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

I'd like to think people there would greet us as saviors, but its hard to imagine it would be anything but an enormous cluster f***, especially if in cooperation with the Mexican government.

I believe collateral damage (or claimed collateral damage) involving the inevitable deaths (or claimed deaths) of non-combatants would soon cloud the issue.

'Nother question not answered is how much your average Jose Mexican on the street (the whole country, not just the Border regions) feels put upon by the drug trade. I have heard from a Mexican national (legal immigrant) whose opinion I respect that nothing would unite the whole country against us like US troops on Mexican soil.

Birdwatcher

NEVER ,....and I mean NEVER read what's been posted before......

"I have heard from a Mexican national (legal immigrant) whose opinion I respect "

....and HOLD whatever thoughts evolve therefrom.

I'd personally ASK you to quit QUICKLY, and PROMISCUOUSLY demonizing other Border Folks,...and AGAIN extend an invitation to the upcoming event in S.E. Az.

Whining about the "Drive" don't cut it,....

GTC

%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

Not sure the point you're making Cross. I don't think its a stretch to suggest US troops on the ground in Mexico could stir up enormous resentment with the rank and file across the country.

Doesn't really matter what they think when it comes to our own survival of course, but I dunno we could accomplish what we would want without a long-term presence there AND cooperation from the reg'lar folks there.

Heck, we cant even pass a law with teeth on our side for doing basic ID/citizenship checks, how is a military presence in Mexico gonna play?

On the "legal Mexican National" issue, lots moving into our area, best classed as sort of refugees, needing another alternative to living on their side of the Border.



I appreciate the invite but a thirty hour round-trip travelling time is a bit much even fer me...

Birdwatcher

Get back on track as to why your too coward to go to Mex. and fight the cartels on behalf of the Mex. citizens. Your the one on here claiming the "Poor poor Mex's" everyday. But you don't have balls to go to Mex.and help these poor folks, as you claim they are.

Pretty darn sad, all you do is hide behind a computer screen, talking about things that you claim to know more about then anyone else here, but won't leave your comfort zone, because your too frightened to go to Mex. and help those that you so dearly talk about.

One does have to wonder why you have such a hard-on for Cross.

Do you "have balls to go to Mex" and fight for justice? For my own part, I wouldn't know where to begin.

Birdwatcher

It's the fact that he sings this song of, "Woe is the Mexicans in Mexico". Yet will not leave his comfort zone to go fight against the Cartels for the Mex. citizens in Mexico. The same with defending his own community from incoming illegals and drug smugglers. It's always about someone else doing the hands-on duties. The illegals and drug smugglers are not going to be removed by posting stories on the i'net.

By what stretch of the imagination is Border Arizona a "comfort zone"? I woulda thought folks deserved plaudits for merely being there.

I view Cross as a sort of "Drudge Report" for Mexican issues.

Really, no one else here s reporting it, and much is skipped over by the MSM.

But clearly you derive much satifaction from yanking his chain. Dunno exactly what to make of that.

Birdwatcher

Crossfire reminds me of the Boy that cried Wolf.
One day we just won't hear from him no more. Will be a sad day, but we all know that we need to take of of the business outside our backdoor. Not wait around for someone else to come to the rescue.

Well, since I specifically seized upon your three comments... and if you wish propose those comments are irrelevant now, you'll get no argument from me.

Kent

You being the one missing, and pretty much better being thus.

.......That which would garner attention,...FOUL, MOUTHY , DISRESPECTFUL,...but wanting to be part of this FIRE

Print your PMs here, azzwhole,

this is not,....

no secret, to

NOTHING

This is good,...

Make reflections,...

Damned i-net looks like a tough racket

Let me give you a little "Heads Up", you sorry little POS,

REAL "Hunters" know how to wait,....

You WILL be tracked down and DEALT with,..

Than and again , you and the mouthy prick from Tenn. could just try and fill yer' pathetic, empty BOOTS.

Fear struck here,...

"Bush Rat"

You gone to ground,...or coming down HERE to drivel ?

Pimple on an Aridzonan's azz ,...you ain't.

Free chit pimp daddy ?

HTF did YOU get that rep ?

"You have to have someone else do your dirty work for you."

No, actually, you are just a filthy piece of dung, dropped out of a sick dog's anus, one who thinks that you, or your kind are NEEDED.

Difference between us , most here,... and dog dung,...that.

You are the Chits,...in no uncertain terms.

The "Self Declaration" bit that you've adapted makes it a whole lot easier to have you around.

