EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Suggests U.S. Military Response to Mexican Cartels

[txradioguy]

One riot, one Ranger.

As long as he's got full military kit and an M-4...all you need is one Ranger on the border LOL!

[Smokin Joe]

Probably just a coincidence, right?

Maybe they're trading in cattle futures

[Smokin Joe]

Did you miss the part about our military being in a poor state combat readiness?  Would this be the best time to start a shooting war with Mexico's cartels---even if blessed by Sen. Cruz?

@Chosen Daughter

If you think the Cartels are better equipped, militarily, than the US military, perhaps we really need to examine defense spending and how it is being allocated. There is no mandate in the Constitution for 'nation building', but to provide for the common defense is right there in the preamble.

We are at war with the cartels, whether we recognize that or not.
Some are gunned down in our streets, others disappear, and some end up missing parts, at least those that could be used to identify them.
Some of the casualties don't get the needle out of their arm.

When the police are carrying Narcan (Naloxone) injectors, even in small town America--and using them--we have a problem. In the meantime, our enemies are corrupting our government at nearly every level, and taking billions of dollars home.

We could probably fund the action off of seized currency, seized by the pallet load.

[Smokin Joe]

I have been saying for about a decade that we need to make the "War on Drugs"   into a real war on drugs.   


What we have been doing is a holding action.   No attempt to win has been put forth,  mainly because the American people do not have the stomach to do what needs to be done to win a war on drugs. 


Most of them are okay with simply holding down the addiction rate to current levels.

When the heads lined up at the border are facing south, and are of narcotraficantes, then the tide may start to turn. That isn't advocating beheading them, they can be attached, still, to the corpses.

Technically, the military can't be used to do what civilian police do (Posse Comitatus), but on the border the rules may well be different, and with the NDAA and Patriot Act, that may have been overruled.

The difference is that the Cartels are fighting to win, and ruthlessly. Our ROE are different. Hillary and others saw to that.

The only downside is that there will be a propaganda war, should the political side in Mexico be corrupt.
The cartels have the hardware to wipe out a village and blame the US in social media as part of an anti-US and 'antiwar' propaganda campaign. I have little doubt the media mavens in the US would run that 24/7 apologizing all over themselves about graphic images, but you 'need to know'.

[libertybele]

What he is suggesting is that we agree with Mexico to send troops down there to round up the Cartels.  Mexico does not have the police force to do it and besides there's so much corruption.  He thinks the Mexican government would welcome it.

Unfortunately, the cartel has been aided by those in our government such as Clinton, Bammy and others and our border patrol have been ordered to stand down.  There is corruption on both sides. 

WE NEED THE WALL!!  We need to stop all immigration and we need the national guard well positioned along our border and need to be allowed to act and to defend themselves.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

While I don't necessarily disagree with this, the cartel trade is based on supply and demand. Problem is we gotta helluva bunch of demand. So we wipe out the cartels, but new ones will take their place. We got to make sure once they are gone to keep any new supply highly pinched to drive up the price and get people off their kick.

Bush the First did interdiction 25 years ago with great success. Today, I'm wondering if we're too far gone.

Too far gone?

If a Constitutional Amendment could be passed, then eliminated like Prohibition, then there is no way we are too far gone.

[Free Vulcan]

Too far gone?

If a Constitutional Amendment could be passed, then eliminated like Prohibition, then there is no way we are too far gone.

There are so many people involved in the drug trade at both ends that I'm not sure the political will is there.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There are so many people involved in the drug trade at both ends that I'm not sure the political will is there.

What % of the populace in 1919 do you think drank alcohol yet an Amendment still passed?

[Sighlass]

I'm waiting for the faithful to stop looking at Cruz as some kind of threat.

One day, maybe.

I can compromise, give Sessions free reign with no repercussions and let him decide what plan he would rather go with... I bet dollars to donuts it would be Cruz's.  This is one subject that Sessions is more a Lion that Cruz.

Since we are on the subject... I would love to see what changes Sessions has done to Obama's illegal aliens list he made (showed how Obama did internal executive order in favor of illegal immigration). One of the most impressive lists showing how Obama tried to tear down America.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/16/sen-sessions-releases-lengthy-timeline-of-obama-administrations-dismantling-of-immigration-law/

[libertybele]

A politician who's on Trump's side.

