BF2S Forums Mexico is going to shit. What is the future of Mexico?

Macbeth wrote:

Unless the U.S. military uses it's full power and force in the most ruthless way then any involvement in Mexico will make things worse.

It's not worth the time and effort to fix unless we just fucking annex the place. Mexican history is a series of revolutions and counter-revolutions, dictator following dictator. We're better off just walling ourselves off and letting them kill themselves

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Unless the U.S. military uses it's full power and force in the most ruthless way then any involvement in Mexico will make things worse.

Doesn't exactly seem to have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Stop buying drugs -> Problem solved.

however i agree with the drug statement

JohnG@lt wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Unless the U.S. military uses it's full power and force in the most ruthless way then any involvement in Mexico will make things worse.

It's not worth the time and effort to fix unless we just fucking annex the place. Mexican history is a series of revolutions and counter-revolutions, dictator following dictator. We're better off just walling ourselves off and letting them kill themselves

So...what, isolate them from our sphere of influence? What if someone else wants to step in?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Unless the U.S. military uses it's full power and force in the most ruthless way then any involvement in Mexico will make things worse.

Doesn't exactly seem to have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Stop buying drugs -> Problem solved.

indeed, totally agree. narco-states will exist for as long as western economies provide a demand for the narcotics.

legalize marijuana and other substances, regulate it and control the supply --> mexico will actually stabilize.

it's counter-intuitive but then again so is the entire war on drugs and all of its related issues.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Doesn't exactly seem to have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Stop buying drugs -> Problem solved.

indeed, totally agree. narco-states will exist for as long as western economies provide a demand for the narcotics.

legalize marijuana and other substances, regulate it and control the supply --> mexico will actually stabilize.

it's counter-intuitive but then again so is the entire war on drugs and all of its related issues.

I actually almost agree with this now, unless the US nukes mexico or jails every drug user for 20 years they can't win.
In the interests of the people of Mexico the US will have to take the pain of legalising some drug use, up to the US if it wants to go down that path.

drug-use has existed and will exist for longer than any modern nation.

aztecs were getting high in central america centuries ago... mexico is fucked-up now because it has been criminalised and thus driven underground into the world of drug-lords, drug-gangs, corrupt politicians and bought-out officials. if you just allowed it to be legal and controlled it, then the demand would be satisfied by a safer avenue of distribution (made cheaper by the process, too)- and the underworld would effectively die out. as it stands right now, corruption and drug-taking interests exist at every level in the state/society. politicians use, law-enforcement use, average citizens use, and criminals use. always have done, always will. it's a waste of money and contributing towards a  'narco-state' status is contributing towards a state-of-emergency situation, tbh.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I actually almost agree with this now, unless the US nukes mexico or jails every drug user for 20 years they can't win.
In the interests of the people of Mexico the US will have to take the pain of legalising some drug use, up to the US if it wants to go down that path.

drug-use has existed and will exist for longer than any modern nation.

aztecs were getting high in central america centuries ago... mexico is fucked-up now because it has been criminalised and thus driven underground into the world of drug-lords, drug-gangs, corrupt politicians and bought-out officials. if you just allowed it to be legal and controlled it, then the demand would be satisfied by a safer avenue of distribution (made cheaper by the process, too)- and the underworld would effectively die out. as it stands right now, corruption and drug-taking interests exist at every level in the state/society. politicians use, law-enforcement use, average citizens use, and criminals use. always have done, always will. it's a waste of money and contributing towards a  'narco-state' status is contributing towards a state-of-emergency situation, tbh.

