@KnivesOut
Absolutely.

The Road to World War III - The Global Banking Cartel Has One Card Left to Play

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Gulf Cartel, Mexico, drugs, APC, diy, moustro, monster' to 'Gulf Cartel, Mexico, drugs, APC, diy, moustro, monster, armored, armor' - edited by MarineGunrock

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Mexican-Drug-Cartel-Uses-Self-Made-Armoured-Trucks-as-APCs

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by MarineGunrock. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^zombieater:

I wonder how many mpg that sucker gets...


more like gpm

When the Zombie apocalypse comes, I want to be on the Mexican drug cartels' side. They will survive.

Its not a lack of police to fight drug cartels which is the cause of the violence. That analysis is hollow. You are leaving out the devastating consequences of NAFTA and imperialism on these countries.

Poverty and unemployment have only worsened as a result of subsidies going towards big agrobussiness instead of local farmers. This is what leads to crime. Its a reaction by the working class getting even more fucked. When you can't get any $ by growing corn and instead have the chance to make $ selling drugs, yeah, you do it.

It isn't a coincidence that the majority of immigrants come from countries that have had dictators and death squads with the support of the US. Guatamala, El Salvador, Mexico. Destroyed economies create migrants which are CHEAP LABOR. Add to this the criminalization of immigrants with AZ's SB1070 and GA's copycat HB87. The AZ bill was pretty much written by Corrections Corporation of America, a private prison corporation which gets $200 per bed a night.

Its all part of the imperative of profit, the inherent violence of capitalism, duh
----
Additional reading:

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/10/28/prison-and-profits-the-politics-of-az%E2%80%99s-sb1070-bill-revealed/

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/25/harvest_of_empire_new_book_exposes
"And then there's this from independent journalist Zafar Bangash:

"The CIA, as Cockburn and (Jeffrey) St Clair reveal, had been in this business right from the beginning. In fact, even before it came into existence, its predecessors, the OSS and the Office of Naval Intelligence, were involved with criminals. One such criminal was Lucky Luciano, the most notorious gangster and drug trafficker in America in the forties."

The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking closely dovetails America's adventures overseas - from Indo-China in the sixties to Afghanistan in the eighties....As Alfred McCoy states in his book: Politics of Heroin: CIA complicity in the Global Drug Trade, beginning with CIA raids from Burma into China in the early fifties, the agency found that 'ruthless drug lords made effective anti-communists." ("CIA peddles drugs while US Media act as cheerleaders", Zafar Bangash, Muslimedia, January 16-31, 1999)

And, this from author William Blum:

"ClA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe....""


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18877

>> ^jmd:

petpeeved, your argument is fairly hollow. This incident may have been drug related, but the firefight itself was allowed to happen because the cities security is no where near the level as ours. With our level of police work we could have mexico cleaned up pretty damn tidy. I mean we are by no means clean as a whistle, but you really don't see acres of hemp and weed being grown in the US. US's drug problems is that of importing, not production. Mexico has corrupt gov, officials, and a lacking police force to police their land and thus the drug cartels have made it their home.


It's their own damn fault for being too poor to pay for proper policing! We shouldn't feel bad at all for our massive demand that we are preventing ourselves from fulfilling.

Echoes of neocon elitism.

petpeeved, your argument is fairly hollow. This incident may have been drug related, but the firefight itself was allowed to happen because the cities security is no where near the level as ours. With our level of police work we could have mexico cleaned up pretty damn tidy. I mean we are by no means clean as a whistle, but you really don't see acres of hemp and weed being grown in the US. US's drug problems is that of importing, not production. Mexico has corrupt gov, officials, and a lacking police force to police their land and thus the drug cartels have made it their home.

And what if people don't act in their own self interest? I don't see how that makes an argument at all. Are you saying that people are all going to smoke crack because we don't act in our self interest from time to time? (No, but how is legalization the answer when it's already a problem being banned?)

I don't understand the jist of this objection, perhaps you could elaborate. (glad to, personal responsibility only goes so far- do the poor have a RIGHT to starve to death because its their personal responsibility to find work or should society help the less fortunate?. the RIGHT to destroy your body with elicit drug use as a tenant of freedom of expression means that ALL drugs would have to be on the table & the crucial element that keeps these items blacklisted is 'Control' - people can smoke a cigarette and work, drive etc. Drinking alcohol is ceased when a person is reaching an intoxicated level by a duty of care, pot the way that is done now is OK with me regulated by those who need it, but to equate its accessibility along the same lines as cigarettes would be dangerous (yes cigarettes cause more deaths), but 'long-term to the INDIVIDUAL', not short-term to society as you cannot use it and be as fluid a cigarette usage (remember these are social conventions).


You also create a moral hazard by restricting freedoms. More people might die of drug abuse if it is legal, but those are people who chose to do drugs (are they choosers or addicts?, also do you want your government producing heroin like a pusher?. What about the entire countries who's populations are in fear of gun touting drug lords? (the only way to stop the cartel's is by legalizing all class A drugs, and why subject the majority of society to dangerous substances which you admit would find no use in having such things only to stop the criminal element which will always evolve to newer things?).

And what if people don't act in their own self interest? I don't see how that makes an argument at all. Are you saying that people are all going to smoke crack because we don't act in our self interest from time to time? (No, but how is legalization the answer when it's already a problem being banned?)

I don't understand the jist of this objection, perhaps you could elaborate. (glad to, personal responsibility only goes so far- do the poor have a RIGHT to starve to death because its their personal responsibility to find work or should society help the less fortunate?. the RIGHT to destroy your body with elicit drug use as a tenant of freedom of expression means that ALL drugs would have to be on the table & the crucial element that keeps these items blacklisted is 'Control' - people can smoke a cigarette and work, drive etc. Drinking alcohol is ceased when a person is reaching an intoxicated level by a duty of care, pot the way that is done now is OK with me regulated by those who need it, but to equate its accessibility along the same lines as cigarettes would be dangerous (yes cigarettes cause more deaths), but 'long-term to the INDIVIDUAL', not short-term to society as you cannot use it and be as fluid a cigarette usage (remember these are social conventions).


You also create a moral hazard by restricting freedoms. More people might die of drug abuse if it is legal, but those are people who chose to do drugs (are they choosers or addicts?, also do you want your government producing heroin like a pusher?. What about the entire countries who's populations are in fear of gun touting drug lords? (the only way to stop the cartel's is by legalizing all class A drugs, and why subject the majority of society to dangerous substances which you admit would find no use in having such things only to stop the criminal element which will always evolve to newer things?).

Wasn't worried, nor did I take it personally .... it is just my nature to say -- hey, I didn't say that, you misunderstood. Just like to keep the record straight, is all.

I'll eventually learn to just let misunderstandings be, it seems to provoke more confusion than trying to straighten things out.

PSAs. There is a whole 'nother topic....

Kisses!



In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
hey lady,
i didn't take your comment personally if that's what you were worried about.

i always feel like most of the PSA campaigns i see are going about it all wrong.
for instance, i would like to see an anti-drug PSA that's more about human rights and the gross exploitation of the third world thats inherent in the production of hard drugs. I did a ton of drugs as a very young kid, and knowing the kind of kid i was, i would never ever have shoved coke up my nose if i knew how it was made, who made it, how it gets here and how many people died over it on its way to my blood stream. i think that kind of thing would be even more relevant now that the cartel war in mexico is all over the news. the typical 1990 "drugs are bad, mkay?" commercials that were on when i was kid seem completely impotent.

sure, maybe PSA's don't hurt. but i think a very serious cost/benefit analysis should be made.... is this making enough bang for the buck?? is there another, more productive, method of outreach we could use these funds for?? maybe keep the PSA because it undoubtedly gets the message out to the greatest amount of people, but maybe the PSA could be about signs of poorly managed stress and the importance of coping skills and where to get the tools to deal with out of control feelings. or some shit. i don't know. just my 2 cents.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Um, my comment was about the 30% who grow up to be abusers. It wasn't directed to the 70% who didn't.

And you're right, there are other things to do.

The PSA is just a tactic. One tactic.

It certainly doesn't hurt, and it might help.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
The idea that the abused grow into abusers is kind of.... meh.... Only about 30% of people who were abused as children grow up to abuse their own kids. Because 70% of us grow up to see ourselves in the eyes of every frightened child ever.

Abuse is about anger and it's about power. It's the inability to cope with stress or feelings of powerlessness. It's rampant in areas of high poverty, but certainly isn't non-existant in the homes of the wealthy.

Sure, I like the IDEA of PSA's.. but generally find them targeting the wrong side of the issue. This PSA targets the symptom, but not the root. If the root cause of domestic violence is power and an inability to cope with stress productively, then why can't we have a campaign to teach positive coping skills and educate little people and big people and even bigger people how to productively manage stress and take control of their own lives? ..... oh, right.. because that might actually EMPOWER people instead of just scare and depress them.

>> ^nanrod:
I almost don't even know where to start, this thread has got me so riled up over so many points. So I'll restrict myself to this. Your statement, sir, is neither a fact nor is it incontrovertible. It is, however, likely true that there are some people who under a legalization regime would die who otherwise wouldn't. It is also most likely that a much greater number of people would live who would otherwise die. The most common cause of heroin related death is the use of heroin that is contaminated or of uncertain concentration. Where I live there is currently a public health warning out due to rash of OD's caused by higher than normal quality of heroin available. In the US alone how many law enforcement personnel have died in the last 50 years in drug related activities. How many innocent Mexican citizens have died at the hands of drug cartels supplying the insatiable American demand for illicit drugs. It may not be an incontrovertible fact but to my mind the decriminalization of all drugs would save far more lives than it would cost. (and remember any lives that it would cost would be the result of personal choice)
PS: You personally know many people who would become heroin addicts if it were easily available??? Really??? You're personal circle of acquaintances, friends and relatives must be either a particularly weak minded bunch or a particularly scummy bunch. >> ^shinyblurry:
An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise.



The people I know aren't weak-minded scum, but thanks for the vote of confidence. I just happen to know a lot of people, from all walks of life. And quite a few come to mind that could fall into that trap if presented the legal opportunity. You seem to be under this illusion that everyone is capable of making informed choices about their lives, but I think the darwin awards alone proves you wrong. Some people do need to be supervized, and for their own good.

I'll be the first one to disagree with the war on drugs. I think it is stupid, ineffective, and harmful. However, just opening the floodgates with this anything goes, all is permissible attitude is really just anarchy behind a thin veil. We, as a society, have to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps you think the ideal society is funhouse of prostitution and drugs and gambling, but personally, I wouldn't want to live there. If you want that move to Las Vegas. The whole point of my message was that there has to be compromise somewhere. I don't think we should allow everything, but certainly a lot more than we do. There are certain drugs, like heroin, that I think are so harmful that they should never be legal. I don't think there is any such thing as a responsible use of heroin. I'm sure you'll disagree.

I think it comes down to a moral issue, that just having these things legal makes society quantifiably worse, but also just a reality check. It won't be all smooth sailing if it were to happen, which of course we know it never will. Many people will fall into addiction and even die who wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, many people are dying now..you think these people, who knowing the risks and are still engaging in high risk behavior for a cheap thrill or quick cash..you think these people would be saved if heroin is legal? LOL to that my friend. They would most likely just find some other stupid way to kill themselves. What they need is intensive therapy and counseling, not legal access to heroin. You really don't seem to know much about human nature.

I almost don't even know where to start, this thread has got me so riled up over so many points. So I'll restrict myself to this. Your statement, sir, is neither a fact nor is it incontrovertible. It is, however, likely true that there are some people who under a legalization regime would die who otherwise wouldn't. It is also most likely that a much greater number of people would live who would otherwise die. The most common cause of heroin related death is the use of heroin that is contaminated or of uncertain concentration. Where I live there is currently a public health warning out due to rash of OD's caused by higher than normal quality of heroin available. In the US alone how many law enforcement personnel have died in the last 50 years in drug related activities. How many innocent Mexican citizens have died at the hands of drug cartels supplying the insatiable American demand for illicit drugs. It may not be an incontrovertible fact but to my mind the decriminalization of all drugs would save far more lives than it would cost. (and remember any lives that it would cost would be the result of personal choice)

PS: You personally know many people who would become heroin addicts if it were easily available??? Really??? You're personal circle of acquaintances, friends and relatives must be either a particularly weak minded bunch or a particularly scummy bunch. >> ^shinyblurry:

An incontrovertible fact is, if heroin is legalized, people are going to die from it who wouldn't have otherwise.

if i remember correctly, this is how this racket works.... weapons are developed by private US corporations, using R&D funds supplied by tax dollars.... then those weapons are sold to the US government... the private companies hold the patents on the weapons that were developed using tax dollars... after the US governments weapons order is delivered.. the arms manufacturers make more of those weapons and turn around and sell them to developing countries at a profit to warlords or authoritarian regimes who use them against their own people.....

and now that the rest of the world has the same weapons as US troops, we have to pay for MORE R&D to develop more advanced weapons. and on and on and on and on.

and the stocks in these arms corporations are publicly traded, based on demand.
the easier it is for governments or warlords or cartels to massacre people, the more money the stockholders make.