Mexico drug war interactive map

[Rob]

I thought this was kind of neat....LA Times has done an interactive map on the hotspots/battlezones in the Mexican government's war on the cartels. Each area highlights major players, weekly body count, etc. Worth checking out.

http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#

[Faceman]

[Brew_Ha_Ha]

US media says guns flow from the US to south of the border into the hands of traffickers.

I wonder if statements like those will motivate (hispanic primarily) voters to support gun restriction laws.

[Captain John Miller]

US media says guns flow from the US to south of the border into the hands of traffickers.

I wonder if statements like those will motivate (hispanic primarily) voters to support gun restriction laws.

I find that impossible tbh, we have huge problems getting them legally-yet they buy FA weapons from here?? Yea ok..

Just like the article I read today about Clinton witch saying its our fault cause we buy the drugs from them??? Yea ok..

[Rob]

I find that impossible tbh, we have huge problems getting them legally-yet they buy FA weapons from here?? Yea ok..

Just like the article I read today about Clinton witch saying its our fault cause we buy the drugs from them??? Yea ok..

I had a little trouble with the guns thing too; but come on, of course American demand drives the drug trade in Mexico. If there were no demand for it north of their border, there wouldn't be any trafficking of it, would there?

I balked at Clinton too--but not because she was wrong; because she was pointing out the staggeringly obvious that anyone with more than a double-digit IQ could've figured out.

[Latzen]

The United States does not have a good track record of acknowledging these hopelessly obvious points of fact, though, so Sec. Clinton playing Captain Obvious is a bit of a step in the right direction.

It's a symbiosis of violence, frankly. We're a little bit hollow, as a nation, and so a large demand for drugs arises (to fill the hollow) and, conveniently enough, we've got the disposable income to buy the drugs.

Mexico participates by being possessed of a dysfunctional federal government, and a police force that has been atrophied and consumed by corruption.

To use a terribly cliched phrase: it's a perfect storm of factors. A large demand coupled with a ripe supply environment.

And now to depart from the chilly academic analysis: 7,000+ people killed in a year over this makes me queasy, honestly. It's a "despair of the species" moment.

EDIT: I read or heard somewhere recently that the people who study such things have put Mexico on the list of Possibly Failed States right up by Pakistan. So that's something to watch for in '09, too.

[Captain John Miller]

Rob your right in the demand thing, but mexico is a thru point. Most of our drugs dont come from mexico itself, smuggled thru there maybe but not from that shithole.

Columbia is #1, as well as places such as panama, brazil, peru, most of central america, etc. Mexico as a drug producing nation is very low..

Either way, if they would just make drugs legal and regulate them we wouldnt have nearly the amount of problems we do. While I dont condone more regulation, in the end its better than the so called failed "war on drugs": where basically they get revenue from busting people with barely enough to use themselves. Honestly all about the benjamims in the end.

I dunno, the world is already going to hell in a handbasket imho and here we are trying to blame mexico for guns and drugs, while meanwhile or economy is in shambles and were slowly slipping down the drain. Yes, spend tons of money on mexico and the war on drugs INSTEAD of the more pertinent problems like the fact we import everything, jobs are steadily declining, the GOV owns pos AIG who paid peoples retirements who worked for them yet-they fucked everyone else, etc, etc. Yea..spend the money on sending hildebeast to mexico craphole to raise awarness on the most obvious of bs and lie that they get guns from the US. Okay...

Diverting attn imho of something else.

Dont even get me started how Obama view is on all of this, let alone he isnt proven to be a US citizen and wont do so even tho lawsuits and protests. Thus if he isnt he cant be US prez..

Sorry Im rambling..

[Brew_Ha_Ha]

CJM I'm sure if there was any doubt to Obama's citizenship the Supreme Court and Congress would go ape shit over it.

No one said anything about a non-citizen holding a Senate seat to a very populated state...for two years.

[Captain John Miller]

There has been plenty of doubt and so far the SCOTUS didnt even want to hear it. There has been about 3-5 lawsuits, no one will touch it.

Anyone can be a senator really. All ya gotta be is a citizen for 9 years (note not natural born citzen like the prex), be 30 and live in that state. Same goes for house or govenor iirc. To be prez you need tobe 35, natural born (meaning you were born here or on American soil (be it on a base or PR or soemthing) and you have to have lived in the US for 14 years (you can live elsewhere, so long as your a zitizen).

Its the fact he wont even touch the subject that gets me, if you have nothing to hide why wont Hi release the certificate to prove it, if you have nothing to hide why dont you tell us?

Dont even get me started on his civilian corps thing, where everyone 18-24 has gotta serve.

If you wanna debate it we need a new thread and its gonna go on for pages. Feel free to pm me if you wish about it.

[Fenris Wolf]

I balked at Clinton too--but not because she was wrong; because she was pointing out the staggeringly obvious that anyone with more than a double-digit IQ could've figured out.

They gave a Nobel Peace Prize to Gore for saying, "Damn, it's getting hot up in this bitch".