Rick Perry open to sending the US military into Mexico

Rick Perry open to sending the US military into Mexico

trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com

Gov. Rick Perry says he's open to the idea of sending U.S. troops into Mexico to fight the drug war. The Texas governor told MSNBC this morning that border violence has escalated dramatically since George W. Bush was governor a decade ago. He said more aggressive federal tactics are needed. "You have a situation on the border where American citizens are being killed, and you didn't see that back when George Bush was the governor,"

(visit the link for the full news article)

the story goes on to read...

Host Chuck Todd asked whether Perry would advocate military involvement on the Mexican side of the border. Perry responded: "I think we have to have any aspect of law enforfement that we have including the military. I think we have the same situation we had in Columbia. Obviously, Mexico has to approve any type of assistance that we can give them. But the fact of the matter is these are people who are highly motivated for money, they are viscious, they are armed to the teeth. And I want to see them defeated. And any means we can to run these people off our border and to save Americans' lives we have to be engaged in."

But I have this huge problem with his statement... Maybe no one told Mister Perry but US troops operating under the agency name of "OBI" are operating within Mexican soil with complete autonomy "

In another story announcing the creation of this new intelligence organization operating within Mexican soil was this quote...

An anonymous U.S. official told the Mexican journalists,

We have received direct instruction from the [U.S.] President and the highest levels in government, to really examine what more can be done in this counter-narcotics cooperation with Mexico.

The article concluded:

However, [in] the actual operations of the OBI in security and intelligence services, Mexicans will be subordinates of the U.S.

Agencies of the U.S. Government will play the role as experts in intelligence work, apart from previous advisory roles in order to increase Mexico’s ability to use information resources against drug cartel operations.

Now here comes the fun part... will the liberal media crucify Perry for making this statement... or will they come clean and admit Under this directive, issued on 18 March by Gen. Victor Eugene Renuart, then head of Northern Command (NORTHCOM), OTI, has carried out several operations against drug traffickers.



trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com
Link to companion story about US troops already in Mex.
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by DaddyBare


I say stay out of that Mexican pig sty, but kill anyone who crosses the border down there. Let the Mexicans deal with their own problems and secure our southern border.

This whole drug cartel thing is such a mess and with so much corruption, I don't know how it will ever be solved. I agree, secure our borders!!

Originally posted by Night Star
This whole drug cartel thing is such a mess and with so much corruption, I don't know how it will ever be solved. I agree, secure our borders!!

It will be solved in one way: legalize pot. That is what the drug wars are over. Pot and routes to bring in coc aine. But the coke comes up from the south, in Columbia, etc.

If you legalize pot, you reduce the cash flow into the hands of the cartels, who are wealthier than the nations they live in and can therefore have autonomy.

It is not our job to fix Mexico. It is our job to fix ourselves. Legalize pot and you fix many of our problems, like prison crowding.

Of course, the non military option would never be used first. To be honest, neither option will be used. These drugs fund black budgets.

I was wondering when this would materialise....The drug war equals US troops in Mexico...leads to assimilation long term to the panama canal and beyond.....
I would not put this kind of cruel manipulation beyond the ugly scope of illuminatti thinking.Killing off excess baggage, destabilising the region till it begs for US intervention,send in the troops and Voila!
Did somebody say Halliburton?KBR?
Huge corporations like these make immense profits out of the social upheaval ....This is seen as a win win scenario for tptb and i doubt that the Mexican drug problem will diminish in the near term.
Nor for that matter, the rest of the continent....

You guys are all missing one key fact here...
All this NORCOM, NAFTA, ASPAN and all those other agreements that have been signed over the last dozen of so years all have one distressing under tone... the possible creation of a North American Union... No USA no Canada no Mexico but a combined ???? new tri-nation state... that has been the goal for some time now...

You can bet your last dollar it's not now nor was it ever about drugs

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

I say stay out of that Mexican pig sty, but kill anyone who crosses the border down there. Let the Mexicans deal with their own problems and secure our southern border.

NAFTA is the problem. The Americans have exploited Mexico for its cheap labour and have induced conditions that have lead to the rise of the Mexican drug trade.

So I agree. Cut off the US from Mexico, and cut off the US from Canada too; the only country that will lose is the US.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Yeah. Cut the US off from Canada. That way, when wealthier Canadians want medical care that doesn't suck, they will have to head overseas.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Yeah. Cut the US off from Canada. That way, when wealthier Canadians want medical care that doesn't suck, they will have to head overseas.

Then they can stay overseas because our social healthcare actually provides all Canadians with decent medical services (I would know considering I'm an average Canadian who has used it an uncountable number of times without issues or insane payments for essential services).

Pull the CIA out of drug trafficking and the problem will be significantly easier to deal with.

Wow, these guys just tell one fairy tale after another.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Yeah. Cut the US off from Canada. That way, when wealthier Canadians want medical care that doesn't suck, they will have to head overseas.

Then they can stay overseas because our social healthcare actually provides all Canadians with decent medical services (I would know considering I'm an average Canadian who has used it an uncountable number of times without issues or insane payments for essential services).

I am not Canadian, and cannot speak on your health care system. But I do read a lot, and get information from a wide array of sources.

Like this one:

If Canada's national health-care system is so dang wonderful, why are so many Canadians coming to America to pay for their own medical care?

Why is the hip replacement center of Canada in Ohio -- at the Cleveland Clinic, where 10 percent of its international patients are Canadians?

Why is the Brain and Spine Clinic in Buffalo serving about 10 border-crossing Canadians a week? Why did a Calgary woman recently have to drive several hundred miles to Great Falls, Mont., to give birth to her quadruplets?

....snip...

Number of Canadians on waiting lists for referrals to specialists or for medical services -- 875,000.

Average wait from time of referral to treatment by a specialist -- 17.8 weeks.

Shortest waiting time -- oncology, 4.9 weeks. Longest waiting times -- orthopedic surgery, 40.3 weeks.

Average wait to get an MRI -- 10.3 weeks nationally but 28 weeks in Newfoundland.

Average wait time for a surgery considered "elective," like a hip replacement -- four or more months.

America is far from perfect. But you might lean a little closer and see that Canada smells like poopoo, too.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Are you bloody stupid? I don't care what neocon propaganda you read, I along with thousands of Canadians I know enjoy our healthcare system very much and we laugh at the fact that at least 26% of Americans live in poverty, unable to even afford the most basic of essential services. Do you know how pathetic your argument is? Come to Canada and you would never leave.

Seriously, you judge us because we have a medical system that covers all Canadians equally? Because we actually choose to cooperate with ourselves instead of competing for who gets better services because of how much one can pay? Now that is extremely disturbing to know that you blindy support a system where the rich get priority. The rich bleed just like we do, but it doesnt make their blood more valuable.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Are you bloody stupid? I don't care what neocon propaganda you read, I along with thousands of Canadians I know enjoy our healthcare system very much and we laugh at the fact that at least 26% of Americans live in poverty, unable to even afford the most basic of essential services. Do you know how pathetic your argument is? Come to Canada and you would never leave.

Seriously, you judge us because we have a medical system that covers all Canadians equally? Because we actually choose to cooperate with ourselves instead of competing for who gets better services because of how much one can pay? Now that is extremely disturbing to know that you blindy support a system where the rich get priority. The rich bleed just like we do, but it doesnt make their blood more valuable.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Sorry. I think you misunderstood. I am not judging. Just talking. Like i said, i have never been there, and can't really say much other than what is available for reading. If you are satisfied with what you got, you are definitely better off than me. And I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas, what used to be called a "Cadillac Plan" about 15 years ago.

So are you saying that those numbers are not true? Because if they are, it would seem that there are significant trade offs in both systems.

ETA: if you think i would blindly believe anything about the status quo, spend a few moments reviewing my post history, or my blog. it most certainly is not a very accurate description. I just don't think you understand that there are trade offs in your system as well. Neither seems to work very well.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I don't think you understand my system period. Just because its socialist makes it wrong to Americans. Insurance companies are a joke, do you think it is right that in order to recieve basic medical services that you must pay a company to take care of it for you? They make money off of the risk of you not getting wounded. The profit off of your health, and if you are seriously injured they will find excuses not to pay because that will mean less profit for them.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I don't think you understand my system period. Just because its socialist makes it wrong to Americans. Insurance companies are a joke, do you think it is right that in order to recieve basic medical services that you must pay a company to take care of it for you? They make money off of the risk of you not getting wounded. The profit off of your health, and if you are seriously injured they will find excuses not to pay because that will mean less profit for them.

Well, that is a philosophical difference. I do not believe that you have a right to good health. You DO have a right to access to health care.

I don't think our system works very well, either. The government sets the price with Medicare, the doctors defraud it and insurance companies, and the regular joe is left screwed over. Insurance companies are not the problem. Medicare and doctors are. The only part the insurance companies really play is when they try to bargain for a better price when it is all paid at once (most people cannot afford that, and end up paying it out at a higher rate).

Of course insurance companies costs are going up. When treatment of common cancers can cost over 250k, and the disease is rising, not to mention the ballooning costs for innovative technology, it has stressed a system that previously was not nearly as bad as it is now.

I don't think socialism is bad. i just don't prefer it. I believe in fewer laws, lower taxes, and virtually no government. Not an anarchist. Most lke a constitutionalist, or libertarian.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I don't think socialism is bad. i just don't prefer it. I believe in fewer laws, lower taxes, and virtually no government. Not an anarchist. Most lke a constitutionalist, or libertarian.

Libertarianism is organized anarchy; constitutionalism has nothing to do with libertarianism either (Canada is a constitutional monarchy, afterall)

I do not believe that you have a right to good health.

Well, that says it all, doesn't it? I guess health is a priviledge, especially if you can afford to pay for health insurance while millions of your own people can only dream of having such a luxury.

that's the difference.. you think that you should get every thing and have your fellow man pay for it.. so you can be healthy I don't think you should.. you work you get paid you build your self up.. that is what made this country great.. now with every one wanting to turn this country like yours and other systems across the globe we are going into dept. as well and overspending on war.. I don't even think we should have welfare I shouldn't have to pay for you or the guy down the street..

reply to post by Reaper2137


World debt has nothing to do with socialism whatsoever. Socialism is not "paying for that guy down the street", socialism is government regulation of national policies and nationalization of resources.

Free trade is destroying the world economy by leading to globalism; because of this, money doesn't stay inside countries and instead moves to where the corporations are (like China). This leads to countries borrowing money to make up for the money lost via an free-trade economy. Free trade does not means equal trade for the countries involved; it means tariffs and laws that protect national economies are erased and dominant economies takeover the smaller, less adaptable ones.

If socialism is so bad, then why are scadinavian countries rated the best off in the world (in terms of social programs). It's because the government takes peoples money and puts it into its social programs that all citizens are entitled to, so everyone has the same, equal yet progressive, secure foundation for living. In this system, the government also employs at least 80% of the population, ensuring most people a job (following free university/vocational training).

The American system requires people to have money for everything, for any opportunity. If you're poor, then you're going to spend your whole life looking for job security just to afford the basics. If you're rich, then you can do anything you aspire to do, including higher education, travel, run your own company or even become president (face it; all presidents of the US are millionaires and they aren't friends with average Americans).

The problem with the US now is simple; it used to produce a lot of goods which made it a leading economy. Through globalism, international corporations have found China to be a much cheaper country to produce stuff that the US used to produce (and now the US buys it from China!). So is the problem socialism? No, it is globalism that is destroying free trade economies by sucking the money out of them to other nations with cheap labour.

reply to post by DaddyBare


What liberal media?

If we just end this stupid drug war, these warlords will be out of business immediately.