Lmao. Awesome. I doubt Perry was asking permission though.

Leave it up to a Bible-thumping "Christian" Republican to shill for committing our grossly in debt government to squander the taxes of untold future generations of US taxpayers. Typical!

Why in the hell does Rick Perry, or anybody, for that matter, think they can kill their way out of this?

There's this simple-minded notion, that it's all about 'getting the bad guys.' That these things happen because of 'bad people,' and if you can't lock up all the 'bad guys,' you can kill them all and then the things they do won't happen anymore.

There is no slaughtering our way out of this, or any other problem.

This kind of thinking is just one of many, many ways in which Rick Perry has it exactly backward about America, and one huge example of why he should never be President.

Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Afghanistan with their coca leaves, marijuana buds or poppy sap are not igniting temptation in the minds of our weak, innocent citizens. These countries are duly responding to the enormous demand that comes from within our own borders. Invading or destroying these countries, thus creating more hate, violence, instability, injustice and corruption, will not fix our problem. We need to collectively admit that we are sick. -- Prohibition is neither a sane nor a safe approach; left unabated, its puritanical flames will surely engulf every last one of us!

When we legally regulate something, (as opposed to when we foolishly attempt to prohibit something) we do NOT automatically condone it's use; the legal regulations concerning the sale and manufacture of alcohol and tobacco are there to protect us from the vast increase in criminality and mayhem that would otherwise surely exist if we were foolish enough to prohibit them.

Nicotine is the biggest killer of all known drugs, but it's sale is legally regulated. Now why is that? Alcohol Prohibition in the United States made cigarette smoking a national habit. High on the evangelicals' hit list, second only to alcohol as a substance that had to be prohibited. In 1921, cigarettes were illegal in fourteen states, and anti-cigarette bills were pending in twenty-eight others. The prohibition of cigarettes, promoted by the very people who gave us the prohibition of alcohol, made cigarette smoking almost irresistible. As the experiment of Prohibition failed, the anti-cigarette laws fell. By 1930, they were legal almost everywhere; during Prohibition, the consumption of tobacco had nearly tripled.

An important aspect of Individual freedom is the right to self-medicate, or to do with yourself as you please as long as your actions cause no unnecessary suffering or direct harm to others. Some among us may disagree with this, and they should be free to believe what they wish. But the moment they are willing to use force (paid for with our own hard-earned taxes) to impose their will on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation. The problems created by any possible self-harm then rapidly pale into insignificance as society spirals downwards into a dark abyss, while the most shady characters and black-market corporate entities exponentially enrich themselves in a feeding frenzy likened to that of piranhas on 'prohibition engendered' bath-tub meth.

When governments prohibit drugs they effectively and knowingly hand a monopoly on their sale to dangerous criminals and terrorists. Without a legal framework in which to operate, these black-market entities can always be expected to settle their disputes violently, while terrorizing many peaceful and innocent citizens in the process. Were the users of alcohol to blame for the St Valentines massacre in 1929? Of course not! It is just as naive to assume that one can compel all the users of Marijuana or Cocaine to simply quit, as it is to assume that all the users of Alcohol should have stopped drinking after the introduction of alcohol prohibition in 1919.

One look at blogdelnarco.com and the gruesome videos of beheadings with chainsaws, dead children, civilians being caught in the cross-fire, and it's plenty easy to see that Mexico is nowhere near managing their war on drugs.

Corrupt politicians, police hired by the cartels and the inertia by an ineffective president, have contributed to  a country out of control.

Rick Perry is the only one who is running for president that has any balls to say it like it should be. Obama won't do it, but if Perry were to become president and sent troops into Mexico- he'd not only solve their problem, but he'd have an impact on the problem in the US- cutting the supply chain for the insatiable appetite of Americans for drugs.

So go ahead Perry, send in those troops when you become President. US troops, trained to kill, and combat ready, would certainly put an obliterative dent in the cartels, killing these criminals who run Mexico. That is the only way to stop this- the Mexican army is about useless.

This is about the most rationale thing any Presidental candidate has said about the war on drugs. Good for Perry. Send em in, and kill em all.

That would teach them.

Why take a militaristic approach?  Taking a public health approach in the US will be far more effective, and less costly than a militaristic one.  Except for marihuana(since marihuana has a low addiction liability, its use is spread across the masses), the vast majority of illicit drugs are consumed by a small percent of users that have a brain disease called addiction. Move the care of those to the public health sector, provide adequate treatment, and demand in Mexico will evaporate--thus solving most of the problem.  At least it will become manageable so that their government can handle. The Mexico drug issue is just another example of our failed "war on drugs" and how the ramifications are spilling over into another country--not just ours. The impact on our society is just as pernicious, but not as obvious.  The impact on our society is in the schools, courts, prisons, welfare system, child welfare, etc. Incarcerating those suffering from addiction is like shooting ourselves in the foot.

It's about high level agreements with the Ruling Families in Mexico and NAFTA and Subsidizing from U.S. in Drug War. If troops go over the boarder, the problem might get fixed, or not, but interference in the agreements between the Ruling families and the Drug Cartels will have problems. Since the second highest $ input is kidnapping ransom scheme, the Ruling Families have agreements with the Cartels,, these would go away if the Amercans cross the boarder. Pandemonium, beyond what we are seeing now, would exist for the ruling Families and Mexican Govt at higher levels.

The Ruling Families can sit it out to some degree, but Govt. Officials, selected by the Ruling Families would have a hard time justifying current situations.

It's nice, someone is yet again "volunteering" U.S. Military "Assistance", but lets face it.. the corruption throughout Mexico is not going to allow interference from the U.S., thinking anything to the contrary is just getting caught up in the rhetoric. Does anyone really think the Ruling Families will change, or their paid for elected Govt. Officials or the Military corruption.

The only way"things" will change, "south of the Boarder" is if Mexico became part of the Union of United States., Not gonna happen..