If Mexico can't eliminate the cartels, should the US military do the job ?

[Soupnazi630]

{...

The Origin of Human Rights: A Founding Fathers' Perspective​

August 3, 2023
Introduction

When discussing the origin of human rights, the Founding Fathers' conviction that these rights were endowed by their Creator as stated in the Declaration of Independence is a pivotal starting point. This belief that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights was not just an assertion, but an ideal that would set the stage for the American experiment. However, it is important to recognize that while this principle was enshrined in one of our nation's founding documents, achieving true equality remained an ongoing struggle throughout history. This article will explore the Founding Fathers' perspective on the aspiration for equality and the contrast between God-given human rights and the divine right of kings, as expressed through their own words.

Striving for Equality: The Ongoing Journey

While the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal, it is essential to acknowledge that this statement did not immediately translate into real equality for all individuals in America. At the time of the Founding, the institution of slavery persisted, and women were denied many basic rights. The Founding Fathers, though espousing the principle of equality, were products of their time and society, grappling with the complexities of these contradictions.

Thomas Jefferson himself, the principal author of the Declaration, was a slaveholder, which has led to criticism and scrutiny of the apparent incongruity between his words and actions. Despite the ideal of equality, it would take decades and significant societal upheaval before slavery was abolished and substantial progress was made in the pursuit of civil rights for all.

Throughout history, the United States has continually strived to live up to the ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers, working to overcome systemic inequalities and discriminatory practices. The ongoing pursuit of equality remains a central theme in American society, emphasizing the dynamic and aspirational nature of the nation's founding principles.
...}
The Origin of Human Rights: A Founding Fathers' Perspective

No where did they place the limitations on government which you describe

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong

Before ther french and british the natives collected scalps as trophies of war which is a valid reason

hunter gatherer societies are inherently violent and war like and the natives were no exception

It was a common practice which others took advantage of

We are Americans it is irrelevant where ancestors came from

Wrong.
With a hunter/gatherer economy, there is no need for war, which is based on capitalism.
There was some combat, but it was more like a sport.

It does matter where our ancestors came from because we propagate the original sin.
It is like Joshua massacring the Canaanite women and children in Jericho, and how that arrogance invalidates Israel even now, since the sins have not been atoned for ever.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
With a hunter/gatherer economy, there is no need for war, which is based on capitalism.
There was some combat, but it was more like a sport.

It does matter where our ancestors came from because we propagate the original sin.
It is like Joshua massacring the Canaanite women and children in Jericho, and how that arrogance invalidates Israel even now, since the sins have not been atoned for ever.

Wrong

War existed ong before captilism

Hunter gatherer societies demand endless war and violence as they must migrate and compete with others for food

There was massive bloody violence and war for thousands of years before agrarian society

We propogated no such thing

The bible is a fairy tale

 

[Rigby5]

No where did they place the limitations on government which you describe

Nonsense.
If they did not believe in limitations on government, there would be no basis for the declaration of independence.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nonsense.
If they did not believe in limitations on government, there would be no basis for the declaration of independence.

They did not suppirt the limitations which YOU state that is the point you dumb motherfucker

None the shit you post is correct you MAKE IT UP and you are a stupid person

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong

War existed ong before captilism

Hunter gatherer societies demand endless war and violence as they must migrate and compete with others for food

There was massive bloody violence and war for thousands of years before agrarian society

We propogated no such thing

The bible is a fairy tale

Wrong.
First of all, hunter/gatherers do no migrate normally, and live in permanent dwellings, even if they have separate ones for summer and winter.
The Plaines Indians were migratory because they had been pushed off their original permanent land.

Without currency or agriculture, there is zero incentive for war.

Does not matter if the Bible is a fairy tale or not, because the Israelis still believe it is right to invade and massacre the natives.

 

[Rigby5]

They did not suppirt the limitations which YOU state that is the point you dumb motherfucker

None the shit you post is correct you MAKE IT UP and you are a stupid person

Wrong.
Jefferson is very clear about defense of individual rights being the justification for the rebellion.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
First of all, hunter/gatherers do no migrate normally, and live in permanent dwellings, even if they have separate ones for summer and winter.
The Plaines Indians were migratory because they had been pushed off their original permanent land.

Without currency or agriculture, there is zero incentive for war.

Does not matter if the Bible is a fairy tale or not, because the Israelis still believe it is right to invade and massacre the natives.

Wrong

Hunter gatherers DO ALWAYS have to migrate because animales move and migrate especillly when gthey are being hunted

This forces humans into competition for food which jmeans war

There is always incentives for war and you are an ignorant fool

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Jefferson is very clear about defense of individual rights being the justification for the rebellion.

