Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Grenade attacks throughout Tamaulipas; shootouts reported

You can't be serious. Same place as we would put a fence.

On the topic of boots on the ground, I believe this has been discussed at length here. I was given to understand that when this sort of thing was actually tried on a minor scale, a major problem was boredom of those employed at this task.

But here's a piece from todays local rag....

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Border-s-daily-grind-2199674.php



This from Hildago County, surely a set of eyes coulda prevented that.

I'd be interested in knowing why you feel this aproach is impractical.



Depends how many you could get through in a day, of course. Post some estimates, explain in detail why the logistics make it impossible.

Otherwise you have stated on these boards in rapid succession...

1) Reducing the number of drug users in the United States would only increase the violence along the Border.

2) Physically watching the entire length of the Border from our side is "nonsensical".

and

3) There is nothing that can be done to effectively control the flow of drugs packaged in our imports from Mexico.

Is that your position?

Birdwatcher

A pair of eyes every 1/4 mile along our Border isn't possible? Please explain why.

Are you also suggesting we have NO control over what comes into our country through packaged goods at a legal Port of Entry? Realistic estimates run along the lines of the equivalent of more than 60 semi loads of drugs up Interstate 37 every day.

If, as you state there are no solutions to this that aren't "flippant", why even bother with interdiction at all?

And yepper, my lovely wife and I do get pulled over by the Border Patrol a lot when close to the Border. What you seem to be missing is it doesn't bother us at all. Mostly we're glad they're looking.

Birdwatcher

You can't build a fence down the middle of a river.Where would you put the fence?You do understand that the middle of the river is the border,don't you?

Everyplace we have a section of fence in Texas,such as the one in the article , we have forfeited land to Mexico.And you,O'Reilly, and Bachmann want a fence the full length of the border.

Now for the trucks and rail cars question: I've SEEN the traffic on the bridges at Laredo , Eagle Pass , and Del Rio.And so have you!You know it's not feasible.

I don't have to do a time study on counting individual grains of beach sand to know I can't count all of 'em on Padre Island in my lifetime.

Demand vs. violence :If you have three hounds in one pen , and you throw three coon carcasses in ,there will be some growling and shoving , but pretty quickly each dog is chewing on a coon.Throw two carcasses in there , and you got yourself a dogfight.

Yes... It really is that simple.

As far as physically watching the border from our side is concerned :You would really have to get off the concrete,even get off the roads you can travel in a pickup , even go as close as you can get in a hunting jeep and then get out and walk to even get an idea of just how wild and rough the country is along that river West of the Pecos.

And it is all private land until you get to Black Gap and the Park.My hunting buddy goes down to Black Gap with the guy who has the contract for gathering the stray cattle - both Mexican and Texan owned - from the Black Gap WMA.I'm gonna get some of the pictures taken from the helicopter and post them on here.

So;Yes, it is absolutely nonsensical to think you can keep eyes on that river along its' entire stretch.And remember,you can't "watch" the bad guys back across, you'd have to drive them back or kill them.You couldn't use the TSA type people.

We can keep up business as usual and intercept some of the drugs.And we should.

But the invasion of the smugglers into our state should have first priority.That means taking the fight to them.On both sides of the river.That means KILLING them , on both sides of the river.

It is being done right now.But you won't hear about it in San Antonio and your birdwatching friends won't see it.We just need to bring it up to wholesale level.

As long as the focus is on capturing the drugs , the cartels just count it as a cost of doing business.When we start killing them in large quantities,that will be a game changer.

Next time you report to Janet Baby , remind her we think she's UGLY.

1. The deployment of military, one every 1/4 mile, may be literally possible... but a totally ignorant/dangerous military strategy... therefore the 'flippant' statement. 8000 per shift is beyond an exaggeration of what it would take to significantly reduce those getting through to safe havens.

2. I never said anything of the sort, show us where 10,000 Mexican trucks come through the Laredo ports per day... another totally erroneous number pull from thin air... therefore a 'flippant' statement about the number...

3. Where did I state there are no solutions to this that aren't 'flippant'... Your statements and numbers are flippant.

4. Define, 'Pulled over'... since 95% of the demographics in the area you are talking about are Hispanic, I guess that 95% of vehicles are pull over by BP regularly... Or is it that you go through check points, as I do if I head to southern Az and even San Diego, Ca on I8... or if on a backcountry rd and approaching a BP truck coming the other way... a quick conversation on anything from illegals to deer sightings or even possibly birdwatching... Oh, I forgot, your context for that statement was... 'Illegals? Sometimes tough to identify in our general population'... therefore flippant again.

