Should NATO Go After Drug Cartels?

[ColonelAngus]

Annex Mexico.

No Southern border.

Militarize drug war.

Hello President Arreloa.

 

[harmonica]

Annex Mexico.

No Southern border.

Militarize drug war.

Hello President Arreloa.

why would you want to annex a shithole??

 

[ColonelAngus]

It would solve the border issues.

No border, No wall, No USA at all!

All that liberal shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

What if it were spread among the NATO allies?

...you would have a lot of the ''invaded'' country's people pissed off/against NATO--no matter if they are trying to help
..the US had MASSIVE Naval and air superiority in SVitenam
..the US had tanks/APCs vs very, very ,very few VC/NVietnam tanks/APCs [ until 1972 ]
the US still had trouble controlling the people/etc

...IMO, a ''military/ force could/would hurt some operations/etc--
but would it be worth the cost? what would be the net gain?

IMO the governments there are helpless against the cartels. This is why military action is needed, particularly by the US.

Vietnam was a lifetime ago and our advanced technology has replaced foot solders running into areas without knowing what was on the other side. We need to be in these countries because these drug cartels are indirectly killing over 70,000 Americans a year and injuring many more. It is our war.

Cost? What is it costing us now when thousands of migrants trying to escape these powerful drug lords sneak into our country or cause us for a military buildup on our border?

This war does have to be fought by the governments there, but they can't do it without our equipment and technology. We don't have to be there for years, just enough to greatly weaken these organizations so the governments can have control over them and win the war themselves.

 

[harmonica]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

What if it were spread among the NATO allies?

...you would have a lot of the ''invaded'' country's people pissed off/against NATO--no matter if they are trying to help
..the US had MASSIVE Naval and air superiority in SVitenam
..the US had tanks/APCs vs very, very ,very few VC/NVietnam tanks/APCs [ until 1972 ]
the US still had trouble controlling the people/etc

...IMO, a ''military/ force could/would hurt some operations/etc--
but would it be worth the cost? what would be the net gain?

IMO the governments there are helpless against the cartels. This is why military action is needed, particularly by the US.

Vietnam was a lifetime ago and our advanced technology has replaced foot solders running into areas without knowing what was on the other side. We need to be in these countries because these drug cartels are indirectly killing over 70,000 Americans a year and injuring many more. It is our war.

Cost? What is it costing us now when thousands of migrants trying to escape these powerful drug lords sneak into our country or cause us for a military buildup on our border?

This war does have to be fought by the governments there, but they can't do it without our equipment and technology. We don't have to be there for years, just enough to greatly weaken these organizations so the governments can have control over them and win the war themselves.

didn't work in Somalia
didn't work in Niger
Spec OPs failed in Grenada and Panama!!!
A MISCALCULATION OF MISSION FOR THE SEALS IN PANAMA?
Grenada 1983: Operation Urgent Fury
‘An Endless War’: Why 4 U.S. Soldiers Died in a Remote African Desert
..again--the US had overwhelming technological/etc superiority in Vietnam and still lost

this is not Clear and Present Danger -it is real life
.....as I mentioned in the '''US Marine vs Israel tanks thread'', the US military is not OPTIMIZED for this type of ''conflict''
..the US military is OPTIMIZED for killing mass quantities with mass quantities of firepower--which cannot be done in a ''police'' action/non war time action/etc

....even with today's smart weapons, you still have friendly fire/accidents/innocents killed
they even hit a totally, innocent HOSPITAL
Kunduz hospital airstrike - Wikipedia
..they BLASTED friendlies
Tarnak Farm incident - Wikipedia
Battle of Qala-i-Jangi - Wikipedia

The pilot mistakenly punched in the wrong coordinates, hitting the combat controller's position. The bomb's explosion killed at least four (some sources say 30[15]) allied militiamen on the northeast tower above the CAS-1 team, flipped over a friendly tank, and injured all members of the CAS-1 team, including five U.S. and two British operators.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Mexico and Central America are out of control. Because these cartels ship their drugs to North America and Europe it would qualify. Afghanistan is a NATO mission and part of that mission is to stop the opium and heroin trade. The Mexican cartels are complete savages like ISIS.

Nope.

 

[Ambivalent1]

No, drugs should be legalized, and that would destroy the Cartels. We need to end the War on Drugs. It is way to expensive, and gives government a reason for huge over reach.

If so then no drug rehab coverage included in Health Insurance.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

 

[danielpalos]

Mexico and Central America are out of control. Because these cartels ship their drugs to North America and Europe it would qualify. Afghanistan is a NATO mission and part of that mission is to stop the opium and heroin trade. The Mexican cartels are complete savages like ISIS.
Cruelty of El Chapo's Sinaloa cartel knows no bounds: Beheadings by chainsaw, body parts strewn in the streets

It is our drug war that is Causing the instability and refugee crises in Latin America.

