|
Yep, they'll go after the OTHER cartels now. Sinaloa isn't nearly as insane as the Zetas (trust me, I know).
"We will stop going after the cartel responsible for most of the instability and violence, and go after the ones we know won't murder our families. The ones that actually take out Zetas every chance they get'"
Wimps.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So because they can't attack the biggest one, they shouldn't attack any?
Your way, nothing good gets accomplished. If they go after even the little fish cartels, some good gets done, and it ties them up as well. Better to do the good you can, than to cry about the good you can not do.
Um, you know nothing about Mexico, or the cartels there. Trust me. Exposing the "small fish", as you call them makes Los Zetas stronger. Which is a VERY bad thing.
I speak from very personal experience.
Plus, the only "problem" is OUR ridiculous war on drugs. We created the violence, much like we created the gang violence in the '20s during Prohibition.
Anonymous is just going to wind up getting more people killed.
|
I have visited Mexico, the tourist area is OK. I have never lived there. I know a few people from Mexico, some legal, others less so. I have read a few stories about Drug cartels, watched a few news programs and heard a few "news" programs about what has happened, what will happen and why it has happened.
You should be able to tell I am no expert. I do not feel the "war on drugs" is the best option, nor do I think it is wrong either, just that our approach should be different.
I also do not feel that Anonymous has always acted in the best interest of those they report to try to "protect." That they have oft times acted with little knowledge of the ramifications of their actions.
I feel that they are by not releasing the names hurting more than helping in Mexico. While the terroristic threats of Cartels are much more than just hyperbole, they should not now or ever be kowtowed to.
my 2cp
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, the only "problem" is OUR ridiculous war on drugs.This tells me enough about you that I don't feel the need to continue this conversation. However, I do have one more thing to add.
Anonymous is just going to wind up getting more people killed.No, anonymous is not responsible for any deaths that come from them exposing the identities of the people who are in bed with the cartels. The cartels are the ones with the guns in their hands, any deaths that come about are their fault, not the fault of people trying to expose some of the corruption.
Yeah, I know. Laws that allow a virtual police state and put 18 year old crack dealers caught with ridiculously small amounts of product in prison for 15, 20 years, and then, during that time, does absolutely nothing to ensure when they are released they have any skills to go legit, yeah, that's an AWESOME thing!
I seriously doubt you have a clue what our drug war does.
|
|
You want a war on drugs, take all the cocaine confiscated by the government, mix it with anthrax, and reintroduce it to the market. Solve the national debt and the drug war in one go.Sounds like a familiar plotline ...
Sorry, but when Kyle placed a desert 40 miles west of Houston and said there was no good Indian food here (hint: we a HUGE South Asian population here, complete with awesome Indian restaurants), I decided he was a lousy writer (or, at least, a lousy researcher) and gave up on him.
;-)
|
|
So because they can't attack the biggest one, they shouldn't attack any?
Your way, nothing good gets accomplished. If they go after even the little fish cartels, some good gets done, and it ties them up as well. Better to do the good you can, than to cry about the good you can not do.
Because Anonymous is such an amazing force for good... yeah.
|
Citation needed. :P
90% of the users are collateral??
Inhalation anthrax: Initial symptoms may resemble a common cold – sore throat, mild fever, muscle aches and malaise. After several days, the symptoms may progress to severe breathing problems and shock. Inhalation anthrax is usually fatal.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/anthrax/faq/signs.asp
Someone missed the joke.
|
|
Someone missed the joke.Citation needed. :P
90% of the users are collateral??
Inhalation anthrax: Initial symptoms may resemble a common cold – sore throat, mild fever, muscle aches and malaise. After several days, the symptoms may progress to severe breathing problems and shock. Inhalation anthrax is usually fatal.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/anthrax/faq/signs.asp
Does it surprise you?
Sorry, but when Kyle placed a desert 40 miles west of Houston and said there was no good Indian food here (hint: we a HUGE South Asian population here, complete with awesome Indian restaurants), I decided he was a lousy writer (or, at least, a lousy researcher) and gave up on him.
|
|
Sorry, but when Kyle placed a desert 40 miles west of Houston and said there was no good Indian food here (hint: we a HUGE South Asian population here, complete with awesome Indian restaurants), I decided he was a lousy writer (or, at least, a lousy researcher) and gave up on him.Even our British pubs have good Indian food!
Well, Indians taught the Brits that food didn't have to be penance for whatever the Brits were doing penance for.
;-)
And that place ROCKS!
Well, Indians taught the Brits that food didn't have to be penance for whatever the Brits were doing penance for.
What's the difference between heaven and hell?
And that place ROCKS!
Yes. Yes, it does.
|
|
With fetching the information about Anthrax being over 90% lethal? I was a member of another forum, and when people asked for information it was common courtesy to fetch it for them if you knew where it was.
(And please, don't read anything into me having the CDC webpage at easy reach, its just one google away.)
I promise not to read anything in to what you say.
I was actually disbelieving that 90% of cocaine users are strippers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the Anonymous actions go, I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, if they can bring Los Zetas down, or at least make a significant impact into the corrupt infrastructure that supports them, that would not be a bad thing. On the other hand, this could lead to the deaths of LOTS of folks, which would not be a good thing.
It all boils down to which would be more negative. There is no winning this type of situation, there are just degrees of losing. In this case I think taking on the cartel would probably be the less negative option, but not by a huge margin.
As to the US War on Drugs, it is a joke. What was the point of it? To reduce drug use, right? Not a lot of success over the last decade, but racked up a $1 trillion tab over 40 years; considering that we were looking at about $48 billion spent in 2008 ... almost 5% of the full 40 year window for the $1 trillion price tag, we're not looking at a good return on our investment. Unless you are an investor in the private prison industry. Yeah, I fell pretty strongly about the "War on Drugs". And I think it is far past time for us to reconsider our tactics.
|
|
You want a war on drugs, take all the cocaine confiscated by the government, mix it with anthrax, and reintroduce it to the market. Solve the national debt and the drug war in one go.Sounds like a familiar plotline ...Sorry, but when Kyle placed a desert 40 miles west of Houston and said there was no good Indian food here (hint: we a HUGE South Asian population here, complete with awesome Indian restaurants), I decided he was a lousy writer (or, at least, a lousy researcher) and gave up on him.
;-)
Oh I never said it was any good, I just said the plotline sounded familiar ... ;)
I was actually disbelieving that 90% of cocaine users are strippers.
If you assume that the ratio of subprime investment brokers to strippers is 1:9, that's probably pretty accurate. Rock stars are too small a proportion of the population to make a difference, statistically.
Then again, if we're talking sheer volume snorted, vs. number of users, I think Charlie Sheen alone makes it 90% in favor of actors.
I have no problem with them, but laying off the ONE CARTEL that causes the most problems is, well, if you don't want to get hurt, stay out of it.
you've got to gain some levels first before you take on a dragon. Hopefully they'll get some other people to stand up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather they start trying to end the DEA. Then ALL the cartels would eventually stop.
Blah. Get the message across to the corrupt cops and administrators that THEY are PERSONALLY at risk of being exposed for taking drug cartel money, and the scene changes. Corrupt officials need to be taken down, and if you do, ALL the cartels suffer, and lose efficiency. Anonymous is doing the right thing. Saying someone will just take up what another cartel loses is miserable and pathetic. If the corrupt officials go, the cartels are done for.