Fleeing drug wars, Mexicans flood into U.S.

[Duckie]

So what exactly do you mean?

That politics is a zero-sum game and if the US doesn't use it's influence to it's advantage then someone else will use it to our detriment.

Excuse me, I hate to butt in, but can you link me to the post where you proved that politics is a zero-sum game? It seems not completely obvious why it is. If you can show me that, feel free to use game theory to show it's always in the best benefit to fuck people over.

But it'd be interesting to see it proven. It sounds mathematically interesting.

[K. A. Pital]

A trade agreement is an economic agreement, clearly a difference between a political agreement like a mutual defense pact or anti-proliferation agreement.

A mutual defence agreement can be beneficial to both sides of the agreement (Franco-British military union, etc.). So can be an anti-proliferation agreement beneficial to all parties thereto, for example, limiting the spread of bioweapons that carry the risk of accidental pandemia is beneficial to all nations. Just a few examples for you.

[Ritterin Sophia]

A trade agreement is an economic agreement, clearly a difference between a political agreement like a mutual defense pact or anti-proliferation agreement.

A mutual defence agreement can be beneficial to both sides of the agreement (Franco-British military union, etc.).

And it's purposefully designed to deter and weaken another party's position, the Central Powers and later the Axis.

So can be an anti-proliferation agreement beneficial to all parties thereto, for example, limiting the spread of bioweapons that carry the risk of accidental pandemia is beneficial to all nations. Just a few examples for you.

And what happens if one nation decides it has sufficient capabilities to handle a pandemic? Obviously they are not deterred from developing new weapons.

Excuse me, I hate to butt in, but can you link me to the post where you proved that politics is a zero-sum game? It seems not completely obvious why it is. If you can show me that, feel free to use game theory to show it's always in the best benefit to fuck people over.

But it'd be interesting to see it proven. It sounds mathematically interesting.

Again, do you have an instance where a political rather than economic agreement is mutually beneficial for everyone? I'm saying that such an instance does not exist which is a negative.

[K. A. Pital]

And what happens if one nation decides it has sufficient capabilities to handle a pandemic?

That's about the same as someone with a terminal illness starting to take drugs that exacerbate it. We're talking about rational interests here. Mutual benefits can be there for rational actors.

Even if one nation "decides" that, the benefits of banning bioweapons are still there for all involved. Including the population of said nation, because hazardous decisions like "being able to handle the pandemia" (and I guess the subsequent economic collapse which will ruin all other nations "incapable" of handling it) are definetely not in the interests of the populace of said nation.

Ergo, the question is not whether a decision can be mutually beneficial or beneficial for all nations or mankind as a whole, but the question is whether all actors are rational enough to realize the benefits.

[Guardsman Bass]

this essay by Stuart to really understand how US Policy has worked. We blew our chance at a non-interventionist military fifty years ago.

That's completely laughable in any circumstance when you consider anything outside racist criteria and especially in particular light of Mexican issues. The U.S. conquered half of Mexico in a "supreme international crime" a century and a half ago, it intervened in the civil war between the Republicans and Second Empire after our Civil War,

If by "intervened" you mean "gave Benito Juarez and his government-in-exile shelter and sold them weapons."

The economic liberalization was undertaken under pressure from U.S. business interests and economic institutions and enacted in an atypically corrupt election, even by Mexican standards. The public did not favor the liberalization, it was devastating to the poor and rural communities, and even precipitated the quasi-Maoist (at least initially) Zapatista revolt in Chiapas.

The US pushed them towards NAFTA and greater liberalization, but realistically, what choice did Mexico have at the time? They had little capability for further spending after the crisis in 1982 (following a period in which they ran up a huge amount of debt borrowed against their oil reserves, which lost most of their value when the bottom fell out of the price on oil in the early 1980s). On top of that, the economic model that has worked pretty well for them after World War 2 - a version of Import Substitution Industrialization along with the ejido system in agriculture - had been stagnating for over a decade (which was a major reason as to why the Mexican government ramped up spending in the 1970s).

