Mexico drug violence spills over into the US

[HAL 9000 96]

I think some people deserve to be shot.

Are you thinking what I am?

Want some of yesterday's leftover ?

according to all VJ.. they do.. and all mexicans are drugdealers, know how to set a crack lab with 2 cans a hose and a lighter.. and are ruthless killers.. SAMBO has nothing against Mexican killa' style

If I knew it was that easy to make a crack lab, I would have done it a long time ago.

Exctasy is easier

They did a study on the evils of ecstasy in the UK. The conclusion? Taking ecstasy is safer than horse riding.

How interesting, can you provide a link?

Sure, here you go

Link

Professor Nutt's da man

Holy cow!

OK... one of my HPLCs will be put to better use. j/k

[DeadPoolX 9]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

[E&K 0]

It's not rubbish at all dh. Every one of the above questions can be answered with Mexicans. Or is this just a coincidence?

Wrong:

Which demographic is responsible for "found five men with their throats slit in August. They had apparently been tortured with electric shocks before being killed in a murder-for-hire"?

Answer:

Americans provide 95 percent of the weapons used by the cartel, according to U.S. authorities. And Americans are the cartels' best customers, sending an estimated $28.5 billion in drug-sale proceeds across the Mexico border each year.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not rubbish at all dh. Every one of the above questions can be answered with Mexicans. Or is this just a coincidence?

Wrong:

Which demographic is responsible for "found five men with their throats slit in August. They had apparently been tortured with electric shocks before being killed in a murder-for-hire"?

Answer:

Americans provide 95 percent of the weapons used by the cartel, according to U.S. authorities. And Americans are the cartels' best customers, sending an estimated $28.5 billion in drug-sale proceeds across the Mexico border each year.

I suspect that "won't count" for BY because he's only interested in the people who wielded the knife. But clearly the customer base within the US is a big part of a set of interrelated problems.

[HAL 9000 96]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

Uhhh u made HAL mad god take care of this soul

It's not rubbish at all dh. Every one of the above questions can be answered with Mexicans. Or is this just a coincidence?

Wrong:

Which demographic is responsible for "found five men with their throats slit in August. They had apparently been tortured with electric shocks before being killed in a murder-for-hire"?

Answer:

Americans provide 95 percent of the weapons used by the cartel, according to U.S. authorities. And Americans are the cartels' best customers, sending an estimated $28.5 billion in drug-sale proceeds across the Mexico border each year.

I suspect that "won't count" for BY because he's only interested in the people who wielded the knife. But clearly the customer base within the US is a big part of a set of interrelated problems.

Mexico's problems my behind,

[DeadPoolX 9]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

It's unrealistic to want "payback" against an entire country based on what our ancestors did. That's the same line of reasoning that's led to violence against Jews for centuries. Entire populations believed it was "payback" for murdering Jesus (which depending on your point-of-view, may or may not be accurate). You cannot blame today's people for something that occurred so long ago that none of the individuals considered are even alive anymore.

You are right about one thing, however. We do have a "war of aggression" being waged by Mexico.

[HAL 9000 96]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

It's unrealistic to want "payback" against an entire country based on what our ancestors did. That's the same line of reasoning that's led to violence against Jews for centuries. Entire populations believed it was "payback" for murdering Jesus (which depending on your point-of-view, may or may not be accurate). You cannot blame today's people for something that occurred so long ago that none of the individuals considered are even alive anymore.

You are right about one thing, however. We do have a "war of aggression" being waged by Mexico.

So Mexico is waging a war of aggression... I see... interesting. Do you have any actual proof or are you going to take peejay's stance that Mexico's government is handing survival packs on the south side of the border (God forbid right)?

I also think you're not reading my posts carefully.

[DeadPoolX 9]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

It's unrealistic to want "payback" against an entire country based on what our ancestors did. That's the same line of reasoning that's led to violence against Jews for centuries. Entire populations believed it was "payback" for murdering Jesus (which depending on your point-of-view, may or may not be accurate). You cannot blame today's people for something that occurred so long ago that none of the individuals considered are even alive anymore.

You are right about one thing, however. We do have a "war of aggression" being waged by Mexico.

So Mexico is waging a war of aggression... I see... interesting. Do you have any actual proof or are you going to take peejay's stance that Mexico's government is handing survival packs on the south side of the border (God forbid right)?

I also think you're not reading my posts carefully.

I see aggression as entering a country without legal permission. I don't know if the Mexican government is handing out survival packs and it doesn't really matter. What does is that people are coming in illegally.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Migration isn't "aggression"

[HAL 9000 96]

apparently some think an illegal migration of workers and their families is identical to an invasion by uniformed armed forces....

of course.. when illegals cross the river, they do it with ak-47's and molotovs

Didn't you know? They're all doing so in hordes.

