Why aren't the Border Cartels treated as terrorists?

Oil is not part of the equation.

 

You don't think we've put enough money into the war on drugs...?

Sure..we need to spend more on the Space Shuttle too.

 

I'm glad that morons like you will never have any political power.

 

Actually we do go after the source, and have for decades. The US has spent hundreds of billions abroad, both directly and indirectly, in trying to eradicate supply and kill/apprehend druglords.

It has had the effect of constraining supply, increasing prices, and making the next cartels, warlords etc more powerful than ever.

Honestly - the real world is a lot more complicated than some stupid Tom Clancy book from 20 years ago.

 

I think his core question is why we don't attack in the same way as we do with terrorists. For example, would firing cruise missiles at homes of drug kingpins or giving special forces free range in drug havens have a negative effect on the drug cartels? I don't know the answer to that, but we certainly have not taken the war to drug cartels in the same way we have with terrorists.

 

And I guess it's a conscientous decision by you to not recognize that 1) the same level has been applied and 2) the results accordingly ilustrates how these problems are fundamentally different.

Pablo Escobar ring a bell? US & Foreign militaries have been killing druglords for decades - this approach hasn't even remotely worked and many will argue it has made things worse. And honestly, I'm not even going to remotely comment on the silliness of offering up the occupations of IRaq and Afghanistan (world's largest opium producer) as models. No point in explaining that to people who are getting their ideas from a classic, "Just say No"-era Tom Clancy book.

 

Because sometimes people in the drug trade can provide you with benefits. Once you no longer need them..then you can label them terroristas.

 

Because the "War on Drugs" in some form or the other, subsidizes every law enforcement organization from the CIA to Harris County.

 

Because we actually have no desire to see a more powerful and politically independent latin america. We've been killing people, arming brutal dictators, and putting down popular rebellions down there for decades. The drug war is a subsidy to American corporations, and a handy rationale to continue the aforementioned pseudo-imperialism.

 

LOL, why don't you humor me then and tell me what "taking the gloves off and getting serious" entails - honestly I consider $44 billion per year and probably hundreds of 000's of people per decade imprisoned or killed by the US and foreign governments as relatively serious (compare this against the number of terrorists prosecuted in the US, which is probably in the low hundreds) - so let's hear what your take on "serious" is and why it will work.

 

going and to pablo's compound and exposing his p*rn stash or p*rn stasche

 

This is what is going on.

 

They do, but not to a level that is consistent with the rhetoric on this topic.

Because the violence has mostly been contained on the Mexico side of the border. According to an article written less than a year ago, violence is not up along the border, at least not in Arizona. There are plenty of anecdotes, but the numbers belie the bloody claims.

Regulating the sale of currently illicit substances is the only intelligent way to treat the issue of drug use and abuse in our society.

There is a historical precedent in our country where violence prompted us to take control of a market that enriched and encouraged lawless gangs. The violence along the border is a product of prohibition multiplied by our antiquated immigration laws.

 

DING, DING, DING, We Have a Winner!

 

Actually, the Taliban was so good at eradicating poppy that we gave them $43 million in Drug War money for having the resolve to crack down in exactly the way you are talking about. At least, that is what we believed when we gave them the money, it is pretty evident that the law of supply and demand was in effect after all.