The rural communities, of course, didn't like it, because while they'd been impoverished under the ejido, they'd had some minimal form of sustenance plus some government pay-offs and funding. The Zapatistas liked it even less, for much the same reason.

The U.S. has greatly contributed to the instability of Mexico both through direct policies financial and economic which are largely to the benefit of U.S. interests, and indirectly through policies that do nothing but permit the drug trade to continue (state sectors even implicitly aided and participated in some of the drug trade during the 1980s). The U.S. and Americans would do well to respect the Mexican people's right to self-determination and to realize armed force would likely be just as destabilizing and costly in human terms as it has been in the Middle East.

We've done plenty of that (recognizing the Mexican right to self-determination), particularly after the 1930s (the US government, for example, did nothing when Cardenas nationalized the largely US company-owned oil industry in Mexico, against calls from said industry for intervention). There's been plenty of indirect influencing, but every nation does that with regards to its neighbors.

[Guardsman Bass]

Crap, I can't edit it anymore. One of the risks from posting at work while on-call . . .

Excuse me? Protect against 'crime'? The U.S. intervened in Mexico PRIOR to the Villa raids in Veracruz, and of course, assisted in overthrowing the Francisco I. Madero revolutionary government, by agitating for a coup with Madero's army commander, Victoriano Huerta. Why don't you learn even an ounce of fucking history on this topic before wasting my goddamn time. Forgive me if I fail to feel bad for the U.S. in this case, similarly to how I would not feel too bad for the Soviet Union if after toppling revolutions in its client states, some banditry in the post-coup chaos spilled over the border.

You make it sound as if the Villa raids were part of some greater conflict between the US and Mexico that began with the overthrow of Madero. They weren't. The US ambassador was involved in the Huerta coup, but not at the behest of the US government (he was acting on his own - the man had a man-crush on Porfirio Diaz).

As for the raids themselves, they were Villa and his men acting on their own, which Villa did because he was butt-hurt over the fact that the US, recognizing the writing on the wall, stopped backing him and recognized the Carranza government in Mexico City. It had nothing to do with the Veracruz intervention.

[Ritterin Sophia]

That's about the same as someone with a terminal illness starting to take drugs that exacerbate it. We're talking about rational interests here. Mutual benefits can be there for rational actors.

That assumes everyone is a rational actor.

Even if one nation "decides" that, the benefits of banning bioweapons are still there for all involved. Including the population of said nation, because hazardous decisions like "being able to handle the pandemia" (and I guess the subsequent economic collapse which will ruin all other nations "incapable" of handling it) are definetely not in the interests of the populace of said nation.

Again, assuming everyone is rational.

Ergo, the question is not whether a decision can be mutually beneficial or beneficial for all nations or mankind as a whole, but the question is whether all actors are rational enough to realize the benefits.

Obviously not as we have players like the North Korean leadership who have locked them selves in a self-purpetuating back and forth of antagonizing other nations in order for them to get a response that allows them to drum up more support to keep the populace from realizing just how bad things are.

[K. A. Pital]

Benefits can only be for rational actors. But it's beneficial for the hostages (population) of a psycho if he (his government) adheres to a, say, bioweapon non-proliferation treaty or something. So there can be all-around beneficial treaties.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Benefits can only be for rational actors. But it's beneficial for the hostages (population) of a psycho if he (his government) adheres to a, say, bioweapon non-proliferation treaty or something. So there can be all-around beneficial treaties.

That's only if you get everyone to adhere, if someone doesn't then what?

[K. A. Pital]

Benefits can only be for rational actors. But it's beneficial for the hostages (population) of a psycho if he (his government) adheres to a, say, bioweapon non-proliferation treaty or something. So there can be all-around beneficial treaties.

That's only if you get everyone to adhere, if someone doesn't then what?

Then it's still beneficial for others to adhere, because, say, increasing the number of bioweapons is counter-beneficial to any nations even if a given nation does have bioweapons.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Then it's still beneficial for others to adhere, because, say, increasing the number of bioweapons is counter-beneficial to any nations even if a given nation does have bioweapons.

