Conservatives Turn Further Against War—Except Maybe With Mexico
While a conservative skepticism toward military aggression would be welcome, Republican standard-bearers are all too happy to sign off on war powers in other ways.
At the nation's largest gathering of conservatives, many seem to be turning against the prospect of American military interventions—at least overseas.
As part of her speech at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.) took aim at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. According to Greene, "He said he wants our sons and daughters to go die [fighting] in Ukraine." She pledged "no money to Ukraine" and said, "that country needs to find peace, not war." To Zelenskyy, "You better leave your hands off our sons and daughters because they're not dying over there."
Greene made the same claim earlier this week on Twitter, based on an out-of-context statement: Speaking of a hypothetical Russian attack against a NATO member state, Zelenskyy said the U.S. would send its "sons and daughters" to fight. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack on one member state could spawn a request for military assistance from other members. But after her speech, in an appearance at the Real America's Voice broadcasting booth, Greene and Steve Bannon clarified that the U.S. should not acquiesce to American soldier involvement in conflict over NATO states either.
The forthrightness of Greene's position marks a noticeable shift from conservatives of years past: After all, the only country to ever invoke Article 5 was the United States. Under a Republican president, the U.S. launched multiple wars against Middle Eastern nations under the rubric of a global war on terror after the September 11 attacks. But conservatives in the last few years have shifted away from the Republican Party's past militarism, and it showed in the speeches of the party's 2024 candidates.
Former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who recently announced a run for the presidency, addressed CPAC on Friday. She refrained from any foreign policy specifics other than to say that "we need our military to be stronger than ever," as "a strong military doesn't start wars, a strong military prevents wars."
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was another CPAC speaker who is expected to announce a presidential run. Like Haley's, Pompeo's speech was short on foreign policy specifics other than to tout his own achievements as a West Point cadet and as an Army officer. He spoke of the need for military-style "victory" but against enemies like "wokeness" rather than any particular geopolitical foe.
Former President Donald Trump announced his own reelection candidacy in November. Last month, Politico reported that Trump intended to run as an anti-war alternative to candidates like Haley and Pompeo.
Given that the post-9/11 military incursions resulted in the two longest wars in American history, we should welcome conservative skepticism toward flexing America's military might. But that's not the entire story.
Republicans often blame Mexican drug cartels and American border policy for American fentanyl deaths. Greene advocated targeting cartels by bombing Mexico, a clear act of war against another nation. Vivek Ramaswamy, who recently announced a candidacy for president as a Republican, pledged that as president he would use "military force to decimate the cartels, Osama bin Laden-style."
During a 2022 debate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) said the U.S. should "declare the Mexican drug cartels a terrorist organization," a designation which he alleged "allows our military to go to Mexico…and actually do battle with them."
And earlier this year, Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R–Texas) and Mike Waltz (R–Fla.) introduced an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to target cartels. The U.S. Congress has yet to repeal the AUMFs still in effect since both 2001 and 2002—not to mention the AUMFs from 1991 and 1957—but some Republicans want to pass yet another one. While Waltz said this AUMF would not authorize soldiers, the 21st century is full of presidents using AUMFs in ways other than for their intended purpose.
While a conservative skepticism toward military aggression would be welcome, Republican standard-bearers are all too happy to sign off on war powers in other ways.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Koch-funded libertarians, in contrast, will tolerate neocon Team America: World Police foreign policy ….. as long as it comes with refusal to enforce America’s southern border.
What else would you expect from a publication whose editor in chief used to work with Bill Kristol at The Weekly “Israel First!” Warmonger? I mean, The Weekly Standard?
#CheapLaborAboveAll
#LibertariansForBiden
Tolerate them? They have been singing their praises for the last 6 years.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link——————————————->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Wow! That $35,200 can buy a lot more tattoos and help you adopt more foreign kids, Angie!
🙂
Fine any company $100K if they have an illegal working for them. End all welfare for illegals especially for moms flooding in with kids and no daddy. the border solves itself.
Increase legal immigration but with a focus on intelligence driven immigration. Use an SAT for example and talk the top 10% annually.
dummies not wanted…
How dare Trump run as an anti-war candidate. Last I recall, he started World War III, IV, and V during his 4 year reign of terror.
From 2016 to 2020 a certain group of people screamed at the top of their lungs that Trump was going to crash the economy and start World War Three, and as soon as he was pulled from power those same people crashed the economy and started World War Three.