Mexico has been a shithole since it gained independence. It was a shithole before drugs were made illegal and it's been a shithole after drugs were made illegal. The common theme? Mexico is a shithole. There's no rule of law there, no stable government, and the military is more likely to aid a coup than a sitting President/Dictator/Whatever. Add to all this that they also have some of the most historically corrupt police on the planet and it's an unfixable mess.

sorry, but i refuse to use the reductive thought-process of 'x' country or 'y' people are predisposed to shitty behaviour/organisation.

there are problems that create the shittiness, the people of mexico and the country is not simply a shit-quagmire.

drugs are one of those (perhaps many) problems

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

drug-use has existed and will exist for longer than any modern nation.

aztecs were getting high in central america centuries ago... mexico is fucked-up now because it has been criminalised and thus driven underground into the world of drug-lords, drug-gangs, corrupt politicians and bought-out officials. if you just allowed it to be legal and controlled it, then the demand would be satisfied by a safer avenue of distribution (made cheaper by the process, too)- and the underworld would effectively die out. as it stands right now, corruption and drug-taking interests exist at every level in the state/society. politicians use, law-enforcement use, average citizens use, and criminals use. always have done, always will. it's a waste of money and contributing towards a  'narco-state' status is contributing towards a state-of-emergency situation, tbh.

Mexico has been a shithole since it gained independence. It was a shithole before drugs were made illegal and it's been a shithole after drugs were made illegal. The common theme? Mexico is a shithole. There's no rule of law there, no stable government, and the military is more likely to aid a coup than a sitting President/Dictator/Whatever. Add to all this that they also have some of the most historically corrupt police on the planet and it's an unfixable mess.

sorry, but i refuse to use the reductive thought-process of 'x' country or 'y' people are predisposed to shitty behaviour/organisation.

there are problems that create the shittiness, the people of mexico and the country is not simply a shit-quagmire.

drugs are one of those (perhaps many) problems

The money they make via the drug trade is peanuts compared to the wealth they would all enjoy if they ever got their act together and industrialized properly.

I'm not saying the people themselves are predisposed towards anarchy, but throughout their history that is the state that the country has lived in. Dictatorship followed by Military Junta followed by Dictatorship. They have always been a banana republic and have never enjoyed anything remotely resembling our system of law. Because there is no stability, there is no wealth generation and the people live in crushing poverty.

What's going to happen to Mexico?  They'll lose a significant chunk of their population as most of their people will eventually move here.

The poor saps remaining in that shithole will just suffer more than before in a broken economy and under a broken government.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Unless the U.S. military uses it's full power and force in the most ruthless way then any involvement in Mexico will make things worse.

Doesn't exactly seem to have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Stop buying drugs -> Problem solved.

Never happen.  We tried banning alcohol.  It didn't work.   We fight the War on Drugs.  It doesn't work.

It would be better to just legalize drugs over time and force cartels to stick with human trafficking and arms.  It would be easier to deal with prosecuting those two markets.

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Doesn't exactly seem to have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Stop buying drugs -> Problem solved.

Never happen.  We tried banning alcohol.  It didn't work.   We fight the War on Drugs.  It doesn't work.

It would be better to just legalize drugs over time and force cartels to stick with human trafficking and arms.  It would be easier to deal with prosecuting those two markets.

the war on drugs could work but just like many wars (not wwii that was done correctly) we fight with too many rules.

It doesn't and it can't.  In the only cases where it sort of works, it just opens the door for a lot of abuse of power (like in Thailand).

In short, if some dumbass wants to get addicted to something, then the most you can do is commit them where they are forced to go cold turkey.

Until they reach the point of no longer having control over their own decisions, you have to let people make their own mistakes.

11 Bravo wrote:

i could make it work...

Move to Saudi Arabia. They get things done there.

Uzique wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Never happen.  We tried banning alcohol.  It didn't work.   We fight the War on Drugs.  It doesn't work.

It would be better to just legalize drugs over time and force cartels to stick with human trafficking and arms.  It would be easier to deal with prosecuting those two markets.

the war on drugs could work but just like many wars (not wwii that was done correctly) we fight with too many rules.

the thing is, drug use is such a highly-personal decision / recreation that there IS no deterrent policy available.

you would literally lock up half of your population and people would still be turning to drugs to escape from personal problems

and the market for recreational, fun drug-use will always be there... laws are pretty much entirely irrelevant in those spheres

Pretty much...  and we already have a legal drug dealing market where doctors and psychologists basically overmedicate the masses thanks to the kickbacks they get from pharmaceutical companies.

Basically, those are the legal drug dealers that pander to mostly instant gratification types.