No actually, because the other nation can still continue biological weapons research and other nations can't, which means treatments fall behind.

[K. A. Pital]

Then it's still beneficial for others to adhere, because, say, increasing the number of bioweapons is counter-beneficial to any nations even if a given nation does have bioweapons.

No actually, because the other nation can still continue biological weapons research and other nations can't, which means treatments fall behind.

You can research treatments without researching weaponized agents. Sure, not as efficient, but it's better than having dozens of bioplants where any outbreak can spell a pandemia or a large epidemic.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Then it's still beneficial for others to adhere, because, say, increasing the number of bioweapons is counter-beneficial to any nations even if a given nation does have bioweapons.

No actually, because the other nation can still continue biological weapons research and other nations can't, which means treatments fall behind.

You can research treatments without researching weaponized agents. Sure, not as efficient, but it's better than having dozens of bioplants where any outbreak can spell a pandemia or a large epidemic.

And yet, someone benefits and someone is left at a disadvantage.

[K. A. Pital]

Who benefits? Everyone. The insane person developing bioweapons doesn't "benefit" in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Who benefits? Everyone. The insane person developing bioweapons doesn't "benefit" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Yes he does. We've already established that due to his bioweapons research he has more experience in how to handle and control them, the other nations do not. Therefore in an exchange of weapons the one who keeps their biological research up to date is more prepared to be able to handle them and thus a barrier in their use broken, that's if they're a rational player, if not they'd use them anyhow.

[K. A. Pital]

Who benefits? Everyone. The insane person developing bioweapons doesn't "benefit" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Yes he does. We've already established that due to his bioweapons research he has more experience in how to handle and control them, the other nations do not.

That's like saying a junkie has "more experience" with handling deadly drugs. Utterly idiotic and in no way a benefit.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Who benefits? Everyone. The insane person developing bioweapons doesn't "benefit" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Yes he does. We've already established that due to his bioweapons research he has more experience in how to handle and control them, the other nations do not.

That's like saying a junkie has "more experience" with handling deadly drugs. Utterly idiotic and in no way a benefit.

No it's like saying someone who has lots of experience in biological research is more prepared to handle and pandemic than someone who does not have any experience with said pathogen.

[Illuminatus Primus]

If by "intervened" you mean "gave Benito Juarez and his government-in-exile shelter and sold them weapons."

And the rest? That's what I thought.

The US pushed them towards NAFTA and greater liberalization, but realistically, what choice did Mexico have at the time? They had little capability for further spending after the crisis in 1982 (following a period in which they ran up a huge amount of debt borrowed against their oil reserves, which lost most of their value when the bottom fell out of the price on oil in the early 1980s). On top of that, the economic model that has worked pretty well for them after World War 2 - a version of Import Substitution Industrialization along with the ejido system in agriculture - had been stagnating for over a decade (which was a major reason as to why the Mexican government ramped up spending in the 1970s).

The rural communities, of course, didn't like it, because while they'd been impoverished under the ejido, they'd had some minimal form of sustenance plus some government pay-offs and funding. The Zapatistas liked it even less, for much the same reason.

All this just is about my point that only with great historical ignorance one can paint Mexico as grossly irresponsible purely on the back of its own responsibility, and then go on to advocate stuff like invasion and occupation as has been done in this thread. Furthermore, the liberalization policies promoted by the U.S. have been an outright failure throughout the developing world - the postwar success stories, Western Europe, the Asian Tigers, China, et al, all benefits from significant foriegn aid and protectionist policies. In many ways they reflected the opposite of the Washington Consensus. I don't think its unfair at all to suggest those policies exist for Western profits specifically at the expense of developing countries, more or less hapless before enormous market power by Western companies and overwhelming Western and specifically U.S. international political power.

We've done plenty of that (recognizing the Mexican right to self-determination), particularly after the 1930s (the US government, for example, did nothing when Cardenas nationalized the largely US company-owned oil industry in Mexico, against calls from said industry for intervention). There's been plenty of indirect influencing, but every nation does that with regards to its neighbors.