 

[harmonica]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

and I provide links/proof and you provide.....................shit
hahahhahaha
the US military is not going to make a big dent in a war on drugs
I see you did not answer the question--what will these airstrikes accomplish?
you obviously have no in depth knowledge on military/wars/conflicts/etc

 

[harmonica]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

we WON in Vietnam???!!!!! hahahah
we WON in Somalia??!!!!
that's news to me

 

[harmonica]

again--what are these airstrikes going to accomplish??
and if they hit innocent civilians in a non-declared war?!!??--which THEY WILL

 

[Pilot1]

If so then no drug rehab coverage included in Health Insurance.

Well, I don't know about that, but the alcohol/drug rehab industry is largely a scam also.

 

[harmonica]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

do you know how stupid you look?
you provide no links/proof/etc--yet call my posts ''full of shit'''!! hahahhahahahah
you do not reply with discussion, but with shit
hahahahhaha

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

we WON in Vietnam???!!!!! hahahah
we WON in Somalia??!!!!
that's news to me

The US military was destroying entire Divisions of North Vietnamese, public opinion lost that war and Bill Clinton shit his britches and pulled troops out of Somalia.

 

[danielpalos]

There no longer any federal Power to Prohibit since the Repeal of that Bad Idea, in those Then modern times.

 

[Pilot1]

The US military was destroying entire Divisions of North Vietnamese, public opinion lost that war and Bill Clinton shit his britches and pulled troops out of Somalia.

Militarily we certainly did win in Vietnam. We won every significant, and most battles of lesser significance BY FAR. Including the Tet Offensive. We total kicked ass. However, the N. Vietnamese were successful in winning the PR war with the assistance of the Liberal U.S. MEDIA, like Walter Cronkite, and the American LEFT. They lost that war, not the military.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

and I provide links/proof and you provide.....................shit
hahahhahaha
the US military is not going to make a big dent in a war on drugs
I see you did not answer the question--what will these airstrikes accomplish?
you obviously have no in depth knowledge on military/wars/conflicts/etc

Airstrikes against leaders of Cartels and manufacturing facilities you fucking loon we can basically drop entire buildings now with almost no collateral damage. If there is tough shit don't live next to drug dealers.

 

[danielpalos]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

and I provide links/proof and you provide.....................shit
hahahhahaha
the US military is not going to make a big dent in a war on drugs
I see you did not answer the question--what will these airstrikes accomplish?
you obviously have no in depth knowledge on military/wars/conflicts/etc

Airstrikes against leaders of Cartels and manufacturing facilities you fucking loon we can basically drop entire buildings now with almost no collateral damage. If there is tough shit don't live next to drug dealers.

An public policy is an public use.

Stop whining about refugees, right wingers.

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and surrounding infrastructure instead.

 

[harmonica]

....the US military cannot change the culture of other countries without a total war destruction followed by reconstruction
A.the US military would be at a disadvantage just like the soldiers who died in Niger/Vietnam/etc
..1. they don't know who the good guys and bad guys are
..2. do not know the territory
..3. the military is trained to kill/destroy in ''mass quantities'' using ''mass quantity''--not police work
... if you send in spec ops, they might be outgunned/out manned

SOC units could be the eyes and ears on the ground for a precision air strike.

didn't work in Vietnam
didn't work in Somalia
we are still in Afghanistan--not working
etc
most of the time [ 99.99% ] air strikes do not win wars
you still have civilian and friendly fire casualties with air strikes

what will these air strikes hit? accomplish?

Wow the majority of you comments are completely full of shit.

we WON in Vietnam???!!!!! hahahah
we WON in Somalia??!!!!
that's news to me

The US military was destroying entire Divisions of North Vietnamese, public opinion lost that war and Bill Clinton shit his britches and pulled troops out of Somalia.

you WILL lose this argument
I've been over this many times

....as stated many times, there are few examples of countries invading and completely winning wars
..Russia LOST in Afghanistan---just like the Vietnam War
Russia had the same advantages as the US did in Vietnam

I won't go into everything, but I will point out the MOST critical problems:
the South Vietnamese government changed head of state 3 time in less than 2 years--one with a MURDER.

• In 1963–1965, there were numerous coups and short-lived governments, several of which were headed by Dương Văn Minh or Nguyễn Khánh.

South Vietnam - Wikipedia
..the SVN government was corrupt and UNSTABLE =
do you understand what this means?
and it is going to take years for it to become stable/not corrupt
the VC beat the SV army who had APCs and choppers!
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/viet-cong-are-successful-at-ap-bac

again, as stated many times, NV did not have to WIN!!! just not lose--and this is very easy
like the Revolutionary War, the rebels did not have to win

the US could NOT stay in SVN forever!!!
all NV had to to is WAIT!

....Germany and Japan were still not surrendering after her cities were DESTROYED and hundreds of thousands of civilians killed
...Japan still not want to surrender after the A-bombs--the vote was a tie 3-3 !!!
NV is not going to surrender

the US CAN'T win in Vietnam
the US had air superiority!! this is a HUGE advantage
naval superiority
tank/APC/etc advantage
....MOBILITY!! choppers could put troops just about anywhere fast!!!--this is another HUGE battlefield advantage
etc and still lost
they helped/fought from 1955 [ and before ] to 1975
how much longer and how much more did we need to try to win???!!!!???
we should've just kept killing thousands of enemy/civilians and Americans till--------????
2015?? 2020??
we could not win