| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
| Quote: | Originally posted by Woooosh
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
You can´t use war weaponry against civilian security problems, this is not Somalia my friend, and the narco problem regardless of the wild
exagerations of the foreign press, are not even close to making this a failed country. |
The narcos are already using these war weapons against civilians in urban areas and Mexico is indeed close to becoming a failed state- when a gov't
can no longer protect its people. It's only a wild media exaggeration if it isn't happening in your area I guess. It's very real from my view.
Only good thing lately- the narcos have resorted to hiring people to protest the Mexican Army being involved in civilian law enforcement. They
blocked several border crossings this week. At least Mexicans will protest if they are paid to- no matter that it's for the wrong side. A least they
will leave their houses to support the narcos. |
Ok tell you what, if the US stops the massive flow of military grade weapons to Mexico, we promiss we will fix the problem.
Oh and by the way, polls show 80% of Mexicans think drug dealers should be round up and executed. The rest probably just want them arrested and put
away for ever.
I still fail to see the two sides in this "civil war". |
A complete triple border fence will help stop the flow of illegal weapons south. A real muti-tasker. I think that cow's out of the barn already
though- they already have gotten enough weapons into Mexico... more than enough. The only ones that don't have guns are the people who need them most
to protect their homes and families.
I doubt the death sentence will come into play anytime soon in Mexico, well except by the narcos. Mexico really can't stop the flow of drugs and
money through its country anyway- it has no incentive. The USA /Mexico drug/gun connection is only one problem. Much of the drugs and money are just
passing through Mexico and there's just too much money and power involved during transit for anyone to want to stop it. They depend on it - but they
need to control their business.
If they legalized, regulated and taxed weed- like many are debating now- it would hurt them. But that wouldn't stop them- they would just turn to
extrortions, prostitution and kidnappings to make up for the loss. The drugs are just the tool they are using for now- it's just what profits most
right now. They are and will be very adaptable- and that's the deeper problem. JMHO
\"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing\"
1961- JFK to Canadian parliament (Edmund Burke)
|
|
|
woody with a view
PITA Nomad
Posts: 15939
Registered: 11-8-2004
Location: Looking at the Coronado Islands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Everchangin'
|
|
| Quote: | A complete triple border fence will help stop the flow of illegal weapons south. A real muti-tasker. I think that cow's out of the barn already
though- they already have gotten enough weapons into Mexico... more than enough. The only ones that don't have guns are the people who need them most
to protect their homes and families.
I doubt the death sentence will come into play anytime soon in Mexico, well except by the narcos. Mexico really can't stop the flow of drugs and money
through its country anyway- it has no incentive. The USA /Mexico drug/gun connection is only one problem. Much of the drugs and money are just passing
through Mexico and there's just too much money and power involved during transit for anyone to want to stop it. They depend on it - but they need to
control their business.
If they legalized, regulated and taxed weed- like many are debating now- it would hurt them. But that wouldn't stop them- they would just turn to
extrortions, prostitution and kidnappings to make up for the loss. The drugs are just the tool they are using for now- it's just what profits most
right now. They are and will be very adaptable- and that's the deeper problem. JMHO |
just like they said in the 20's - okay, during prohibition. the only answer is ZERO TOLERANCE! for everyone, on both sides of the border. if your
husband/wife/roommate....ad nauseum, is part of a criminal enterprise, your bank account is state property and your house is bulldozed. "change we can
believe in" will happen faster than you can say, "*uta madre!"
|
|
|
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Peacefull
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by JESSE
I dont know how to resize the pics, so sorry. |
If you would care to learn -------------just click on this link---
http://forums.bajanomad.com/viewthread.php?tid=23465
Have a good day,
CaboRon
|
|
|
Packoderm
Super Nomad
Posts: 2116
Registered: 11-7-2002
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by woody in ob
| Quote: | A complete triple border fence will help stop the flow of illegal weapons south. A real muti-tasker. I think that cow's out of the barn already
though- they already have gotten enough weapons into Mexico... more than enough. The only ones that don't have guns are the people who need them most
to protect their homes and families.
I doubt the death sentence will come into play anytime soon in Mexico, well except by the narcos. Mexico really can't stop the flow of drugs and money
through its country anyway- it has no incentive. The USA /Mexico drug/gun connection is only one problem. Much of the drugs and money are just passing
through Mexico and there's just too much money and power involved during transit for anyone to want to stop it. They depend on it - but they need to
control their business.