Which is why I don't understand the impulse by Trump's more ardent supporters to snark whenever his name comes up.

Cruz is a constitutional conservative.  He openly stated he voted for Trump for two reasons; to defeat Hillary and to seat conservatives on the SCOTUS bench. IMHO Trump's more ardent supporters still take issue with Cruz not endorsing him at the GOP convention and let's not forget all the ugliness Trump spewed about Cruz.  When Cruz has felt Trump has been correct he has applauded him, it seems to me, he's been silent for the most part while the 'circus' is going on.  He's up for re-election in '18 and remember, Trump has threatened to unseat him.  Trump has never shown any gratitude towards Ted or acknowledged his role in getting him elected; neither have his supporters.

[Chosen Daughter]

If you think the Cartels are better equipped, militarily, than the US military, perhaps we really need to examine defense spending and how it is being allocated. There is no mandate in the Constitution for 'nation building', but to provide for the common defense is right there in the preamble.

We are at war with the cartels, whether we recognize that or not.
Some are gunned down in our streets, others disappear, and some end up missing parts, at least those that could be used to identify them.
Some of the casualties don't get the needle out of their arm.

When the police are carrying Narcan (Naloxone) injectors, even in small town America--and using them--we have a problem. In the meantime, our enemies are corrupting our government at nearly every level, and taking billions of dollars home.

We could probably fund the action off of seized currency, seized by the pallet load.

Yes we are at war.  And terrorists are joining up with the cartels.  They are helping them to cross the border.

Ted Cruz lives in a border state.  He has two little girls.  And being a parent myself I worry for my children and their future.  If we don't stop allowing illegal immigration we will all be enslaved to gangs, drugs and terrorists.  No travel ban is going to stop the terrorists coming from our own border.  They know.  Just google it.  ISIS Mexico.  Or terrorists and Drug Cartel.

As it stands I think that Trumps campaign rhetoric on immigration has put us into another level of threat.  Any parent knows that if you issue an empty threat you can expect bad behavior to increase.  If you don't match what you say with action there will be a problem.

This government is so in bed with the illegal immigrant labor market it cannot see the present danger.  They have to stop this or we will be no better off than any ME country bordering ISIS controlled land.

I would be 100% in support of military on the border.  It isn't a police matter.  It is a national threat.

[Free Vulcan]

What % of the populace in 1919 do you think drank alcohol yet an Amendment still passed?

I think that was a far different time with a much better moral standard honored by the citizenry.

Right now we got three generations from the hippie 60's on down advocating for legalizing.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think that was a far different time with a much better moral standard honored by the citizenry.

Right now we got three generations from the hippie 60's on down advocating for legalizing.

That's the easy way out, isn't it?

Just throw history out and say "Times are different".

I happen to believe that Americans are better than what you give them credit for, as proven time and time again.

[Emjay]

What % of the populace in 1919 do you think drank alcohol yet an Amendment still passed?

Not a particularly good thing to bring up since that ended in disaster.

[Emjay]

That's the easy way out, isn't it?

Just throw history out and say "Times are different".

I happen to believe that Americans are better than what you give them credit for, as proven time and time again.

I agree with you.

[Free Vulcan]

That's the easy way out, isn't it?

Just throw history out and say "Times are different".

I happen to believe that Americans are better than what you give them credit for, as proven time and time again.

We are a nation of good people, but on the drug issue we are cratering. Support for a hard line on drugs has eroded since Bush I, and you have nearly 3 generations that really don't think it's that big of deal, or are more scared of the drug war than the drugs themselves.

Change has to start at the ballot box level, and there is no desire for change, at least not in that direction. It's called political will, and right now I just don't see it.

[Chosen Daughter]

Dealing with this threat to our National Security starts with the government.  Having the will to change it before we are Syria.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Not a particularly good thing to bring up since that ended in disaster.

the point is that the poster said we are "too far gone" as there were more drug users than ever, yet history shows that we passed a Constitutional amendment even with the majority of the populace was likely drinking alcohol.