In 2008, more than 1,600 people were killed in Juárez in drug-related violence, often assassinations carried out in daylight. Some 6,000 people died in drug-related violence across Mexico last year. More than 100 people have been killed so far this year in Juárez, including at least six policemen kidnapped from their police post, their heads showing up a few days later dropped off at the police station.Recently, the city's police chief was forced to step down after criminal gangs threatened to kill at least one officer every 48 hours unless Chief Roberto Orduña left his post. To prove their point, gunmen left signs on the slain bodies of a police officer and a jail guard. Days later, gunmen in two cars fired high-powered weapons at a convoy carrying Gov. José Reyes Baeza, killing a body guard and injuring two agents.
The answer has been for the Mexican Army to deploy about 2,500 soldiers in Juárez last spring. Another 5,000 soldiers were deployed last month to take charge of the police department. There have been mixed reports about how well this is working.
Much of the bloodshed is being orchestrated by Joaquin 'Shorty' Guzman, one of the world's most wanted men, who leads a cartel from the Pacific-coast state of Sinaloa. Guzman has already turned his homeland into his own personal fiefdom.Last year, Caracas Venezuela was the most violent city in the world; perhaps Juarez is vying for that honor in 2009. What do you think? Even at this terrible pace, can Juarez reach the incredible murder rate of Caracas, 130 per 100,000?Blamed for the deaths of 600 people already this year, the drugs baron has become enraged by the Mexican government's attempts to curtail his operations.
In one recent shoot-out, he exacted revenge by killing seven federal agents and beheading them. Armed with AK-47 assault rifles - known in Mexico as cuernos de chivo (goat's horns) due to their curved magazines - they also pumped more than 100 rounds into two police officers who had the temerity to stop one of their men.
Do you think it's possible that most of the guns used in these drug wars are coming from the United States, as has been reported? It seems to me they'd require larger shipments than could be smuggled across the border from the States a few at a time. What do you think?
In the big picture, isn't it the demand for drugs in the U.S. that's driving all of this? Isn't the failed "war on drugs" responsible then for all of this violence? Do you think the Obama Administration will be able to do something about that? Should Obama take this seriously given all the other problems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, etc.?
I'm not sure who's doing the warning here, but this statement comes from the UK's Daily Mail.
Barack Obama has been warned that Mexico's drugs lords now pose as big a threat to U.S. national security as Islamic insurgents. The U.S. is now planning to deploy the military to the border to try to contain the bloodshed.
What's your opinion?
Sorry, but last I checked Mexican drug gangs didn't fly planes into buildings full of civilians.
ReplyDeleteObama must be smokin' some good stuff.
Sorry, but last I checked Mexican drug gangs didn't fly planes into buildings full of civilians.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell does this mean? I guess it must be some 'code talk' from those who dwell in the dark shadows on the right side of life.
Funny stuff; always a hoot on the right.
The money from the failed "War on Drugs" goes towards bribing Mexican officials ( who promptly blame the US) and paying the 17K Mexican soldiers/year who have deserted w/ their equipment.
ReplyDeleteThe newspapers claim that US gun shows are selling grenades, RPG's, and machineguns to Mexican drug dealers.
Oddly enough, no US residents are ever able to find these bargains.
Mud,
ReplyDeleteSince you seem to lack reading comprehension skills, I'll help you out.
This quote from MikeB's post:
Barack Obama has been warned that Mexico's drugs lords now pose as big a threat to U.S. national security as Islamic insurgents.
Mike W. correctly identified that the Mexican drug gangs weren't trying to kill American in large numbers at a single time. Mexican Drug gangs aren't trying to wipe America off the face of the map because they don't like our way of life.
Does that help? I hope I didn't use words that were too big.
www.m-w.com is an online dictionary to help you puzzle out the tough words.
"Oddly enough, no US residents are ever able to find these bargains."
ReplyDeleteHell, Ive never even seen a full-auto rifle, grenade, or rocket launcher. Clearly I'm going to the wrong merchants of death.
Mud rake - Reading comprehension would help. Right now you just look like an idiot.
