- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should Trump send troops into Mexico?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 11:48 am to QboveTopSecret
Posted on 1/8/25 at 11:48 am to QboveTopSecret
quote:
73,654 people died from a fentanyl overdose in the US in 2022, and that number is a lowball number. I served many in my family served, deaths in combat vs Fentanyl. That winner is Fentanyl.
so you think the solution is to fully send in troops? that doesnt work...
strategic strikes, securing the border, seizing all assets through terror designation, and building mexico into a manufacturing state like china is and bringing manufacturing that cant come here...to them is the way
if you do the first three...you can slowly places economic sanctions on them to get their government to comply. it will hurt us some and that is why i said slow, very slow
you are not winning this in trumps term.
instead of Nafta this should have been the plan in the 90s and if so it would be done by now where drugs would be very hard to get and expensive AF and then immigrant crisis would not have happened.
0
Posted on 1/8/25 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Being an ally does.
to be fair... he is somewhat correct in that they are only an ally when it benefits them financially.
there vision and values dont really align with ours and they undercut and manipulate things at all times.
they are more the friend that says they love you and then behind your back is constantly sabotaging you.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 11:54 am to lsu777
quote:
there vision and values dont really align with ours and they undercut and manipulate things at all times.
Are we talking bout Mexico or the cartels?
He shifted to the cartels when he wanted to be negative, primarily. Nobody is arguing they're an ally.
Mexico literally is just coming out of a civil war they effectively lost with the cartels and tens of thousands died. There is only so much they can do (just like there is only so much we can do).
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes. Where in that question is an "open border" an issue? Nowhere.
The millions of criminal illegals pouring across the border is not among the reasons Trump would invade Mexico?
quote:
Being an ally does.
Definition below. You give me the top 5 ways Mexico provides assistance and support in the ongoing effort, activity, and struggle that is our border disaster. I'll hold my breath.
1
: a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league
America and its allies
2
: one that is associated with another as a helper : a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity, or struggle
quote:
Emotional projection
Truth and reality. You don't like to hear or acknowledge it, but that's often the case with leftists.
quote:
More irrelevant emotional projection
More truth and reality. See above.
quote:
Not just emotional projection, but a lie.
Mexico literally just engaged in an active military conflict to thwart this, at great cost, and they lose. This imaginary life where the actual government/citizenry hasn't paid real costs (in money, lives, culture, etc.) is so silly. It's hard to imagine someone with an IQ large enough to read can believe this fantasy nonsense.
How many times have you been across the border with Mexico? I lived about 90 miles from the border in New Mexico, and have crossed many times. Tell me, what is preventing Mexico from having the same kind of facilities that the US has on the border for inspecting vehicles and people going across?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:01 pm to QboveTopSecret
quote:
73,654 people died from a fentanyl overdose in the US in 2022, and that number is a lowball number.
Don't forget to give credit to the Sakler family for their role in creating the opioid crisis.
LINK
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
The fact that the majority of Mexican citizens approve of the use of
the Mexican military in the war against the cartels is the only redeeming argument for the continuance of this policy. This statistic alone means that the use of the military may not be as detrimental to public security as most critics believe.
the Mexican military in the war against the cartels is the only redeeming argument for the continuance of this policy. This statistic alone means that the use of the military may not be as detrimental to public security as most critics believe.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:02 pm to troyt37
quote:
The millions of criminal illegals pouring across the border is not among the reasons Trump would invade Mexico?
OP is about the cartels.
That has nothing to do with cartels.
quote:
Tell me, what is preventing Mexico from having the same kind of facilities that the US has on the border for inspecting vehicles and people going across?
What does this have to do with invading Mexico to attack the cartels? Or the price Mexico and non-cartel citizens have paid combating the cartels domestically?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:03 pm to QboveTopSecret
quote:
The fact that the majority of Mexican citizens approve of the use of
the Mexican military in the war against the cartels is the only redeeming argument for the continuance of this policy. This statistic alone means that the use of the military may not be as detrimental to public security as most critics believe.
