Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

privado

Should the US and Canada send troops to Mexico?

Recommended Posts

When you have Mexicans who have the guts to cause a road block, and you have others who are willing to fight the corruption, you have to consider their needs, and you have to show your support by getting our home governments on board with helping them. The US, and Canada, need to help the Mexicans fight the cartels both in the US, and on Mexican soil.

I posed this question just this week to a member of one of the Consulates here in Guad- answer- Neither country US or Canada will ever send troops into Mexico- Canada took their 2,000 tropps out of the Middle East- because they lost 5 men in Iraq- consider the reaction of Canadians if they lost 5 in Mexico. They think they are helping by training small groups of Mexican military in counter terriorism etc.

Oviously, you do not know the history of the Love Hate relationship Mexico has for the US- Mexico would consider foreign troops on their soil to be another act of agression by the US against Mexican Sovereigntry - Likely, every expat American living in Mexico would beome a target for violence and thown out of the country by force without notice.

This would be a diplomatic nightmare that the US will never consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posed this question just this week to a member of one of the Consulates here in Guad- answer- Neither country US or Canada will ever send troops into Mexico- Canada took their 2,000 tropps out of the Middle East- because they lost 5 men in Iraq- consider the reaction of Canadians if they lost 5 in Mexico. They think they are helping by training small groups of Mexican military in counter terriorism etc.

Oviously, you do not know the history of the Love Hate relationship Mexico has for the US- Mexico would consider foreign troops on their soil to be another act of agression by the US against Mexican Sovereigntry - Likely, every expat American living in Mexico would beome a target for violence and thown out of the country by force without notice.

This would be a diplomatic nightmare that the US will never consider.

I completely agree that you will never see Canada sending troops into Mexico - for a myriad of reasons.

However,I want to clarify that Canada did not join the war in Iraq [a very wise decision of the Chretien government IMO] and the five Canadians who died there were either civilian, or attached to US forces.

I would also like to point out that Canada has maintained their involvement in Security force action in Afghanistan since 2002, where 152 brave souls have lost their lives to date[ the latest just 2 days ago], and that approximately 2800 troops remain there at the present time.

Canadians support the idea of our military as peacekeepers, a concept held very dear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trailrunner -

I live in Illinois, and spend summers in Wisconsin. We're going to start spending our winters in the Lake Chapala area during the winter of 2011/2012. We feel that we should start by spending one winter down there renting, while we look for the place we want to buy. To us, the situation that ex-pats are in probably isn't any more risky than it is where we live. In fact, the city we live in, the crime rate has been the highest amongst cities of it's size for over a decade. Like someone said, it's all a question of being alert to your surroundings, and not making yourself a target, or going where you should be more concerned about your safety.

When I referred to the US and Canada helping Mexico on Mexican soil, I wasn't referring to putting boots on the ground, I was referring to financial assistance, and training programs being ramped up like we've seen some of in Canada and the US, aiding them in getting personnel prepared to carry the fight to the cartels. It would also include air power, weapons, and vehicles, that would make it easier for them to reach their objectives.

It would also include help with intelligence, and developing rapid response groups to combat situations like the road blocks they've encountered near the border.

As for sending troops to Mexico, I'm opposed to that myself, but I do see the reason that we've dispatched troops to the border here in the US at this point in time, not to stop illegals from crossing the border, but to interdict drug running operations that mix in with the illegal border jumpers.

Of course I believe that we need to address the illegal immigration situation too, but I think we handle that by making it a criminal offense to hire anyone that doesn't have valid credentials that can be verified for jobs, and by making sure that nobody is eligible for welfare that doesn't have valid credentials that shows they have the right to them. A stiff jail sentence, large fines, and even stiffer jail sentences for those that hire illegals, and can't show they were given valid credentials before hiring them, will go a lot further than trying to stop them from crossing.

When you cut the flow across the border to only those who intend committing crimes, it makes it a lot easier to deal with, because you're not dealing with innocent civilians who are just looking for a way to make a living for their families. And, by doing this, we free up billions of dollars wasted on trying to catch illegals, and use it to catch illegals intent on crime.

Just my opinion. We need to spend our capital of money and personnel more efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for setting the record straight re Canada's involvement in the Middle East - the inference made by the first poster that we cut and ran at first blood is just a tad offensive, as is the ignorance of the support being made by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Not so surprising,I guess, whenever I watch Jeopardy, I am always stunned by how little is known about Canada by the [usually] American contestants.

