By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Should NATO deploy troops in Mexico?

 

Should NATO deploy troops in Mexico?

Yes, end the drug war 72 60.50%
 
No, let the mexican's keep trying 46 38.66%
 
Total:118
Joelcool7 said:
pariz said:
Rath said:

 

@Pariz. Nothing has changed in Colombia? So much has changed, the state was in an existential crisis. It now has much firmer authority and even the main rebel group, FARC, is being severely beaten now. Also do you really think it's that easy to stop drug smuggling? Trust me, countries have and are trying.

You are right on each and every point. The thing is that I cannot but center my atention on the fact that US military presence persues not only non specifically to fight down the FARC. Not only that: it helps this rebel groups (which in most cases are anti-colonialism of any type) to gain more support from citizenship.


Yes the US military intervention in Columbia has turned alot of people into America haters. But that sentiment is largely outside Columbia itself. I have met pastors and missionaries who have gone to Columbia and they have told me that their is a very large support group for getting rid of the FARC and the people of Columbia love them.

Frankly who cares what some other countries think of North American's when your helping people. Like standing up to a popular bully, yes the kid is popular and when you stick up for the nerd you may not really be appretiated by the popular persons friends. But the victims sure love you and you show everyone else that you stick up for your ideals.

Hugo Chavez and the other anti-american basterds wouldn't really care if America didn't get involved. They would still find some reason to bash North America, just look at their support of Iran due to the Iraq war. Do you honestly believe that if North American countries and western european countries just stood back and let everything spiral out of control that they would be anymore loved by the rest of the world?

Oh and yes the US is only out to serve its interests but can you honestly name a single country that does not value its own interests more then the rest of the world?

Beuli2 said:

What's NATO?Some brand of milk?



Nato is the North Atlantic Treaty Organistation. Started by United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Its grown to include many other western nations. Origionally it was founded as a military organisation to prevent any more world wars. Basically it was founded so that in the case of any future conflicts North America, Western Europe parts of the Middle East South America. That all these countries would stand united.

Basically if any of the Nato countries are attacked it is an attack on all of them. They act to defend their nations interests and protect democracy and our ways of life.

You really should know this stuff. It was a major part of my high school social studies class, even alot of talk about it in University.

Thanks, but I'm still in First year.



Above: still the best game of the year.

Around the Network
Joelcool7 said:
 

Being Canadian I am already aware of alot of the anti-american ideologies. I myself am not really pro-american I think the political system is corrupt and that they use everyone. Also Colonization as a Canadian I am simpathetic to the idea of colonization. Of course I am not native american but I am also not British, French,American or Russian (Who colonized Canada). Honestly I love my country and don't mind the colonization. Could be because I myself come from an imigrant family that came to Canada from Holland. But I do understand why South America doesn't particularily like America, Britian , France.

I think South America forgets Russia, who I'd argue did alot more colonial things then America does. Look at Brazil and Cuba, or today with their alliances with Venezuela. Yet most of the complaints are about the USA. Thats what I don't understand why South American's seem to hate the US more then they do Russia who tried to communise south america.

In the end I think Columbia is a great example of what the US could do in Mexico. FARC killings have dropped and the drug trade is in remission. Yes drugs are coming from other countries now but it has been a success in Columbia. Also as I said I know missionaries who have gone to Columia and they have told stories of how much the Columbians love Americans (&Canadians).

Now yes the free trade issue is definatly pissing off south american's and many countries don't like the US's military intervention in Columbia. But the US has definatly succeeded in reducing militant activity. Also Columbia without the US would likely have been invaded by Venezuela. Hugo Chavez deployed massive amounts of troops and fighter jets and weaponry on the border. If the US wasn't their as a deturrent Columbia would have likely been invaded.

Essentially the US intervention in Columbia has helped dampen an insurgency returning some sort of peace and civil order. They have won the hearts and minds of many Columbians and lets not forget they helped prevent a few wars in South America.