Don’t forget the Invasion of Greenland!
It’s a shame he didn’t invade CA and change the regime.
We all actually died after Trump started WW3.
Yup, this is Hell.
Now it makes sense.
Strategically buying Greenland would have been a very smart move. in US hands, the minerals and projection of sea lane power with air bases on the east coast would have been useful. The North Atlantic would be a US lake. Canada would be marginalized, the Brits a vessel state and the EU bolshies out of the picture…
Why not just trade with Greenlanders for their resources, as Free-Marketeers Adam Smith, Richard Cobden, and John Bright prescribed for The British instead of Colonialism? It’s cheaper and involves no American blood and tax treasure.
Ukraine would be better defended by a US that owns Greenland than by a US which does not.
The Jones Act would be less defensible by a US which owns Greenland than a US which does not.
Immigration restrictions would be less defensible by a US which owns Greenland.
…
…
Understood that the people of Greenland might not want to become Americans, but the derision from Americans on the idea just demonstrates how truly stupid( and anti-American/anti-Freedom/pro-Authoritarian Globalist) many Americans really are.
A ‘war’ against Mexico where we do not invade, but use military resources to enforce national borders. Which is actually pretty common globally.
Vs.
33 aid packages to Ukraine in 53 weeks. 3 per month. $200 BILLION. Threat of nuclear escalation, possibility of World War 3.
How about just having adequate civilian personnel to effectively manage the border? I don’t think the military is appropriate there. It’s a good thing that the US doesn’t use its military internally as many countries do. “Pretty common globally” is not a very good standard to hold to.
But I’d still rather invade Mexico than continue what has been started in Ukraine.
It’s too late for that. The crime gangs are a heavily armed military force. Only our own armed forces can stand up to them, and we need to go on the offensive, not just guard our side of the border.
It’s too late for that. The crime gangs are a heavily armed military force.
Ironically, we’re the ones that trained a lot of them at School of the Americas.
The border with Mexico is 1945 miles long. Having adequate personnel is not a cheap prospect. Necessary, perhaps, but you can understand why the typical politician wants that money for his own pet projects.
Most people agree that it was bad for Putin to invade another country.
Yes they do. Did you have a point?
That would be a first.
Invasion rarely works for the invader in the long run. Iraq?
Most people also agree that the US and other western countries repeatedly lied to Putin about maintaining a neutral boundary between NATO countries and Russia. Most people would agree that the US government sponsored a coup against the elected Ukrainian President under Obama and installed a U.S. puppet. Most people would agree that the installed puppet set upon the genocide of former Russian citizens and their descendants in the Donbas region of Ukraine. Most people agree that the US government planned and executed the destruction of a major Russian gas pipeline to Germany. So, while it may be “bad” that Putin did and continues to invade Ukraine, it has not been unprovoked.
All assertions of fact not found in evidence. Stick with fried peanut butter-‘n’-nanner sammiches, King.
Actually, they are all found in evidence. Does it justify Russia invading Ukraine? Not in the slightest. But it doesn’t mean you can simply ignore the icky parts of US behavior.
At the nation’s largest gathering of conservatives, many seem to be turning against the prospect of American military interventions—at least overseas.
Just so you know, youngins born After Twitter, there’s a long and hallowed history of populist conservative anti-war sentiment in this country. Long, long history.
No, no, no. Vietnam was all started by the GOP. You see, JFK and LBJ were conservative by modern Dem standards. Nixon ended it and he was a Democrat because, uh, price fixing and corruption!
They just keep on switching sides, those rascally political parties.
“tHe paRtiES sWiTCheD siDeS aFtEr viETnaM aNd tHe ciViL riGhTS m0vEmEnT”
“military force to decimate the cartels, Osama bin Laden-style.”
Because that was so effective in Afghanistan against both drugs and terrorists.
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
So Mexico’s invading the US with 30+ million illegally crossing our borders?
She pledged “no money to Ukraine” and said, “that country needs to find peace, not war.” To Zelenskyy, “You better leave your hands off our sons and daughters because they’re not dying over there.”,
there is NOTHING to object to in these statements.
why are the pariah MAGA folks in congress the only ones talking sanely about this? it’s totally embarassing for the democrat party if you ask me that only MTG and her circle are the sane ones here.
