Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Mexico?

[BADecker]

Some drugs are beneficial for a short time. Then all of them are essentially bad in large doses over a long period of time. Bombing Mexico to get rid of the bad drug problem is a start. The real problem comes when Trump has to 'bomb' the medical and the drug companies for their misuse and misapplication of drugs. But Kennedy is working on 'bombing' the medical, through MAHA.


Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Mexico?


https://ronpaulinstitute.org/bomb-bomb-bomb-mexico/
Yes, real bombs that kill people and destroy things, just like the bombs that U.S. national-security state officials used to kill people in Iraq, which, like Mexico, never attacked or invaded the United States. More specifically, such a bombing campaign would target drug cartels in Mexico.

Make no mistake about it. When one nation-state drops bombs on another nation-state, that is an act of war. When the first bomb drops, the United States will initiating another war of aggression — that is, the type of war that was condemned as a war crime at Nuremberg.

Before then, U.S. officials will undoubtedly try to pressure Mexican president Claudia Scheinbaum into agreeing to their bombing campaign. That way, they can say that they are not really waging war on Mexico with their bombs because Mexico's president has agreed to the U.S. Empire's bombing of her country.

Scheinbaum has already gone to tremendous lengths in an effort to appease President Trump. She has agreed to surveillance over Mexican skies by U.S. government drones. She has sent Mexican drug dealers to Trump in what had the appearance of human tribute being paid to an emperor. She has sent 10,000 Mexican troops to the U.S. Mexico border in an ostensible effort to help Trump enforce the U.S. drug war and U.S. immigration controls. And she has had her own drug warriors bust several Mexican drug-dealing operations.

As of now Sheinbaum has said that Mexico will not agree to a military attack on the country. Time will tell whether she caves and give Trump officials the fig leaf they need to launch bombing attacks on Mexico.

Notice something important here: federal officials have now conflated the much-vaunted "war on terrorism" with the much-vaunted "war on drugs." Why is that important? Because it enables them to treat a criminal-justice matter — i.e., violations of drug laws — as a military matter, which empowers them to treat drug-war violators as "illegal enemy combatants" who don't wear uniforms.

The war on terrorism came into existence as a result of the 9/11 attacks. The terrorists replaced the communists as America's official enemy, and the "war on terrorism" replaced the Cold War's "war on communists." "The terrorists are coming!" replaced "The Reds are coming!" to keep Americans afraid and eager to trade their liberty for the pretense of "security." That's how we got the Patriot Act, TSA, illegal mass secret surveillance, and other destructions of American liberty and privacy.
...

[Hispo]

With the recklessness of the Trump administration and keeping in mind Trump has little left to lose when his time as president is over, I would not be surprised if he actually ordered some strikes against cartel headquarters in Mexico and also against main drug laboratories on Mexican soil. It would be considered an act of war, yes... but Mexico would not retaliate or declare war against the United States because it would be a disaster for the Mexican people to go in a hot war against the USA. That would empower and further embolden Trump to continue to bomb the cartels (and also cause some colateral damage in the process, which may be inevitable).

One can hope Trump gets distracted deporting people instead of bombing Mexico without permission from their president.

[Hydrogen]

Trump authorizes military to take control of federal land along US southern border

April 11, 2025

President Donald Trump sent a memorandum to four federal department heads Friday night instructing them to allow the military to use and take jurisdiction of federal land along the US-Mexico border.

The memo, sent to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins, states that the military must “take a more direct role” in efforts to secure the border and calls on the secretaries to act to provide the Defense Department “use and jurisdiction” over certain federal lands “to enable military activities” on military installations.

The memo states that the Defense Department should be provided jurisdiction over lands including the Roosevelt Reservation – a 60-foot-wide swath of land along the border – for military purposes including border wall construction and installing detection and monitoring equipment. The memo excludes Federal Indian Reservations.

Trump mandated that the US military step up its presence along the southern border on his first day in office, and thousands of additional active duty US troops have been ordered there as part of the Trump administration’s ongoing military mission at the border, CNN previously reported.

Because Trump has declared a national emergency at the border, according to the memo, Burgum “may make withdrawals, reservations, and restrictions of public lands to provide for the utilization of public lands by the Department of Defense.”

