Sky-high army desertion rate in Mexico

[Lonestar]

Wait, am I hearing this right? They're sending 25,000 more troops to the boarder? Do you have a source for this?

If that is the case, I guess Obama's taking notice of the situation, and just choosing to keep quiet for now.

Fort Bliss and the 2005 BRAC While Fort Bliss is right outside of El Paso, I might also add that the 4 ID is going to be split between Fort Hood(Central Texas) and Fort Carson(Colorado). The plan is to strip down the nmber of combat troops in Germany and South Korea and send them to the States...most of the new HQs are going to be Clustered in Texas and the SW.

[Artemas]

US military involvement at a low level is pretty likely, perhaps similar to Columbia or other central american countries. Mostly training and advisor roles and whatnot. Full-on conventional force is far less likely, but rather more difficult to predict.

Your post would greatly benefit from a trip to your local library. It's Colombia, not Columbia. And it's not Central America, but South America, as it is quite evident from looking at a globe.

Yeah, apologies about misspelling Colombia, but my other point is accurate. Central American countries like Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua. The continent may be South America, but the region is Central America.

So in short:

Go fuck yourself

[Ender]

Wait, am I hearing this right? They're sending 25,000 more troops to the boarder? Do you have a source for this?

If that is the case, I guess Obama's taking notice of the situation, and just choosing to keep quiet for now.

Fort Bliss and the 2005 BRAC While Fort Bliss is right outside of El Paso, I might also add that the 4 ID is going to be split between Fort Hood(Central Texas) and Fort Carson(Colorado). The plan is to strip down the nmber of combat troops in Germany and South Korea and send them to the States...most of the new HQs are going to be Clustered in Texas and the SW.

Oh fuck me, the 4ID? Those bastards are the ones responsible for most of the army's bullshit in Iraq. Incidents like those would be just about the worst thing possible there.

[Lonestar]

Oh fuck me, the 4ID? Those bastards are the ones responsible for most of the army's bullshit in Iraq. Incidents like those would be just about the worst thing possible there.

Odierno changed his attitude(which was what was largely causing the fuck ups) after he became the #2 man in Iraq. Even Thomas Ricks, who wrote nothing but bad stuff about him in Fiasco said he has had a 180 degree approach his second time through(as commented in The Gamble).

Of course, this is all academic, as Odierno isn't running the 4 ID anymore anyway.

Yeah, apologies about misspelling Colombia, but my other point is accurate. Central American countries like Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua. The continent may be South America, but the region is Central America.

So in short:

Go fuck yourself

Hey Fuck-o, the region is countries of primarily Iberian descent if Latin America, Central America is on the NORTH American continent. Colombia is part of the Latin American region while being located on the SOUTH American continent. Colombia is NOT part of the "Central American Region".

Jesus Christ.

Go take a high school Spanish class.

[Akkleptos]

True. That said, it is fairly worrying that all of this shit is going down in the key border cities, since that's where a lot of the economic growth and trade is happening.

Yes. I can see how that can be unsettling for the US. But don't forget that a lot of the violence is also happening way south, as in Michoacan and Guerrero, not to mention Mexico City itself. And down here it's not only shootings amongst rival gangs or cartel henchmen where innocent bystanders might get hurt, but actually grenades being thrown at large crowds in public spaces.

Wasn't that half of what started up the Zapatista uprising, anyways - the fact that the Salinas government signed NATO and was cutting back on the traditional subsidies and support given by the government to the indigenous Chiapans? They actually started their revolt, officially at least, on the day that NATO went into effect in 1994.

I'm sure the extreme left-leaning non-indian leaders of the EZLN might have found Mexico joining NATO offensive, but I can't really see it as a real factor. Indians in Chiapas couldn't care less about NATO -if they even know what it is-, though it's an interesting idea. It's been pointed out by pundits, politicians and politics "analists" that the day EZLN went public was determined as a counterpoint for PRI politicians' and the media claim that 1994 would when "Mexico would enter the First World" (mostly for psychological effect), the "neoliberal" economic policy of Salinas' term (then about to end), as well as other reasons not related to Mexico's foreign policy.

the teachers union is one of the most corrupt you could find anywhere

Are they still a branch off the SNTE? They were quite corrupt back in the day when the PRI still used them to help maintain their hold on power.