FARTS AROUND HERE STILL HAVING MORE CREDIBILITY.

gtc

A prime example of the genre (one imagines you shoulda included <snork!><snork!> in the post).

I said....

1) A pair of boots on the ground every 1/4 mile.

You said essentially 'too dangerous for the people involved' as if shooting Americans in uniform on the Border on a regular basis were a viable option for the Cartels.

Common sense dictate that there are areas along the Border where a person every 440 yards would be redundant, especially given the surveillance technology we have now. OTOH there are areas where even every 1/4 mile aint enough.

Unless one is seizing upon semantics of course, the principle of MANNING the line ought not to be that tough... had we the political will.

2) I said 'search every truck'

You didn't address this other than to imply 10,000 inbound trucks a day up I 35 was absurd.

Clearly this is an enormous loophole at present in our defenses. The figures suggest that about five times the amount of contraband that passes through Arizona passes through Texas and THAT number is just based upon prior interdictions, when we already know we are not adequately searching inbound commerce here.

The fact that even with these major commerce routes it is STILL economically viable for the narcos to put cocaine in backpacks and walk it through the remote bush any number of places probably reflects an insatiable demand for the product among our fellow Americans (about 5% of the world population consuming about 50% of the total production of cocaine) .

Cant search every truck? How about a third, a quarter? Like I said, if we cannot search enough to matter (currently we are only interdicting about 10% of the total consumption), why bother with interdiction at all?


3) I said 'its tough to spot illegals in the general population'

You claim that ability.

I've met folks whom I was flat surprised to find were here illegally, and sometimes assumed illegal status where t'werent the case.

Perhaps Texas is different than Arizona: We do have more than nine million Mexican-ancestry American citizens over here (or about 1 1/2 times the entire population of Arizona) forming a clear majority over areas of Texas larger than many entire states. Most are third- and fourth- generation American at least, but there's many first- and second-, the degree of overt acculturation varying at each level on an individual basis.

Anyhoo I believe this is why there are such things like ID's.

Ability to 'spot illegals' aside, I'm all in favor of proving American citizenship by documentation at every turn, much as I would expect to have to do were I overseas. I presume you are too.

Birdwatcher

No. I was serious....

BP is being shot at now from across the border, being mobile... 8000 solitary, stationary targets, for when the cartel is bored from chopping folks up... dangerous indeed.

An extremely exaggerated number and...

episodes of racial profiling by BP... based on their inability to recognize illegals from the general public.

Nothing funny about any of that... not much truth or reality either.

Kent

Nope, check the actual customs links. About 6,000 semis inbound a day, closing in on two million semis a year. (Apparently you think 10,000 a day wold be an "extremely exagerrated number".).

If I REALLY wanted to play petty I could include the total from nearby Eagle Pass which highway joins I 35 about 100 miles south of San Antone.

The point remains, there exists a very large amount of legitimate commerce, and the interdiction levels relative to what seems a certain level of trafficking are dismally low.

And one more time here's the eerie calm along what is THE major drug ingress point into the United States....

I35 north of Laredo...




...and the infamous railraod bridge crossing the river from Nuevo Laredo...








THREE HUNDRED TONS of cocaine consumed annually by Americans, closing in on a $40 billion dollar a year industry. 10% or less of this trade interdicted at present.

Invading Mexico ain't gonna solve that (no more than we have stopped the herion trade in Afghanistan), neither do criminal penalties seem to deter use (most every high school kid in America has access).

Never mind the impact on Mexico from a Mexican welfare standpoint, we ourselves need a stable and relatively law abiding Mexico on our Southern Border. THIRTY-SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS every year into the hands of the worst elements would ruin most nations, as it has Mexico.

Only two things to do....

1) Effectively interdict; which would require a big step up in commerce inspections and Border security...

or....

2) Decriminalize use.

I'm wondering if drug laws ain't about like gun laws in that just as gun laws have no efect on crime, drug laws have little real effect on usage.

Portugal (pop. 11 million) dcriminalized usage in 2001, offering treatment instead. Ten years later the worst that can be said seems to be their drug problems ain't gotten worse than they were. Many folks claim an actual improvement.

Finally, with respect to the manning the fence deal, are you seriously suggesting we should be INTIMIDATED out of doing so for fear of bad guys with rifles on the other side of the fence? Already BP agents can return fire, surely we have the technology/armaments/finance on had to effectively man the Borderline for a mere fraction of what we spend in the Middle East.

Just like with wars, there ain't no substitute for boots on the ground.

Birdwatcher