Kent

You aint in favor of a fence. I am, but 8,000 pairs of boots on the ground 24/7 would be a whole lot cheaper than a fence.



How many of those trucks are loaded every day at their point of origins? OK if we inspect just half, offloading and loading again is about equivalent to that task. Make the shippers provide the crews to do it at the Port of Entry and let the trade bear the expense.

500 inspection bays each inspecting 6 trucks every 24 hours would pass 3,000 trucks a day, 50% of the total. Just two such bays per acre would require 250 acres, hardly a problem in South Texas.

Hey, at least as praticable as your plan of identifying and killing drug traffickers South of the Border.



A pretty easy gig from Boca Chica on the Gulf all the way up to past the mouth of the Pecos. And a pretty easy gig again from Boquillas clear to California at least. Leaves us with what? 250 tough miles along your stretch?

Doesn't have to follow every wrinkle, long as its covered. Hey, Mexicans get through there all the time, why can't we?



Well, you aint the first here to suggest shooting illegals on sight.



One thing experience has shown is that keeping secrets is pretty tough in a free society like ours. So if we really do have killer teams down there it'll get out sooner or later.

Anyhow.... since we are still talking a $35 billion dollar a year trade even WITH our hypothetical "secret killer guys" plugging away down there, it really doesn't really matter WHO knows or dont know about them, bird watchers or otherwise.

"Step up the game"? I reckon the surest way to unify all of Mexico against us would be to invade. How much we care about WHAT Mexicans think of us is another issue.

But just how many do we shoot? The drug trade down there has become practically a grassroots industry.

Birdwatcher

Who said military? I was thinking Border Patrol, we have more than that out there in the boonies every day already, with NO ONE within a half mile or quarter mile.

Actually I'd figure more than 30,000 personnel would be needed for 24/7 coverage of 2,000 miles of Border. About as many as just one school district in Houston already employs.

Those 8,000 on the line at anyone one time would individually be in less peril than your average isolated rural US citizen living along the Border already is. And I would think merely being seen crossing by folks in uniform with guns and radios would NOT brighten up yer average smuggler's day.



A typo early this morning, you'll note I've been using 6,000 since then as per...

http://www.eturbonews.com/18720/amexica-war-along-us-mexican-borderline

...and...

http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/TBDR_BC/TBDR_BC_QuickSearch.html



While driving slowly along backroads looking into the brush, we do that regularly and we get pulled over regularly. The most distant has been about twenty miles later on an interstate after a guy on foot got on his radio.

More than a stop for a check on welfare, but instead flashing lights in the mirror followed by "may I see your ID's, are you citizens, what is your business etc etc" But the point remains, getting stopped doesn't bother us at all.



What? You can pick 'em out on sight? (note, "our general population" ain't out walking in the brush).



The REAL point here is, you are reaching hard for a put down....

even if it means allying yourself with a guy who DOESN"T want a fence, thinks its impossible to watch the whole Border, and basically states that effective interdiction of truck-bound traffic isn't possible.

But, since my statements are all grounded on truth, ya dont really got much to work with.

Birdwatcher

With guys like you and TRH teaching our kids,it just adds to the urgency of getting the border violence under control NOW.The members of the upcoming generation who lack proper parental guidance will be poorly equipped to defend themselves against violent criminals bent on killing and mayhem,OR the insidious encroachment of a "Global citizen" worldview which will destroy this country.

If FOX ever decides to return to the "Hannity and Colmes" format,you would be a natural to replace Alan Colmes.You throw out some glib "solution" to every valid point made against your arguments or misstate the point and then refute it.

It would be interesting to see your point by point refutation of the report on the border violence made by the two General Officers commissioned by the State of Texas to study it.

Then refute LtPowell's comments about the "under the radar" operations being conducted by State Game Wardens ,DPS Troopers , and Rangers.

It is not surprising that ALL your "solutions" are of the Big Government kind.You would hire thousands more BP Agents , ignoring the fact that the "rampant corruption" in that Agency is a direct result of drastically increasing its' size.Then you would offload the cargo of half the northbound trucks,creating a perfect distribution center for the cartels.

["OK,Juan and Felipe,y'all take two bales of grass from the red Mack, 5 kilos of coke from the Volvo, and put 'em on the white Freightliner that's bound for Chicago".]

Mine and your disagreement can be summed up just this simply and it shows why any further discussion with you about the BORDER VIOLENCE is a waste of time :

I agree with the Generals that we are in a war with the drug cartels.A war for territory in the State of Texas.I propose we fight the war using military tactics , with a mix of personnel-military and Civilian Agencies-just like the Generals.

You propose a TSA solution.

Good luck.

I'm done.

"Well, you aint the first here to suggest shooting illegals on sight."

Spoken like some sorta' died in the wool AZZWHOLE, Mike.

I'd say you owe someone an apology, and were I you, I'd apologize to curdog, pronto.

NOWHERE IN THIS THREAD DID HE SAY THAT.

I'd meant to say curdog,.......and have edited the above accordingly.

GTC

I'm obliged,Greg.He uses the Liberal's trick of lumping illegal migrants looking for work [I say don't shoot,but deport]- cartel "guides" [shoot]- drug smugglers [shoot]-cartel sentries[shoot]- all together.

Funny how I get called a Mex-lover when I propose a bracero program.Then when I mentioned how we fed the ones who came into camp cold and hungry a couple of years ago , a few of our Northern brethren thought I should be locked up for "aiding and abetting criminals".

It is too difficult for them to admit that we are in a WAR along the border.If they do admit it , then ALL Mexicans coming across are the enemy and should be shot.

It's a strange mix of folks we have.

I don't know if it's a "Tactic" or the end product of a somewhat [bleep] up mind,.....

It's HORSECHIT, regardless.

GTC

Edited by Birdwatcher (Today at 06:24 AM)
Edit Reason: No point in being inflammatory

LOL! humorous indeed... Like I've cared if you've been inflammatory to me in the past. I ignore it the same as all the other fluff you add to disguise your backpedals.

This is an old argument that BW started back in the original thread of Mr. Krentz's murder. It will continue in the future I imagine.

I was very literal in the term 'Flippant' as it pertained to the three statements... as it proved out with the retractions and modifications of said statements... I didn't use it in the allegorical sense or personal.

Kent

Thanks for the correction Cross, and I appreciate the refereeing.

Sir, if an apology is called for then you have it. But how else can one interdict drug traffickers on this side of the Border other than according to the Rule of Law?

For my own part I'd want the equivalent of Spec Ops BP teams for patrolling areas such as the Chiricahuas, BP teams because MOST of what they would end up doing would be providing aid and assistance to apprehended detainees. Emerging drone technology would probably applied too. The issue of airborne ordinance on call if needed would have to be resolved.



Im am fully aware of the scale of corruption problems, that being my greatest fear. When the cartels become "us", as if we are becoming Mexico with respect to Law Enforcement, then we as a nation are screwed. If we CANNOT as a country deploy a large and principled agency to watch our Border we might as well hang it up. I believe that we can.



I am/was fully aware of those comments, the incidents I am familiar with being along the river. I expect most Border residents are aware of them also, in general terms if not specifics.



SOME form of gevernment has to do it, State or Federal, and surely defending our Border is a legitimate Federal function.



Point of reference: THE EQUIVALENT OF SIXTY SEMI TRUCK LOADS OF DRUGS PRESENTLY CROSSING FROM NUEVO LAREDO EVERY DAY. Based on estimates that 1 - 3% of what crosses is contraband. That is the status quo.

Aint fer nothing the Cartels fight so much among themselves to control the major Ports of Entry, these gotta be the jewels in the crown of the cartel world.

I would offload ALL the Northbound trucks if I could. Heck, expand the facility to 1,000 plus acres. Fence it in as a customs area. With Customs personnel overseeing the process, restricted access, surveillance cameras, the works.

Much as our side of the big International Bridge outside of Laredo presently is. I haven't seen it, even from the American side, we couldn't get close enough without going into a monitored, fenced-in facility.

Would some drugs get through? Sure. But on the scale of the present? Not at all.

Lots of attention here and some in the media on Border crossings and armed Narcos/Coyotes, and these are indeed grevious problems demanding immediate attention.

Seems like though we have been mostly ignoring our major conduit of contraband entry... legitimate commerce. We HAVE to address that problem, or might as well give up on interdiction entirely.

JMHO,

Birdwatcher

Article
______________________________________________________________

Rick Perry Says Drug War �May Require Our Military in Mexico�
(Charles Krupa/AP Photo)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry spent today campaigning in New Hampshire, hammering away at his message that �over-taxation, over-regulation, and over-litigation� are hurting business and the U.S. economy, but he also advocated for a larger government role in the war on drugs.

