Joint Forces report warns Mexico and Pakistan could destabilize

[Dragunov]

By Diana Washington Valdez / For the Sun-News
Posted: 01/14/2009 07:41:33 AM MST

EL PASO - Mexico is one of two countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse," according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.

The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.

"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."

The Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., is a Defense Department combat command that includes different military service branches, active and reserves. One of its roles is to transform the military's capabilities.

In the report's foreword, Marine Gen. J.N. Mattis, the Joint Forces commander, said "Predictions about the future are always risky. ... Regardless, if we do not

Mexico's President Felipe Calderon announces a new economic stimulus package in Mexico City, Wednesday,

Jan. 7, 2009. In an attempt to head off layoffs at companies vulnerable to the economic crisis, Calderon announced the government will invest 2 billion pesos into the country's troubled industries. (AP photo)
try to forecast the future, there is no doubt that we will be caught off guard as we strive to protect this experiment in democracy that we call America."

The report offers "a Polaroid snapshot," and conditions in Mexico and elsewhere are in a state of flux, said Brig. Gen. José Riojas, executive director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration at the University of Texas at El Paso. "I'm not sure Mexico looks today like it did nine months ago," Riojas said.

The report is the latest focusing on Mexico's security problems, which stem mostly from drug violence and corruption. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security and former U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey issued similar assessments.

Despite such reports, El Pasoan Veronica Callaghan, a border business leader, said she keeps running into people who "are in denial about what is happening in Mexico."

Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calder n Hinojosa instructed his embassy and consular officials to promote a positive image of Mexico. He's also vowed to continue the crackdown on drug cartels.


Diana Washington Valdez reports for the El Paso Times, a member of the Texas-New Mexico Newspapers Partnership, and may be reached at dvaldez@elpasotimes.com; 546-6140.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_11450718?source=most_emailed

[socom6]

That aint gonna happen.

[notherhen40]

I would not put much stock in that statement.....Mexico civil war is a very real possibility....as in a time frame of a couple of years matter of fact...and that is taking into account drug trade, lack of employment, and a suppressed economy...not to mention a government that is not in control in most cases of violence that occurs. I would say the seeds are quite ripe.:-(

[Sinaloense]

The Mexican govt does not completley erradicate drug gangs because they actually benefit from the drug trade. However, if it got to the point of civil war, then that's when you would see the hammer come down...i.e the crackdown on leftist students right before the Olympics.

[cbreedon]

There is a quick way to united all Mexico..... we could invade them again. p-) Then they would all have a common enemy.

[muttbutt]

Who would have thought Ghost recon AW could be so spookily accurate.....part of it anyway.

[Felix U. Gómez]

It never stops to amaze me how poorly our neighbors understand us. It would be a mistake of monstrous proportions for the U.S. to intervene in Mexico. The best thing that the U.S. could do to help maintain stability in Mexico in regards to the drug trade would be to do something about the drug trade within its own borders, i.e. hurt the drug traffiking organizations that move the drugs inside the US, do something to decrease demmand for drugs (or legalize them), and do something to stop the smuggling of weapons into Mexico. It is estimated that nearly 2000 weapons a day are smuggled into Mexico. In the U.S. it is extremely easy for people to obtain weapons whose sole purpose is anything but hunting, sporting or self defense. One can even buy a .50 cal rifle at a local gunstore.

[NineLine]

The best thing that the U.S. could do to help maintain stability in Mexico in regards to the drug trade would be to do something about the drug trade within its own borders, i.e. hurt the drug traffiking organizations that move the drugs inside the US, do something to decrease demmand for drugs (or legalize them), and do something to stop the smuggling of weapons into Mexico.


Where have you been for the last 20 years?

[Trouble]

This is no real surprise, nor is it real new news. Anyone watching could see Mexico heading toward the status of "a Failed State", this report along with others just puts on paper what has been increasing obvious. The real issue is not if Mexico will fail but what to do when it does, and is there anyway to help avoid a total collapse. so that there is someone to work with in the aftermath.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering this is not something I think anyone wants to see take place, far from it. The Collapse of Mexico as a functioning State would be one of if not the worst thing facing the USA this century. The Border situation is bad enough as it stands today, I really fear what it would look like once Mexico resembles Lebanon of the 1980's.