Except that Ms. Greene-Teeth built a Strawman. Nobody’s supported U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine, not even those of us who support Ukrainians kicking Putin’s ass.
Under a Republican president, the U.S. launched multiple wars against Middle Eastern nations under the rubric of a global war on terror after the September 11 attacks.,
there was ONE dissenting vote in the house for this as well. across both parties. it is the warpig unipartya nd you do this “libertarian” publication a disservice by trying to spin it otherwise.
Not only that but does someone want to tell the ignorant cunt that the Jackasses expanded the list of countries we were bombing happened under Chocolate Jesus too.
actually escalating a land war in europe with borrowed money and fomenting potential nuclear war with rash ill-advised rhetoric and action and military support
vs.
brash ill-advised pontifications , mostly unrealistic, on how to deal with cartels who are actually in fact on our border and are in fact truly evil and violent, yet none of these suggestions have happened or are likely to.
you guys are embarrassing yourselves.
1. There’s no indication that any of these “conservatives” would cut military spending – on the contrary.
2. AFAIC the real reason so many of these people are supposedly anti-war is that it gives them an excuse to avoid dealing with Putin’s aggression without actually having to say that they support him.
1. they wont cut spendiing they ARE talking about non-intervention which is better than what we’re getting from the neo-lib-bolsheviks on the other side.
2. are you a fucking idiot?
2. It’s SRG. Yes.
Shrike*
2. He thinks selling merch is the same as a ponzi scheme, for instance.
https://reason.com/2023/03/03/inside-the-weird-world-of-niche-conservative-businesses/?comments=true#comment-9952561
You misunderstand. I think that in any situation where you have a group getting together like this, inevitably sooner or later someone will take advantage of the more gullible or credulous to engage in affinity fraud. It’s nothing to do with who this particular group is. It worked against Hispanics of a church in San Francisco (IIRC), it worked against Jews who invested with Madoff, etc. In this case, it’s not only inevitable, it’s a target-rich environment because group loyalty is evidently so high.
So we need big brother who will protect us from this? That always works really well…
“affinity fraud… it worked against Jews who invested with Madoff”
WTF.
Jews didn’t invest with Madoff because he was Jewish, they invested with him for the same reason as gentiles, because he seemed to have an amazing track record and had a background that inferred legitimacy.
He played up the Jewish connection.
https://www.jns.org/opinion/what-bernie-madoff-proved-about-america-and-the-jews/
We have a gold-medal winner in the Cherry Picking Event!
The lying lefty SRG!
So? It doesn’t matter if he attended meetings in a tallit with his pants unzipped to show he was circumcised. There’s zero evidence in your article Jewish investors picked him because he was Jewish.
There’s your ignorance of human nature, again. “I’m a gantse macher with my temple and with charities and I also run a hedge fund”. Even he would not have been so crass as to say, “I’m Jewish, like you, so give me your money.” Do you think it was mere coincidence that Madoff had this high profile in Jewish organisations, that he was a mensch in all other respects bar running a Ponzi scheme?
SPLC is basically a grifter group of southern Jewish lawyers who use scare tactics to get donations from wealthy NYC Jews. Scaring your tribe to grift works very well.
1. they wont cut spendiing they ARE talking about non-intervention which is better than what we’re getting from the neo-lib-bolsheviks on the other side.
After Trump, the abjectly full of shit nature of this statement should be obvious. They had POTUS *and* Congress *and* 0 new wars *and* 1 war to end on a deadline, a celestial convergence of reducing military spending and what have they done? Spend at a rate almost 8X the average of the Iraq war.
It’s like twin siblings, one of whom quietly collects weapons while the other sibling derides him for collecting them and then goes around punching people, telling people not to mess with him, and to treat women and the men who identify as women with respect because his brother is armed to the teeth. Sure, part of the spending of the reserved twin is compulsory but part of the spending is because of the dumbass braggart writing checks with his mouth that his fists can’t cash.
Woodshitter, you fuckwit, I think that there are members of the GOP and their supporters who are pro-Putin – but don’t want to have to say so explicitly.
And why wouldn’t they be pro-Putin? They agree with him on so much.
“…And why wouldn’t they be pro-Putin? They agree with him on so much.”
Why is it that lefty shits lie so transparently? Do you have to bwe brain-dead to become a lefty, or do your brains leak out later?
Soros talking points from shrike get ever more ridiculous.