At a house party in Manchester, Perry said that ending the drug war in Mexico �may require our military in Mexico.�

�The way that we were able to stop the drug cartels in Colombia was with a coordinated effort,� Perry said. �It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their networks. I don�t know all the scenarios that are out there but I think it is very important that we work with them, to keep that country from failing.�

The comments raise questions about whether the governor would support military action by executive order. Perry has long supported sending U.S. troops to Mexico to help with the drug war.

Over and over Perry said that as president he would be sure to shrink the role of Washington, D.C., in the lives of Americans.

Complete with colorful props, Perry vowed to do away with as much of the health care law passed by Congress � what he referred to as �Obamacare� � as he could. At one stop he pulled out the Sharpie he said he would use to sign it away. At another stop, he pulled out his pocket Constitution, saying that �Obamacare� wasn�t in there.

At every stop, Perry was questioned about the Texas bill giving out-of-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants. He said it was a state solution to a state problem and that as president, he would uphold the 10th Amendment. He said that he did not support the Dream Act.

Many seemed satisfied with Perry�s justification for signing the Texas bill. Bill Connors, who first asked the governor about his stance, said he came to the town hall in Hampton sure that he would not be voting for Perry. But based on Perry�s justification, he said he was now �thinking about it.�

When questioned about his stance on global warming, Perry reiterated that he�s a �skeptic.�

�The issue is, are we as Americans going to jeopardize the future of this country economically, by putting into place a program that there are still enough skeptics in my book, to stand with them, and say, you know what, I don�t believe that man-made global warming is settled in science enough for us to justify an economic impact on this country that could be devastating for the future,� he said.

But on the subject of off-shore drilling, he said, �We have to be thoughtful; we use science on how we protect our environment. But we�ve got to get back to drilling.�

Asked about American manufacturing and bringing jobs back to the United States, Perry said it was cap-and-trade policies that were causing companies to go overseas and do business.

Perry also revealed that he was consulting with Steve Forbes regarding his economic and monetary policy. Perry and Forbes met during Perry�s recent trip to New York.

�I think at the end of the day, Perry will win the nomination, and I think he�ll win the election,� Forbes said.

ABC News� Michael Falcone contributed to this article.

Ok, Perry is in this article, addressing National issues. If he continues to go down this path and become more forceful and specific, He'll garner more support from Tea party voters/independents, and divide himself from the candidates that run on their past state accomplishments, instead of running on future National issues.

Kent

At this point it's worth remarking that "Mexico" has made NO riposte / response to Perry's now week old comment re: our military onshore there........I would have expected a bit of a furor, myself.

Getting any news / straight skinny whatever out of there becomes more difficult by the moment, The journalists have gone below ground, and now the bloggers are getting whacked.

Crap, that sprta' situation used to be reserved for places like Cambodia, Congo, and such,......

GTC

Disregard the last....

....as expected,..belicose and confrontational responses.

I say it's time for a DMZ,.....on THEIR side, mind you.

GTC

Link: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90061894?Perry%26%23146%3Bs proposal of U.S. troops in Mexico creates

Perry�s proposal of U.S. troops in Mexico creates criticism

Source: (AHN) Reporter: Tom Ramstack
Location: Washington, DC, United States Published: October 4, 2011 02:42 pm EDT

Presidential candidate Rick Perry is stirring up a firestorm of controversy in Latin America with his recent comment that if he is elected next year he would consider sending American troops into Mexico to fight drug cartels.
clearpxl

Mexico�s diplomats and political commentators are responding by saying they would never allow American troops in their country.

During a campaign stop in Manchester, NH, Perry said, �It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their network.�

Witnesses in recent congressional hearings on the drug war have said Mexico risks losing control over its own people and government unless it can end the corrupting influence of the cartels.

More than 41,000 people have been killed in the war since Mexican President Felipe Calderon sent troops to help fight the gangs in December 2006.

�I don�t know all the different scenarios that would be out there,� Perry said. �But I think it is very important for us to work with them to keep that country from failing.�

He took the tough stance against Mexican drug cartels after being accused by his political adversaries during a televised debate last month of being soft on illegal immigration.

Perry�s comments are playing big in Mexico�s news media this week as political leaders say American troops in their country would trample their sovereignty as a nation.

Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico�s ambassador to the United States, said, �The issue of participation or presence of U.S. troops on Mexican soil is not on the table.�

American troops are �not a component� of the strategy against transnational crime, Sarukhan said at a press conference.

