Mexican Gangs.. have permanent bases in Arizona: Merged

This is a discussion on Mexican Gangs.. have permanent bases in Arizona: Merged within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Shadowsbane Just because there are members of the mexican military conducting such opperations doesn't mean that it is at the request, orders ...

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 162

Thread: Mexican Gangs.. have permanent bases in Arizona: Merged

  1. #121
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowsbane View Post
    Just because there are members of the mexican military conducting such opperations doesn't mean that it is at the request, orders or even knowledge of the Mexican Government. Cash will buy you a lot of loyalty in most places around the world. So will threats against your loved ones.
    If you can't keep control of your dog and it bites somebody, you are held accountable. If it bites repeatedly, you have an even bigger issue to deal with.

    If the Mexican government feels it must pay to arm an army, then it is equally responsible for controlling it. If there is corruption in the army as you suggest, then that must be rooted out by the Mexican government.

    Just like your failure to control your dog leaves you responsible for the results, the failure of a government to control it's armed forces leaves it open to the results of its inattention to the situation. In other words, the Mexican government is responsible for the actions of those it commissions to lead its military. It is not up to the victim to figure out if the army representing a country is acting on orders from the chain of command, the victim can assume that the chain of command is being followed and respond accordingly.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #122
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,529
    So, for discussion, suppose many of the claims and allegations are true.

    What are the options? What are consequences for the various options?

    Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?

  4. #123
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?
    It looks like Mexico is at war with us,when it can make a buck or two.We can fight back or would you want to give up.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  5. #124
    Member Array anglertoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North Central Connecticut
    Posts
    45

    Pleased that you're paying attention

    I'm encouraged by the high percentage of you that take this seriously. As you have seen even a superficial search has found Military incursions of our border dating back for a decade. All this as we REDUCE our patrols:
    Reduced overtime stymies Border Patrol - Washington Times
    I'm afraid we have politicians that are working at looking the other way.
    Put your energy into changing ALL of our representatives.
    Our guys risking their lives every day deserve better!
    “To see what is right and not do it, is want of courage”. Confucius

  6. #125
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So, for discussion, suppose many of the claims and allegations are true.

    What are the options? What are consequences for the various options?

    Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?
    Am I itching for another shooting war - absolutely not. Let's examine the options.

    1. More diplomatic conversations with Mexico. This has not produced any tangible results in the last decade. Why do we think it would be productive now?

    2. Ignore the situation. This will result in one of a couple results. First we could have American towns overrun and our citizens killed in significant numbers second, after the border towns are overrun, we would basically cede the invaded and captured territory to Mexico by default. We then start the whole process over, just a bit further north. Where does this appeasement philosophy end? Neville Chamberlain took this approach with Hitler. It did not work out so well for him. Thank God for Churchill.

    3. Defend our territory. While this would require the deployment of military assets and would entail some degree of loss to personnel, it is probably the least costly approach. That having been said, I doubt we will see our elected officials go this route. They still think we can talk with Iran despite the fact that doing so will not likely produce a palatible solution.
    Last edited by ksholder; June 27th, 2010 at 06:46 PM.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  7. #126
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,757
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Am I itching for another shooting war - absolutely not. Let's examine the options.

    1. More diplomatic conversations with Mexico. This has not produced any tangible results in the last decade. Why do we think it would be productive now?

    2. Ignore the situation. This will result in one of a couple results. First we could have American towns overrun and our citizens killed in significant numbers second, after the border towns are overrun, we would basically cede the invaded and captured territory to Mexico by default. We then start the whole process over, just a bit further north. Where does this appeasement philosophy end? Neville Chaimberlain took this approach with Hitler. It did not work out so well for him. Thank God for Churchill.

    3. Defend our territory. While this would require the deployment of military assets and would entail some degree of loss to personnel, it is probably the least costly approach. That having been said, I doubt we will see our elected officials go this route. They still think we can talk with Iran despite the fact that doing so will not likely produce a palatible solution.
    You have it right.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  8. #127
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So, for discussion, suppose many of the claims and allegations are true.

    What are the options? What are consequences for the various options?

    Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?
    Well, technically if we just shoot them dead while they are here on our soil illegally, we aren't really having a war with Mexico!

    We're just killing cartel drug smugglers and their counter-intelligence/security forces.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  9. #128
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,529

    re:ksholder ????

    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Am I itching for another shooting war - absolutely not. Let's examine the options.


    3. Defend our territory. While this would require the deployment of military assets and would entail some degree of loss to personnel, it is probably the least costly approach.
    Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?

    What do you think their response would be?

    What kind of damage would a true military conflict on the border do to
    border communities?

    Would we lose more in the long run than we are perhaps now presently losing?

    Would a city such as Del Rio get destroyed in such a conflict? How about smaller communities? Can we bank on ineptitude on the other side?

    It seems to me we might now be having sometimes relatively minor scrapes. Not something we want, but do we have reasonable ways to stop these?

    I'm uninterested in our taking steps which would create a hot war, at least not under the present set of circumstances.

    Remember, we have put almost all of our resources into preparations for intercontinental conflict on opposite sides of the world. We might well be better able to deal with a North Korea or an Iran than with our own neighbor, along 2000 miles. Let's not be naive. A flood of American refugees from the border area precipitated by a military conflict would have an horrific affect on this nation.

    I think where I am trying to go with these comments is that we should not hype the nature of the problem for political reasons, or for drama, and in the process talk ourselves into a hot-war with all of the unknowns that would follow.

    For the moment, Mexico is still our second or third largest trading partner. They don't want a hot war, we should not want a hot war, and
    somehow this present concern is going to need to be worked out in peaceful ways. There is a time for everything. Let's not talk ourselves into a fight which is avoidable.

  10. #129
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?

    What do you think their response would be?

    What kind of damage would a true military conflict on the border do to
    border communities?

    Would we lose more in the long run than we are perhaps now presently losing?

    Would a city such as Del Rio get destroyed in such a conflict? How about smaller communities? Can we bank on ineptitude on the other side?

    It seems to me we might now be having sometimes relatively minor scrapes. Not something we want, but do we have reasonable ways to stop these?

    I'm uninterested in our taking steps which would create a hot war, at least not under the present set of circumstances.

    Remember, we have put almost all of our resources into preparations for intercontinental conflict on opposite sides of the world. We might well be better able to deal with a North Korea or an Iran than with our own neighbor, along 2000 miles. Let's not be naive. A flood of American refugees from the border area precipitated by a military conflict would have an horrific affect on this nation.

    I think where I am trying to go with these comments is that we should not hype the nature of the problem for political reasons, or for drama, and in the process talk ourselves into a hot-war with all of the unknowns that would follow.

    For the moment, Mexico is still our second or third largest trading partner. They don't want a hot war, we should not want a hot war, and
    somehow this present concern is going to need to be worked out in peaceful ways. There is a time for everything. Let's not talk ourselves into a fight which is avoidable.
    Lets just give them the stern tongue lashing they deserve. I know you'll agree.

  11. #130
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?

    What do you think their response would be?

    What kind of damage would a true military conflict on the border do to
    border communities?

    Would we lose more in the long run than we are perhaps now presently losing?

    Would a city such as Del Rio get destroyed in such a conflict? How about smaller communities? Can we bank on ineptitude on the other side?

    It seems to me we might now be having sometimes relatively minor scrapes. Not something we want, but do we have reasonable ways to stop these?

    I'm uninterested in our taking steps which would create a hot war, at least not under the present set of circumstances.

    Remember, we have put almost all of our resources into preparations for intercontinental conflict on opposite sides of the world. We might well be better able to deal with a North Korea or an Iran than with our own neighbor, along 2000 miles. Let's not be naive. A flood of American refugees from the border area precipitated by a military conflict would have an horrific affect on this nation.

    I think where I am trying to go with these comments is that we should not hype the nature of the problem for political reasons, or for drama, and in the process talk ourselves into a hot-war with all of the unknowns that would follow.