They are. They're still good ol' Section 22. And, yes, I see you're familiar with clientelism, the way the PRI (and now, also the PRD and others) do politics in Mexico. The leaders were given leeway (and other favours) in return for votes from the captive union workers. So, since they're useful to politicians, they have pretty much free reign.

I remember reading a worrying article about a lesser gang in one of the border states (I can't remember if it was Baja California or Sonora, or even Chihuahua) that had completely made the jump off of the drug wagon, and were deriving their entire revenue off of kidnapping, extortion, and the like. A rather frightening possibility, although presumably they'd have less money to throw around for bribes.

Yes, and yes. That's why kidnappers are being caught by the dozen everyday now (not fast enough though) since the government implemented the anonymous denounce hotline and other systems.

Yeah, apologies about misspelling Colombia, but my other point is accurate. Central American countries like Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua. The continent may be South America, but the region is Central America.
So in short: Go fuck yourself

I see you failed to do what I recommended. Look, you ignorant baboon:

Physiographically, Central America is the tapering isthmus of southern North America, and the mainland of Middle America in turn, extending from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico southeastward to the Isthmus of Panama where it connects to the Colombian Pacific Lowlands in northwestern South America. Alternatively, the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt delimits the region on the north. Central America has an area of some 592,000 square kilometres.

[Patrick Degan]

Wasn't that half of what started up the Zapatista uprising, anyways - the fact that the Salinas government signed NATO and was cutting back on the traditional subsidies and support given by the government to the indigenous Chiapans? They actually started their revolt, officially at least, on the day that NATO went into effect in 1994.

I'm sure the extreme left-leaning non-indian leaders of the EZLN might have found Mexico joining NATO offensive, but I can't really see it as a real factor. Indians in Chiapas couldn't care less about NATO -if they even know what it is-, though it's an interesting idea. It's been pointed out by pundits, politicians and politics "analists" that the day EZLN went public was determined as a counterpoint for PRI politicians' and the media claim that 1994 would when "Mexico would enter the First World" (mostly for psychological effect), the "neoliberal" economic policy of Salinas' term (then about to end), as well as other reasons not related to Mexico's foreign policy.

I think you both mean NAFTA and not NATO, yes?

[Guardsman Bass]

Wasn't that half of what started up the Zapatista uprising, anyways - the fact that the Salinas government signed NATO and was cutting back on the traditional subsidies and support given by the government to the indigenous Chiapans? They actually started their revolt, officially at least, on the day that NATO went into effect in 1994.

I'm sure the extreme left-leaning non-indian leaders of the EZLN might have found Mexico joining NATO offensive, but I can't really see it as a real factor. Indians in Chiapas couldn't care less about NATO -if they even know what it is-, though it's an interesting idea. It's been pointed out by pundits, politicians and politics "analists" that the day EZLN went public was determined as a counterpoint for PRI politicians' and the media claim that 1994 would when "Mexico would enter the First World" (mostly for psychological effect), the "neoliberal" economic policy of Salinas' term (then about to end), as well as other reasons not related to Mexico's foreign policy.

I think you both mean NAFTA and not NATO, yes?

Yeah, I meant NAFTA, not NATO (hence the 1994 signing and such). Why the fuck would I put NATO down?

[Akkleptos]

I think you both mean NAFTA and not NATO, yes?

Exactly! How could I miss something so obvious! It made a huge buzz back then, and old-fashioned leftists (many of them former guerilla members from the 70's and other extremists) were quite outraged. There was a lot of opposition from nationalists and left wing parties, and doomsayers said the worst things, you can imagine. Thanks!