Mexico vs. Afghanistan: Which is more important?

[B_VinylBoy]

thanx! but I have trouble enough seeing these words in text:

dem 'Muzlems.

'Merichun

don't think I could stand to hear them!:tongue:

You know, I could make a very inappropriate statement about opening your window and listening to your neighborhood cow tippers for more audible guidance... but I won't. :biggrin1:

 

[rheno]

I had to urban-dictionary that!

 

[midlifebear]

Don't worry, our self-proclaimed intellectual savant from San Antonio wouldn't recognize el presente de subjuntivo or el imperfecto de subjuntivo necessary for an "if then" clause were they to hit him up the side of the head.

As for my continued spelling of 'Mericuhn, the majority (higher than 97%) of those who speak English in the USA are unaware that they drop the A when they say American. As for the cuhn, it becomes more of a kin sound in the central eastern States. As for me, I'm from The Silver State where native speakers of the regional dialect more often than not say Nebada even when they don't have a head cold or sinus infection.

 

[Bbucko]

Don't worry, our self-proclaimed intellectual savant from San Antonio wouldn't recognize el presente de subjuntivo or el imperfecto de subjuntivo necessary for an "if then" clause were they to hit him up the side of the head.

As for my continued spelling of 'Mericuhn, the majority (higher than 97%) of those who speak English in the USA are unaware that they drop the A when they say American. As for the cuhn, it becomes more of a kin sound in the central eastern States. As for me, I'm from The Silver State where native speakers of the regional dialect more often than not say Nebada even when they don't have a head cold or sinus infection.

FWIW, my diction is flawless with just the tiniest soupçon of New England Yankee :tongue:, especially aftah a couple of adult beverages.

My opinion is that the OP's use of the word "important" holds the fatal flaw to this entire conversation. Both Pakistan and Mexico are pots about to boil over. Priority will go to which ever country gets there first.

But it's important to keep in mind that we finally have a president to can chew gum and walk at the same time: no more near-fatal pretzel accidents or dog-dropping getting out of Marine One for the next several years, thank gawd.

 

[vince]

(actually, I started using ImTranslator, but only for the characters, then I thought, why not ... )

the post was in response to your feared loss of sovereignty, which I responded to by saying it would be coming, not from any external invasion, but from the social & economic equality within

which is probably also behind the rise in narcotics trafficking[/B]

What's behind the rise in narcotic trafficking, is the huge market for the product in the drugged out entity north of the border.

 

[thadjock]

mexico is more important cuz it's in my FUKING BACK YARD!

and anyway nobody's ever been able to fix afghanistan, the brits tried it, the russians tried it and i guess we're not goin to learn our lesson until we try too....

 

[midlifebear]

Yeah! Damnit! What thadjock said. Tacos beat falafal every time!

 

[rheno]

What's behind the rise in narcotic trafficking, is the huge market for the product in the drugged out entity north of the border.

Ding Ding Ding

 

[faceking]

The more I watch CNN International, the more I feel as if the drug wars on the borders of Mexico and the United States is more of a threat to us than finding Al-Qaeda. Many people tried to make border control an issue when it dealt with illegal immigrants. Now, it seems as if a real threat to our borders is on our footstep and we're doing a lot about it. What do you think is the bigger security issue and why?

Hmmmm, a shoot out in El Paso in a motel that leaves 10 losers dead, or a faction that plots for 5,000 dead in Manhattan or DC or LPSG HQ at a cost of billions in US economy....

Regis... can I make the phone call to Barrack, and see how constitutional and civil rights would decide the matter instead???

Just make sure ya'll protect the rights of drug lords... that means no wire tappin', no unlawful interrogation, due process, and most certainly cultural respect a la Miranda Rights read in perfect Norteno dialect, otherwise throw any/every case out of court.

 

[Bbucko]

Hmmmm, a shoot out in El Paso in a motel that leaves 10 losers dead, or a faction that plots for 5,000 dead in Manhattan or DC or LPSG HQ at a cost of billions in US economy....

Regis... can I make the phone call to Barrack, and see how constitutional and civil rights would decide the matter instead???

Just make sure ya'll protect the rights of drug lords... that means no wire tappin', no unlawful interrogation, due process, and most certainly cultural respect a la Miranda Rights read in perfect Norteno dialect, otherwise throw any/every case out of court.

Call me crazy, but I thought that the rule of law was what separates us from both barbaric drug cartels and barbaric Islamo-terrorists. Or are the principles that undergird our society only good enough for think, sound and act exactly like someone who shoots ballsnots five feet across the room?

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Or we could just stop seizing drugs from cartels...seems that'd be an easier and cheaper fix

Legalize drugs and cartels would still be powerful as they control whole communities. Unless Mexico solves their endemic problems, which are analogous to Afghanistan and Pakistan, in that they cede control of their population to tribal groups (what gangs/cartels ultimately are) so they do not have to provide care and government protection - they will continue to face these conflicts.

Cartels flourish by filling the void left by government - the same the Mahdi Army filled in Iraq, Maulana Azhar, as one example, fills in Pakistan, and Wahabists have all over by providiong security and bankrolling schools and food programs. When the central government fails, someone/something takes power, drugs fuel it now, previously it was arms (for gangs in California), in the future, it could be whatever the highest bidder wants - so, sure legalize drugs, that works in the short term, maybe - but, Mexico has to step in and actually govern to break the system.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Hmmmm, a shoot out in El Paso in a motel that leaves 10 losers dead, or a faction that plots for 5,000 dead in Manhattan or DC or LPSG HQ at a cost of billions in US economy....

If you want to get technical and count the dead, the death toll over the current drug wars in Mexico over the last two years has now surpassed 8,000 and it's still climbing. Also, try to fathom the billions upon billions of dollars spent by our government since 1969 on the so-called "War On Drugs"? That is, if you can. War on Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think this only has repercussions on the US/Mexican border, you probably don't live in an impoverished city where drugs have been a constant problem. The issue with drugs and how they affect urban communities have been going on much longer than 9/11 or some plot by a small group of radical Muslims to attack the United States. They're both serious matters.

Regis... can I make the phone call to Barrack, and see how constitutional and civil rights would decide the matter instead???

No lifelines. You pretty much answered the question and your response didn't surprise anyone.

Just make sure ya'll protect the rights of drug lords... that means no wire tappin', no unlawful interrogation, due process, and most certainly cultural respect a la Miranda Rights read in perfect Norteno dialect, otherwise throw any/every case out of court.

Your attempt at sarcasm here fails, because if you really want to prosecute a drug lord OR a terrorist and make sure they go to prison, you must adhere to certain lawful guidelines or else risk the chance of a criminal going free. That is, unless, you feel as if as a nation we're supposed to get as shifty as the enemies we need to face? Then again, we tried that in Gitmo over the last few years and that didn't work out too well.