Seriously... all this talk about invading another country resonates with the nutjob crowd quite easily. If I remember history correctly, wasn't there already an invasion of Mexico by the US along with the taking of the northern half of their country?

Makes you kind of think that perhaps the way the chips have fallen all of this illegal immigration business is a little bit of bitter payback for jacka$es that, in the time of the last military invasion of Mexico... would have been willing participants in that war of aggression...

That's not a very good comparison.

Mexico lost those territories in the 19th century. The ideas behind country lines and how you acquire land was very different. In addition, the U.S. paid for the land it wanted later on.

Just because that land belonged to Mexico at one point does not give any Mexican clearance to enter illegally or allow Mexico to reclaim the states it lost. If that were the case, the UK would be able to take back the U.S. (or at least the original 13 colonies) and Rome could claim most of Europe. Spain and France could also carve the U.S. up, as well.

One could make a case for considering illegal aliens as an invasion force. While many illegals coming in probably don't have violence in mind, they have not been given legal clearance. Their numbers are also rising rapidly. Theoretically, this could be seen as a subvert attempt to dissolve the United States from within. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that (or at least agree completely), but such a case could be made and have some truth to it.

Countries and governments rise and fall. Maybe the U.S. will become part of Mexico in the future. I don't know. As of right now, the U.S. is still it's own country with it's own land and regardless of which areas used to belong to whom, all 50 states are now owned by the U.S. itself. Knowing this, the U.S. has a right to protect itself from any threat it sees -- including illegal aliens.

Am I making that comparison? HINT: No.

History is what it is. We have a war of aggresion on one hand.

And then I bold in red the relevant parts for you to re-read in the original post.

You can't negate history and its repercussions on present-day human events unless of course, you follow the retard school of logic some limited folks follow around here (and up until today, I really doubt you follow it.). Not just that war of aggression- which is what it was... and the political climate that continued to fester afterward.

Manifest Destiny may have benefit one side of the inequality, and what you usually do to one side, you have to balance with an opposite sign to the other.

It's unrealistic to want "payback" against an entire country based on what our ancestors did. That's the same line of reasoning that's led to violence against Jews for centuries. Entire populations believed it was "payback" for murdering Jesus (which depending on your point-of-view, may or may not be accurate). You cannot blame today's people for something that occurred so long ago that none of the individuals considered are even alive anymore.

You are right about one thing, however. We do have a "war of aggression" being waged by Mexico.

So Mexico is waging a war of aggression... I see... interesting. Do you have any actual proof or are you going to take peejay's stance that Mexico's government is handing survival packs on the south side of the border (God forbid right)?

I also think you're not reading my posts carefully.

I see aggression as entering a country without legal permission. I don't know if the Mexican government is handing out survival packs and it doesn't really matter. What does is that people are coming in illegally.

Then by logic you can't claim there is a war of aggression being waged by Mexico, can you?

People are coming in illegally as they've been for very particular reasons that as usual... tend to be ignored in preference of just dealing with the symptom. Doing so guarantees the issue will not go away.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

Then by logic you can't claim there is a war of aggression being waged by Mexico, can you? tongue.gif

People are coming in illegally as they've been for very particular reasons that as usual... tend to be ignored in preference of just dealing with the symptom. Doing so guarantees the issue will not go away.

Yes, I can. I stated that entering into a country without legal permission is an aggressive action. I suppose you didn't read that correctly.

Edited February 10, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

What difference does that make?

[HAL 9000 96]

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

Illegal migration isn't aggression either. Its an immigration law violation that is punishable by deportation.

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

Then by logic you can't claim there is a war of aggression being waged by Mexico, can you? tongue.gif

People are coming in illegally as they've been for very particular reasons that as usual... tend to be ignored in preference of just dealing with the symptom. Doing so guarantees the issue will not go away.

Yes, I can. I stated that entering into a country without legal permission is an aggressive action. I suppose you didn't read that correctly.

When an individual can wage war against another nation as if that individual were a nation, then we can talk about your comments making sense. I suppose you haven't really read up that much on aggression between nations.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Migration isn't "aggression"

If it's performed in a legal manner, then you are absolutely correct.

What difference does that make?

All the difference.

There's a difference between manslaughter and murder. Why? Because on the reason and actions. There's a difference between assault or murder and self-defense. Why? Because of the reason and actions involved.

If the reason and action is not taken into account, then by definition, there is no difference between the above (and other areas in life which depend on small, but relevant, differences).