I’m not shrike. Fuck off you cracker POS.
Agreed. You’re a random slimy pile of lying lefty shit.
“the GOP and their supporters who are pro-Putin – but don’t want to have to say so explicitly.”
“Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?”
It’s not enough for Shrike to have become a neocon warpig, he’s now Joe “Tailgunner” McCarthy.
You are here all the time singing the praises of European autocrats. Did you forget you actually support Putin while you knee-jerked into this denial?
Did you forget you actually support Putin…?
Your presumption stinks of Tertium non datur.
“…Did you forget you actually support Putin while you knee-jerked into this denial?…”
Why is it that lefty shits lie so transparently? Do you have to be brain-dead to become a lefty, or do your brains leak out later?
I know nardz is an idiotic paranoid russki, but no one else seems to be.
Nobody here supports Putin, but that’s a far different thing than joining your Children’s Crusade towards WW3, you stupid fascist fuck.
I take it you never met Nardz or Goldie.
I’m not shrike. You can also fuck off you cracker POS.
Are you ignorant enough to think that no GOP member or supporter supports Putin?
I’m anti-authoritarian. Hence I despise Communism, and right-wing authoritarian types like Putin. But there are righties who lurv Putin because they too are authoritarian types, and just wish that the US had a leader like him, to bring back (Christian) religion, and to suppress “those people”. And they tend to have just enough poilitical self-awareness to realise that support for Putin isn’t actually a popular position.
FT article about Good Old Putinistas
https://www.ft.com/content/fd870fa9-007a-4cd4-bffc-d72aa2a35767
Pro-Putin Republicans break ranks by heaping praise on Kremlin
When Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on conservative radio show Voice of Rural America this week, she launched a full-throated defence of Vladimir Putin and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“You see, Ukraine just kept poking the bear, and poking the bear, which is Russia, and Russia invaded,” the Georgia congresswoman said. “There is no win for Ukraine here. Russia is being successful in their invasion.”
“Are you ignorant enough to think that no GOP member or supporter supports Putin?”…”
Got a cite for your claim asshole? Haven’t yet seen it.
“…I’m anti-authoritarian. Hence I despise Communism…”
And yet, at every turn, you lying pile of lefty shit, you defend the state. Are you familiar with stated rather than revealed preferences, asshole?
“…FT article about Good Old Putinistashttps://www.ft.com/content/fd870fa9-007a-4cd4-bffc-d72aa2a35767 Pro-Putin Republicans break ranks by heaping praise on Kremlin When Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on conservative radio show Voice of Rural America this week, she launched a full-throated defence of Vladimir Putin and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “You see, Ukraine just kept poking the bear, and poking the bear, which is Russia, and Russia invaded,” the Georgia congresswoman said. “There is no win for Ukraine here. Russia is being successful in their invasion.”…”
Is cherry-picking enough to keep you in internet access, shit bag?
Oh, and fuck off and die, commie shit.
Sorry, the lying pile of lefty shit did find ONE R supporter of Putin, but note the headline:
“Pro-Putin Republicans break ranks by heaping praise on Kremlin”
Eat shit and die, SRG, your family and your dog will be happy!
MTG was exactly right. You Bidenista neocons deliberately goaded Putin into invading, with NATO membership promises and implications of non-interference because you wanted this war. Desperately. You needed a dog to wag to distract from the sheer incompetence and economic devestation you were inflicting on the proles, and hide the corrupt business practices and graft you were pursuing there.
Did Putin want to invade Ukraine regardless? Probably.
Would Putin have invaded Ukraine anyway? Maybe.
But that still doesn’t absolve your ilk from deliberately provoking an attack in order to use the pain and suffering of the Ukrainian people for your own political gains.
If your ilk had given a fuck about Ukraine they could’ve brokered a peace deal at the beginning, but you didn’t. You deliberately inflamed the situation.
You’re such stupid, greedy, fascist fucks.
There is nothing in that statement that indicates support for Putin. It may not be entirely correct, but still. If someone says “don’t pet that dog because it will bite you” that doesn’t mean they are pro-dogs-biting-people.
Pro Putin? Seriously..who? You sound like folks in the LBJ admin who said anyone who criticized Vietnam was a commie or GOP saying you were pro Hussain if you argued against the Iraq invasion. If John Q Adams was alive and said no to funding the war would he be pro Putin?