Man, I thought you knew what you were talking about. After some statements you made, now I seriously doubt it.

You can take my piece of advice, or not, but reality is not what a specific group of people say to legetimize their doings. I recommend, if you are really interested on this subject, to read material from "the opposite shelve" (I know this might not be clear - that's the literal translation of a spanish idiom which means sources which are ideologically different or opposite).

Maybe we use a different dictionary, but colonialism is a form of abuse: is the violation of a country's sovereignty.

This is not a matter of settlers going from one country to a different land (which was never not populated). This is a matter of powerful entities (foreing goverments and multinational companies which exploit minerals, oils, forest for medicines and drugs, etc.) making a huge use of their power, in alliance with rich elites in this countries, to set politics which help them to get REAL rich as the local country gets more economically dependent and regular people gets poorer.

I think you don't get it. You don't know what is like to see how international monsters with no face rip your country and your pride in two. How they buy wills. And resources. How they empty all the natural richness of your country, and how they come and do whatever they want.

That's the pride of south americans. That's the main reason why anti - whatever exists, regardless of what you've been told.

I am descendent of europeans. That doesn't change a single fact.



Slimebeast said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Slimebeast said:
Gnac said:
MrBubbles said:
Gnac said:

The war on drugs is like beating a child for crying. The child will just cry more, and a bad parent will smack it harder.


So keep smacking till it dies and the drugs stop flowing?

I knew someone would type something like this.

The drugs will never stop flowing, since many of them come from naturally occuring sources. The best thing to do is follow Portugal's example.

What did Portugal do?


Legalize the consumption of all drugs. It has lead to a drop in drug use, crimes related to drug consumption,  deaths from consumption, and a fall in drug related HIV contraction. Really a poster boy for the drug legalization campaign.

You mean light drugs like marijuana? Or even heroine?

But it's still illegal to sell drugs there, isn't it?


Yes, the legalization of the consumption of all drugs, so marijuana, heroine and everything in between. Dealing the drugs is still illegal, there is no evidence of the legalization of dealing bringing down consumption - which was purely the intention of the legalization experiment... and it worked.



Joelcool7 said:
pariz said:
Rath said:

 

@Pariz. Nothing has changed in Colombia? So much has changed, the state was in an existential crisis. It now has much firmer authority and even the main rebel group, FARC, is being severely beaten now. Also do you really think it's that easy to stop drug smuggling? Trust me, countries have and are trying.

You are right on each and every point. The thing is that I cannot but center my atention on the fact that US military presence persues not only non specifically to fight down the FARC. Not only that: it helps this rebel groups (which in most cases are anti-colonialism of any type) to gain more support from citizenship.


Yes the US military intervention in Columbia has turned alot of people into America haters. But that sentiment is largely outside Columbia itself. I have met pastors and missionaries who have gone to Columbia and they have told me that their is a very large support group for getting rid of the FARC and the people of Columbia love them.

Frankly who cares what some other countries think of North American's when your helping people. Like standing up to a popular bully, yes the kid is popular and when you stick up for the nerd you may not really be appretiated by the popular persons friends. But the victims sure love you and you show everyone else that you stick up for your ideals.

Hugo Chavez and the other anti-american basterds wouldn't really care if America didn't get involved. They would still find some reason to bash North America, just look at their support of Iran due to the Iraq war. Do you honestly believe that if North American countries and western european countries just stood back and let everything spiral out of control that they would be anymore loved by the rest of the world?

Oh and yes the US is only out to serve its interests but can you honestly name a single country that does not value its own interests more then the rest of the world?

Beuli2 said:

What's NATO?Some brand of milk?



Nato is the North Atlantic Treaty Organistation. Started by United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Its grown to include many other western nations. Origionally it was founded as a military organisation to prevent any more world wars. Basically it was founded so that in the case of any future conflicts North America, Western Europe parts of the Middle East South America. That all these countries would stand united.

Basically if any of the Nato countries are attacked it is an attack on all of them. They act to defend their nations interests and protect democracy and our ways of life.

You really should know this stuff. It was a major part of my high school social studies class, even alot of talk about it in University.

I object to leaving out core countries Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France and the UK.





Around the Network
pariz said:
Joelcool7 said:
 

Being Canadian I am already aware of alot of the anti-american ideologies. I myself am not really pro-american I think the political system is corrupt and that they use everyone. Also Colonization as a Canadian I am simpathetic to the idea of colonization. Of course I am not native american but I am also not British, French,American or Russian (Who colonized Canada). Honestly I love my country and don't mind the colonization. Could be because I myself come from an imigrant family that came to Canada from Holland. But I do understand why South America doesn't particularily like America, Britian , France.

I think South America forgets Russia, who I'd argue did alot more colonial things then America does. Look at Brazil and Cuba, or today with their alliances with Venezuela. Yet most of the complaints are about the USA. Thats what I don't understand why South American's seem to hate the US more then they do Russia who tried to communise south america.

In the end I think Columbia is a great example of what the US could do in Mexico. FARC killings have dropped and the drug trade is in remission. Yes drugs are coming from other countries now but it has been a success in Columbia. Also as I said I know missionaries who have gone to Columia and they have told stories of how much the Columbians love Americans (&Canadians).

Now yes the free trade issue is definatly pissing off south american's and many countries don't like the US's military intervention in Columbia. But the US has definatly succeeded in reducing militant activity. Also Columbia without the US would likely have been invaded by Venezuela. Hugo Chavez deployed massive amounts of troops and fighter jets and weaponry on the border. If the US wasn't their as a deturrent Columbia would have likely been invaded.

Essentially the US intervention in Columbia has helped dampen an insurgency returning some sort of peace and civil order. They have won the hearts and minds of many Columbians and lets not forget they helped prevent a few wars in South America.


Man, I thought you knew what you were talking about. After some statements you made, now I seriously doubt it.

You can take my piece of advice, or not, but reality is not what a specific group of people say to legetimize their doings. I recommend, if you are really interested on this subject, to read material from "the opposite shelve" (I know this might not be clear - that's the literal translation of a spanish idiom which means sources which are ideologically different or opposite).

Maybe we use a different dictionary, but colonialism is a form of abuse: is the violation of a country's sovereignty.

This is not a matter of settlers going from one country to a different land (which was never not populated). This is a matter of powerful entities (foreing goverments and multinational companies which exploit minerals, oils, forest for medicines and drugs, etc.) making a huge use of their power, in alliance with rich elites in this countries, to set politics which help them to get REAL rich as the local country gets more economically dependent and regular people gets poorer.

I think you don't get it. You don't know what is like to see how international monsters with no face rip your country and your pride in two. How they buy wills. And resources. How they empty all the natural richness of your country, and how they come and do whatever they want.

That's the pride of south americans. That's the main reason why anti - whatever exists, regardless of what you've been told.

I am descendent of europeans. That doesn't change a single fact.

Seriously thats not exactly the text book definition of colonization. Colonial powers invade another place moving citizens in and taking over an area. They start colonies and over time take over a countries soverienty. Now you have it part right, but just because someone violates your soveriegnty that doesn't make them a colonial power.

Also your definition is mostly about foreign companies taking over. International Monsters with no face rip your country apart. Now I know in South America their is alot of logging companies, fuel companies , factories , mines etc...etc... that are run by foreigners.

You call that colonization, that isn't colonization that is globalization. You don't think I understand that, here in Canada their isn't a single department store that is Canadian. Walmart , Zellers(Used to be Canadian) Sears, The Bay (Used to be Canadian). Our coffee joints..... Now you talk about raping the land... so lets talk about the foreign oil companies from Britain , USA etc...etc...pumping oil out of the oil sands in Alberta which is killing all the fish and birds. Or how about all the Japanese , American , British lumber companies cutting down our forests and shipping the lumber to other countries. Or how about the big french and British mining companies currently mining the crap out of our mineral deposits.

This is globalization not colonization. In a globalized community all countries use one another to advance their ways of life.

 

So yes I know what your talking about, also I know in South America employees are paid poorly and the resources are being raped especially the rainforests. But you know what the rest of the world is being raped in the same way. I'm sure in other countries their are Canadian companies, Columbian companies , Argentinian companies , Venezuelen companies , Brazilian companies raping some other country up the ____.


Thats what free trade is, and I know many South American countries are opposed to free trade. But free trade does often benefit most countries. Now yes the US benefits way more then anyone else but we also benefit.

Now if you still don't think I know what I'm talking about then feel free to educate me.

 

P.S - How did we go from helping Mexico end its drug war to talking about how I apparently don't know what colonialization is?



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Joelcool7 said:
pariz said:
 


Man, I thought you knew what you were talking about. After some statements you made, now I seriously doubt it.

You can take my piece of advice, or not, but reality is not what a specific group of people say to legetimize their doings. I recommend, if you are really interested on this subject, to read material from "the opposite shelve" (I know this might not be clear - that's the literal translation of a spanish idiom which means sources which are ideologically different or opposite).

Maybe we use a different dictionary, but colonialism is a form of abuse: is the violation of a country's sovereignty.

This is not a matter of settlers going from one country to a different land (which was never not populated). This is a matter of powerful entities (foreing goverments and multinational companies which exploit minerals, oils, forest for medicines and drugs, etc.) making a huge use of their power, in alliance with rich elites in this countries, to set politics which help them to get REAL rich as the local country gets more economically dependent and regular people gets poorer.

I think you don't get it. You don't know what is like to see how international monsters with no face rip your country and your pride in two. How they buy wills. And resources. How they empty all the natural richness of your country, and how they come and do whatever they want.

That's the pride of south americans. That's the main reason why anti - whatever exists, regardless of what you've been told.

I am descendent of europeans. That doesn't change a single fact.

Seriously thats not exactly the text book definition of colonization. Colonial powers invade another place moving citizens in and taking over an area. They start colonies and over time take over a countries soverienty. Now you have it part right, but just because someone violates your soveriegnty that doesn't make them a colonial power.

Also your definition is mostly about foreign companies taking over. International Monsters with no face rip your country apart. Now I know in South America their is alot of logging companies, fuel companies , factories , mines etc...etc... that are run by foreigners.

You call that colonization, that isn't colonization that is globalization. You don't think I understand that, here in Canada their isn't a single department store that is Canadian. Walmart , Zellers(Used to be Canadian) Sears, The Bay (Used to be Canadian). Our coffee joints..... Now you talk about raping the land... so lets talk about the foreign oil companies from Britain , USA etc...etc...pumping oil out of the oil sands in Alberta which is killing all the fish and birds. Or how about all the Japanese , American , British lumber companies cutting down our forests and shipping the lumber to other countries. Or how about the big french and British mining companies currently mining the crap out of our mineral deposits.

This is globalization not colonization. In a globalized community all countries use one another to advance their ways of life.

 

So yes I know what your talking about, also I know in South America employees are paid poorly and the resources are being raped especially the rainforests. But you know what the rest of the world is being raped in the same way. I'm sure in other countries their are Canadian companies, Columbian companies , Argentinian companies , Venezuelen companies , Brazilian companies raping some other country up the ____.


Thats what free trade is, and I know many South American countries are opposed to free trade. But free trade does often benefit most countries. Now yes the US benefits way more then anyone else but we also benefit.

Now if you still don't think I know what I'm talking about then feel free to educate me.

 

P.S - How did we go from helping Mexico end its drug war to talking about how I apparently don't know what colonialization is?


I am in no position to educate you and as I may have sounded as if I  was saying that, I politely apologize. I just wanted to point out that reality is not something given, but created my people and therefore influentiated by personal interests. Therefore, the need to try to understand how "the others" see and feel the world and why they do what they do.