And honestly, how could the cartels be a bigger threat than islamic extremists. If anything the last thing the cartels would want is to kill large numbers of Americans since we're they're biggest market.
ReplyDeleteMexican drug gangs weren't trying to kill American in large numbers at a single time. Mexican Drug gangs aren't trying to wipe America off the face of the map because they don't like our way of life.
ReplyDeletethey may not be trying, but the indirect effects of their actions are quite likely to actually end up killing more Americans --- in total and per annum --- than the actions of every terrorist group put together.
similarly, the effects of the drug gangs on how Americans live our lives, on what we have to worry about and adjust for when going about our daily lives, is likely to be far greater than the impact of every radical islamic extremist on the planet.
i guarantee you that if Mexico becomes a failed state or a narco-state (whatever that might mean), the impact of that on the American economy will vastly outweigh any direct impact al quaeda might ever have had on us, and might possibly come to rival the indirect impact of our starting this idiotic "war on terror" business.
(and it's not as if any of this isn't patently obvious to anybody who can run the ballpark numbers on the back of a barroom napkin. why are we humans so bloody damn bad at recognizing diffuse and long-term risks, anyway...)
Nomen,
ReplyDeletebut the indirect effects of their actions are quite likely to actually end up killing more Americans
The drug gangs are no more responsible for the deaths of drug users then firearm manufacturers are responsible for deaths caused by criminals.
People willingly choose to inject,snort,smoke,swallow and otherwise consume drugs. The deaths related to drugs usage are the responsibilities of the users. Not the drug gangs.
I will point out the violence associated with the drug trafficking is the responsibility of the drug gangs.
similarly, the effects of the drug gangs on how Americans live our lives, on what we have to worry about and adjust for when going about our daily lives, is likely to be far greater than the impact of every radical islamic extremist on the planet.
I understand where you are going with this and some what agree. I think we, as Americans, and many other countries are going to see a huge upswing in violence. It doesn't matter to those caught in the cross fire if it is religious based or greed based. I think violence is going to increase.
Of course, the proper gun banner answer to this upsurge in violence would be to .......disarm the law abiding.
Bob, i was thinking mainly of the effects of gang warfare over drug-dealing turf, yes. bootleggers weren't responsible for people drinking themselves to death, either, but that doesn't mean Al Capone was any angel.
ReplyDeleteand indeed, disarming the rest of us would be exactly the wrong answer --- the right answer would be some combination of supporting the Mexican state so it doesn't crumble under gang pressure, and legalizing drugs here in the USA to starve the gangs of power and money.
the right answer would be some combination of supporting the Mexican state so it doesn't crumble under gang pressure, and legalizing drugs here in the USA to starve the gangs of power and money.
ReplyDeleteWhat he said.
But until it gets cleaned up, disarming would be stupid.
Nomen made a very astute comment, as usual. Well, as usual, except when he comments on my gun stance.
ReplyDeleteHe said, speaking of the drug cartels compared to the Islamic terrorists, "they may not be trying, but the indirect effects of their actions are quite likely to actually end up killing more Americans."
Bob, of course went immediately into a thing about responsibility. I don't think that was the point. Mainly we're all talking about what's more damaging. But speaking of blame, do we all agree that the war on drugs is to blame? Now, hold on Bob. We all know the war on drugs is not forcing any junkies to use junk and it's not making any killers kill. But isn't the war on drugs the real problem here?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe war on Drug isn't the problem. The problem is people are using an illegal substance and some people are willing to do whatever it takes to make money on that.
Yes, I went on "a thing about responsibility" Imagine that. Talking about people deciding to do drugs. Talking about people deciding to shoot one another because of a few blocks of turf in the city.
Guess I just don't realize that people are helpless victims in life. That they can't control themselves when drugs are present. That they can't control themselves when firearms are present.
Even if drugs are made legal, there will still be violence associated with drugs. People will rob, steal, kill to get them. They will assault people to get money to buy drugs. Look at alcohol, a legal substance but still has violence associated with its misuse and abuse.
Stop blaming firearms, stop blaming the War on Some drugs, stop blaming mental illness, stop blaming everything but the person responsible.