The critical difference, Joe, which you are disingenuously ignoring, is that Ukraine is thousands of mile away, while the Mexican crime lords are ACTUALLY ATTACKING OUR COUNTRY ACROSS THE BORDER.
targeting cartels by bombing Mexico, a clear act of war against another nation.
Wrong. A declaration of war need not be against another nation. Our country’s first declaration of war was against the Barbary pirates, not against a nation. Mexico is harboring an armed hostile force that is attacking the USA. We have the right to fight back against them, and that need not constitute a state of war with the state of Mexico. If the government of Mexico is unhappy with that, they can destroy the drug lords themselves.
I take your point, but if you start bombing the territory of a sovereign nation, that’s still an act of war even if you’re trying bomb a terrorist group. Of course, if Mexico consented, different matter.
Walk it back SRG; we’re used to it, shit-pile.
Mexico is harboring the crime lords. If the Mexican government doesn’t want collateral damage from defensive action against the cartels, they need to take action themselves.
That something is a casus belli doesn’t mean that responding to it is an act of war. Quite the contrary, pretty much by definition.
doesn’t mean that responding to it is an act of war.
should read, ” doesn’t mean that responding to it is not an act of war.”
If Mrs. Greene-Teeth made Biden her Charlie McCarthy (wouldn’t be hard) she’d have him claim that Anglo WY p po were being subject to genocide in Mexico, that there should be a Special Military Operation to take Monterrey “but no further.”
Then she’d make him claim we are there to fight LGBTQ Pride Parades in Guadalajara and then that we’re there to fight Santa Muerte and The Devil.
Meanwhile, our troops would have to write home begging for tampons for sucking chest wounds, along with Safe Straws and Extra Strength Pepto-Bismol from drinking the water. It’s called Montezuma’s Revenge for a reason.
Better to leave our troops home and let them invest in the pharmaceutical firm designing the new Death-B-Gone Opiate Pain Reliever. I’m sure the dividends will more than make up for the bankrupt “Lock-Box.”
“…Republicans often blame Mexican drug cartels and American border policy for American fentanyl deaths. Greene advocated targeting cartels by bombing Mexico, a clear act of war against another nation…”
Joe Lancaster: Full of shit in print. Fuck off and die, Joe.
Joe ignores Biden bombing the oil supply into Germany for some silly reason.
Greene advocated targeting cartels by bombing Mexico
Fact Check: False.
Greene advocated bombing cartels and specifically not Mexicans or the Mexican government. Lancaster advocated bombing Mexico.
People are land when convenient.
Lets see here: George W Bush [R], George HW Bush [R] Eisenhower[R], John F Kennedy [D], LBJ [D], Nixon [R] – balance-out. Harry S. Truman [D] Korean War Franklin D Roosevelt [D] WWII Woodrow Wilson [D] WWI
Doesn’t seem very one-sided to me.
Right-Wing war mongering was just BS leftard-propaganda to begin with.
And both Eisenhower’s and Nixon’s contributions was to end wars started by Democrats
Anyone who actually, seriously, contemplates or promotes that the US intervene militarily in Mexico, without the permission or support of the Mexican government is what I generally call “loony-tunes.” And “loony-tunes” is being nice.
Want to end the cartel’s presence in the USA? End the War on Drugs.
HURRAY! You win the Internet For The Month for saying this first instead of joining the usual Pro-TDS Vs. Anti-TDS pissing contest!
You’re saying that if we stop trying to stop the cartels from selling drugs here, they’ll stop doing it? That makes no sense. And you’re ignoring the main part of how the crime lords are harming us: human trafficking of “immigrants”. It’s way past time for us to go on offense. The Mexican government had their chance. Now they need to get on the right side or get out of the way.
No, he’s saying you fight the Cartels by cutting the source of their profits by making their product legal.
With their main source of profits cut, any other revenue streams such as human trafficking and protection will be undercapitalized and fall by the wayside.
I don’t see how legalizing their product would automatically put them out of the business. It would just make it easier for them.
With drugs prices reduced to Pennies a pop, the Cartels would have to up their production to exponential economies of scale to make the same profits they make now.
They’d need to distribute their product through Walmart, Walgreen’s, CVS, and Target to make product move at the quantity needed to make their profits.
Instead of using extorted dope mules to send small quantities, they’d have to send mass quantities and use well-paid truckers and longshoremen who take shit off of no one!