You pointed out a particular definition of colonization, which could be consider more "technical" or cientific than mine, which I don't. My definition, which is the definition some people in the southern region of the globe use, says that colonization can be held in many ways: politicaly, economicaly, culturaly, military, etc. Colonization in my book is that process in which a stronger state guarantees the resources of a weaker one, by itself or by others which do it for it, regardless of it achieves that with military power or other means. This, in most cases, includes abuses such as different standards for foreigners which are representative of the "metropolis", disrespect of rights of the locals, low standards of quality for workers, etc.

By this definition, regardless of the fact that lots of countries in the world are romanticaly and legaly refered as independent countries, they are not.

Now, it is true that even if I want to keep my definition, you are right about globalization. It is really hard to identify a country as a colonizator over other one which is being colonized, just because multinational enterprises are just, multinational and not necesarily representative of their countries.

But when countries as USA, China, Rusia, France or whichever make a use of international organizations as the UN or NATO which coincidentialy help (and not slightly) of the international coorporations which are flagged with their flag, well then, shouldn't we be suspicious?

One last thing: free trade is advantegeous for those countries which are in a similar level of developtment. That would be the case of a south american free trade union. The problem for northern countries? They loose markets and the goods they were receiving from those countries suddenly become more expensive. That's why always, in the shadows, they try to negotiate individualy with each country, as they did with Chile.

When countries are not in the same level, then this free trade unions are just advantegoeus for the more powerful ones and the others are just providing those with cheap raw materials. Yes, that's right. My definition of colonization again.

I want to thank you for your very civil and educated approach to this discussion and I want to insist on my apologize if I was rude.



1. Americans are the main users of Mexican drug. So don't only blame the Mexicans.

 

2. Even if you do want to be egocentric and only blame the Mexicans, then why would you talk about NATO and not the US army? So the Germans and Dutch and Italians should deploy to Mexico to battle against drugs that American citizens are buying? Haha maybe your on some Mexican drugs yourself TS ;)



''Hadouken!''

By the way, if there is one dangerous drug it's alcohol and you can get it everywhere and no one seems to care.
That's the hypocrasy of most countries and people.



''Hadouken!''

Ajax said:

1. Americans are the main users of Mexican drug. So don't only blame the Mexicans.

2. Even if you do want to be egocentric and only blame the Mexicans, then why would you talk about NATO and not the US army? So the Germans and Dutch and Italians should deploy to Mexico to battle against drugs that American citizens are buying? Haha maybe your on some Mexican drugs yourself TS ;)


I never blamed the Mexicans. I said since the violence is getting so bad and the Mexican government is unable to stop the cycle of violence maybe Nato should offer a halping hand. I agree their are many things America can do to help but in the end the war itself is happening in Mexico.

Being Canadian I myself am not really affected by it, as many NATO members aren't. But I think since Nato is a military alliance formed to defend its member nations interests that Mexico deserves our help. Now I'm not saying occupy Mexico. I'm not saying blame Mexico for the drug problem.

I'm saying offer Mexico assistance, look at what the US and NATO are doing right now in the middle east , Europe and Korea. They deploy troops to keep the peace they train the nations army and provide it with military support. Then when the country has succesfully stabalized they begin to move out.

Of course in the end NATO would not enter Mexico without an invitation by the Mexican Government or an act of war by Mexico which I doubt would ever occur. Notice I don't say America should move in I think that NATO or maybe even the United Nations should deploy Interpol and peace keepers. Either way I think the world shouldn't just ignore all the blood shed.

 

pariz said:

I want to thank you for your very civil and educated approach to this discussion and I want to insist on my apologize if I was rude.



No problem, I was alittle discouraged by your post saying you misjudged my intellect. But apology accepted and I hope I didn't offend you either. I like to have intellectual talks with other intelligent individuals especially when politics are involved so the pleasure of this convo was all mine.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer