Rick Perry suggests US military role in Mexico drug war

Gerald · 10-01-11, 08:02 PM

Texas Governor Rick Perry - who is seeking the Republican nomination for US president - has said he would consider sending American troops into Mexico to combat drug-related violence.

Mr Perry was speaking during a campaign appearance in New Hampshire.

"It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border," he said.

Such a move would go far beyond current US involvement in Mexico's drugs war.

Governor Perry gave no further details of what sort of possible military intervention he would consider.

"I don't know all the different scenarios that would be out there," he said.

"But I think it is very important for us to work with them to keep that country from failing".

Sovereignty,

After the speech, the White House said it would continue its "historic level of cooperation with Mexico" to protect people on both sides of the border.

The Obama administration currently provides substantial material support to Mexican security forces, as well as close intelligence cooperation.

The US has also deployed National Guard troops to boost border security, and uses pilotless drone aircraft to gather intelligence inside Mexico.

Any deployment of US military forces on Mexican territory would almost certainly be unacceptable to the Mexican authorities.

Mexico lost around half its territory to the US after a war in the 1840s, and has since been very protective of its sovereignty.

The Mexican constitution also places strict limits on foreign intervention.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been pressing the US to do more to reduce demand for drugs among its citizens and to reduce the flow of weapons from the US to the cartels.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15140560

Note: 2 October 2011 Last updated at 00:37 GMT

1480 · 10-01-11, 08:26 PM

And our administration has been allowing guns to walk over there for the last few years. While not directly arming criminals, they have been complicit in weapons traffiking. Perry is riding the fast and furious debacle for all he can and if his handlers are starting to push this angle, then I truly believe the investigation will be gaining more attention in the next few months. Will be very interesting to say the least.

Skybird · 10-02-11, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

Mexico lost around half its territory to the US after a war in the 1840s, and has since been very protective of its sovereignty.

One could argue whether or not a nation so lethally infested and ripped apart by organsied crime indeed is sovereign anymore. To me it looks more like anarchy in the absence of any authority that could claim and defend sovereignity.

I can't say that I have become a fan of Perry over the past weeks since his name continued to pop ub in the media over here. But in fact I have started to consider Mexico to be possibly a failed state, and if it poses a "clear and present danger" to the US - which I think is a view that can be defended due to the drug and crime trafficking - then the US naturally has the right to protect itself by military means, even more so, I think it has the obligation to protect American society and American citizens in the US. whether that would mean mjlitary intervention inside Mexico, or a militarily enforced sealing and isolatiopn of Mexico at the outside borders, is something that must be decided on basis of assessement of the military options and facts that define the current situation.

danny60 · 10-02-11, 09:12 AM

The US going into a country that doesn't have oil?

Gerald · 10-02-11, 09:59 AM

A statement that does not really conform to reality, political moves to win votes for next season,overcome problems yes, but it will not happen, with American military presence, but rather whether there are financial opportunities in the budget, and it's not, but it is obviously in the U.S. interest to stop the drugs, and organized crime, which comes in over the border, Mexico must, in turn, act tougher.

nikimcbee · 10-02-11, 10:09 AM

Whatever they do, I wish they (the gubmint) would be a little more heavy handed with those guys. I don't think the US Army could legally do this, but the Nat'l Guard is a different stoy (afaik). Maybe we could hire the North Koreans or the Russians or the East Germans to build\manage a buffer zone.

Jimbuna · 10-02-11, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Whatever they do, I wish they (the gubmint) would be a little more heavy handed with those guys. I don't think the US Army could legally do this, but the Nat'l Guard is a different stoy (afaik). Maybe we could hire the North Koreans or the Russians or the East Germans to build\manage a buffer zone.

I hear the Israelis are pretty good at building barriers/walls

CaptainHaplo · 10-02-11, 10:18 AM

Lots of talk to gather support. Not a realisitic option the way its usually talked about. Military forces as a whole are not trained or prepared to do pure law enforcement activities.

As for mexican soveriegnty - we should worry about that only after they decided to start respecting ours. Until then, its a line drawn on the map that has little meaning.

Rockstar · 10-02-11, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Whatever they do, I wish they (the gubmint) would be a little more heavy handed with those guys. I don't think the US Army could legally do this, but the Nat'l Guard is a different stoy (afaik). Maybe we could hire the North Koreans or the Russians or the East Germans to build\manage a buffer zone.

We could invite UN peace keeping forces to the border then all will be well. Lets take a vote and forward it for approval right away.