Its still hypocrisy when one nation is largely subject to the undesired influence of the other in a one way fashion for the wealthy powerful nation to squeal that the poor one should have developed better.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Crap, I can't edit it anymore. One of the risks from posting at work while on-call . . .

Excuse me? Protect against 'crime'? The U.S. intervened in Mexico PRIOR to the Villa raids in Veracruz, and of course, assisted in overthrowing the Francisco I. Madero revolutionary government, by agitating for a coup with Madero's army commander, Victoriano Huerta. Why don't you learn even an ounce of fucking history on this topic before wasting my goddamn time. Forgive me if I fail to feel bad for the U.S. in this case, similarly to how I would not feel too bad for the Soviet Union if after toppling revolutions in its client states, some banditry in the post-coup chaos spilled over the border.

You make it sound as if the Villa raids were part of some greater conflict between the US and Mexico that began with the overthrow of Madero. They weren't. The US ambassador was involved in the Huerta coup, but not at the behest of the US government (he was acting on his own - the man had a man-crush on Porfirio Diaz).

As for the raids themselves, they were Villa and his men acting on their own, which Villa did because he was butt-hurt over the fact that the US, recognizing the writing on the wall, stopped backing him and recognized the Carranza government in Mexico City. It had nothing to do with the Veracruz intervention.

It didn't, but my point is he cannot treat the U.S. as the wounded hurt party when the U.S. twice capriciously intervened in Mexico's affairs. How would we look at it if the Chinese ambassador "acted on his own" to disrupt ROK or something? How would the U.S. thereafter treat it if China sent troops to occupy a key port with the Chinese President declaring he'd teach them to elect good men? Can anyone even imagine how mainstream media or history narratives would treat such events if any other nation indulged them?

The same behavior which if ANY OTHER COUNTRY did in their IMMEDIATE BACKYARD as intolerable bellicosity and aggression the U.S. always has a plethora of excuses. You're right, empires often don't twist mustaches while killing savages, they just clumsily stomp and squish ants around them often.

[Ritterin Sophia]

advocate stuff like invasion and occupation as has been done in this thread.

Where? The most that's been advocated was that if Mexico refuses to deal with it or can't then the US is totally within it's rights to invade in order to protect it's citizen from the violence spilling across it's border, however, this does not mean they should or that it's the best course of action. The only course of action advocated was by me and it was an offer to send troops in to help the Mexican government fight the drug cartels.

[Illuminatus Primus]

advocate stuff like invasion and occupation as has been done in this thread.

Where? The most that's been advocated was that if Mexico refuses to deal with it or can't then the US is totally within it's rights to invade in order to protect it's citizen from the violence spilling across it's border, however, this does not mean they should or that it's the best course of action. The only course of action advocated was by me and it was an offer to send troops in to help the Mexican government fight the drug cartels.

Okay, then by that same token would Mexico had been within its rights if it could to invade and retake the Southwest in 1900? And even if Villa's raid was not punitive, wouldn't such a response been justified considering the Veracruz occupation? Going to war over the antics of their ambassador, renegade or not? I can't see how the U.S. wouldn't consider the converse an act of war.

Lastly, the idea that the Mexican government would want foriegn troops on its soil to fight drug cartels is pure fantasy, only a puppet government would ever entertain the idea in Mexico City.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Okay, then by that same token would Mexico had been within its rights if it could to invade and retake the Southwest in 1900? And even if Villa's raid was not punitive, wouldn't such a response been justified considering the Veracruz occupation? Going to war over the antics of their ambassador, renegade or not? I can't see how the U.S. wouldn't consider the converse an act of war.

You should know that I view international politics as inherently anarchic. If Mexico wanted to invade, they were entirely within their rights to try. If a government can no longer control the nation they claim jurisdiction over they're no longer the rightful government, if they have the control to stop their citizens from coming over here and killing ours then they take responsibility for it.

Lastly, the idea that the Mexican government would want foriegn troops on its soil to fight drug cartels is pure fantasy, only a puppet government would ever entertain the idea in Mexico City.