None of which has anything to do with the dumb fucking statements you made about the law

 

[zaangalewa]

Wrong.
Alcohol and drugs would not be popular if not natural, normal, and inherently legal.

What a bullshit. Alcohol is "normal" because Alcoholics like to drink. They like to drink - independent from their own will - because they are addicts. But alcohol is always harmful. Alcohol, for example, is a good disinfectant. But what kind of idiot drinks disinfectant?

With legal or not legal has this nothing to do. What is legal is our own decision. But a law which tells you to go to work every morning on your hands and to have to use your keyboard with your feet is just simple stupid.

The cause of almost all deaths actually is the evil competition stress we impose.

Nothing is stressing more than alcohol and drugs. Alcohol and drugs destroy the body and make stupid.

But back to the theme here: Don't use drugs and the cartels will die - and prisons will also die.

And in principle: Soldiers are soldiers and policemen are policemen. This are totally different things. Soldiers have to fight each other in case of war - but honorful policemen always work together because they fight a common enemy: the prince of darkness.

 

[Jroc]

Wrong.
The gangs and cartels exist in Mexico because they are popular.
It is the government that abuses, beheads, and slaughters whole families.
The gangs and cartels feed and protect the people, and are vastly more appreciated by the people than the corrupt government is.

The cartels also trafficking women and children who they send into sex slavery and slave labor ..... Cartels will be taken care of soon enough

 

[Jroc]

Lmfao what a cuck that dude is.

I guarantee you the US government knows we're they are for fucks sake we know we're every goat fucker hiding in a cave 6000 miles away are, i promise you we know we're the thugs in our backyard are

What will they do about it? NOT A DAMN THING because they can do nothing.

If we declared war on the cartels and the Mexican government actually cooperates we could dismantle them and a couple of months easily.

 

[Zavulon]

Self-Defense. I know leftwingers have trouble wrapping their heads around this simple concept, but it has never been more relevant than right now. Mexican cartels & gangs from other latin-American countries have been killing Americans with fentanyl & other drugs + violence at a rate far surpassing Americans killed in Vietnam.

ACTION is required.

US Military needs to go into Mexico and team up with Mexican military, and destroy the cartels. This should be done with or without the consent of Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum.

And what if Mexican military prefers to team up with cartels and fight the "foreign invaders" instead?

 

[Zavulon]

If we declared war on the cartels and the Mexican government actually cooperates we could dismantle them and a couple of months easily.

And what if Mexican government fights you, instead of cartels, and what if Russia and China supply cartels with modern weapons?

 

[Jroc]

And what if Mexican military prefers to team up with cartels and fight the "foreign invaders" instead?

Mexico has a military? ... Who knew?

 

[Jroc]

And what if Mexican government fights you, instead of cartels, and what if Russia and China supply cartels with modern weapons?

Russia's busy killing ukrainians and vice versa Trump is going to end that war we're about to kick China out of the Panama canal

 

[zaangalewa]

Mexico has a military? ... Who knew?

You know nothing about their military? Looks like they're pretty damn good.

 

[Rigby5]

The precedent in International Law is definitely there for the USA to do exactly that.

One of the most hallowed precepts of International Law is the Roosevelt Corollary which gives America the right to enter nations in our hemisphere when they can't handle their own affairs.

The real question is why Sleepy Joe didn't do anything about it.

Wrong.
The Roosevelt Corollary is totally an illegal US dictate, just as the Monroe Doctrine was.
You cannot "give" rights.
They have to always exist based on basic principles.
There is nothing for the Roosevelt Corollary to be based on in law, except "might makes right", which all republics reject.

The reality is the cartels are much more democratic and popular than the fake governments we installed.

 

[Mac-7]

Wrong.
The Roosevelt Corollary is totally an illegal US dictate, just as the Monroe Doctrine was.
You cannot "give" rights.
They have to always exist based on basic principles.
There is nothing for the Roosevelt Corollary to be based on in law, except "might makes right", which all republics reject.

The reality is the cartels are much more democratic and popular than the fake governments we installed.

The government is definitely not fake

And as far as I know only the cartel forces 13-year old girls into slavery and prostitution

Do you call that popular?

 

[Rigby5]

Isn't fentanyl an operative agent of evolution? The way to end the fentanyl crisis is to stop facilitating it by reviving users. Problem solved, no crisis.

The only time you need to "revive users" is if the concentration is higher than they expected.
If it was legalized, then dose would be standardized and there would be no deaths at all.