[frenchy]

I would not put much stock in that statement.....Mexico civil war is a very real possibility....as in a time frame of a couple of years matter of fact...and that is taking into account drug trade, lack of employment, and a suppressed economy...not to mention a government that is not in control in most cases of violence that occurs. I would say the seeds are quite ripe.:-(

civil war really ? Between who and who ?

[Felix U. Gómez]

Where have you been for the last 20 years?

I've lived in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, México for the past 40 years. Have you heard of it?
I've been to gunstores and gun shows in El Paso several times. I have a American friend in El Paso who last year bought 2 AK's and then just re-sold them to anyone that was willing make him a profit... no questions asked. He tells me that that is very common. Where did he find them? In the classified section of the El Paso Times. When I asked him he told me that he didn't give much thought to where those guns ended up.

[Felix U. Gómez]

civil war really ? Between who and who ?

Exactly, between who and who? I live here, and I don't see that happening. As far as calling us a failed state, I don't know about that, I think that we are a long way away from becoming Somalia. I think that we would have to be without drinking water, gas, electricity, cable, internet, trash disposal service, hospitals, etc, before that happens. So far, it hasn't. It's one thing to see the narcs killing each other, and something totally dofferent to see our society collapsing. My guess is that that report was written by someone who's never been here.

[Ordie]

The Mexican Government, its democracy and its institutions remains strong. The state remains omnipresent in all cities, and towns. There is no politically driven armed opposition and or sucessionist movements.

Much of the violence is attributed to drug cartels fighting the government and each other for relevency and greed.

The drug cartels will fail because of its lack of ideology to offer a political alternative to the status quo.

[flankerpilot]

I doubt the US will ever allow Mexico to collapse , because this would create a refugee crisis which would make the current levels of immigration a joke.

On a side note some have forgotten that the report also mentioned Pakistan as even more likely than Mexico to collapse.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479906,00.html

"The report says a collapse in Mexico seems less likely (than Pakistan), but noted that the government infrastructure is "under sustained assault and pressure" from drug cartels and gangs.

Pakistan, in the event of such a rapid collapse, would be susceptible to a "violent and bloody civil and sectarian war" made more dangerous by concerns over the country's nuclear arsenal.
The report says that "perfect storm of uncertainty" by itself might require U.S. engagement.


A spokeswoman for the U.S. Joint Forces Command said the latest assessment was likely written before the Mumbai attacks which further inflamed tensions in South Asia."

[CG51]

Why doesn't the Mexican government classify these drug cartels as terrorist and hunt them down and kill them as such. These guys are decapitating civilians and LEO's so they should be treated without mercy.

[Ordie]

I doubt the US will ever allow Mexico to collapse , because this would create a refugee crisis which would make the current levels of immigration a joke.

On a side note some have forgotten that the report also mentioned Pakistan as even more likely than Mexico to collapse.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479906,00.html

"The report says a collapse in Mexico seems less likely (than Pakistan), but noted that the government infrastructure is "under sustained assault and pressure" from drug cartels and gangs.

Pakistan, in the event of such a rapid collapse, would be susceptible to a "violent and bloody civil and sectarian war" made more dangerous by concerns over the country's nuclear arsenal.
The report says that "perfect storm of uncertainty" by itself might require U.S. engagement.


A spokeswoman for the U.S. Joint Forces Command said the latest assessment was likely written before the Mumbai attacks which further inflamed tensions in South Asia."

^^^
Pakistan and Mexico are apples and oranges.

Unlike the separtists/religious/revolutionary movements within India and Pakistan, the Narcos motivation is money. They are not offering a better future or vision, but for thier own personal gain at the expense of Mexican society.

Unlike Pakistan, Mexico has a centralized federal and state government that is omnipresent everywhere in Mexico.

Mexican economy, infrastructure, education, social safety net and regional integration is much more developed than South Asia.

[Ordie]

Why doesn't the Mexican government classify these drug cartels as terrorist and hunt them down and kill them as such. These guys are decapitating civilians and LEO's so they should be treated without mercy.

It's a law enforcement issue, therefore due process is needed. To do otherwise will only alienate the public at large.

[flankerpilot]

Mexican economy, infrastructure, education, social safety net and regional integration is much more developed than South Asia.