You're trolling too hard ITT
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:03 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Do you people have any idea how ridiculous and childish you look when you throw around this “beta” crap when posting about sending troops to do the fighting you won’t be seeing yourself?
Exactly how a beta male would respond
Im sure the sons of the chair force will be in danger in the drone room
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:06 pm to SDVTiger
If it were that easy, unfortunately our military and politicians make it much more difficult.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:08 pm to Geekboy
quote:
Should Trump send troops into Mexico?
No. It would be a quagmire to end all quagmires. We can be more effective militarily if we put that effort into the border.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
Your concern is noted NGO.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We would ultimately lose, too, just like with the WOR in Iraq/Afghanistan
Agreed. That is why we need our military to return to the methods we used in WW2. Dont actively go after civilians but not be concerned if they get in the way.
We could drone the cartels into submission. Spray their fields, blow up the places where they the package\store drugs. And make the punishment for possession (in the US) severe. People in jail dont tend to commit crimes on the law abiding citizens. It would be expensive to lock up a bunch of people but if we stopped sending money to over countries we would have plenty to spend on prisons.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
OP is about the cartels.
That has nothing to do with cartels.
The drug money the cartels make, and the drug money US distributors make, is a large factor in why we have an open border with Mexico, the ancillary benefit to Mexico being that they can dump their trash across the border for the US taxpayer to deal with. It's all tied together.
quote:
What does this have to do with invading Mexico to attack the cartels? Or the price Mexico and non-cartel citizens have paid combating the cartels domestically?
If Mexico was making some effort to prevent the export of death and destruction to the US, that would make our border efforts more effective. Imagine our Border Patrol not having to worry about criminal illegals swimming the river, and could concentrate on stopping the flow of drugs at the ports? Imagine the Mexican port having as much scrutiny over vehicles leaving Mexico for the US as the US ports have for Mexican vehicles entering. It could possibly double the amount of drugs caught before they cross our border. Crazy, right?
Maybe they can't defeat the cartels (which I don't believe) but there isn't a thing to stop them from trying to prevent the drugs and people from coming across. Yet they don't do it. Why? Because it isn't in their best interests. It should be the job of our government to make it in their best interests.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
Send troops yes but small elite force. We’ve done it ( probably still doing it) before. Hell the coast guard had teams blowing up fields in South America in the 90s
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:30 pm to Powerman
quote:
As long as there is demand the drugs will find a way here.
People don't seem to understand that market forces > walls.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you limit "the cartels" to only the ones in power today.
Like with terrorists, the weed will just grow back with new participants.
I don't buy your argument. Change "cartel" to criminals in general and you have an argument for defunding the police. There is always going to be some level of crime.
It seems like you're really arguing that the cost of eradication would be greater than the cost of letting cartels run rampant.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 1:13 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:50 pm to Bigdawgb
quote:
I don't buy your argument. Change "cartel" to criminals in general and you have an argument for defending the police. There is always going to be some level of crime.
It seems like you're really arguing that the cost of eradication would be greater than the cost of letting cartels run rampant.
There is demand for murder in this country too. We should probably eliminate all the laws against killing people. Murder rate would instantly drop to zero, we could save millions every year enforcing, investigating, litigating, and incarcerating those who kill. Not a single murder would happen in this country.
Obviously sarcasm, but this is their philosophy.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:51 pm to Bigdawgb
quote:
Change "cartel" to criminals in general and you have an argument for defending the police.
Defunding or defending?
also, note: we lost the War on Drugs, too.
quote:
It seems like you're really arguing that the cost of eradication would be greater than the cost of letting cartels run rampant.
That is a secondary issue, but it would be MUCH more costly in terms of dollars.
The conversation to which you replied is more concerned with American lives, though.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 12:52 pm to troyt37
quote:
but this is their philosophy.
You're really bad at this
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News