Article

2004-08-24 Caribbean-Latin America

Al-Qaeda seeking to recruit Latin Americans

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-08-24 12:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I worry about AlQ activity in Latin America only as long as the funding sources, primarily SA's Wahhabis I believe, are still operating unimpeded. Shut off the money - and they're all just local thuggish "Shining Path" bands. Assuming Chavez and Lula and other latin "leaders" don't get into the asshat-funding biz, that is - and this was why Lula's overtures to the Arab League a few months ago got my attention. The drugs and kidnap for fun and profit rackets are all they'll have to fall back on. What I don't quite get, is why the countries that have this relatively petty infestation can't (or won't) deal with it with the intent of wiping them out.

South America is a huge disappointment, falling far short of its potential in every single respect, like Africa, and for the same sort of reasons. Sad.

Posted by .com 2004-08-24 12:14:45 AM|| 2004-08-24 12:14:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 .com, we should make sure that Latin American drug money and AQ don't meet up. Along with the hate for Americans that wouldn't be pretty.

Also watch ChÃ¡vez and Fidel closely, and Lula as well. The Brazilians are still working on nukes whatever they might say.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-24 12:33:56 AM|| 2004-08-24 12:33:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 You're dead right. The Afghan trade has proven that it's hard to get them to go straight, money makes warlords - and kingpins - which make a political hash out of everything within reach.

I have no doubt that AlQ has been in contact with the Columbians - none at all. And the Columbians will deal with anyone.

Chavez is the situation that makes me craziest, at the moment. Such a grand opportunity squandered. Sigh.

And Lula is probably cooperating in some fashion with the Arabs - he certainly jumped when they called and sat at their feet like a good boy. As for nukes, sigh...

The nuke genie is out of the bottle. How can it be contained, again? Can it be contained, again? I'm afraid Dave D and Atomic Conspiracy and others have called it correctly, whether writing about more localized issues or not: it can't be and it won't be.

I wonder if, a decade or so on, whomever is left will be comparing the Western countries as various players in I Claudius with the World as the Roman court...

Posted by .com 2004-08-24 12:52:13 AM|| 2004-08-24 12:52:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Tom Clancy wrote a novel about jsut that (Latin American Drug lords getting together with AlQ terr-types).

He bailed the US out by a super secret agency that does wet-wrok removing targets by stealth with a nearly untraceable ricin-like substance.

Nice dream, but we need to expect this possiblity and do something.

Securing our southern border should be item number 1 to start solving this problem.

Triple fence, 12 feet tall. Concertina wire on top. Fence zone 5 ft deep, 12 ft wide concrete underneath. Seismic sensors. Automated Surveillance (UAVs, EO and IR cameras, overlapping fields, etc), and adequate trops to man them and back them up, as well as patrols.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-24 12:52:30 AM|| 2004-08-24 12:52:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 One addition: ground surveillance radars coudl handle large areas. And agressive patrolling would raise the risk factor: good OP/LP would catch a lot and deter even more.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-08-24 12:54:48 AM|| 2004-08-24 12:54:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Why does Clancy always steal my ideas? :-)

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-24 1:00:11 AM|| 2004-08-24 1:00:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 LOL! Too late for a coffee alert HERE, Lol!

Posted by .com 2004-08-24 1:36:53 AM|| 2004-08-24 1:36:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm sick of the prohibition on drugs. I believe that eventually we will treat drugs much in the same way we treat alcohol. If we were to allow addicts to get the drugs from a pharmacy instead of a drug dealer, these drug lords would be out of business tomorrow.

It's ludicrous to think, that by making drugs illegal we make them unavailable. I have never purchased drugs in my life, but if I suddenly decided I wanted to heroin or crack or pot or whatever, I'm willing to bet that I could get in my car and locate someone who could supply me, within an hour...no matter what city or state I was in.

Don't dare tell me how cruel I am. What I think is cruel is that people addict women to drugs so they can turn them into prostitutes. I think it is cruel that millions of innocent people are mugged, robbed and even murdered to supply a $20 fix. The illegal drug trade is far more cruel than making drugs available (perscription only) through a pharmacy could ever be!