Well that's up to them, I would certainly hope that if the American federal government were offered help in a national emergency from our allies we would accept. much like we did when Mexico offered to send troops to maintain order after Pearl Harbor.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It's quite simple, that's how American policy is decided and we lost our chance at nonintervisionism when things like the antiballistic missile treaty and cancellation of expanding America's strategic bomber force.

Completely ridiculous. The U.S. was not an isolationist state prior to World War II or (in my opinion, laughably) as late as the ABM treaty in 1972. The U.S. was some of its more capriciously interventionist during the era of the "small Army" and "assured destruction" nuclear deterrence policies of the 1950s. The U.S. intervention in the Greek Civil War in the late 1940s, the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the Korean War, U.S. begins its participation in Vietnam in 1955, the intervention in the 1958 Lebanese crisis, etc., etc. The 1960s were similarly characterized, the Vietnam War being obvious, but also the essentially forgotten invasion of the Dominican Republic, as well as unlawful interventions into Laos and Cambodia (the latter helping precipitate the rise of the Khmer Rouge). Of course, there was the outright conquest of half of the sovereign state of Mexico in the 19th century, which only does not count as imperialism if only white or Old World nations count as interventionism (I suppose the New World is presumed to be America's property, so by definition we cannot be 'intervening'?). There were the two capricious interferences I listed during the Mexican Revolution, and countless military interventions throughout the pre-World War II era. The U.S. intervened extensively in Latin America and the Caribbean, tried with the other Allies to abort the Russian Revolution, etc.

In general, the standards applied to U.S. interventionism are extremely peculiar. No other nation is granted such wide berths of legitimate or tacitly legitimate interventionism. The U.S.'s historical behavior would be denounced in any history book, along with the justifications given, if they were the responsibility of any other state, especially an Official Enemy.

As far as I can see, your claim has no basis in historical fact. In fact I am not surprised the U.S. went for a high-low mix of forces, foregoing the strategically strangling TBO force-mix. Why? Because just as in the countless tiny wars prior to the Cold War that have been forgotten, one always needs troops who can wade ashore and force open markets. This point was repeatedly made by State Department and Council on Foreign Relations planners before and during the Second World War. A good book on this topic is the Imperial Brain Trust by William Minter.

You have a political agreement that doesn't favor one side to the detriment of the other? I'll be happy to concede if you do.

That is not an ipso facto proof of realism.

Go to 1873-96.

1873-96 is not today. And that doesn't justify it, it just provides precedent. I could use the same reasoning to justify the U.S. invading anywhere in the Caribbean or Central America because it doesn't like the social policies of a newly elected government. Would that be "justification"?

Thin veneer? I'm afraid not, it's blatant and apparent to anyone who cares to look at the situation. The fact of the matter is that if we don't, someone else will. Be it China, Russia, or even the EU.

As Stas already addressed, it is hardly necessary we ram down Mexico's throat our preferred economic policies to prevent states which cannot take back tiny breakaway republics surviving on U.S. sponsorship (China - Taiwan, Russia - Crimea, Akhbazia, and South Ossetia), much less the EU which is not even a coherent state-actor internationally.

ADDITIONALLY:

Okay, then by that same token would Mexico had been within its rights if it could to invade and retake the Southwest in 1900? And even if Villa's raid was not punitive, wouldn't such a response been justified considering the Veracruz occupation? Going to war over the antics of their ambassador, renegade or not? I can't see how the U.S. wouldn't consider the converse an act of war.

You should know that I view international politics as inherently anarchic. If Mexico wanted to invade, they were entirely within their rights to try. If a government can no longer control the nation they claim jurisdiction over they're no longer the rightful government, if they have the control to stop their citizens from coming over here and killing ours then they take responsibility for it.

Okay, well I'll try to check and make sure you apply the same standards to the U.S. you do to official enemies sometime.

Lastly, the idea that the Mexican government would want foriegn troops on its soil to fight drug cartels is pure fantasy, only a puppet government would ever entertain the idea in Mexico City.

