Miscellaneous News

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
Greasy haired Argentinian continues to bark. Polls predict he will win the 2nd round convincingly.

“Not only am I not going to do business with China, I am not going to do business with any communists. I am a defender of freedom, peace and democracy. The communists don’t go there. The Chinese don’t go in there. Putin doesn’t go in there. Lula doesn’t go in there. We want to be the moral lighthouse of the continent. We want to be defenders of freedom, democracy, diversity. Of peace,” stated the national deputy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That is why admitting Argentina into BRICS was a dumb move. Should have waited for the outcome of the election to be determined.
The CIA funding must be pouring-in!
 

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
Greasy haired Argentinian continues to bark. Polls predict he will win the 2nd round convincingly.

“Not only am I not going to do business with China, I am not going to do business with any communists. I am a defender of freedom, peace and democracy. The communists don’t go there. The Chinese don’t go in there. Putin doesn’t go in there. Lula doesn’t go in there. We want to be the moral lighthouse of the continent. We want to be defenders of freedom, democracy, diversity. Of peace,” stated the national deputy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That is why admitting Argentina into BRICS was a dumb move. Should have waited for the outcome of the election to be determined.
What would he do anyways? Leave BRICS, which his country more or less begged to join? So the status quo before him returns?

Seems like your average tinpot south American fascist, they've historically been fairly neutral to China, because alienating the largest economy is hardly smart when these dictators usually rely on bribes. The only ones that would really get hurt are the locals, who probably will experience waves of "communist" and "saboteur" purges (I.e. Whoever el presidente doesn't like). And of course that doesn't help the already shit tier Argentinian economy.

I'm anticipating retarded face saving lies incoming soon, some Bolsonaro tier ones. Like "acktually China is not really communist, it's capitalist, they also hate mulattos & Muslims and guess who germony worked with in ww2? China. Xi is a strong leader, like me!". (please support my regime that is about as stable as a statue built from piss and shit)
 

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
My old comments about a possible Mexico expedition aged too well for my comfort. I saw a lot of Republican politicians writing about it and getting a lot of engagement. Big name media and politicians capitalized further on the topic and bingo. Half of the Americans now support such a thing in less than two years.


These cartels and even the Mexican state can not harm the US military meaningfully. The US got quite good at remaining in places despite armed hostility and dispatching small militaries.

Other than that this thing would be a dumpster fire. If the US actually wants to end the cartel problem, it has to really occupy the country. I mean soldiers on even obscure rural roads similar to post WW2 occupations. Just taking the cities and occasional patrols to the countryside is never enough for killing insurgencies. And Mexico is bigger than Afghanistan, both by population and landmass. Such an occupation would be horribly expensive, or just a bit less expensive and ineffective.

Moreover, these cartels have a lot of collaborators and presence in the US, including in the politics. It is how they can make billions in the first place. And a lot of latinos in the US still have ties to Mexico including family members. Riots, assassinations, infrastructure sabotages and attacks to police stations would go non-stop.

Not enough? These two countries have a long border. What does that mean? Refugees. Cartel members will cross as refugees and commit terrorist acts on top of usual problems associated with mass refugee flows.
Nope!

Cartels and insurgents are motivated differently; cartels by money and insurgents by ideology. Once the money stops flowing, the cartels lose their power and influence. A campaign against them need focus, simply, on halting their cash-flow while hitting at the cartel leadership. A drone-based surveillance and strike campaign would be sufficient to achieve the latter element of this strategy. The former element would be the most difficult as the manufacturing and distribution points are more spatially diversified than the leadership.

Criminals are always easier to contend against than are zealots; criminals are motivated by greed, zealots by their version of “truth”! The only reason that the cartels are still in business is because, to some degree, they serve the interests of the U. S. ”Shadow Government”, as they have since the Reagan administration, at least.
 

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
My old comments about a possible Mexico expedition aged too well for my comfort. I saw a lot of Republican politicians writing about it and getting a lot of engagement. Big name media and politicians capitalized further on the topic and bingo. Half of the Americans now support such a thing in less than two years.


These cartels and even the Mexican state can not harm the US military meaningfully. The US got quite good at remaining in places despite armed hostility and dispatching small militaries.

Other than that this thing would be a dumpster fire. If the US actually wants to end the cartel problem, it has to really occupy the country. I mean soldiers on even obscure rural roads similar to post WW2 occupations. Just taking the cities and occasional patrols to the countryside is never enough for killing insurgencies. And Mexico is bigger than Afghanistan, both by population and landmass. Such an occupation would be horribly expensive, or just a bit less expensive and ineffective.

Moreover, these cartels have a lot of collaborators and presence in the US, including in the politics. It is how they can make billions in the first place. And a lot of latinos in the US still have ties to Mexico including family members. Riots, assassinations, infrastructure sabotages and attacks to police stations would go non-stop.

Not enough? These two countries have a long border. What does that mean? Refugees. Cartel members will cross as refugees and commit terrorist acts on top of usual problems associated with mass refugee flows.
With the Cyberpunk expac just around the corner, all I would say is: Do it.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
By 2077, the NUSA was the 24th largest economy in the world, and held only a sliver of its former influence in international affairs.
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
Nope!

Cartels and insurgents are motivated differently; cartels by money and insurgents by ideology. Once the money stops flowing, the cartels lose their power and influence. A campaign against them need focus, simply, on halting their cash-flow while hitting at the cartel leadership. A drone-based surveillance and strike campaign would be sufficient to achieve the latter element of this strategy. The former element would be the most difficult as the manufacturing and distribution points are more spatially diversified than the leadership.

Criminals are always easier to contend against than are zealots; criminals are motivated by greed, zealots by their version of “truth”! The only reason that the cartels are still in business is because, to some degree, they serve the interests of the U. S. ”Shadow Government”, as they have since the Reagan administration, at least.

Drugs would continue flowing until Mexico is fully occupied. Because Americans won't stop using them, and we know US police can't stop distribution in the USA. I can assure you the cartels would fund themselves indefinitely if the US does another Afghanistan-like low-commitment occupation in Mexico.

How to deal with drugs: How SeeSeePee eliminated 100 year old drug problem in 4 years in the 1950s.

 
Top