They couldn’t offer “stepped-on” product without both decline in reputation and risk of torts eating their already diminished profits.
If the Cartels couldn’t or wouldn’t do this, they’d go out of business and legitimate pharmaceutical companies would take the helm.
In fact, with legalization, pharmaceutical companies would be freed up to use chemical and genetic engineering to make drug plants larger, more prolific, with greater yields, and safer, just like The Green Revolution did with edible crops. At last, we could kill pain without killing people!
Legalization is a can’t-lose proposition, and the NatCon and Progressive Drug Warriors are holding us back from all it has to offer!
That’s a bizarre fantasy.
That is the reality of what would happen if we ended “The War On (Some) Drugs.”. Oh, and we would be producing our own drug crops as well, so that’s also a boost to our economy and another reason the Cartels would die.
Legalizing pot hasn’t harmed the cartels anymore than legalizing every drug in existence would. Contrary to what a lot of libertarians might believe, these are not stupid people, and they will simply find other avenues for criminal activity. They already have, in fact, as Vernon notes by increasing human trafficking operations, and they of course run multiple protection rackets.
Short of actually running a Pompeiian-style operation against them like he did against the Mediterranean pirates, you’re not going break their backs simply by cutting off one source of revenue.
Pompey was too merciful.
The trouble is that legalizing their product in the USA could only enhance their business. Legalizing it in their own country, Mexico, is what would put them out of business.
But the U.S. is probably their biggest market, else why would they go to all the trouble of sending people here with their product? Dummy!
Sanford Dummy Reel
https://youtu.be/moYdbNXBwvk
I don’t find the argument against cutting one of their revenue streams because they have others very convincing.
I can’t imagine that pot legalization hasn’t greatly reduced smuggling over the border of pot. With the massive oversupply from states that have legalized, who’s going to buy shitty mexican weed?
Surprising! I’ve been making 100 Dollars an hour since I started freelance on the Internet six months ago. I work long hours a day from home and do the basic work that I get from the business I met online. share this work for you opportunity This is definitely the best job I have ever done.
Go to this link………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Considering the precursor chemicals used in fentanyl synthesis come from China, shouldn’t we attack them too? Of course, the government claims precursor chemicals are already thoroughly ‘controlled’ via ‘scheduling’ but without them, there’d be no fentanyl, right? The Chinese are doubly guilty: of exploiting our children, but also the poor Mexicans! Of course, China is a nuclear power, capable of fighting back, so…yeah, Mexico looks like a much better mark!
Fact is, we already have military and alphabet agencies operating in Mexico. Given the structural (cellular) similarities between Middle Eastern insurgents and drug cartels, an expanded campaign there would quickly devolve into a lengthy, ‘low-intensity’ slog of the GWOT variety, good for ginning up fear propaganda and resultant votes for politicians while lining MIC pockets and expanding DOD budgets. For the government and politicians, that’s ultimately what this is about. The GWOT is winding down and something has to replace it. The ‘Global War on Drugs’ is a proven money-maker and power-accumulator for the state!
‘Surgical strikes’ make for good soundbites for the rubes, but in reality are largely politician’s nonsense; the cartels have infiltrated most areas of society and move freely within them so it’s very difficult to target ‘surgically’ without creating considerable ‘collateral damage.’ We’d risk handing our enemies a sizable propaganda victory, to say nothing of the power vacuum that will promptly be filled by endless wanna-be ‘gangstas’ seeking the very real fortunes arising from black market monopolies! Little real gain to be had, but plenty of downsides.
So, solutions? Well, first and foremost: get the government out of the Prohibition business and back within the bounds of the Constitution! We know the cartels DIDN’T EXIST until the 1970s, after Nixon declared the War on Drugs. Since the current mess is what 50 years and a trillion dollars have wrought, it stands to reason that ending the failed Drug War would be the primary path forward. It’s the only solution our politicians haven’t tried and refuse to even consider, no matter the costs.
On a broader scale, re-legalize the drugs and adopt the alcohol model to varying degress. Remove the exorbitant black market profits, then use the ample legal and financial resources available to dismantle the cartels. Shift some of the hundreds of billions toward treating those who want treatment, and perhaps most importantly, educate kids HONESTLY about the potential perils of drug abuse (not DARE indoctrination!)
“…So, solutions?…”
End the war on drugs.
