Recently another 20 or so citizens from one town in our neighboring nation to the south, Mexico, were gunned down in drug/cartel action. Hopefully none were innocent bystanders. And all we in Arizona seem to care about is SB 1070.
Whether one is a supply side or a demand side economist, a hard-hearted militarist or a liberal soft-hearted humanitarian, all must agree that something effective needs to be done about drug and weapons traffic. We need to stimulate our economy, but surely not like this! But what can be done? SB 1070 steers clear of addressing the real problems.
Gov. Brewer, can’t you come up with something more direct, more to the point of the problem, than putting your signature to a law that most certainly will prove to be unconstitutional? Every honest attorney/politician who has spoken to this issue is frustrated that as a consuming public, we Arizonans have elected you for doing nothing more profound than signing a dubious piece of legislation into law.
And now we hear that Russell Pearce, its architect, will be leading the Senate! Heaven help us all! What is next? Pearce wants to redo the 14th Amendment. That does nothing to help the problem.
Dale Whiting, Chandler
—
Letters policy: Click here to submit a letter. Please be brief (no more than 300 words) and type or print name, address, city and phone number for verification. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
geekette posted at 8:11 am on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
A large number of the guns used in the Mexican violence come from Arizona. Why? Because that same Russell Pearce, who authored SB1070 and who wants to change the US Constitution, blocked a law requiring buyers at gun shows to prove their citizenship. So illegals can buy guns. http://www.kpho.com/iteam/25858698/detail.html
Hypocisy, thy name is Russell Pearce.
DeadEye posted at 5:12 pm on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
RU$$ELL PEARCE never met a lobbyist he didn't like. And don't think for a minute the gun lobby doesn't make some big pay outs to legislators and the lobbyists who pull their strings.
Accuracy posted at 5:48 pm on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
"We need a solution to the Mexican drug wars"
The ongoing clash between rival drug cartels in Mexico directly across the border from California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas has become one of the most dangerous places in the world.
Like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry has also addressed the threat of violence of the drug/cartel. In order to secure the border, Gov. Perry has suggested that U.S. troops fight the ever-escalating battle between Mexico's military and the drug cartels.
Mexico's military campaign against the severity of Mexico's drug cartel problems has been ongoing since 2006, leaving over 28,000 dead according to official estimates.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry believes what ails America isn't the fault of its citizens, but the fault of the federal government. And in his new book “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington”, Perry lays out solutions to get America back on track.
Rich posted at 6:35 pm on Fri, Dec 3, 2010.
Two choices really, either is possible.
a) Oversupply the drugs until the price drops to the point the cartels are bankrupt. Legalize them, tax them and turn the trade over to businessmen to profit from. Since we have an army in Afghanistan we can undercut the cartels to the point that they will disappear.
b) Take nuclear weapons and bomb a fifty mile wide dead zone across the border, triple the size of the army and using all modern technology and weaponry, kill anything that enters the zone.
Nothing else will really work well, but then again, we're Americans and have a government that is,at best, half-a$$ed, so don't expect a solution to Mexican cartels any faster than the economy is getting fixed.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:33 am on Sat, Dec 4, 2010.
A bit extreme Rich, but we get the point. But I did not follow your point on our Army in Afghanistan. Where once under the Taliban, Karzai's own father, himself a known drug cartel leader, was executed by the Taliban, now that son is in charge, the illegal drug market going on under the observation of that Military Presence, has reach new highs. So are you saying our Army in Afghanistan has failed, or that some how keeping the peace while growing drugs is the solution?
Rich posted at 2:11 pm on Sat, Dec 4, 2010.
Dale,
Just have the army commandeer the drugs, undercut the illegal market here and establish regular import channels. Afghans are hardly in a position to complain.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:20 pm on Sat, Dec 4, 2010.
Rich,
You maintain that the Afghans are hardly in a position to complain about a US effort to seize the opium being grown in the South? Not hardly. Perhaps Accuracy can help you understand the dynamics. Where the Taliban executed Karzai's father before 9-11 for his being a drug exporter, now that they need money, the Taliban have become exporters themselves. One of McChrystal's most vexing frustrations was trying unsuccessfully to stem the production of opium popies. The only reason Afghanis might not complain is that they have little over which to complain. It's "Katty bar the door" in the Afghan drug market and we can't seem to stem the tide there. Should we withdraw our troops and send them to Mexico? We can't stem the demand. We love our opium. Nor can we stop the supply! All we seem to be able to do is vote in politicians as naive as Brewer and Pearce. But wait, just maybe we are the ones who are naive.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:23 pm on Sat, Dec 4, 2010.
On second thought, Rich, perhaps you are echoing my earlier pieces advocating in jest that we legalize the drug trade and tax it. Perhaps after a few more years of failure, our attitudes about drugs will change. After all, it took crime and street violence to re-legalize alcohol![beam]
LinMesa posted at 8:50 pm on Sat, Dec 4, 2010.
I believe Joe Arpaio first ran for the office of county sheriff on the basis of his experience with and work in DEA. He was elected but what has he done since then to help with the drug problem? He wanted more room in the jails for illegal immigrants. Why not use that space to lock up drug suppliers, dealers---and users? That would be a much more useful job for MCSO. He could even go back down and help Babieu try and stop the drugs coming in.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:15 am on Sun, Dec 5, 2010.
LinMesa,
Unlike most all of his predecessors, Sheriff Joe was a career law enforcement official, a politician practicing inside a government bureauocracy. His idea of working with the County Commissioners on the problem of jail overcrowding was to build Tent City, the move which propelled him to national prominence.
Whether you like Sheriff Joe or not, you cannot knock his success as a politician. But knock Sheriff Joe and he knocks back! Hardly a Maricopa County Judge there is who does not worry about getting on Sheriff Joe's wrong side. All hail Caesar!
Rich posted at 6:28 pm on Sun, Dec 5, 2010.
Sorry, the censorship of the Trib is making arguments and discussions impossible to understand logically and unable to mount as dialectic. They are obviously idiots, but they do want the radical fringe audience and so create babble to get it. The point is, quite simply, you don't do things halfway and expect results. You want to stop the Afghans growing poppies drop a nuclear missile in their poppy fields. If you don't want to do that, don't get involved with trying to stop them, you'll only lose. And yes our armed forces are more than equal to taking over the poppies if we wish to. We're a nuclear power, Afghani warlords aren't. With control there, we control the Mexican cartels here.
It's not really hard, if you're not willing to commit to total war, don't commit at all, you'll only kill your children and fail to further your aims.
As to Joe, admittedly a great politician, but look at the stats, as a sheriff he sucks big time. Why didn't he run for Superintent of Mines or something?
Dale Whiting posted at 9:13 pm on Wed, Dec 8, 2010.
Rich, were you around when Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1964? Not unlike you espouse, Barry wanted to use Nucs in Vietnam, too. It was go in whole hog to win or get out. We got out, but not until loosing 50,000 men in that folly!
Here is the deal, gang. Nucs are not weapons of war!!!! They are weapons of mass destruction. Historically war was used to gain territory or over throw governments which were causing trouble to others. Nucs do not and cannot carry forward these objectives. When used unilaterally, nucs alienate the entire world against the user. When nuclear retaliation occurs, we all loose.
Here is the rest of the deal. One cannot fight terrorism with boots on the ground. But that is a sermon of great length fit for another day.