[/quote

What stuns me is how many people have nothing better to do with their minds than watch Jeopardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not change the topic heading when the topic changes?

I'm not sure that with this board setup you can change the heading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not change the topic heading when the topic changes?

I'm not sure that with this board setup you can change the heading.

Moderators can change headings and move posts that have gone off topic to a new thread, as this thread shows.

Please remember to start a new thread when the topic of a discussion changes. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I referred to the US and Canada helping Mexico on Mexican soil, I wasn't referring to putting boots on the ground, I was referring to financial assistance, and training programs being ramped up like we've seen some of in Canada and the US, aiding them in getting personnel prepared to carry the fight to the cartels. It would also include air power, weapons, and vehicles, that would make it easier for them to reach their objectives.

These things are already being done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for setting the record straight re Canada's involvement in the Middle East - the inference made by the first poster that we cut and ran at first blood is just a tad offensive, as is the ignorance of the support being made by Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Not so surprising,I guess, whenever I watch Jeopardy, I am always stunned by how little is known about Canada by the [usually] American contestants.

One doesn't have to watch Jeopary to be stunned by how little Americans and Canadians know about Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trailrunner -

I live in Illinois, and spend summers in Wisconsin. We're going to start spending our winters in the Lake Chapala area during the winter of 2011/2012. We feel that we should start by spending one winter down there renting, while we look for the place we want to buy. To us, the situation that ex-pats are in probably isn't any more risky than it is where we live. In fact, the city we live in, the crime rate has been the highest amongst cities of it's size for over a decade. Like someone said, it's all a question of being alert to your surroundings, and not making yourself a target, or going where you should be more concerned about your safety.

When I referred to the US and Canada helping Mexico on Mexican soil, I wasn't referring to putting boots on the ground, I was referring to financial assistance, and training programs being ramped up like we've seen some of in Canada and the US, aiding them in getting personnel prepared to carry the fight to the cartels. It would also include air power, weapons, and vehicles, that would make it easier for them to reach their objectives.

It would also include help with intelligence, and developing rapid response groups to combat situations like the road blocks they've encountered near the border.

As for sending troops to Mexico, I'm opposed to that myself, but I do see the reason that we've dispatched troops to the border here in the US at this point in time, not to stop illegals from crossing the border, but to interdict drug running operations that mix in with the illegal border jumpers.

Of course I believe that we need to address the illegal immigration situation too, but I think we handle that by making it a criminal offense to hire anyone that doesn't have valid credentials that can be verified for jobs, and by making sure that nobody is eligible for welfare that doesn't have valid credentials that shows they have the right to them. A stiff jail sentence, large fines, and even stiffer jail sentences for those that hire illegals, and can't show they were given valid credentials before hiring them, will go a lot further than trying to stop them from crossing.

When you cut the flow across the border to only those who intend committing crimes, it makes it a lot easier to deal with, because you're not dealing with innocent civilians who are just looking for a way to make a living for their families. And, by doing this, we free up billions of dollars wasted on trying to catch illegals, and use it to catch illegals intent on crime.

Just my opinion. We need to spend our capital of money and personnel more efficiently.

The USA has done some excellent training- of the Zetas ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation

The Merida Initiative however, is getting a rather slow start- http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/GAO%20Merida%20Initiative%20Report%20Analysis%207.22.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like someone wants a full scale war. Best the US concentrate on itself and either legalize or cut the consumption of drugs

And here from our (some of us) wizard Hillary Clinton

The wrong solution in Mexico

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ackerman-mexicoinsurgency-20100910,0,1752267.story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realizing that most of us who live here are well aware of the history, just a brief summary of why México won’t ask for a physical US presence.

The US invaded Mexico under the command of General Winfield Scott in 1846 allegedly because Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with the US when then President Polk unilaterally made the border between the US and Mexico the Rio Grande (something that Mexico had never agreed to). Further the US had admitted Texas as a slave state after Texas had won its independence, putting yet another stick in the eye of Mexicans who had already outlawed slavery after the revolution (remember Hildago).

