- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,136
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Wasn't suggesting we "invade them."
If that happened the cartels and normal people would have more targets to shoot at.
Mexico is not Puerto Rico and if the US invades Mexico, like you suggest, that would be war.
Wasn't suggesting we "invade them."
Then how would the US military get authorization to operate on Mexican soil?
The cartels will get whoever they want to get.
The mayor of a smaller town down the road had a large military detail for protection.
The cartel took out the military officers first, 2 truck in front and 2 trucks in back and killed the mayor.
I am not sure why you think they wouldn't do the same in this case.
You don't understand how these cartels work.
At least the people in Afghanistan care about not killing the innocent, women and children. The cartels don't care anything about that.
I don't have a solution. If I did I would be working with the government.
We just try to survive.
I understand better then you apparently think how they work.
You don't get a large military detail for protection.
You get a full armoured division with full air support and surround the national capital building and cut off all roads around that building while the national vote to legalize drugs throughout Mexico is held. Also get all the families involved and move them to the strongest military base, far away from the drug regions while this vote goes on.
Like I said; you make sure - in private - that you have the votes you need to pass it. Then you just present the legislation, vote on it, pass it and then it's law. All within a few hours. Don't discuss it with the media beforehand. And say nothing about it to anyone until it is passed.
Once it is passed, just wait for the cartels to wither on the vine as their drug money evaporates...and their power along with it.
That's a fantasy.
The reason why drugs are so profitable is not because it's illegal in Mexico; it's because it's illegal in the US
The reason the cartels flourish in Mexico is because drugs are illegal in Mexico and the DEA can't get them there.
But if drugs are legal in Mexico...what will Americans do?
They will go to Mexico to get the EXTREMELY cheap drugs (probably cheaper by about 70-80% minimum) and they will smuggle them. If illegal liens can be smuggled by the thousands...then smuggling drugs should not be too hard. And those that live near the border will just go and party in Mexico at a fraction of the cost it takes to get high in America.
Now, the drug cartels are necessary to get the drugs, en masse, from the source to America.
Legalize it and any company in Mexico could legally do it. ANYBODY in Mexico or AMERICA can do it.
You would have Mexican drug corporations growing it and selling it and making tons of money selling to visiting Americans (as well as Mexicans).
Fine, then until you do, I am not wasting anymore of my time explaining mine to you.
Good day.
Nonsense. They flourish because drugs are illegal in the US
Because the people who can sell the drugs for several times that much will happily turn their backs on greater profits. After all, we all know that the drug cartels are not greedy. :screwy
And like every other big industry in Mexico, legal or not, the drug industry will be run corrupt businessmen (ie the cartels)
Or do you think the cartels will just sit idly by while other people move in on their turf?
Only if by "Mexican drug corporations" you mean "the same Mexican cartels that grow and sell drugs now"
The only thing legalization in Mexico would do is take away one of the tools needed to fight them. They would continue to use violence to protect their business, bribe politicians, and smuggle drugs across the border. But hey, maybe we should legalize murder, bribery and smuggling too. That'll put an end to those activities :roll:
There is nothing to explain since you don't know what you are talking about.
It is typical of Americans that think they know everything about everything.
You have no idea what Mexico is like nor what the impact of sending the US military would have.
The US military is already giving resources to the Mexican military and that doesn't make one whit of difference in the conflict with the cartels.
Well, clearly you do not understand the illegal drug trade....whatever. I am not wasting my time trying to educate someone whom I have as little respect for as you.
I accept your surrender
You don't know me, where I am from, what I used to do or almost anything else.
So, you have no solution.
Noted.
We are done on this for now.
The following is not against cpwill, but against the article he linked to.
Whoever wrote the OP article does not seem to know what they are talking about in terms of what this would mean to America and world oil prices.
This article suggests that up to an addition 2.5 million barrels per day could be added to world supply and that this would 'contribute to a glut'.
The current world oil production is (according to Wikipedia) over 84,000,000 million barrels a day.
2.5 million is about 3% of that.
So by adding only 3% more to world oil production that will single-handedly cause a 'glut' and lead to North America 'drowning in oil'.
I highly doubt that.
After Saddam was overthrown, Iraqi oil production plummeted down to about 1.3 million barrels per day. Today it is over 3.4 million barrels per day, which is an increase of 2.1 million (not much less then the predicted Mexican increase). Did that cause a glut? Nope.
Iraq Crude Oil Production by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)
List of countries by oil production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by oil consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Like most economic reporters, they are (IMO) prone to exaggeration.
I believe that the notion that adding only 3% to world oil production will cause a 'glut' is nonsense.
Will it help - sure.
But not to remotely the extent this reporter suggests by stating 'North America to drown in oil.'
As for oil prices?
5 Year Crude Oil Prices and Crude Oil Price Charts - InvestmentMine
In the last 5 years, oil prices have gone from over $140/barrel, down to under $40/barrel and back up to over $130/barrel...all without any large change in production.
Oil prices fluctuate FAR more due to reasons outside of oil production...especially in the short-medium term.
I'm not sure who is the source of the original information upon which the article was written but there is serious concern within the oil industry that the gig is about to be up due to new innovation. By gig, I mean exclusive control over personal transportation and the tremendous gravy train that represents. This isn't the first time I've seen a "hip, hip, hooray, we just found all kinds of new oil we never knew existed until now" article. I'm of the opinion its firstly, oil they knew was there for a long time and secondly, its a part of an overall strategic PR effort designed to keep people excited about oil and nothing else with respect to transportation energy.
Thanks for looking at the numbers.
Typical sangha response...lol.
So, the answer to my question that I have twice asked you is apparently...you have no answer yourself.
I thought you would at least offer something.
But I guess I was right about you.
You are like that suited guy on the Allstate commercials. You don't come here to reason or to try and find a solution to things...you just create mayhem.
Which is why you are in my ignore list.
We are done here.
Have a nice day.
Are you serious with this?
The cartel has more guns and better guns and they don't care how many of the soldiers get killed, or other people for that matter.
If they come across something they can't confront directly, they go after families and assets.
I think one angle nobody here has discussed is the illegal immigration issue. Mexico may use this as a chip towards legalizing a lot of their citizens in the US. Mexican-American organizations may have more leverage than we think in the US. Would the US legalize illegal immigrants for cheaper oil?
The cartels are just a bunch of lowlife clowns. They're not invincible.
It's just fine in colder climates, but it needs the blend to be B50 rather than the more prevelent around the nation B80. If you're getting gelling at B50 you're in Antartica. Once you use biodiesel regularly you don't have to change filters any more often than with petrodiesel, what's gumming up the filters is all the crap you've been running the engine on in the past.
And tax credits for what? Using biodiesel? Never been such a tax credit AFAIK. Producing it? Perhaps, but since producers can make more from it than oil refiners can with oil that doesn't make much sense. Any diesel vehicle made after 1986 has the right hoses for it (biodiesel is more corrosive than petrodiesel, that's why the engines run cleaner and last longer).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?