He also said Mexico has made its position against U.S. military intervention clear �for a long time.�

The Mexican newspaper La Vanguardia warned in an editorial that American troops in Mexico would backfire if it becomes a U.S. policy.

�For Mexico, the direct U.S. aid to fight drug trafficking, with the dispatch of troops, as proposed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, would represent a serious intrusion into its sovereignty,� the editorial said. �For the United States itself, a proposal such as that would involve a clear confrontation with the Latin American drug empire in a neighboring country, with the risk of a serious escalation of violence too close to the border along the Rio Grande, which could even reach into U.S. territory.�

The U.S. government has sent National Guard troops to the border and provided advisors to the Mexican military. In addition, the U.S. government uses airborne drones to monitor drug cartel movements. Mexican troops fly in helicopters provided by the U.S. armed forces.

However, the idea of sending troops into Mexico to fight the cartels directly far outstrips any previous proposals considered by the U.S. government, according to American diplomats.

Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns recently described the boundaries of U.S. foreign policy to the news media.

�There are clear limits to our role,� Burns said. �Our role is not to conduct operations. It is not to engage in law enforcement activities. That is the role of the Mexican authorities. And that�s the way it should be.�

Perry�s idea of sending in troops is reviving Mexicans� resentment as their tempers simmer over Operation Fast and Furious, an American law enforcement effort to track illegal guns smuggled into Mexico.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed thousands of guns to be purchased illegally at American gun shops then smuggled across the border. ATF agents hoped to track them to their ultimate users among drug cartels.

Instead, the ATF lost track of many of the guns. Some of them later were traced to murders of police and civilians.

The Mexican government demanded an apology as details of the operation were reported in the American news media earlier this year. Congress continues to investigate.

Read more: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90061894?Perry%26%23146%3Bs%20proposal%20of%20U.S.%20troops%20in%20Mexico%20creates%20criticism#ixzz1ZuugP0Yl

I remember what Mexico used to be like... this story concerns a couple subjects here...

The violent changes in Mexico and the ability to recognize cultural differences in a person, by seeing with your mind and not just your eyes.

I spent many days in Cabo during the 90s, made many local friends, by not being fake, touristy, or condescending... but by being personable honestly. I was invited in many homes, accepted humbly and was treated graciously.

In Cabo, most there came from the mainland to work the tourist industry. A friend I knew from multiple trips, invited me to see Guadalajara when visiting family on furlough. I went and the city was very interesting in an 'old world' setting, architecture and people.

We are having breakfast as a group at a open cafe in downtown, amidst all the cathedrals and such, very European feeling. My friend's sister say's... look, more americans...

I glance over and there are five or so lilly white, blonde people enjoying the morning at a table. I turn back and say... nope, european, probably German or Dutch.

With a puzzled look she say's, Really? how can you tell so easy?

It's one of those things that you can't explain... they had angular faces, they were all the same... even in an american family you have diversity, from husband to wife to children... they were too 'pure' maybe... I just knew without thinking about it.

Went over and had a pleasant, tourist to tourist chat... and they were German.

I can pretty much do the same at Disneyland or the Grand Canyon.

Though Canadians are tough to tell immediate.

For those of us that have extensive relations with illegals, it's very easy to tell. Border patrol agents have that relationship. Illegals have certain mannerisms, cloths, haircuts, vehicle... I swear, they can be here 10 years and still wear cloths that just shout... Mexican... it's humorous, and I've teased them many times on the job site, they usually just shrug.

Now, if an illegal was smart enough to transform their demeanor,and looks to an American style, well it wouldn't be obvious at first glance. For sure, Americans haven't taken up looking like illegals as a style, yet... though in this world it may be the new vogue... from Nerds to rappers to illegals.

Illegals purposely do not attempt to fit in, ten years here and still can't speak english... I don't know why, and they have never been able to explain it to me.

Anyway, the days of enjoying a breakfast in Mexico, in a quaint location... a day on the water with a pole. Gone... too bad.

Kent

Of course, the Mexican government doesn't want American troops... they are not conducting a 'War on Drugs'... they are in a fight for the money coming back into Mexico from the sale of drugs.

War on drugs is a farce/catch phrase that is propaganda at it's best... and when politicians use it, exposes their ignorance of the real issues.

Kent

Well like you, and many others here, I remember as well the days of "La Pura Vida". I'm really grateful to have seen and lived em', too.



They ARE gone,and won't be back anytime soon.