The war known as the Mexican-American war in the States is often referred to as the La primera intervención estadounidenese en México. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, cementing the border between Texas (this also included most of New Mexico and half of Colorado) and Mexico as the Rio Grande and also cedeing the rest of New Mexico, Arizona, Californiz, Utah and Nevada. to the US. More or less 25% of the continental US came in as a result of the war, viewed by opponents in the States as a war to solidify slavery.

Basically Mexico looked at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago as worse than the Germans viewed the Treaty of Versailles. Otherwise the war was the training ground for Lee, Grant and a host of other Civil War generals, not a major reason for Mexico to care.

Given the background, why would anyone think that Mexico would like US intervention? Perhaps so the US could grab Cancun and Cabo San Lucas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the USA has already occupied Baja Sur and Norte. Monterrey seems more of a Texas city than Mexican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the USA has already occupied Baja Sur and Norte. Monterrey seems more of a Texas city than Mexican.

That just isn't true about Monterrey, Slobo. It is distinctly Mexican with some American businesses located there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the concept that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are peace keepers interesting. Who was fighting before we arrived?

You misunderstand what Senor Vivo wrote. His last line refers to what most Canadians would prefer to have our troops do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address the OP, no the U.S. will never have troops in Mexico for the historic reasons stated. They will provide aid and training but this is basically Mexico's fight. I believe it would help if Mexico would understand that a really serious effort to close the border on both sides would benefit Mexico the most, as it would make the criminal activity much more difficult.

The root problem is, of course,the seemingly insatiable appetite for drugs in both the U.S. and to a lesser degree, Canada. The demand drives the whole thing and the money plays right into Mexico's vulnerability to governmental corruption at all levels.

There simply are no easy answers here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I referred to the US and Canada helping Mexico on Mexican soil, I wasn't referring to putting boots on the ground, I was referring to financial assistance, and training programs being ramped up like we've seen some of in Canada and the US, aiding them in getting personnel prepared to carry the fight to the cartels. It would also include air power, weapons, and vehicles, that would make it easier for them to reach their objectives.

It would also include help with intelligence, and developing rapid response groups to combat situations like the road blocks they've encountered near the border.

We had a talk from the Canadian Ambassador to Mexico last year. Among other things, he told us that there were teams of RCMP (Mounties) and Canadian federal prosecutors in Mexico helping them with training and advice to facilitate the previously announced switch from their current Napoleonic style of criminal law to one based on evidence and oral trials such as is used in Canada, the U.S., Britain, etc.

So, there is assistance going on now.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one go the the Multiva presentation this week..what are your thoughts on what the presenter had to say regarding security???

Take your money out of Mexico..Stay neutral..Invest more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to set the record straight-

My post was done in response to another topic several weeks ago- How it got reinvented with my name as the OP is a mystery to me- Maybe the MODS can explain why it was reestablished as a topic without my having posted it????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any one go the the Multiva presentation this week..what are your thoughts on what the presenter had to say regarding security???

Take your money out of Mexico..Stay neutral..Invest more

The speaker was Ana Maria Salazar, former under-secy of state in the Clinton admin. She gave many statistics. The conclusions were' that Mexico is not as bad as often portrayed by the NOB media, the worst city for homicides and kidnapping is Mexic, DF but no one ever hears that, the cartel violence is high in only a few states, and that the situation in Mexico is very different than it was in Columbia 20 years ago. No investment recommendations were made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The speaker was Ana Maria Salazar, former under-secy of state in the Clinton admin. She gave many statistics. The conclusions were' that Mexico is not as bad as often portrayed by the NOB media, the worst city for homicides and kidnapping is Mexic, DF but no one ever hears that, the cartel violence is high in only a few states, and that the situation in Mexico is very different than it was in Columbia 20 years ago. No investment recommendations were made.

Hardly a surprise-it would be a surprise if she gave a negative view that she could be criticized for. By giving no investment advice she avoids criticism and lawsuits. Sounds like the whole exercise was a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly a surprise-it would be a surprise if she gave a negative view that she could be criticized for. By giving no investment advice she avoids criticism and lawsuits. Sounds like the whole exercise was a waste of time.

The speaker is an expert on security in Mexico. What she described was not a pretty picture. She is renowned author, radio personality and former US State Department official. She was there to provide an overview of the security situation in Mexico, not give investment advice. She gave an excellent presentation, not candy coated or exaggerated. It was a waste of time only for those who didn't read the invitation and thought they would be getting free investment advice, or those who didn't want to learn the truth about security in Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...