Just think, the drug lords would all be out of business tomorrow if we allowed junkies drugs made right here in the good ol' USA.

Posted by B 2004-08-24 1:45:18 AM|| 2004-08-24 1:45:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 B that's a complicated issue.
The Dutch were (half) down your path and came to deeply regret it.
No simple solution for that one. But on the day someone sells your 12 year old daughter heroin or crack for a dollar, and you can do nothing about it, you'll think again.
Maybe not heroin, but cocaine would become a mainstream fix. Cheaper, but abundant.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-24 1:56:16 AM|| 2004-08-24 1:56:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 B I am with you on that one. I don't think the government should tell adults what they can see, read or put into their bodies. That would defund a hell of alot of crime in this country and around the world.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-08-24 3:25:33 AM|| 2004-08-24 3:25:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Mmmmmmm .com I might argue with you a bit on that one. The southern hemisphere nations failed because they were set up to fail, via the early 70's equivalent of globalization. You cannot simultaneously strip-mine a nation's wealth and expect it to develop into a mini-U.S. So while I share your disappointment with the governments of South America and Africa, I tend to finger culprits much closer to home: the U.S.- and U.K.- dominated World Bank and IMF. About the worst I can say of our friends in the south is that they opted to swim with the sharks, for which they are now paying the ultimate penalty: widespread civil unrest and economic chaos for the forseeable future.

Posted by Mister Write 2004-08-24 4:09:23 AM|| 2004-08-24 4:09:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Have to go with True German Ally on this one; I think access is half the battle when it comes to drugs.

Most of the stuff is so highly addictive that anything you do to increase availability, including legalization, will just result in more addicted kids. Some shit you simply can't mess with. Drugs, weapons-grade plutonium, and high explosives have no place in American homelife.

And B, I too have never been a drug user or done a drug buy... but driving around downtown L.A. in broad daylight, a man walked up to my open car window and offered to sell me whatever shit I wanted. You could have knocked me over with a feather.

I hate the war on drugs, but then I also hate the whole idea of a War on Terror. "War" on a pack of semiorganized fanatics? That ain't war. You don't militarize an entire nation just for that.

Far as I'm concerned the war on terrorism ended with the overthrow, rightly or wrongly, of the Iraqi government. Everything since then has been occupation or intel/counter-intel stuff.

Anybody besides me notice that the Bush Administration no longer talks about Osama bin Laden? We hear constantly about this lieutenant nabbed, or that lieutenant being sought, but nothing about the big kahuna himself. I think Poppa bin Laden, good friend of the Bush clan that he his, asked our President something along the lines of: "Sure, go ahead and round up those lieutenants and the other jihadist scum. But please, please don't touch our little boy Osama."

So maybe Michael Moore got that part right.

Funny thing is, I think finding Osama is the one thing that would clinch the election for Mr. Bush. But I don't think we'll ever know the truth of it.

Posted by Mister Write 2004-08-24 4:31:46 AM|| 2004-08-24 4:31:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-osorio010803.asp
On January 5 (2003), Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's former personal pilot dropped a bombshell that has been ignored by just about every major U.S. news organization: The Venezuelan president, according to the pilot, gave al Qaeda a substantial sum of money following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Also google Venezuela's Margarita Island, for instance:
http://www.militaresdemocraticos.com/articulos/en/20030422-01.html
On February 13 this year (2003), at London's Gatwick Airport, a Muslim with suspected links to Al Qaeda was arrested after a grenade was found in his luggage. His ticket shows he flew in from Colombia. But it turns out he actually began his journey in Caracas. He was a Venezuelan. And there are reported to be more like him.

A London newspaper reports Osama bin Laden has established a training camp on Venezuela's Margarita Island, a tourist destination that also has an Arab-Muslim community and a bad reputation as a hangout for smugglers and terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Posted by ed 2004-08-24 7:23:35 AM|| 2004-08-24 7:23:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Legalazation of pot,yes.No to the rest.