The memo also confirms what CNN reported last month was in the works: plans for the military to take command of a swath of territory along the border by designating federal lands as a military installation.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/11/politics/us-mexico-border-federal-land-military-control/index.html

[BADecker]

With the recklessness of the Trump administration and keeping in mind Trump has little left to lose when his time as president is over, I would not be surprised if he actually ordered some strikes against cartel headquarters in Mexico and also against main drug laboratories on Mexican soil. It would be considered an act of war, yes... but Mexico would not retaliate or declare war against the United States because it would be a disaster for the Mexican people to go in a hot war against the USA. That would empower and further embolden Trump to continue to bomb the cartels (and also cause some colateral damage in the process, which may be inevitable).

One can hope Trump gets distracted deporting people instead of bombing Mexico without permission from their president.

It's not war because Mexican authorities are totally happy and asking for the help. They don't like the cartels, either. It's just that they can't afford to take them down like Trump will.

[Hispo]

With the recklessness of the Trump administration and keeping in mind Trump has little left to lose when his time as president is over, I would not be surprised if he actually ordered some strikes against cartel headquarters in Mexico and also against main drug laboratories on Mexican soil. It would be considered an act of war, yes... but Mexico would not retaliate or declare war against the United States because it would be a disaster for the Mexican people to go in a hot war against the USA. That would empower and further embolden Trump to continue to bomb the cartels (and also cause some colateral damage in the process, which may be inevitable).

One can hope Trump gets distracted deporting people instead of bombing Mexico without permission from their president.

It's not war because Mexican authorities are totally happy and asking for the help. They don't like the cartels, either. It's just that they can't afford to take them down like Trump will.

It has more to do with corruption and the indirect involvement of some high level politicians within the world of narcotraffick from Mexico to the United States, you know. They would turn a blind eye on narco-terrorist organizations like CJNG taking over their cities for the sake of receiving a slice of the pie of the money generated by the exportation of fentanyl and cocaine to the USA. It is unlikely the president of Mexico is directly involved with those cartel drug lords, but some people within their circle could be and may try to convince her those bombings are a bad idea and are against international law. Basically, drug lords have found their own lobbyists to face the Mexican government and the possible plan for Trump to bomb cartel headquarters in Mexican soil.

[hellflame]

The situation is more complex in Mexico than say Ecuador as TPTB have ensured the Mexican president has taken office to push their agenda. Mexico is now under the influence of a far greater and more powerful cartel than a few drug families and their agenda has simpletons running cartels at the bottom level of the totem pole. Abortion rights , Woke war on misogony, and climate cons are far more interesting to them but chaos serves as chaos brings crises.

[Fiatless]

I don't think any sane president will allow the US to bomb its country because you want to please an emperor. See what is happening in Gaza, Syria,, and Lebanon. Innocent people die everyday and these aggressors will claim that they targeted a terrorist. Inviting the US to your country to  help fight against drugs is inviting death.

The only problem I have with mass arrest is that innocent people can be mistakenly arrested and sent to the US. But to a large extent, the arresting of suspected drug dealers can reduce drug trafficking in the US.

But if the US doesn't take care of the internal problems of drug addiction in the US fentanyl will still enter the US or they can start producing within the country. There is a high demand for drugs in the US, which will make drug dealers seek alternative means. But if the US can control the flow of fentanyl from China through Mexico, its flow in the streets of the US will reduce.

The US and Mexico would have to form close partners to stop the production and flow of drugs in both nations. Drug trade is naturally violent, and we hear news of drug cartels brutally killing people in Mexico. But my problem is that innocent people should not suffer for a crime they have not committed..

[caroasi]

The drug violence was a fully predicted and known result of the violations of human rights by those who believe they have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot grow, manufacture, and consume.

It is a basic human right to grow any and all plants one wishes to grow. It is a basic human right to do on one's own private property any non-polluting manufacturing anyone wishes to do with those plants, such as process coca into cocaine. It is a natural right, a basic human right, to consume any drug one wishes as an emancipated adult.

The consequences of the illegal, immoral, drug war, are that violence will only increase as people fight to protect they instinctively know to be their rights. You won't have such problems theft gangs as you ever could with drug gangs, because unlike with theft people believe they have a right to drugs.

When they first banned alcohol, the violence grew and grew until people realized their mistake. But when they banned drugs, the violence grew and grew but people don't care if they make a mistake or not, they'll just keep going with their morally wrong policies, because most people don't do hard drugs, so they feel morally superior even though they are in ZERO way morally superior, as doing hard drugs like cocaine is 100% absolutely moral and ethical when done in moderation.

There are allegedly some drugs out there that are unethical to do because they are so addictive that most people become addicted, but because people are actually not such fools in general, it is quite rare for those drugs to be sold or used.

Its very sad that a majority of people seem to have the immoral position that theft of other people's private property is acceptable in order to ensure other people don't think thoughts they deem excessively different and have feelings they deem excessively different from their feelings. "Bob is having thoughts and feelings I don't understand, and he is taking drugs, therefore I'll pull out a gun, go to Bob's house, steal his drugs, put him in jail, then find out where he got them and put the seller in jail. Then I'll find they were manufactured and put those people in jail. Then I'll find out who farmed the plants that created them, so I'll put those people in jail." Every single step in that process is morally wrong.

[BADecker]

The drug violence was a fully predicted and known result of the violations of human rights by those who believe they have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot grow, manufacture, and consume.

It is a basic human right to grow any and all plants one wishes to grow. It is a basic human right to do on one's own private property any non-polluting manufacturing anyone wishes to do with those plants, such as process coca into cocaine. It is a natural right, a basic human right, to consume any drug one wishes as an emancipated adult.

The consequences of the illegal, immoral, drug war, are that violence will only increase as people fight to protect they instinctively know to be their rights. You won't have such problems theft gangs as you ever could with drug gangs, because unlike with theft people believe they have a right to drugs.

When they first banned alcohol, the violence grew and grew until people realized their mistake. But when they banned drugs, the violence grew and grew but people don't care if they make a mistake or not, they'll just keep going with their morally wrong policies, because most people don't do hard drugs, so they feel morally superior even though they are in ZERO way morally superior, as doing hard drugs like cocaine is 100% absolutely moral and ethical when done in moderation.

There are allegedly some drugs out there that are unethical to do because they are so addictive that most people become addicted, but because people are actually not such fools in general, it is quite rare for those drugs to be sold or used.

Its very sad that a majority of people seem to have the immoral position that theft of other people's private property is acceptable in order to ensure other people don't think thoughts they deem excessively different and have feelings they deem excessively different from their feelings. "Bob is having thoughts and feelings I don't understand, and he is taking drugs, therefore I'll pull out a gun, go to Bob's house, steal his drugs, put him in jail, then find out where he got them and put the seller in jail. Then I'll find they were manufactured and put those people in jail. Then I'll find out who farmed the plants that created them, so I'll put those people in jail." Every single step in that process is morally wrong.

As far as drugs go, there should be freedom in every way. A governmental operation should first be one that triples down on the advertising of how bad drugs are for people. And that is what MAHA is doing somewhat.

The idea of Trump getting together with the Mexican government to 'bomb' corruption away is a good thing. But if the advertising had been done properly in the first place, there wouldn't be much drug corruption. At least, not in the US. Not from Mexican cartels.

The change needs to be made in the government of Mexico. The government is weak in its current form. It's also weak in the fact that it isn't strong enough to stamp out American corruption in Mexico. The cartels would not exist if American corruption had not made them strong. Some of the bombing is for the destroying of the hidden 'US cartels' in Mexico (CIA, FBI, even NSA).

[DeathAngel]

I really don’t think that bombing Mexico is a good idea. It’d be illegal warfare for a start. They pose no immediate, violent threat to the US or anybody else for that matter. Drug importations & cartels are a problem but people have a choice if they want to take drugs. The majority of people either don’t take or don’t allow drugs to impact their lives. Harsher treatment of gangs would he a good idea but bombing a mostly peaceful, democracy is a big no.

[montaga]

it's embarrassing, talking about peace on one side because bombs need to fall somewhere else.

[Agbamoni]

Bombing Mexico is a bad idea. I mean what is the point of bombing Mexico, if Trump and his administrative want the Mexican soil the intention should be made publicly so we all know it will be a battler because it is obvious that the US has their mind on Mexican's. If dealing on drugs, cartels are the reason for the bombing then Texas, Chicago, in the US should be bombed also. The number of gangs shit going on in Chicago, while Texas has headquarters for drug dealing, human trafficking, with no exception cartels running drugs all over the United State.

[BADecker]

Bombing Mexico isn't really bombing Mexico. Rather, it's 'bombing' the cartels. Get rid of the cartels so that Mexico can have peace, and so that the US isn't plagued by drug pushers.

I know. There's a lot of work to be done right in the US. Get rid of the American gangs in the big cities. It's Mexican cartels that are using beautiful Mexico to supply and support US gangs. Clean it all up.

At least the Big Pharma cartels are self regulating to some extent.