If they legalized, regulated and taxed weed- like many are debating now- it would hurt them. But that wouldn't stop them- they would just turn to
extrortions, prostitution and kidnappings to make up for the loss. The drugs are just the tool they are using for now- it's just what profits most
right now. They are and will be very adaptable- and that's the deeper problem. JMHO |
just like they said in the 20's - okay, during prohibition. the only answer is ZERO TOLERANCE! for everyone, on both sides of the border. if your
husband/wife/roommate....ad nauseum, is part of a criminal enterprise, your bank account is state property and your house is bulldozed. "change we can
believe in" will happen faster than you can say, "*uta madre!" |
I think in the case of marijuana, the death penalty is not necessary. Once you smoke it, you have given yourself a certain death sentence. Nobody can
survive for more than 7 months after having tried smoking marijuana. So, it's a non issue. It is that harmful.
|
|
|
CaboRon
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3401
Registered: 3-24-2007
Location: The Valley of the Moon
Member Is Offline
Mood: Peacefull
|
|
Pacoderm, 
Spoken like an alcoholic ....
Where do you get your information ..... it is pure bull ...
Compare the stats on alcohol, which is probably your drug of choice.
CaboRon
[Edited on 2-20-2009 by CaboRon]
|
|
|
DENNIS
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 29510
Registered: 9-2-2006
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Packoderm
I think in the case of marijuana, the death penalty is not necessary. Once you smoke it, you have given yourself a certain death sentence. Nobody can
survive for more than 7 months after having tried smoking marijuana. So, it's a non issue. It is that harmful. |
Ahhh yes....Reefer Madness revisited.
Thanks for that, Packo but, surely you jest. This can't be a sincere statement from anybody who putts around in the Cheech And Chong vanmobile.
|
|
|
Diver
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4729
Registered: 11-15-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Packoderm
I think in the case of marijuana, the death penalty is not necessary. Once you smoke it, you have given yourself a certain death sentence. Nobody can
survive for more than 7 months after having tried smoking marijuana. So, it's a non issue. It is that harmful. |
Is this supposed to be tongue-in-cheek ??
Or are you that amazingly mis-informed ?
I know many folks that have smoked pot frequently for over 40 years. They are mostly still alive and the majority are very successful in their
lives/careers, etc.
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
All I know is that I giggled when I read Pack's post. Serious or parody, it's still is funny.
|
|
|
Bajahowodd
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9274
Registered: 12-15-2008
Location: Disneyland Adjacent and anywhere in Baja
Member Is Offline
|
|
I also wanna know why people keep messing up the slide show with text.
|
|
|
Terry28
Senior Nomad
Posts: 825
Registered: 8-25-2007
Location: S.Calif mtns.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Thirsty
|
|
I can't believe I am saying this but...I have to agree with Cabo Ron...
Ok, that didn't hurt to much...he is right...
Mexico!! Where two can live as cheaply as one.....but it costs twice as much.....
|
|
|
BajaGringo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3922
Registered: 8-24-2006
Location: La Chorera
Member Is Offline
Mood: Let's have a BBQ!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
Ahhh yes....Reefer Madness revisited.
Thanks for that, Packo but, surely you jest. This can't be a sincere statement from anybody who putts around in the Cheech And Chong vanmobile.
|
|
|
|
Eugenio
Nomad
Posts: 206
Registered: 4-23-2008
Location: Navojoa, Son.
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Don Jorge
The Commerce secretary of Mexico,Gerardo Ruiz Mateos, went so far as to say that if Calderon is not successful in his battle against the narcos the
next president of Mexico will be a narco.
CIUDAD DE MÉXICO.- El secretario de Economía, Gerardo Ruiz Mateos, aseguró hoy en París, durante un desayuno con la comunidad mexicana en la embajada
de México, que si el Gobierno de Felipe Calderón no hubiera acentuado la lucha contra el narcotráfico "el siguiente Presidente de la República iba a
ser un narcotraficante".
|
Mateos didn't say that "if Calderon is not successful in his battle against the narcos the next president of Mexico will be a narco."
Review your verb tense and mood - hubiera's subjunctive - not indicative - after si.
iba's not future - it's past.
He's saying that if Calerón had not intensified the war against the narcos that the following president was going to be a narco (goes along with the
state within a state argument ).
But Calerón DID intensify it.
Mateos is quoted and paraphrased here in snippets - I wouldn't give the article too much weight.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