    For the moment, Mexico is still our second or third largest trading partner. They don't want a hot war, we should not want a hot war, and
    somehow this present concern is going to need to be worked out in peaceful ways. There is a time for everything. Let's not talk ourselves into a fight which is avoidable.
    Hopyard - Like you, I don't want a shooting war. That having been said, appeasement politics simply don't work. They have not worked in the past and they won't work here. We can either stand and defend our borders or keep pulling back as the Mexican hordes (cartels or government sponsored attacks) move north and capture our land.

    If we don't do something, and the conflict escalates, the border towns are toast anyway. If we do something will there be collateral damage? There possibly could be. Given that we can maintain air superiority over Mexico in short order, this gives us the upper hand in the conflict, almost from the get go. Assuming we prosecute the conflict like we mean to win it and do so as quickly as possible – the only justifiable way to prosecute a conflict – we should be able to restore order on the border fairly quickly.

    I am not a military planner, so my plan that follows may be overly simplistic – probably is, but here goes. We use the Airforce to gain and maintain air superiority and we put Warthogs and other air to mud assets up along the border with a constant CAP (air to air fighter assets) to protect them. Ground forces would patrol the border once we have air superiority and they would call in the air to mud guys, that are already airborne, when they have identified hostiles. Assuming we put sufficient ground forces along the border, say 1 .50 cal every 200 yards, with a ROE that makes crossing the border highly unpalatable, we will control the border pretty quickly with minimal loss of life to Americans or Mexicans.

    Once we have secured the border, we then erect the fence we should have put up years ago. This should be 2 fences with a mine field in the middle that is clearly marked in English and Spanish. Violators will be duly prosecuted and it won’t take many to deter border crossing attempts. The word will get around.

    I know that you will not like this approach, but in the end, I believe that this is the most humane way to control the border, will result in the least number of lives lost and will restore order.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  12. #131
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Assuming we prosecute the conflict like we mean to win it and do so as quickly as possible – the only justifiable way to prosecute a conflict – we should be able to restore order on the border fairly quickly.

    Assuming we put sufficient ground forces along the border, say 1 .50 cal every 200 yards, with a ROE that makes crossing the border highly unpalatable, we will control the border pretty quickly with minimal loss of life to Americans or Mexicans.

    this is the problem.

    Your suggestions certainly have merit, but the people that make the ROE, have been getting our people killed for a long time.

    We talk all of the time about how mindset and tactics win fights. Our soldiers on the ground, in the trenches, know this. But, the people that make the executive decisions, do not.

    We've been fighting armies all over the planet, for the last 50 yrs. All the while without the proper mindset to win. That is, the people who call the shots.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  13. #132
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,757
    For the people that think no one is getting shot, little over 30 to 40 + days ago a LEO got ambush and hit, in a crossfire south of me. Quote, Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?
    It's been done before, look at history.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  14. #133
    Distinguished Member Array sniper58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,631
    We're already getting collateral damage - in Phoenix, Tucson, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Brownsville and places farther north. Perhaps one day before I die we will have leaders with fortitude.
    Tim
    BE PREPARED - Noah didn't build the Ark when it was raining!
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    ________
    NRA Life Member

  15. #134
    Member Array BurgDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    130
    Our "leaders" are being bought and are a major part of the problem.

  16. #135
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The Mexican druggies have staked out territories far north of the US-Mexican border. Mexican gangs grow lots of pot in the national forests of VA and WV. The wheels who run the US Forest Service do not like it when you find a pot farm on their domain.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. The 21-year-old Mexican girl who took a job as police chief? (MERGED)
    By paaiyan in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 9th, 2011, 10:22 AM
  2. [Merged]Texas LEO's advise residents near the Mexican Border to ARM themselves....
    By ExSoldier in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: April 27th, 2010, 01:57 PM
  3. The Law? ATF, Mexican Gangs, and Eastern Washington
    By nutz4utwo in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 24th, 2009, 02:49 PM
  4. Just saw this on msn.com (Veteran cuts down Mexican Flag) - Merged
    By edr9x23super in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: October 8th, 2007, 11:43 PM

Search tags for this page

gang round up in glendale az

,

glendale arizona has a gang round up

,

mexican gangs merging

,

willis, tx area gangs

Click on a term to search for related topics.