Posted by raptor 2004-08-24 8:23:51 AM|| 2004-08-24 8:23:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Unfortunately the 'drug war' is anything but. Both political parties really dont want to fight it -- its their 'pet issue'. If they really wanted to fight the 'war on drugs' they would have some real laws (and enforce existing ones). Such as death penalty for people who sell to drug dealers, smugglers, illegal makers (meth labs...), etc....
If it really is a war on drug then take the farking kidd gloves off dammit.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-08-24 9:47:49 AM|| 2004-08-24 9:47:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda, have sympathizers, financiers, and terror cells worldwide.
Outside of Lebanon, one of the places that Hezbollah is strongest is in the area of South America known as the Triple Frontier, where Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil meet. There is a large Arab community in Paraguay and Brazil, where law enforcement and government official âbribingâ is rampant. Reportedly, the Triple Frontier provides terroristâs a lucrative funding, recruiting and location for training camps. In return for access to raw opium (from Afghanistan), drug lords have reportedly made their transportation and infiltration networks available to the terrorists.
And, while joining with the U.S. in the war against terrorism is seen as politically expedient, thereâs a reluctance on the part of government officials in respect to the war on drugs, which provides ready cash to their private coffers.

Posted by RN 2004-08-24 9:52:07 AM|| 2004-08-24 9:52:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 MW: I think Poppa bin Laden, good friend of the Bush clan that he his, asked our President something along the lines of: "Sure, go ahead and round up those lieutenants and the other jihadist scum. But please, please don't touch our little boy Osama." So maybe Michael Moore got that part right.

Whatever MW is on, it's better than illegal drugs.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-24 10:03:31 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-24 10:03:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 The War on Drugs has two sides, supply and demand. If we do nothing about demand, I have total confidence supply will find a way. After all, we can't keep drugs out of prisons today. To do something about demand, we have to punish users, who ever they may be, and the higher in the social order the better, harshly, very harshly and utterly without remorse. A few highly publicized incarcerations for decades of celebrities and children of the wealthy and powerful will do it. Several suicides on the way to conviction won't hurt either. Until we recognize this as a national security issue, which it is, this won't happen. When we do, everything will change within two years. Look at what the Chinese had to do to overcome the opium pushed on them by the westerners who so fear it now.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-24 10:41:41 AM|| 2004-08-24 10:41:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Itâs easy to dismiss this idea, but hear me out. Itâs worth giving it a moment of your time considering how much evil in this world that comes from the profits of illegal drugs.

First, let me clarify; Iâm not advocating that we make highly addictive drugs freely available, over the counter, like we do alcohol.

Itâs a nice fantasy to think that your children, in their nice neighborhoods, donât have access to hard drugs â but fantasy it is. What separates your children from hard drugs isnât that hard drugs âarenât availableâ, but more likely, a myriad of other factors, that result in your children not having access to the local children who use do hard drugs.

Access is half the battle, and right now, access is completely unlimited. Saying other wise, is just plain ol, dunking-your-head-in-the-sand, wishful thinking. Currently, if your children wanted cocaine, crack, heroin or methamphetamine, it would be more difficult for them to get it with a prescription at a pharmacy, than it would be for them to buy it from a friend at school.

If we supplied the addicts through legal channels, using prescriptions and pharmacies, it seriously put a dent in the billions made by drug lords. And though it would not cut off the illegal supply for rave-party recreation use, smaller profits like like that would only be attractive to neighborhood punks.

We gotta do something other than what we are doing now â because as this article highlights, the billions and billions from the profits of illegal drugs funds the coffers of tyrants and terrorists â and it wonât EVER stop funding them until we find a way to legally supply the already addicted with their drugs.

whew! Glad I got that off my chest!

Posted by B 2004-08-24 10:44:24 AM|| 2004-08-24 10:44:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 For some people drugs are just too addicting. One weak moment, whether drunk at a party, just wanting to fit in with the gang, or just feeling down, can lead to addiction. Legalization does lead to more addicts.