What took you so long, Sevo? It looks like trying to “own the Left” has put you off the long game and your eyes off the real prize.
Remember: When you own ’em, you gotta feed ’em, water ’em, clothe ’em, house ’em, bathe ’em, sheep-dip ’em, flea-dip ’em, take ’em to the Vet, give ’em exercise, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
🙂
“What took you so long, Sevo?”
Are you blind?
I’m not blind to the time clock. Jefferson’s Ghost and Verbum Vincet said it first.
HURRAY! You are Co-Winner of The Internet For The Month for supporting an end to Drug Prohibition!
Pro Tip: The sheer lack of profits in drugs alone that would result from ending Drug Prohibition would most likely suffice to make the Cartels shrink to nothing! No added government action needed except maybe if the Cartels get desperate and violent holding on to remaining turf.
Disagree.
It would end their drug profits, or a chunk of them, but they would simply shift product or scam, and already have in some degree.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/crime/2023/02/08/rival-drug-cartels-profit-mexican-avocados-us-police-work/69840227007/
The only cure to the cartel problem is for Mexico to step up and actually do something about it, but it’s far too corrupt for that, I think.
So, did this extortion also happen when the U.S. ended Alcohol Prohibition? And why isn’t it still happening today? And if it is, couldn’t it be the result of other government interventions? I don’t hear about paying protection money to The Mob as a subject taught in business schools.
Drugs, drugs, drugs. That’s a side show. The worst thing the cartels are doing is human trafficking of “immigrants”.
Funny, I’ve never heard of any overdoses caused by injesting immigrants. Sure this isn’t goal-post shifting?
Republicans merely tasted power for a moment before they chucked small-governmentism into the dustbin of history (it must be painful for you guys to lose such staunch allies). Ron DeFuckface is skullfucking the first amendment more with each passing day.
Anyone who thinks the post-Iraq sheepishness Republicans (along with everyone else) experienced will last is a fool. Republicans know only blunt solutions to problems they invent out of thin air. Ban this, ban that, bomb them.
LMAO… And in non-delusional news Democrats pitch the SAFE TECH act ensuring 1A demise on the national level.
Leftard Projection 101. Blame everything they do on anyone and everyone else.
Course what would one expect from [WE] gangland mentality of the Democrat. Their entire platform is [WE] gang building against those ‘icky’ people.
Here is a clear example of shit-bag’s ‘thought’ processes:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
“I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”
Yep, taxes are not forced at all. We could disband the IRS and everyone would simply mail in checks in the appropriate amounts! I certainly would: $0.00.
I find it hard to believe that you can’t find a more damning quote of mine.
https://twitter.com/historyinmemes/status/1631728035111084202?t=k_Q7NVZJEkKQ8I7-wm7rog&s=19
Rival otter clans fighting over territory in Singapore.
[Video]
The Big Red Machine continues to march to Kiev…time to send Zelinsky to exile in his $35 million dollar homes on lake Geneva. $100B skimmed off for the Trotsky lovers in Ukraine and who run US foreign policy. Sorry Blinkin..Yellen, Burns, Nuland..your desire for a second Bolshevik revolution (this one with a pro globalist Trotsky like figure controlled by you isn’t going to happen. American interests are not your groups interests…globalism is going down, central banks are on their way out, cultural marxism is being rejected…get a time machine and go back to the Weimar republic..the degenerates there are waiting.
The only Trotsky lovers in Ukraine are Putineers. And yeah, we know what you would have done to those “degenerates,” right?
The core problem with war with Mexico, is that should we fight one we would win in a fairly short time…ad then WE would have to deal with that territory. Not only would that involve fighting the Mexican drug gangs – a more serious prospect than the Mexican military – but it would necessitate trying to govern a populace that has – four good reason – developed a fine disregard for government.
Nonsense. We would be at war to eliminate the drug lords. There would be no reason to fight the Mexican military or government, nor to try to govern anyone there.
The Mexican Military and Government are infiltrated with Cartel imembers and the civilian population would be stuck in the middle of the fighting and would get hurt and killed. To suggest otherwise is the real fantasy.
End “The War On (Some) Drugs” FTW!
Earn income while simply working online. work from home whenever you want. just for maximum 5 hours a day you can make more than $600 per day online. From this I made $18,000 last month in my spare time.
Check info here==============>>> https://www.join.hiring9.com