morals
>doesn't effect me
Pothead pls.
>the degradation of things that do not exist
Schizophrenic pls.
How does pointing out moral decline equate with schizophrenia, my friend?
Americans are too addicted to drugs to stop the war. If it's not Mexicans it will be some other country or Americans themselves.
The war was pointless political propaganda from day 1. It's not even a real war, it's an industry. Rivalled in absurd profitabillity only by the drug trade it is ''''''fighting''''''
>Me doing drugs doesn't affect you at all.
Depends on the drugs. Plenty of synthetic cannabinoids lead to people having psychotic episodes in which they physically attack total strangers.
Drug dependence makes people commit crimes or do other dangerous or degrading things they wouldn't otherwise do.
In Central and South America, huge areas of arable land that could be used for sustainable local agriculture that would support local populations are used instead for growing coca plants and manufacturing cocaine. The cocaine (and now heroin) trade from Central/South America literally kills thousands of people a year, both in overdoses and trafficking-related violence.
>the degradation of public morals
let's re-criminalize gay sex
Nice buzzwords.
Sexual slavery is an industry too, guess we should just legalize that as well since its just pointless political propaganda right?
All these ussues decline with legalisation tho. Legalisation also implies regulation and taxation.
It worked for Rome, why not?
You're giving life to something that doesn't exist. You've taken a delusion and made it grounds for policy. This is something only crazy people and morons do, and I'd prefer to think you have an excuse.
No. Slavery has direct personal impact unlike
How does that have to do with civil rights? It's an attempt to bribe instead of incarcerate away criminal behavior. It has nothing to do with rights of investigation or proof.
>Drug dependence makes people commit crimes or do other dangerous or degrading things they wouldn't otherwise do.
To be perfectly fair, there are other approaches than criminalization that can be demonstrated to be effective, ranging from wider availability of treatment options to simply offering them the damn drugs so they don't wind up choosing between drugs and food.
>In Central and South America, huge areas of arable land that could be used for sustainable local agriculture that would support local populations are used instead for growing coca plants and manufacturing cocaine.
If it were legal, those cash crops could and would be grown anywhere they could take, the resulting market would disincentive their planting within those countries.
>The cocaine (and now heroin) trade from Central/South America literally kills thousands of people a year, both in overdoses and trafficking-related violence.
Legalization would reduce both the state-sponsored side of that violence, and the criminal sponsored side, as well as removing the stigma on going to the hospital to treat an overdose. It would also make overdose less likely since dosages could be effectively measured out by users.
But the fact remains, his using drugs does not directly affect you at all. Going with indirect effects is a crapshoot, as just about anything you do can be construed as socially destructive on some level.
>All these ussues decline with legalisation tho.
Maybe. We already have a system in place for "legal" opiate painkillers that still leads to overdose deaths and also to people seeking out black market alternatives.
legalization could also help set some health standards for pot thats sold, you won't believe how many people got hooked up to harder drugs because their shady dealer laced their blunt with some shit he never told you.
To call opiate painkillers legal and compare it to the sense he means is disingenuous. He means legal as cigarettes and alcohol are legal (which to be fair, both still have some criminal trade to them, just comparatively less, and mostly on the counterfeiting side of things), not the extremely tightly controlled regulations of prescription drugs.
>you won't believe how many people got hooked up to harder drugs because their shady dealer laced their blunt
Yeah, I won't believe it because that never happens
Its extremely hard to overdose on methadone