On the other hand the war on drugs makes the personal tragedy of addiction a societal sickness. It fuels local, national, and international crime. It ruins neighborhoods and countries.

The only hope I see is in medical research into the causes of addiction. Not all people are prone to addiction. There are genetic links. There is progress being made in this area.

Find out how to prevent or cure the addiction and then decriminalize the use of drugs. As with alcohol, people would still responsible for their actions. A pilot or surgeon who uses drugs on the job would be guilty of criminal negligence.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-08-24 10:56:05 AM|| 2004-08-24 10:56:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 But please, please don't touch our little boy Osama." and just cause you are paranoid - it doesn't mean they aren't out to get ya - dude.

light up..and leave me alone.

Posted by B 2004-08-24 10:57:49 AM|| 2004-08-24 10:57:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 anonymous - good thought. Agree also it is about supply and demand. But I don't believe that we can put "demand" back into Pandora's box and close the lid. It's too late for that, now. Even in countries where death is the penalty - addicts abound.

Posted by B 2004-08-24 11:02:16 AM|| 2004-08-24 11:02:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Agreed. Legalize the damn stuff and tax the hell out of it. Gov't makes $, Dope dealers go broke, and maybe you can walk down a city street at night without getting killed for the $20 in your pocket.

Posted by DLS 2004-08-24 11:07:05 AM|| 2004-08-24 11:07:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 But I don't believe that we can put "demand" back into Pandora's box and close the lid.

We can't close the lid, but we can substantialy reduce demand, we just don't want to pay the price...yet.

Neither demand nor supply will ever be eliminated completely for any victimless crime, it's just a question of how big an inudustry we want the activity to be. It's now so large that it is becoming a national security issue. That's too big.

I also do not believe legalization will work for one simple reason. No legalization scheme I have ever heard of includes sales to children. Children are among the weakest members of society who are most easily pulled into the illegal drug culture. Drug pushers will simply focus their atention on whatever group is excluded from legalization.

And the price? Sending one of Bush or Kerry's 12 year old kids to jail for 20 years for smoking a joint. Put that on page one with a color photo and film at 11 and every mother in America would become a front line trooper in the war on drugs. If we can't do that as a society, we aren't serious about the war on drugs.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-24 11:18:36 AM|| 2004-08-24 11:18:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 DLS,

When my mother grew up, they had prohibition.
When I grew up they had State Stores with no liquor on display.
My kids drive by the Wine and Liquor Shoppe where they have liquor out front like a supermarket and discounts galore.
I expect my grandchildren to have regular advertising and promotions in the media.

A state bureaucracy wants to grow, like any other. When you distribute drugs through the state, you simply make the state the low cost distributor to legalized populations. You do nothing to demand and you only force the illegal distributors to focus on the populations not legaly served.

Talk about putting your children in the bullseye.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-24 11:25:42 AM|| 2004-08-24 11:25:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Whatever your stance on drug illegality/legalization, 20 years in prison for smoking a joint is not a punishment proportionate to the crime.

Yes there probably are connections between terrorists and drug lords-those relationships are still in their infancies and should be hammered by the US, but let's not lose sight of the real prize-elimination of Islamic jihadism in our time.

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-24 11:39:29 AM|| 2004-08-24 11:39:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Mister Left: Mmmmmmm .com I might argue with you a bit on that one. The southern hemisphere nations failed because they were set up to fail, via the early 70's equivalent of globalization. You cannot simultaneously strip-mine a nation's wealth and expect it to develop into a mini-U.S.

While the banana republics of Latin America were flirting with socialism, fascism and economic autarky, the countries in East Asia were making toys, clothing and shoes and developing their infrastructure. The Latin American countries never learned to crawl, and it'll take a while for them to learn to walk, let alone run. All this despite having a huge advantage in transportation costs by being so close to the most lucrative market of all time - the US of A.

Mr. Left appears to think that globalization is a net negative for developing countries, when the truth is that it's a huge positive. Globalization is how East Asia developed, assisted by America's open market. And globalization is how the masses around the world will rise out of poverty.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-24 11:42:42 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-24 11:42:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 Headline: Al-Qaeda seeking to recruit Latin Americans

This is no particular surprise, given the huge numbers of Arab immigrants in Latin American countries. Christians from Arab countries have been fleeing repression for decades. And Muslims are now joining the Christian diaspora in an attempt to escape the failed economic policies of Arabia.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-24 11:48:49 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-24 11:48:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 20 years may not a be proprotionate punishment for smoking a joint. It is a way to get large numbers of 12 year olds to stop smoking joints.

20 years is a proportionate punishment for those who erode the national security by funding those who threaten our country.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-24 11:49:51 AM|| 2004-08-24 11:49:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 Children are among the weakest members of society who are most easily pulled into the illegal drug culture. Drug pushers will simply focus their atention on whatever group is excluded from legalization.

What on earth makes you think that children are being excluded now???

I acknowledge your overall point. Small time crooks will always obtain valium or methadone or muscle relaxants.. or whatever.. and resell it just like they do now. So heroin or crack would be no different. The difference is that you don't see "valium" cartels out there, bringing down governments - because the really big bucks are going to the legal drug companies reducing the profits for the illegal trade down from billions to mere thousands.

A drug cartel isn't going to be able to support a distribution network, like they do today,in every city in America, if each time a child actually does become hooked, they are eligible for a perscription.

I suppose there would be some point in the drug companies trying to hook people, but we don't see them doing that with muscle relaxants, valium or methadone, which are equally addictive.

The point is that the drugs are available, the children are being targeted; nothing is being prevented - it's just that the money earned is illegal and unregulated and going to tyrants and terrorists who wish to kill us all, not just those foolish enough to try drugs.

Posted by B 2004-08-24 11:53:21 AM|| 2004-08-24 11:53:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 20 years is a proportionate punishment for those who erode the national security by funding those who threaten our country.

I guess you believe that your child will never smoke pot. hah, hah!

But then I'm sure you mean, someone else's child should spend 20 years in prison, not yours.

Posted by anon 2004-08-24 12:06:59 PM|| 2004-08-24 12:06:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 anon: I guess you believe that your child will never smoke pot. hah, hah! But then I'm sure you mean, someone else's child should spend 20 years in prison, not yours.

I think punishing consumers with hefty sentences is a lousy idea. The existing method of punishing dealers is morally the right thing to do. Consumers are inflicting harm only upon themselves - dealers are inflicting it upon hundreds of people. The punishment should fit the crime.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-24 12:40:37 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-24 12:40:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Anon, If we are serious about the war on drugs, then, yes, my child too. My point is that if we are not willing to answer yes to our own child, we are not going to change anything.

Note this article on what it took for China to kick the drug habit in the 20th century...Communist dictatorship and terror.

The longer we wait, the more corrupt officials we have, the more money in the game, the harder it is to quit.

And maybe we shouldn't quit. Let's legalize and make drugs so cheap that the pushers are forced out of business. Social acceptability follows and then you have 25-50% of adult males with drug habits as China did at the turn of the 20th century. Look at TGA's comment about the Netherlands. I expect that would evolve into a serious national security issue.

each time a child actually does become hooked, they are eligible for a perscription

So, kids can get legal drugs as long as they get illegally hooked first? And how long does the prescription last? And when it ends and the kid has the same life problems that led them to take the first illegal hit why won't they go back to the old dealer and get another? Or will we just have slow motion legalization for kids too?

Let me also state that I am not advocating these policies, only stating that they are the only ones likely to be successful. Frankly, I doubt the American legal system would allow effective measures to be implemented. And so we will see illegal drug dealers and terrorists have more and more in common as we finance their activities until we get to the point where the threat from them is so great that we are willing to entertain the solutions I have suggested. I used to believe in legalization, but I doubt it would work. I suspect the drug cvartels are the best retailers and distributors of goods in the world next to Wal-Mart. And I doubt they'll wither away just because we legalize their product.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-24 12:48:19 PM|| 2004-08-24 12:48:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 1. Availability and addiction
"Most of the stuff is so highly addictive that anything you do to increase availability, including legalization, will just result in more addicted kids"
The first thing to note is that drug addicts are not a random sample. The cause and effect is not clear. Are they screw ups because they use drugs, or do they use drugs because they are screw ups.

When analysing a situation, its always good to go to extremes. What if alcohol was free. Would you personally consume more? Undoubtedly alcohol consumption would increase overall, but would alcoholism increase significantly? I doubt it. Not all people have equal preference for alcohol, and those who have a propensity for abuse are not deterred by cost.

Now let's make the same argument for drugs. Legal and free. Would the entire population become enslaved? No, for the same reasons as above. The individuals most likely to abuse drugs already do so. Its similar to the expression "locks only keep honest people out".

Increased availability would definitely increase drug addiction at the margins. But if one weighs that versus the cost of the war on drugs it may be cheap. Policing, legal, incarceration. Not to mention the indirect costs of increased crime and social problems. As well as the human cost to all the victims. If even a fraction of the monetary costs were applied to treatment instead of WOD, I wouldn't be surprised if overall addiction dropped. Add the potential for not only reducing policing costs, but collecting taxes.

Posted by Joe Shmo 2004-08-24 1:36:51 PM|| 2004-08-24 1:36:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 we aren't going to agree on this...so let's agree to disagree.

each time a child actually does become hooked, they are eligible for a perscription So, kids can get legal drugs as long as they get illegally hooked first?

That's better than them turning to prostitution, like they do now. Quite frankly, if my kids did get hooked..I'd prefer they could get their drugs safe and legal - rather than having to rob me, my neighbors and themselves in the process.

You used prohibition as an example, but the reason we repealled prohibition is because it gave rise to the mob and all of the underworld that comes with it.

Sure, Holland was a failure, but they made it too easy to get the drugs. England provides methadone to addicts in much the way I propose, but it doesn't work because they made it too hard. However, it didn't encourage new addictions, just got rid of some of the crime associated with it.

I would agree with you that increasing penalties would help...but just like you point to Holland, I can point to any country that has the death penalty and show you that no matter how stiff the penalties...it doesn't stop it. While it probably decreased the drug trade in China..I'm sure even you wouldn't be willing to say that it stopped it altogether.

What we are doing now doesn't work. Even if you are right about increasing penalties - it's not politically feasible to think that we will suddenly start giving life sentences for drugs any time in our life time.

The status quo is completely ineffective as drugs are freely available to your children RIGHT NOW, should they want them.

Maybe we are both right. A combination of increasing penalties and ridding the illegal sales might do some good.

We aren't going to solve it ...but we have to do something differently than what we are doing now.

Posted by B 2004-08-24 1:40:43 PM|| 2004-08-24 1:40:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 2. Failed states and South America
Imagine that all countries could be divided into one groups based on either successful or failed state. I call a state failed if it has little or no economic growth outside of resource plundering.
Next divide further based on whether they have resources or not.

US is an example of successful with resources, Singapore successful without resources, Iraq (and Saud) failed with resources, Afghanistan failed without resources.
Patterns develop. Failed states with resources are riddled with cronyism and a often zero sum tribal mentality.

Failed states with resources are the most dangerous because they have the potential for diverting resources into infernal machines. Check of Iraq. Who's next?

Failed states without resources are dangerous in that it harbors those that want infernal machines. Pre-911, there existed no practical reason to be concerned about failed states, other than moral reasons. Most of those acting on moral reasons, were do gooders who were more interested in giving people fish than teaching them how to catch it. Giving people fish is pointless since it will be stolen by the thief running the country.

Why do some states fail, and others do not? Is it our mandate to fix these states for moral reasons, or more recently for selfish reasons (economic or security)? Important questions.