[Hispo]

I really don’t think that bombing Mexico is a good idea. It’d be illegal warfare for a start. They pose no immediate, violent threat to the US or anybody else for that matter. Drug importations & cartels are a problem but people have a choice if they want to take drugs. The majority of people either don’t take or don’t allow drugs to impact their lives. Harsher treatment of gangs would he a good idea but bombing a mostly peaceful, democracy is a big no.

The people who are in favor of bombing cartels in Mexico make emphasis on the targeting of those attacks, headquarters of gangters, drugs laboratories and such. But they ignore all warfare has some collateral damage, and Mexico would not be the exception, they would be innocent among those killed by USA bombs, only intended against cartels.
It is a complete disregard of diplomacy and negotiation for the sake of the cooperation of two countries who have become very important partners for decades.

We can only hope Trump does not take words to actions when comes to bombing anything on Mexico, without the authorization of the presidency of Mexico, that is.

[BADecker]

I really don’t think that bombing Mexico is a good idea. It’d be illegal warfare for a start. They pose no immediate, violent threat to the US or anybody else for that matter. Drug importations & cartels are a problem but people have a choice if they want to take drugs. The majority of people either don’t take or don’t allow drugs to impact their lives. Harsher treatment of gangs would he a good idea but bombing a mostly peaceful, democracy is a big no.

The people who are in favor of bombing cartels in Mexico make emphasis on the targeting of those attacks, headquarters of gangters, drugs laboratories and such. But they ignore all warfare has some collateral damage, and Mexico would not be the exception, they would be innocent among those killed by USA bombs, only intended against cartels.
It is a complete disregard of diplomacy and negotiation for the sake of the cooperation of two countries who have become very important partners for decades.

We can only hope Trump does not take words to actions when comes to bombing anything on Mexico, without the authorization of the presidency of Mexico, that is.

There must be other methods of cleaning up the cartels before something like bombing them. Hope Trump finds them.

[hellflame]

Well most of the fentanyl comes from outside mexico into mexico from a big large country so how come we don't hear of any wars or sanctions out that neck of the woods? ...uh wait

[BADecker]

If people had to take responsibility for their lives, they wouldn't have time for using drugs. People have it too easy in some ways. MAGA is about making Americans start to get back on their own two feet, and start manufacturing what they need to live. No time for drugs.

[Ishicryptic]

Hard drugs are very harmful to humans and I support any efforts that it will take to minimize or eradicate the production and distributions so that we can live in a safer world. If mexico does not have the capacity to fight the cartels it should not be a shame to ask for help, and if it is the US that can get the job done Iet there be a collaboration. But it will be an act of war if the US were to drop a bomb in Mexico, whether it is for a just cause or not without Mexican government approval. But America, can sell the bombs to mexico, or donate it to them to fight and destroy the cartel production sites, absolutely no reason to drop a bomb by themselves into mexico. I don't know much about Mexico, it is only on the ground of corruption in their government and not being able to confront the cartels by itself that they can rely on America, to do the bombing if necessary for them

[montaga]

Used to enjoy smoking and have some drinks on weekends, gave it up after the indoor ban. Could not care less about anything else.
People have no right to judge other people, zero, they can tell the own dog what to do and thats it.
Why is it they are of the opinion to be above the law and command humans? A human would not do such a thing, only a person doing it.

[BADecker]

Hard drugs are very harmful to humans and I support any efforts that it will take to minimize or eradicate the production and distributions so that we can live in a safer world. If mexico does not have the capacity to fight the cartels it should not be a shame to ask for help, and if it is the US that can get the job done Iet there be a collaboration. But it will be an act of war if the US were to drop a bomb in Mexico, whether it is for a just cause or not without Mexican government approval. But America, can sell the bombs to mexico, or donate it to them to fight and destroy the cartel production sites, absolutely no reason to drop a bomb by themselves into mexico. I don't know much about Mexico, it is only on the ground of corruption in their government and not being able to confront the cartels by itself that they can rely on America, to do the bombing if necessary for them

The CIA has been doing way worse than bombing for a multitude of decades.

----------

Used to enjoy smoking and have some drinks on weekends, gave it up after the indoor ban. Could not care less about anything else.
People have no right to judge other people, zero, they can tell the own dog what to do and thats it.
Why is it they are of the opinion to be above the law and command humans? A human would not do such a thing, only a person doing it.

The stuff found at You Are Law shows you what you can do... if you are in one of the free, Western countries of the world: US, UK, Canada, Guyana, and others. Also, even India and Australia.