Well that's up to them, I would certainly hope that if the American federal government were offered help in a national emergency from our allies we would accept. much like we did when Mexico offered to send troops to maintain order after Pearl Harbor.

The U.S. hasn't been the whipping boy of its neighbor for nearly one hundred and seventy years.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Completely ridiculous. The U.S. was not an isolationist state prior to World War II or (in my opinion, laughably) as late as the ABM treaty in 1972. The U.S. was some of its more capriciously interventionist during the era of the "small Army" and "assured destruction" nuclear deterrence policies of the 1950s. The U.S. intervention in the Greek Civil War in the late 1940s, the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the Korean War, U.S. begins its participation in Vietnam in 1955, the intervention in the 1958 Lebanese crisis, etc., etc. The 1960s were similarly characterized, the Vietnam War being obvious, but also the essentially forgotten invasion of the Dominican Republic, as well as unlawful interventions into Laos and Cambodia (the latter helping precipitate the rise of the Khmer Rouge). Of course, there was the outright conquest of half of the sovereign state of Mexico in the 19th century, which only does not count as imperialism if only white or Old World nations count as interventionism (I suppose the New World is presumed to be America's property, so by definition we cannot be 'intervening'?). There were the two capricious interferences I listed during the Mexican Revolution, and countless military interventions throughout the pre-World War II era. The U.S. intervened extensively in Latin America and the Caribbean, tried with the other Allies to abort the Russian Revolution, etc.

The US never switched over to a completely mass retaliation policy. Nice try though.

In general, the standards applied to U.S. interventionism are extremely peculiar. No other nation is granted such wide berths of legitimate or tacitly legitimate interventionism. The U.S.'s historical behavior would be denounced in any history book, along with the justifications given, if they were the responsibility of any other state, especially an Official Enemy.

Go ahead, denounce it all you like, it's not like you'll change the fact that they benefited us and that's all that matters in an anarchic playing field where everyone is looking out for their own interests.

As far as I can see, your claim has no basis in historical fact. In fact I am not surprised the U.S. went for a high-low mix of forces, foregoing the strategically strangling TBO force-mix. Why? Because just as in the countless tiny wars prior to the Cold War that have been forgotten, one always needs troops who can wade ashore and force open markets. This point was repeatedly made by State Department and Council on Foreign Relations planners before and during the Second World War. A good book on this topic is the Imperial Brain Trust by William Minter.

You can either cite what you like from it or I'm going to ignore it as I'm not exactly in a part of the country where my local library is likely to stock it. Regardless, it doesn't change that only irrational player risk total destruction.

That is not an ipso facto proof of realism.

So you have another theory? I'm willing to listen, go ahead.

1873-96 is not today. And that doesn't justify it, it just provides precedent. I could use the same reasoning to justify the U.S. invading anywhere in the Caribbean or Central America because it doesn't like the social policies of a newly elected government. Would that be "justification"?

The context was in regards to America invading in the 19th Century not today.

As Stas already addressed, it is hardly necessary we ram down Mexico's throat our preferred economic policies to prevent states which cannot take back tiny breakaway republics surviving on U.S. sponsorship (China - Taiwan, Russia - Crimea, Akhbazia, and South Ossetia), much less the EU which is not even a coherent state-actor internationally.

If we let it get out of control it threatens our position. It doesn't have to be Russia or China, or the EU, it could be any number of actors who want to take advantage.

Okay, well I'll try to check and make sure you apply the same standards to the U.S. you do to official enemies sometime.

When have I not?

The U.S. hasn't been the whipping boy of its neighbor for nearly one hundred and seventy years.

You seem to see an offer of help to be some great offense, why?

[General Mung Beans]

the Korean War,

What really annoys me is the listing the American intervention in the Korean War as "just another Imperial aggression". It only happened because of North Korean invasion of the Republic. Also while most Vietnamese didn't support the American intervention in the Vietnam War or Guatemalans support the 1954 coup most Koreans do support America intervening in the Korean War.