You think Mexico's economy or social safety is better than India leave alone S.Asia as a whole ?

GDP purchasing power

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=65&l=en

Please look where India is and at what rank Mexico is at

Same deal with GDP growth rate

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=66&l=en

Regarding social safety I beg to differ.

The very report itself deals with the massive problems facing Mexico in regard to drug cartels and kidnappings. Hardly a "developed" social safety net.

As for other points like regional integration , I agree there , no arguments. Mexico does not face hostile neighbours.

Infrastructure , its not "much" better than S.Asia but marginal and improvements in infrastructure are growing more in South Asia than in Mexico which is declining. (if it was so good , why do so many Mexicans immigrate illegally to the US?)

Comparing Mexico to all countries in S.Asia is not a fair comparison. Comparing the problems Mexico faces to the ones Pakistan faces , here I agree (like the article) that Pakistan has much bigger and more serious threats to its very existence (Taliban , local terror groups , US pressure , economy on verge of collapse and big nuclear armed neighbour)

[Ordie]

Comparing Mexico to all countries in S.Asia is not a fair comparison. Comparing the problems Mexico faces to the ones Pakistan faces , here I agree (like the article) that Pakistan has much bigger and more serious threats to its very existence (Taliban , local terror groups , US pressure , economy on verge of collapse and big nuclear armed neighbour)

I agree.....

[notherhen40]

The Mexican Government, its democracy and its institutions remains strong. The state remains omnipresent in all cities, and towns. There is no politically driven armed opposition and or sucessionist movements.

Much of the violence is attributed to drug cartels fighting the government and each other for relevency and greed.

The drug cartels will fail because of its lack of ideology to offer a political alternative to the status quo.

Yes the drug cartels will fail, but the corruption within the government will certainly take a toll. And, when there is a failed faith in government, high poverty, and high crime, the seeds of civil war are sown.

[Felix U. Gómez]

You think Mexico's economy or social safety is better than India leave alone S.Asia as a whole ?

GDP purchasing power

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=65&l=en

Please look where India is and at what rank Mexico is at

Same deal with GDP growth rate

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=66&l=en

Regarding social safety I beg to differ.

The very report itself deals with the massive problems facing Mexico in regard to drug cartels and kidnappings. Hardly a "developed" social safety net.

As for other points like regional integration , I agree there , no arguments. Mexico does not face hostile neighbours.

Infrastructure , its not "much" better than S.Asia but marginal and improvements in infrastructure are growing more in South Asia than in Mexico which is declining. (if it was so good , why do so many Mexicans immigrate illegally to the US?)

Comparing Mexico to all countries in S.Asia is not a fair comparison. Comparing the problems Mexico faces to the ones Pakistan faces , here I agree (like the article) that Pakistan has much bigger and more serious threats to its very existence (Taliban , local terror groups , US pressure , economy on verge of collapse and big nuclear armed neighbour)

I really beg to differ with you. Ordie is right. You cannot compare Mexico to Pakistan and for that matter to India. I suggest that you are looking at the facts incorrectly when you compare GDP's and growth rates.

To begin with, yes India's GDP is much larger than Mexico's. 2.966 trillion vs. 1.353 trillion (USD) (Pakistan=$411.9 billion). But you forgot to mention that India has a population of 1,147,995,904 while Mexico has a population of 109,955,400. Seen in GDP per capita, this turns out into the average Indian making $2,600 per year and the average Mexican making $12,400 per year (Pakistan $2,400). Big difference. If you think that the U.S. has an immigration problem with Mexico, think of what it would be if India were right next door?

India's infant mortality rate is 32.31 per thousand. Pakistan's is 66.91 per thousand. Mexico's is 19.01 per thousand. Big difference, that should tell you something about the quality and accessibility of health care in each country.

Another indication of this would be life expectancy. In India the average life expectancy is 69.25 years, Pakistan 64.13 years, and Mexico 75.84 years. Just to put into perspective, in the U.S. it's 78 years.

As far as GDP growth rate, well, that's easily explained. If you were a foreign investor where would you place your factory? In a country where the average individual makes $12,400 a year or where they make $2,600 a year? If India's per capita GDP ever reaches the level of Mexico's then India's growth rate would greatly decrease.

A comparison of unemployment rates will also say something. India 7.2%, Pakistan 5.6%, and Mexico 3.7%.

Public debt (state and federal combined), India 58.2% of GDP, Pakistan 50.6% of GDP, and Mexico's 22.8% of GDP. Who's economy is healthier?

As far as infrastructure, well Mexico's area is smaller than India's, yet India has 346 airports, while Mexico has 1,834. Mexico's infrastructure is not decreasing. The federal budget for infrastructure is actually the biggest ever, hardly in decline. I suggest you look at projects like the dockyards of Punta Colonet and then tell me that our infrastructure is in decline.

I don't know where or why this became a pissing contest between India and Mexico (the report is about Mexico and Pakistan (which is worse off than India)), but I suggest that if you want to make it so you check your facts beforehand.

Look for yourself:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

[Felix U. Gómez]

Yes the drug cartels will fail, but the corruption within the government will certainly take a toll. And, when there is a failed faith in government, high poverty, and high crime, the seeds of civil war are sown.

I'm a Mexican living in Mexico, and I believe that my president is every bit as honest as yours (or more (Bush)). As far as corruption is concerned, yes we do have a lot (so do you), but it's better than it used to be.

[CG51]

It's a law enforcement issue, therefore due process is needed. To do otherwise will only alienate the public at large.

Cutting heads off of police officers, random shootouts as in the jewelry store are not acts of terror?

http://www.truveo.com/23-seconds-of-the-Mexican-drug-war/id/3654065151

[Felix U. Gómez]

The jewelry store shooting was not a random act, they were targeting the police chief that was purchasing something inside with his wife. Nonetheless you are right in classifying them as something a kin to terrorists. They are very low on the life-form ladder, but killing them without regards to what our laws say wouldn't make us any better. If we do aspire to be a country of laws we have to start with our worst offenders. Besides, like Ordie pointed out, we are a democracy and our president is not "all powerful" (like they used to be like back in the 1968 student massacre), the national human rights commission is very strong and the ruling party does not control either house of Congress. The government must tread very carefully.
Despite this, there are those that say that the government is doing some of the killing (I would be willing to look the other way if it were happening), and that many of those that are found executed are the product of "white blood cells" acting. Something that should be considered and is a reality is that the majority of those found dead are those involved in the drug trade. So, it could be a possibility but can't be proven. It could be that all Mexican political parties, at their leadership levels, came to an agreement with the government and agreed to look the other way and say nothing while the government conducted a major house cleaning. Who knows, one can always hope.

[Sasori]

I really beg to differ with you. Ordie is right. You cannot compare Mexico to Pakistan and for that matter to India. I suggest that you are looking at the facts incorrectly when you compare GDP's and growth rates.

To begin with, yes India's GDP is much larger than Mexico's. 2.966 trillion vs. 1.353 trillion (USD) (Pakistan=$411.9 billion). But you forgot to mention that India has a population of 1,147,995,904 while Mexico has a population of 109,955,400. Seen in GDP per capita, this turns out into the average Indian making $2,600 per year and the average Mexican making $12,400 per year (Pakistan $2,400). Big difference. If you think that the U.S. has an immigration problem with Mexico, think of what it would be if India were right next door?

India's infant mortality rate is 32.31 per thousand. Pakistan's is 66.91 per thousand. Mexico's is 19.01 per thousand. Big difference, that should tell you something about the quality and accessibility of health care in each country.

Another indication of this would be life expectancy. In India the average life expectancy is 69.25 years, Pakistan 64.13 years, and Mexico 75.84 years. Just to put into perspective, in the U.S. it's 78 years.

As far as GDP growth rate, well, that's easily explained. If you were a foreign investor where would you place your factory? In a country where the average individual makes $12,400 a year or where they make $2,600 a year? If India's per capita GDP ever reaches the level of Mexico's then India's growth rate would greatly decrease.

A comparison of unemployment rates will also say something. India 7.2%, Pakistan 5.6%, and Mexico 3.7%.

Public debt (state and federal combined), India 58.2% of GDP, Pakistan 50.6% of GDP, and Mexico's 22.8% of GDP. Who's economy is healthier?

As far as infrastructure, well Mexico's area is smaller than India's, yet India has 346 airports, while Mexico has 1,834. Mexico's infrastructure is not decreasing. The federal budget for infrastructure is actually the biggest ever, hardly in decline. I suggest you look at projects like the dockyards of Punta Colonet and then tell me that our infrastructure is in decline.

I don't know where or why this became a pissing contest between India and Mexico (the report is about Mexico and Pakistan (which is worse off than India)), but I suggest that if you want to make it so you check your facts beforehand.

Look for yourself:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/


That fact is every one puts Mexico down becuase they compare us to the U.S. Compare India to Mexico just on looks and condition and Mexico wins by far.

The Majority of Indians are below the poverty level and there educational system is bad unless they are rich upper class Indians.

Then you have the caste systems and religious in figthing all across India and Pakistan.

Then throw in the Nuclear bombs in the region and you got a powder keg about to blow up.

So from the basic truth Mexico is no were near bad of as Pakistan on the verge of civil war or social collapse. Or better yet a failed State.

[LazerLordz]

It's a shame to see Mexico like this. Although I've only been to Mexico once, and that was Tijuana, I felt the hospitality of the average Mexican, and I hope the drug problem will be eradicated one day..

[el borracho]

The Mexican Government, its democracy and its institutions remains strong. The state remains omnipresent in all cities, and towns. There is no politically driven armed opposition and or sucessionist movements.

What about Chiapas? Isn't there a left-wing secessionist movement going on down there (I'm seriously asking, not trying to sound like a smartass)?

[flankerpilot]

I really beg to differ with you. Ordie is right. You cannot compare Mexico to Pakistan and for that matter to India.


Yes , but he was trying to compare it with the whole of south asia , when this article was about Mexico and Pakistan.



If you think that the U.S. has an immigration problem with Mexico, think of what it would be if India were right next door?
this is a hypothetical scenario , if India had been in Mexico's place she would not have problems with Islamic terror , religious problems , unstable and unfriendly neighbours (unlike the US) .

If we put Mexico in South Asia , I dont think the situation would be any different than the rest of the S.Asian countries.

Again all this is hypothetical.




Another indication of this would be life expectancy. In India the average life expectancy is 69.25 years, Pakistan 64.13 years, and Mexico 75.84 years. Just to put into perspective, in the U.S. it's 78 years.
When you have a small population , life expectancy is on average higher. Besides not that huge a difference between the two countries.



As far as GDP growth rate, well, that's easily explained. If you were a foreign investor where would you place your factory? In a country where the average individual makes $12,400 a year or where they make $2,600 a year? If India's per capita GDP ever reaches the level of Mexico's then India's growth rate would greatly decrease.
The foreign investor will be looking at the number of people who make 12,400$ a year. In that case due to total population , the number of people making 12,400$ a year in India will be much higher than Mexico.




A comparison of unemployment rates will also say something. India 7.2%, Pakistan 5.6%, and Mexico 3.7%.
Again , smaller countries enjoy an advantage here.



Public debt (state and federal combined), India 58.2% of GDP, Pakistan 50.6% of GDP, and Mexico's 22.8% of GDP. Who's economy is healthier?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

While I agree Mexico's debt is lower ... Japan , Germany , Italy , Canada , Norway , France AND the USA have debts higher than India. But we all know these countries are far more developed in spite of having a higher public debt.

In the current economic climate it is hardly an indicator




I don't know where or why this became a pissing contest between India and Mexico (the report is about Mexico and Pakistan (which is worse off than India))
This was not meant to be a pissing contest. I have travelled to Mexico and loved it. The reason why I brought India into this is because Ordie mentioned SOUTH ASIA into his post.

And if you read my earlier post I totally agreed that Pakistan is far far worse off than Mexico where the problems are mainly due to drug warlords and kidnappings.

Cheers

[sujithkochi]

Military Report: Mexico, Pakistan at Risk of 'Rapid and Sudden Collapse'

Wednesday, January 14, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif

Mexico and Pakistan are at risk of a "rapid and sudden collapse," according to a recent report from the U.S. Joint Forces Command.
The assessment comes as President-elect Barack Obama prepares to tackle international challenges including the conflict in Gaza, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tensions between India and Pakistan.

"In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico," the report says.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Joint Forces Command said the latest assessment was likely written before the Mumbai attacks which further inflamed tensions in South Asia.

The Joint Operating Environment report, meant to examine worldwide security trends, says Pakistan, in the event of such a rapid collapse, would be susceptible to a "violent and bloody civil and sectarian war" made more dangerous by concerns over the country's nuclear arsenal.
The report says that "perfect storm of uncertainty" by itself might require U.S. engagement.

The report says a collapse in Mexico seems less likely, but noted that the government infrastructure is "under sustained assault and pressure" from drug cartels and gangs. A collapse within the United States' southern neighbor would also "demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."

Obama met earlier this week with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Joint Forces spokeswoman Kathleen Jabs told FOXNews.com the purpose of the assessment is not necessarily to predict future crises with 100 percent certainty, but to start a dialogue among world leaders by "looking at the trends."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479906,00.html

[flankerpilot]

Already posted

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=149568

[AL-Khalid]

I doubt the US will ever allow Mexico to collapse , because this would create a refugee crisis which would make the current levels of immigration a joke.

On a side note some have forgotten that the report also mentioned Pakistan as even more likely than Mexico to collapse.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479906,00.html

"The report says a collapse in Mexico seems less likely (than Pakistan), but noted that the government infrastructure is "under sustained assault and pressure" from drug cartels and gangs.

Pakistan, in the event of such a rapid collapse, would be susceptible to a "violent and bloody civil and sectarian war" made more dangerous by concerns over the country's nuclear arsenal.
The report says that "perfect storm of uncertainty" by itself might require U.S. engagement.


A spokeswoman for the U.S. Joint Forces Command said the latest assessment was likely written before the Mumbai attacks which further inflamed tensions in South Asia."

wishfull thinking on their part but we are living there we know the reality this is not going to happen.

[domokun]

I don't see Mexico imploding. Mexican politics and bureaucratic administration may be corrupt inefficient and may collapse, but it will be strikes and maybe few riots but not civil war. Narcos are threat to security of ordinary people, to individual politicians and to high level bureaucrats, but no threat to foundations of society. But they are not something that can make revolution and replace government and institutions.

[AL-Khalid]

We are also threaten by rising militancy and extremism among indians.

[flankerpilot]

We are also threaten by rising militancy and extremism among indians.

LOL LOL LOL ... wtf ?

this is the same idiot who posted these statement after terror attacks in bombay ...

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3785661#post3785661

The whole affair was a staged drama by the indians, they are very good in staging dramas


and this little piece about jews

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=3634991#post3634991

In our country jews are held responsible for all the problems in the islamic wolrd which is partly correct.

:roll:

Anyway lets get back on topic.
My .50 c is that Mexico will surely bounce back. I think the original report on Mexico was an attempt maybe to shore up US support to the Mexican government.

[sujithkochi]

msg deleted

[Felix U. Gómez]

What about Chiapas? Isn't there a left-wing secessionist movement going on down there (I'm seriously asking, not trying to sound like a smartass)?

You have to be joking right? In order for a movement to be considered a movement, I think that there actually has to be some... ah... movement. There hasn't been much comming out of the Selva Lacandona in quite a while. I would say that the Zapatistas have been pretty much neutralized by Mexican government social programs in the state of Chiapas.
Sub-Comandante Marcos is allowed to move freely throughout the country making speeches and trying to rally support (which shows just how afraid of him the Mexican govenment is). In 2006 he went around the country asking for people to boicot the elections. A lot of good that did him.
Also, as far as I'm aware, the Zapatista movement was never a "secessionist movement".

[Felix U. Gómez]

this is a hypothetical scenario , if India had been in Mexico's place she would not have problems with Islamic terror , religious problems , unstable and unfriendly neighbours (unlike the US) .

If we put Mexico in South Asia , I dont think the situation would be any different than the rest of the S.Asian countries.

Again all this is hypothetical.


When you have a small population , life expectancy is on average higher. Besides not that huge a difference between the two countries.

The foreign investor will be looking at the number of people who make 12,400$ a year. In that case due to total population , the number of people making 12,400$ a year in India will be much higher than Mexico.


Again , smaller countries enjoy an advantage here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

While I agree Mexico's debt is lower ... Japan , Germany , Italy , Canada , Norway , France AND the USA have debts higher than India. But we all know these countries are far more developed in spite of having a higher public debt.

In the current economic climate it is hardly an indicator


This was not meant to be a pissing contest. I have travelled to Mexico and loved it. The reason why I brought India into this is because Ordie mentioned SOUTH ASIA into his post.

And if you read my earlier post I totally agreed that Pakistan is far far worse off than Mexico where the problems are mainly due to drug warlords and kidnappings.

Cheers


Religious problems: We spent the first fifty years of our independence trying to define the role that religion would play in our society climaxing in the War of the Reform (1857-1860).
We spent a whole bloody decade during the 20th century again addressing this problem. Cristero War (20's and 30's).

Unfriendly neighbors? Yup, we've had those too. The U.S.-Mexico War (1846-1848), resulting in the loss of half of our territory. Punitive Expedition? Veracruz bombardment and occupation? Etc, etc. Not to mention attempts from Spain to reclaim Mexico and the French Intervention.

Unstable neighbors? Although we are going through a period of relative stability in this area, we have had them in the past. All of our Central American neighbors (except for Costa Rica), spent the majority of the 20th century with dictators, coups, civil wars and revolutions.

As for it being natural for smaller countries to enjoy an advantage in life expectancy, infant mortality, public debt, per capita income just because of their size, well, if we look at the CIA Worldfactbook, we can find a great many smaller countries than Mexico that are not better off than Mexico in these regards.

A foreign investor would be looking for cheap labor, of which India has way more than Mexico. Don't get me wrong, we do have a lot of poor people, the poverty level is around 40%, but India with more than ten times our population has more.

Cheers

[el borracho]

You have to be joking right? In order for a movement to be considered a movement, I think that there actually has to be some... ah... movement. There hasn't been much comming out of the Selva Lacandona in quite a while. I would say that the Zapatistas have been pretty much neutralized by Mexican government social programs in the state of Chiapas.
Sub-Comandante Marcos is allowed to move freely throughout the country making speeches and trying to rally support (which shows just how afraid of him the Mexican govenment is). In 2006 he went around the country asking for people to boicot the elections. A lot of good that did him.
Also, as far as I'm aware, the Zapatista movement was never a "secessionist movement".

Thanks, I had only briefly heard about the Chiapas situation. I didn't know a lot of the details.

[Ordie]

What about Chiapas? Isn't there a left-wing secessionist movement going on down there (I'm seriously asking, not trying to sound like a smartass)?

Latin American revolutionary movements are more idealogical than successionist. The Chiapas rebellion advocated for the rights of the local population, but never to create a separate country.

FARC, FMLN, FSLN, Shining Path, ERP etc.. were national revolutionary movements in Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru and Argentina.

Successionist movements in Latin America has more to do with internal political power (Grand Colombia into Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia) or outside intervention (Texas Republic, Panama).

The Chiapas Rebellion is unique as it was limited in a specfic areas, and how the government placed a priority in seeking a political solution from the onset.

[el borracho]

Latin American revolutionary movements are more idealogical than successionist. The Chiapas rebellion advocated for the rights of the local population, but never to create a separate country.

FARC, FMLN, FSLN, Shining Path, ERP etc.. were national revolutionary movements in Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru and Argentina.

Successionist movements in Latin America has more to do with internal political power (Grand Colombia into Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia) or outside intervention (Texas Republic, Panama).

The Chiapas Rebellion is unique as it was limited in a specfic areas, and how the government placed a priority in seeking a political solution from the onset.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Here are some interesting links for short-lived Mexican republics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Yucatan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Rio_Grande

These were brought about more by political maneuvers than a grassroots uprising.

[Bia]

It never stops to amaze me how poorly our neighbors understand us. It would be a mistake of monstrous proportions for the U.S. to intervene in Mexico. The best thing that the U.S. could do to help maintain stability in Mexico in regards to the drug trade would be to do something about the drug trade within its own borders, i.e. hurt the drug traffiking organizations that move the drugs inside the US, do something to decrease demmand for drugs (or legalize them), and do something to stop the smuggling of weapons into Mexico. It is estimated that nearly 2000 weapons a day are smuggled into Mexico. In the U.S. it is extremely easy for people to obtain weapons whose sole purpose is anything but hunting, sporting or self defense. One can even buy a .50 cal rifle at a local gunstore.
We could leagalize them and cut their supply dead.
Also would create needed jobs here.

:P

[Fade]

U.S. anti-drug information leaked to Mexico cartels
By Mica Rosenberg

MEXICO CITY (*******) - Corrupt officials inside Mexico's security forces have leaked U.S. anti-drugs intelligence directly to drug traffickers to help them escape raids, a senior U.S. law enforcement agent said.

A recent anti-corruption sweep showed the infiltration of Mexican police forces had reached alarming levels, with several high-ranking investigators and a presidential guardsman arrested for selling information to drug cartels.

The U.S. agent said the arrests were an encouraging sign that Mexico's government is serious about stopping drug gangs from getting their hands on intelligence, some of which comes from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA.

"There have been occurrences where we have shared information and then found that the information we shared was compromised, given, provided, leaked to the very targets that were being investigated," the official told ******* late on Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has made fighting drug cartels his top priority, deploying thousands of soldiers and federal police to take on heavily armed traffickers, dominated by the Sinaloa federation and the Gulf Cartel.

The U.S. agent praised Calderon for fighting the drug gangs head on but said some operations have been frustrated as cartels flush with cash can pay massive bribes for information or use violence to intimidate police.Article continued at http://www.*******.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50E7E220090115?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

[Felix U. Gómez]

We could leagalize them and cut their supply dead.
Also would create needed jobs here.

:P

Yes, yes. Legalize them, regulate them, and tax them. Put the criminals out of business. Use the revenues from taxing and what would be saved from not having to fight the eternal war on drugs for education and rehab. I honestly don't think that either country would see a significant increase in drug use. Those that want to use drugs will do so regardless of wether they are illegal or not. In Mexico some politicians have brought up the subject for debate, but honestly it won't happen in Mexico unless it happens in the U.S.

[SBL]

Latin American revolutionary movements are more idealogical than successionist. The Chiapas rebellion advocated for the rights of the local population, but never to create a separate country.

The Chiapas Rebellion is unique as it was limited in a specfic areas, and how the government placed a priority in seeking a political solution from the onset.

Well, yes and no. The Chiapas movement is an amalgam of leftist causes fueled and bound by calls for ‘indigenous rights’. The EZLN inhabits a semi-autonomous zone having set up their own government (The Caracoles and El Junta de Buen Gobierno) and remain hostile, or at best ambivalent, regarding what they view as any official government intrusion in their territory. For example, they reserve the right to educate their own children, or restrict adults from perusing higher education out of fears of them being ‘brainwashed’ by government schooling.
Similarly, they make demands for electricity and modern healthcare, but resist construction of necessary roads, claiming it would make military intrusion inevitability. A bit of wanting the best of both worlds, imo: wanting the benefits of living under the Mexican government without being subject to its authority.
AFAIK, there remains a significant police/military presence in southern Chiapas, as well as some residual paramilitary activity from both sides of the aisle.
I suspect the reliance on a political solution has more to do with the fact that (to my knowledge) the EZLN has not been outrageously violent, nor does it militarily pose a threat on the national scale, than with any ideological bent on the part of the Mexican government. Likewise, I think the cost of waging a protracted military campaign far exceeds any benefit.

[Felix U. Gómez]

Similarly, they make demands for electricity and modern healthcare, but resist construction of necessary roads, claiming it would make military intrusion inevitability. A bit of wanting the best of both worlds, imo: wanting the benefits of living under the Mexican government without being subject to its authority.


And of course, they don't contribute anything into the system either. Typical leftist mentality of wanting everything sudsidized and free.

[cbreedon]

Yes, yes. Legalize them, regulate them, and tax them. Put the criminals out of business. Use the revenues from taxing and what would be saved from not having to fight the eternal war on drugs for education and rehab. I honestly don't think that either country would see a significant increase in drug use. Those that want to use drugs will do so regardless of wether they are illegal or not. In Mexico some politicians have brought up the subject for debate, but honestly it won't happen in Mexico unless it happens in the U.S.

I wish we would do that here.... We have a repeat of the 1920's gansters, except it was alcohol then... the gov't needs to come to reality and like you said legalize, tax and regulate the stuff.