Posted by Joe Shmo 2004-08-24 2:00:59 PM|| 2004-08-24 2:00:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 "Sure, Holland was a failure, but they made it too easy to get the drugs"

Also consider the fact that Holland attracted drug addicts from far and wide. Any attempt at legalization cannot be a local one. And using Holland as an example is not entirely fair either. Hard core drug users do have a bit of a community, and Amsterdam became the place to go. Sort of like the rise of the Auto Mall.

Posted by Joe Shmo 2004-08-24 2:06:31 PM|| 2004-08-24 2:06:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 If only I had taken Conversational Latin in college. Coulda been a translator. Ah well...

Posted by eLarson 2004-08-24 2:59:23 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2004-08-24 2:59:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 First of all, let's get this thread back on track. We don't need Latinos recruited and trained by al-Qaida coming across our southern border, blowing up things. As someone who's actually done a bit of targeting, let me tell you that the United States is horribly vulnerable. I could set off three 100-lb bombs in each of three cities in three different Western states, and cost the United States about $80 BILLION in economic damage. We have 13 million illegal aliens in the United States. We have no idea who they are, where they're from, or what they're doing. Another 2000-3000 come across our southern border every month, almost unhindered. We ignore it. How incredibly, incredibly stupid!

The biggest problem in Latin America is the sense of entitlement that is culturally inherent in its colonial history. There are families from the original Spanish conquerors who still believe they have the RIGHT to rule those countries, and manage to continue to hold the reigns of power, mainly through control of the economy, the political process, and high military and government offices. As long as that continues, and until the people themselves decide to put an end to it, it will continue. Just look at Mexico, where 70% of the land is controlled by 2% of the population. It's worse in many Latin American countries. The local Church, the local government, universities, and social ogranizations constantly reinforce this, either overtly or covertly.

As for drugs, as with any criminal activity, the action's hottest where it's easiest. When you allow people to own weapons for self-defense, violent crime drops. When you allow people to really step on druggies, and step hard, drug use will decline. That means grabbing dealers at any level and locking them away for life. That means finding distributors and executing them. That means forcing rehabilitation on users, including detoxification, hard work, and isolation during the period of detoxification. The only way to do that is to get rid of lenient judges, fire scumbag district attorneys that don't want to prosecute drug offenses, and stomping the shit out of anyone in the justice system that's caught aiding and abetting druggies. Unfortunately, we've been fighting the "war on drugs" about like we've been fighting the "war on terror" - half-assed and sloppy.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-08-24 3:18:52 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-08-24 3:18:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 OP-True, we've been fighting those wars the same: half-assed and sloppy; but equating the threat to America of suicide bombers and Islamicist jihadis with the threat to America of drug addicts is where we disagree. One ruins one life, maybe more; one is the extermination of our culture, our nation, and EVERYONE IN IT.

We are being "incredibly stupid" by throwing up our hands about illegal border crossings, and I can't figure out for the life of me why George Bush has been playing such softball with Vincente Fox. What, does Mexico have something on us? Why on earth would we propose what Bush proposed recently if we are trying to get traction on immigration reform?

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-24 3:31:41 PM|| 2004-08-24 3:31:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 There are families from the original Spanish conquerors who still believe they have the RIGHT to rule those countries

Of course! We are of pure Castillian blood!

Posted by Monolito Montoya 2004-08-24 3:40:21 PM|| 2004-08-24 3:40:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 An end to drug prohibition would, of course, deprive terrorists and criminals of a major funding source.
There is another, and potentially more important, consideration however.
The relationship between drug culture and the authoritarian pop-left is so obvious that we seldom bother to take note of it. Anyone who has ever been to a major lefty demo knows that this is true. I am convinced that most of the anger we see from rank and file left-conformists is actually rooted in resentment of the drug laws. Campus lefties or middle-age retro-hippies are unlikely to fall for the left's crude propaganda to the degree that they allege. It is reasonable that this propaganda, from Noam Chomsky to LA Weekly, is in fact a rationale for the transference of anger. Few lefties actually know any welfare recipients, or ordinary Palestinians, or homeless people, yet they swallow the left's propaganda as though it were holy writ. On the other hand, they all know some otherwise innocent person who has run afoul of the drug laws.
I submit that this is the real source of the anger that drives the far left rank and file, and that cynical lefty power-seekers and their corporate and Arab masters exploit this to gain a level of support they would never have otherwise.

Legalize marijuana and hashhish, and those hordes of mumia-cong and trustafarian conformists will forget politics and spend their lives dumb, happy, and stoned.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-08-24 5:33:26 PM|| 2004-08-24 5:33:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 I'm willing to split some of the difference with those who disagree with me. Stiffer penalties for those who sell, will discourage many from the trade.

But what I'm not willing to agree to, is the idea that drug addicts are somehow bad people, who choose to be addicted. These people aren't prostituting their bodies or robbing people because they are bad people, they are doing it because the drugs have made them sick. They are ill. Thanks to a few foolish decisions in their lives, the drugs have overwhelmed them and made them slaves to the need for more.

We don't deny cigarette smokers medical care for their lung cancer - though it is a disease of their own foolish making. So why deny the drug addicted the medical care they need to prevent them from having to rob, prostitute and do whatever it takes to feed their ILLNESS. Yet that is what we do today. We turn them into the streets and say, "We are sorry you are sick - go live in the gutter."

Someday, we might find a medicine that stops the addiction - but that's tomorrow - not today. Saying.."they just need to stop taking drugs"..is like saying to a cancer patient "just stop smoking and the cancer will go away". But they already HAVE cancer. That's the same with addicts. The damage is done. While some respond to rehab, some do not. So what to do?

Here's one more thought. I don't make hooch in my bathtub and sell it for several reasons. 1. I'm honest. 2. If I wasn't, the penalties are stiffer than the profits which would make worthwhile. Why, because the distilleries can make and distribute if far cheaper and easier than I can ever hope to do with my bath-tub brew.

How often do you hear of someone brewing up a batch in the bathtub anymore??? Never. There is not enough money to make it worth while. Yet..not so long ago, the mob was actively involved in this trade. The end of prohibition ended that.

We need to decide how we want to deal with addicts. Right now we just say, "Go to rehab and get over it." Like you could tell a cancer patient, "stop smoking clinic and get over your cancer". It's insane!

It's cruel. It's ineffective and it won't stop the evil people in this world from supplying them with drugs in exchange for the billions that it will provide them.

So..yes, I think we should provide legal, clean, cheap, drugs to addicts until we can offer them better. But yes, I agree we should do our best to make them unavailable to everyone else. It won't stop drug use, but it will put the cartels out of business.

Posted by B 2004-08-24 5:35:32 PM|| 2004-08-24 5:35:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 B. I would suggest not spliting the difference. I could go your way easily. But I simply doubt it would put the cartels out of business. It might shrink their business and that might be a violent event while it lasted. And they would no longer make enough money to be a significant source of funds to terrorists, But they would stay in business, preying on the weak. And we would have a culture that would sooner or later tolerate a large amount of drug use by a large portion of its population.

I don't think people who use drugs are bad people. I think they are people at a bad time in their lives. And most people have bad times in their lives, some for most of their lives. If drugs are easily available to people when bad times come more will use them to address their problem symptomatically for a longer period of time with more deleterious consequences. But their lives will go on.

Finally, my last word, there are no good solutions. One must chose the bad consequesnces one wishes to live with. I only object to thinking there is an alternative with out bad consequences. I think funding the terrorists is a terrible consequence.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-08-24 7:16:29 PM|| 2004-08-24 7:16:29 PM|| Front Page Top

02:46 SHARON HUNTER KILLER
02:57 SHARON HUNTER KILLER
03:21 SHARON HUNTER KILLER
03:23 SHARON HUNTER KILLER
04:10 SHARON HUNTER KILLER
03:49 SHARON HUNTER KILLER
04:15 Anonymous6158
04:42 SHARON HUNTER KILLER
04:26 Anonymous6158
13:15 Rantburg
13:14 Rantburg
13:14 Rantburg
13:13 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg
13:15 Rantburg