TLAM Strike · 10-02-11, 06:58 PM

Why not. Hezbollah is working in Mexico now, lets make this an international war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danny60

The US going into a country that doesn't have oil?

Mexico is the world's 6th largest producer of oil.

Ducimus · 10-03-11, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

Mexico lost around half its territory to the US after a war in the 1840s, and has since been very protective of its sovereignty.

They've been doing a bang up job taking that territory back without firing a shot too.

Gerald · 10-03-11, 11:57 AM

What you posted here, are from the original source ie Articles, and NOT my words, so we should not confuse apples and oranges ...that no bullet was shot, you say, is even better,

August · 10-03-11, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

What you posted here, are from the original source ie Articles, and NOT my words, so we should not confuse apples and oranges

People wouldn't make this mistake if you'd put the copied text in a quote box like I have suggested.

Sailor Steve · 10-03-11, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

People wouldn't make this mistake if you'd put the copied text in a quote box like I have suggested.

And I, and more than once.

Gerald · 10-03-11, 02:22 PM

Apparently this is a problem, if you read the article in its entirety is nothing strange, I myself do not experience it as a big problem, but the taste is different, and I respect that.

10-01-11, 08:02 PM	#1
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Rick Perry suggests US military role in Mexico drug war Texas Governor Rick Perry - who is seeking the Republican nomination for US president - has said he would consider sending American troops into Mexico to combat drug-related violence. Mr Perry was speaking during a campaign appearance in New Hampshire. "It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border," he said. Such a move would go far beyond current US involvement in Mexico's drugs war. Governor Perry gave no further details of what sort of possible military intervention he would consider. "I don't know all the different scenarios that would be out there," he said. "But I think it is very important for us to work with them to keep that country from failing". Sovereignty, After the speech, the White House said it would continue its "historic level of cooperation with Mexico" to protect people on both sides of the border. The Obama administration currently provides substantial material support to Mexican security forces, as well as close intelligence cooperation. The US has also deployed National Guard troops to boost border security, and uses pilotless drone aircraft to gather intelligence inside Mexico. Any deployment of US military forces on Mexican territory would almost certainly be unacceptable to the Mexican authorities. Mexico lost around half its territory to the US after a war in the 1840s, and has since been very protective of its sovereignty. The Mexican constitution also places strict limits on foreign intervention. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has been pressing the US to do more to reduce demand for drugs among its citizens and to reduce the flow of weapons from the US to the cartels. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15140560 Note: 2 October 2011 Last updated at 00:37 GMT __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

10-01-11, 08:26 PM	#2
1480 Lead Slinger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chitcago, Illinoise Posts: 1,442 Downloads: 74 Uploads: 0	And our administration has been allowing guns to walk over there for the last few years. While not directly arming criminals, they have been complicit in weapons traffiking. Perry is riding the fast and furious debacle for all he can and if his handlers are starting to push this angle, then I truly believe the investigation will be gaining more attention in the next few months. Will be very interesting to say the least. __________________

10-02-11, 09:12 AM	#4
danny60 A-ganger Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: You know, I have no idea where I am... Posts: 73 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	The US going into a country that doesn't have oil? __________________ Running at three-bell flank ahead.

10-02-11, 09:59 AM	#5
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	A statement that does not really conform to reality, political moves to win votes for next season,overcome problems yes, but it will not happen, with American military presence, but rather whether there are financial opportunities in the budget, and it's not, but it is obviously in the U.S. interest to stop the drugs, and organized crime, which comes in over the border, Mexico must, in turn, act tougher. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

10-02-11, 10:09 AM	#6
nikimcbee Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Patroling the Slot. Posts: 17,952 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Whatever they do, I wish they (the gubmint) would be a little more heavy handed with those guys. I don't think the US Army could legally do this, but the Nat'l Guard is a different stoy (afaik). Maybe we could hire the North Koreans or the Russians or the East Germans to build\manage a buffer zone. __________________

10-02-11, 10:18 AM	#8
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Lots of talk to gather support. Not a realisitic option the way its usually talked about. Military forces as a whole are not trained or prepared to do pure law enforcement activities. As for mexican soveriegnty - we should worry about that only after they decided to start respecting ours. Until then, its a line drawn on the map that has little meaning. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

10-03-11, 11:57 AM	#12
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	What you posted here, are from the original source ie Articles, and NOT my words, so we should not confuse apples and oranges ...that no bullet was shot, you say, is even better, __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

10-03-11, 02:22 PM	#15
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Apparently this is a problem, if you read the article in its entirety is nothing strange, I myself do not experience it as a big problem, but the taste is different, and I respect that. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie