Protect Libyan civilians...ignore dead Mexican civilians

[YoUDeeMan]

"MEXICO CITY (AP) — The buses crawled to a halt to obey roadblocks manned by armed men, who boarded like military or police doing an inspection. One by one, they tapped certain passengers, all men, mostly young, to get off: "You. You. You."
Relatives and travel companions watched in horror as the buses pulled away without them, Tamaulipas officials quoted surviving bus passengers as saying. Less than two weeks later, security forces following reports of abducted passengers in violent Tamaulipas state bordering Texas stumbled on a collection of pits holding a total of 59 bodies".

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom ... 9974.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Hey, let's put our military forces to work in countries all around the world, but let's only give lip service to the killings right on our border.

After all, saving Mexicans from well armed militias is not the "right" war.

[AZGrizFan]

Unfucking believable.

[Ivytalk]

Tippecanoe and Tyler too!

[Maxine]

homaygod!

[BlueHen86]

I don't think this is an equivalent situation.

We got involved in Libya because a government that we don't like (and haven't liked since the 1980's when Reagan ordered our military to bomb them) was about to win a civil war.

Mexico is apparently unable to police itself. The Mexican government hasn't asked for our help American's are not at risk (as far as I know).

I don't know if intervening in Libya is in our national interest or not, but I'm pretty sure intervening is Mexico without consent/request from the Mexican government is not.

It also seems to me that if you were okay with invading Iraq to remove Saddam, you should also be okay with our efforts to remove Gadhafi.

[Skjellyfetti]

The Mexican government hasn't asked for our help American's are not at risk (as far as I know).

They have asked for our help and we're helping them. Seems like there was a Conk thread in the last couple of weeks bitching about our use of predator drones for surveillance in Mexico. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

But, I agree. Trying to equate the situation in Libya and Mexico is pretty laughable.

[YoUDeeMan]

I don't think this is an equivalent situation.

We got involved in Libya because a government that we don't like (and haven't liked since the 1980's when Reagan ordered our military to bomb them) was about to win a civil war.

Mexico is apparently unable to police itself. The Mexican government hasn't asked for our help American's are not at risk (as far as I know).

I don't know if intervening in Libya is in our national interest or not, but I'm pretty sure intervening is Mexico without consent/request from the Mexican government is not.

It also seems to me that if you were okay with invading Iraq to remove Saddam, you should also be okay with our efforts to remove Gadhafi.

A) We are not in Libya to remove Ghadaffi. We don't have a mandate to remove Qadaffy. Oh, but we're going to do it anyway.
B) We are in Libya to protect civilians, but we won't protect Mexican civilians...or American civilians.
C) Mexican civilians are being killed by armed forces led by drug lords.
D) American civilians are being killed by the same merciless drug lords (two more Americans added to the death total just last week).
E) Those drugs lead to violence in the United States...again, more killing of Americans.

Obama decides that protecting Libyan civilians is more important than protecting Mexican and American citizens.

Sure, spending hundreds of millions, heck, billions over there is much better than spending that money over here.

[houndawg]

I don't think this is an equivalent situation.

We got involved in Libya because a government that we don't like (and haven't liked since the 1980's when Reagan ordered our military to bomb them) was about to win a civil war.

Mexico is apparently unable to police itself. The Mexican government hasn't asked for our help American's are not at risk (as far as I know).

I don't know if intervening in Libya is in our national interest or not, but I'm pretty sure intervening is Mexico without consent/request from the Mexican government is not.

It also seems to me that if you were okay with invading Iraq to remove Saddam, you should also be okay with our efforts to remove Gadhafi.

A) We are not in Libya to remove Ghadaffi. We don't have a mandate to remove Qadaffy. Oh, but we're going to do it anyway.
B) We are in Libya to protect civilians, but we won't protect Mexican civilians...or American civilians.
C) Mexican civilians are being killed by armed forces led by drug lords.
D) American civilians are being killed by the same merciless drug lords (two more Americans added to the death total just last week).
E) Those drugs lead to violence in the United States...again, more killing of Americans.

Obama decides that protecting Libyan civilians is more important than protecting Mexican and American citizens.

Sure, spending hundreds of millions, heck, billions over there is much better than spending that money over here.

Wrong from the jump, as usual, duck.

We are in Libya to remove Qadafi. The President said he must go and now he risks getting punked like George "Dead or Alive" Bush did if he can't back up his talk.

And , btw, where do you suppose all those weapons the drug lords are using came from? Not to worry if you don't have hostages, folks. the CIA gladly accepts cash.

[YoUDeeMan]

Wrong from the jump, as usual, duck.

We are in Libya to remove Qadafi. The President said he must go and now he risks getting punked like George "Dead or Alive" Bush did if he can't back up his talk.

And , btw, where do you suppose all those weapons the drug lords are using came from? Not to worry if you don't have hostages, folks. the CIA gladly accepts cash.

Sorry houndawg...Obama said Kadahfi needs to go...but that was before Obama said Quadahfi didn't need to go.

Did Obama put out another offical change of mind in the last couple days? It is hard to keep up.

And yes, we all know where those guns came from...Obama's own Iran-Contra flop ends up killing one of our own and yet the press and Obama voters push it all under the rug.

The hypocricy of political tools is amazing.

[houndawg]

Wrong from the jump, as usual, duck.

We are in Libya to remove Qadafi. The President said he must go and now he risks getting punked like George "Dead or Alive" Bush did if he can't back up his talk.

And , btw, where do you suppose all those weapons the drug lords are using came from? Not to worry if you don't have hostages, folks. the CIA gladly accepts cash.

Sorry houndawg...Obama said Kadahfi needs to go...but that was before Obama said Quadahfi didn't need to go.

Did Obama put out another offical change of mind in the last couple days? It is hard to keep up.

And yes, we all know where those guns came from...Obama's own Iran-Contra flop ends up killing one of our own and yet the press and Obama voters push it all under the rug.

The hypocricy of political tools is amazing.

You can try to spin it however you want to, Clock, but it is now Obama's war and he said Qaddafi must go.

American's being killed by American guns is nothing new and just a cost of doing business, so I don't get your histrionics over that one. Maybe have your meds adjusted.

[Appaholic]

Sorry houndawg...Obama said Kadahfi needs to go...but that was before Obama said Quadahfi didn't need to go.

Did Obama put out another offical change of mind in the last couple days? It is hard to keep up.

And yes, we all know where those guns came from...Obama's own Iran-Contra flop ends up killing one of our own and yet the press and Obama voters push it all under the rug.

The hypocricy of political tools is amazing.

You can try to spin it however you want to, Clock, but it is now Obama's war and he said Qaddafi must go.

I thought Obama, after saying Khaddafy must go, then backpedaled and stated removing Khaddafy was not a goal of US involvement? And you stating this is now Obama's war is in direct contradiction to Obama's own statement the US was stepping back and primary responsibility now lies with the UN made in his speech two weeks ago? Granted, I've been drnking Miller High Lifes & reacquainting myself with the Graffix waterbong for the past two days in my new & improved mancave, but did Obama change his mind/position yet again over this past weekend? Or is this just the latest spin cycling down from the DNC to the minions?

[bluehenbillk]

Well, if Mexico had oil....

[YoUDeeMan]

"Mexican drug cartels targeting and killing children

SAN LUIS POTOSI, Mexico — On a sunny afternoon last week, when the streets of this mountain mining city were filled with schoolchildren and parents hurrying home from work, gunmen entered a tiny apartment and started firing methodically.

The assassins killed everyone: the family matriarch and her adult son; her daughter and son-in-law, and finally, her 22-month-old granddaughter.

The child was not killed by mistake. Preliminary forensics indicate that the gunmen, unchallenged, pointed a pistol at Scarlett Ramirez and fired.

In Mexico’s brutal drug war, children are increasingly victims, innocents caught in the crossfire, shot dead alongside their parents — and intentionally targeted.

According to U.S. and Mexican experts, competing criminal groups appear to be killing children to terrorize the population or prove to rivals that their savagery is boundless, as they fight over local drug markets and billion-dollar trafficking routes to voracious consumers in the United States.

In March, a young woman was bound and gagged, shot and left in a car in Acapulco. Her 4-year-old daughter lay slumped beside her, killed with a single bullet to her chest. She was the fifth child killed in drug violence in the resort city in one bloody week.

“They kill children on purpose,” said Marcela Turati, author of “Crossfire,” a new book on the killings of civilians in Mexico’s drug war. “In Juarez, they told a 7-year-old boy to run, and shot his father. Then they shot the little boy.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mex ... story.html

All this violence right next door, and some of it as a result of America's open border. Yet Obama ignores the Mexican children and wants to save the Libyan civilians.

[CID1990]

Sorry houndawg...Obama said Kadahfi needs to go...but that was before Obama said Quadahfi didn't need to go.

Did Obama put out another offical change of mind in the last couple days? It is hard to keep up.

And yes, we all know where those guns came from...Obama's own Iran-Contra flop ends up killing one of our own and yet the press and Obama voters push it all under the rug.

The hypocricy of political tools is amazing.

You can try to spin it however you want to, Clock, but it is now Obama's war and he said Qaddafi must go.

American's being killed by American guns is nothing new and just a cost of doing business, so I don't get your histrionics over that one. Maybe have your meds adjusted.

The only spin going on here is coming from the White House and donks like you, HD. Spinning so much you guys are pointing in any given direction at any given time.

The NATO "coalition" and our own President were very clear that the mission was to avert the slaughter of Libyans at the hands of government forces through the implementation of a no-fly zone (which for some reason is not interpreted as an act of war by the White House, BTW).

You guys are so far off the ranch on this one it is actually sad to watch (but predictable). Only a partisan hack can defend Obama on Libya.

As for Mexico, we don't need to be there, either. Just seal the border. If they get hungry then we can drop some food on them.

[houndawg]

You can try to spin it however you want to, Clock, but it is now Obama's war and he said Qaddafi must go.

American's being killed by American guns is nothing new and just a cost of doing business, so I don't get your histrionics over that one. Maybe have your meds adjusted.

The only spin going on here is coming from the White House and donks like you, HD. Spinning so much you guys are pointing in any given direction at any given time.

The NATO "coalition" and our own President were very clear that the mission was to avert the slaughter of Libyans at the hands of government forces through the implementation of a no-fly zone (which for some reason is not interpreted as an act of war by the White House, BTW).

You guys are so far off the ranch on this one it is actually sad to watch (but predictable). Only a partisan hack can defend Obama on Libya.

As for Mexico, we don't need to be there, either. Just seal the border. If they get hungry then we can drop some food on them.

You're on drugs, Sidney, if you think I'm defending Obama on Libya.

How can saying that it is Obama's war be construed as defending him?

[SDHornet]

Well, if Mexico had oil....

And America shouldn't be protecting any civilians other than her own.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm conflicted. On one hand there's part of me that would like to see our military unleased on the Mexican drug gangs because they're composed of disgusting people. On the other hand we created the Mexican drug gangs by deciding to do something we never should have done. We should never have said that people can't use recreational drugs if they want to. We created the monster I'd like to see slain through our insistence on attacking liberty.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I'm one of those who WOULD militarize the border with Mexico. I consider the situation on the border with Mexico a national defense issue that justifies deploying the military to seal it off. And I'd put a higher priority on that than I'd put on whatever goes on in Lybia.

[SDHornet]

I'm conflicted. On one hand there's part of me that would like to see our military unleased on the Mexican drug gangs because they're composed of disgusting people. On the other hand we created the Mexican drug gangs by deciding to do something we never should have done. We should never have said that people can't use recreational drugs if they want to. We created the monster I'd like to see slain through our insistence on attacking liberty.

Meh...Mexico has been corrupt since day one. Even if we rolled in there and took over, that shit would be around anyways. If anything, arm the citizens (or at least give them that option, guns are "banned" in MX) and let the issues work themselves out. Cartel henchmen would be a little more hesitant to continue its terrorism of the populace if they knew they could be possibly be looking down a barrel when they try and pull a stunt as listed above.

[SDHornet]

BTW, I'm one of those who WOULD militarize the border with Mexico. I consider the situation on the border with Mexico a national defense issue that justifies deploying the military to seal it off. And I'd put a higher priority on that than I'd put on whatever goes on in Lybia.

I live in a city on the border and not much of this violence spills over. If it does, it's usually a hit on someone involved in the drugs and trafficking and other affiliated activities of the cartel. A closed border would be bad for cartel business, so I think they want to avoid making headlines on activities north of the border as much as possible.

[Skjellyfetti]

Poor Mexico... So far from God and so close to the United States

[CID1990]

The only spin going on here is coming from the White House and donks like you, HD. Spinning so much you guys are pointing in any given direction at any given time.

The NATO "coalition" and our own President were very clear that the mission was to avert the slaughter of Libyans at the hands of government forces through the implementation of a no-fly zone (which for some reason is not interpreted as an act of war by the White House, BTW).

You guys are so far off the ranch on this one it is actually sad to watch (but predictable). Only a partisan hack can defend Obama on Libya.

As for Mexico, we don't need to be there, either. Just seal the border. If they get hungry then we can drop some food on them.

You're on drugs, Sidney, if you think I'm defending Obama on Libya.

How can saying that it is Obama's war be construed as defending him?

You certainly are. You are insinuating that what Obama is doing in Libya has been consistent, and it has not. It has been made very clear numerous times that regime change was not the purpose of the extracongressional acts of war on Libya, but our actions there have been very inconsistent with the stated purpose. Plus, you are incorrect on your base premise as well.

[houndawg]

You're on drugs, Sidney, if you think I'm defending Obama on Libya.

How can saying that it is Obama's war be construed as defending him?

You certainly are. You are insinuating that what Obama is doing in Libya has been consistent, and it has not. It has been made very clear numerous times that regime change was not the purpose of the extracongressional acts of war on Libya, but our actions there have been very inconsistent with the stated purpose. Plus, you are incorrect on your base premise as well.

I'm insinuating nothing of the kind. Obama saying "he must go" right in front of god and everybody amounts to engaging in regime change, I don't care what anybody else in his Administration says the purpose is. Nor do I think that being consistent and being right are the same thing. Whoever it was here that said this is Bush's third term was right.

[LeadBolt]

Where's Black Jack Pershing when you need him? We have had border problems with Mexico for a long, long time. Due to the long term, endemic corruption in Mexico they are unable to fix the situation. It predates the drug cartels and misguided American CIA operations.

We need to do more than post signs in AZ warning people of the danger well within American terirtory(see link):

http://www.greatsataninc.com/wp-content ... -Sign1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To date our measures at protecting our own citizens in our own country have been ineffectual in many places. How about fixing our immigration laws and protecting our own borders with the same effort as we put into protecting the South Korean border?

[YoUDeeMan]

Where's Black Jack Pershing when you need him? We have had border problems with Mexico for a long, long time. Due to the long term, endemic corruption in Mexico they are unable to fix the situation. It predates the drug cartels and misguided American CIA operations.

We need to do more than post signs in AZ warning people of the danger well within American terirtory(see link):

http://www.greatsataninc.com/wp-content ... -Sign1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To date our measures at protecting our own citizens in our own country have been ineffectual in many places. How about fixing our immigration laws and protecting our own borders with the same effort as we put into protecting the South Korean border?

We have issues right here at home and yet Obama sends tens of thousands more troops to Affy and spends a billion to bomb Libya to protect their citizens.

Pathetic.