I'd much rather the Mexican people deal with the Cartel than the United States. I wasn't suggesting a U.S. Invasion. Clearly it's difficult to solve someone else's problem. If the overwhelming majority of the Afghan people wanted the Taliban gone, and they had U.S. support, and we didn't fuck a bunch of stuff up, then of course we could have rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. If the Afghans legitimately trusted us, and supported us in large enough numbers, the Taliban would have had trouble finding even caves to hide in.
Also I never made any claim that the "average" drug user was a child, just that it is a huge problem. The drug addicts that you know might have been adults when they first started using, but without exception, every one of the dozens of drug addicts I know started as a teenager. I can only speak from personal experience.
Feigning ignorance to the fact that there is an epidemic of children in our country becoming addicted to drugs is the most "woefully misinformed" thing I've ever heard. Just because someone wants to be pro-legalization, doesn't mean they have to ignore reality.
Edit: Apparently I have a habit of using the terms drug addict and drug user interchangeably. No offense was intended by this and I'll try to be more specific in the future. I understand that there is a distinct difference.
It still sounds like you think of a 'typical drug user' as an addict. I think the point was that a good portion of drugs are consumed by fairly responsible, recreational users.
Just because I was talking about addicts, doesn't mean that I think every drug user is a stereotypical addict. Likewise, just because I said that a large number of kids are getting addicted to drugs, doesn't mean that I said that all drug users started as children. Initially, I just mentioned that there is an absurd number of children being exposed to extremely harmful drugs before they are old enough to legitimately make a decision for themselves. There are drugs that are relatively harmless and then there are drugs that will literally destroy your life in a short amount of time, like Meth or Crack. On a personal level I don't really care what a consenting adult does as long as they keep it off the roads, out of the workplace, and as long as it doesn't cause them to mistreat, abuse, or neglect their families.
I've encountered many types of drug users in my lifetime. Several years ago we let my brother in law live with us for 6 months because he was homeless and trying to get off of heroin. He started doing hard drugs as a young teenager because his adopted parents were abusive drug addicts. We watched him regain his health only to have him get addicted to pain medication just a few months after he moved away.
On the other side of the spectrum, I've run into people who have used drugs for 30-40 years for recreational purposes, while enjoying a happy marriage, successful kids, and a steady job.
If you know that the money you spend on your recreational drug flows to drug cartels and funds murder and torture, then yes, you are a "responsible" user, responsible for murder and torture.
Don't buy the drugs and you starve the cartels. You don't have to wait for legalization to have a direct if small impact on murder and torture. Sure, campaign for legalization, but you can take direct action this minute.
The solution to the problem of money going to drug cartels isn't to get everyone to stop using drugs. That approach has been tried and failed spectacularly. When there are capitalistic, systemic problems with drugs and violence, we need to take a systemic approach and legalize and regulate drugs. Demand isn't going anywhere.
Overall demand may not be going anywhere, but any individual can decide that they don't want to send money for murder and torture. Or they can decide that they don't mind.
>If the overwhelming majority of the Afghan people wanted the Taliban gone, and they had U.S. support, and we didn't fuck a bunch of stuff up, then of course we could have rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. If the Afghans legitimately trusted us, and supported us in large enough numbers, the Taliban would have had trouble finding even caves to hide in.
Ugh. I would be nice if Americans could start learning the right lessons from their past mistakes. Listen, I'm rather sorry to tell you this, but just fuck off. Please.
Because the right lessons are self-evident and if you can't see that then there isn't much point in bashing my head against a wall trying to explain that, no, the reason you failed in Afghanistan and Iraq and, for that matter, Vietnam, isn't because of some failed public relations campaign.
(But I'll give it a go regardless.)
It's because, regardless of intent, war is hell, and eventually everyone will know someone who has had an arm blown off as collateral damage, or they'll read about the fifth wedding ceremony this year to have been accidentally vaporized by a cluster bomb. Everyone will either have been directly affected by, or at least know someone directly affected by, the ongoing civil war instigated and perpetuated by a foreign power. I mean, can you imagine if the Chinese tried to do nation building the US? No matter how bad it were to get in the States, people would resent that and they would be right to.
And it doesn't help that the US has a well-deserved reputation, in the Middle East and elsewhere, of propping up failed states run by ruthless, brutal dictators. You have no moral high ground to claim. None.
But honestly, this is just a basic, common sense thing. Your military should engage the armed forces of other countries when those armed forces pose some existential threat to you. In no other case is it appropriate. If you don't already know this it's because you are willfully ignorant to it. So, please just fuck off.
I never implied that it was a "failed public relations campaign" that took place in Afghanistan. I also didn't imply whether or not the U.S. was making the right decision to go into Afghanistan. My point in mentioning the lack of support of the Afghan people was pretty much the same thing you were saying. I wasn't suggesting that we needed to win them over, I was simply pointing out the fact that success was always impossible unless we had the support of the overwhelming majority. We didn't have the support, because the Afghan people (rightly) didn't want to engage in civil war, because war is a horrifying experience for anyone. As far as my statement that the war in Afghanistan was "winnable", I was speaking on a technical basis, making no claims whatsoever about the morality. I was also speaking on a technical basis when talking about the Drug Cartels. Other than saying the world would be far better off without such people, I made no claims about who should be responsible for making the decision to go to war with them. I acknowledged the drawbacks to it, and as you said, they are indeed obvious.
From a technical "whether or not it's possible" standpoint, If the majority of the Afghan people wanted to get rid of the Taliban badly enough to start a civil war on their own, the hundred thousand or so members of the Taliban would have found themselves facing an army of millions instead of a hundred thousand foreign soldiers who traveled to Afghanistan and found themselves in a world they didn't understand. The same goes for the situation in Mexico. I wasn't commenting because I think that it's my country's business to act as World Police, I just find it frustrating that somewhere around 200 million people were killed in genocides worldwide during the last century by people who are quite a bit like Hussein, Bin Laden, and the leaders of the Cartel. The world largely responds to situations like this by looking the other way when offered favorable trade agreements, or by stating that we should let other cultures live however they want, when it's never the people getting slaughtered that made the choice.
As far as the United States' policy of putting violent dictators in charge of failing nations, I, like most people in the United States, disapprove. I can't do anything to change it, but I accept the fact that it makes us look like douche-bags.
One more thing. Perhaps you feel like you are bashing your head against the wall when you try to explain your ideas because your hostility overwhelms whatever point you are trying to make. A little civility never hurt anyone.
Also I never made any claim that the "average" drug user was a child, just that it is a huge problem. The drug addicts that you know might have been adults when they first started using, but without exception, every one of the dozens of drug addicts I know started as a teenager. I can only speak from personal experience.
Feigning ignorance to the fact that there is an epidemic of children in our country becoming addicted to drugs is the most "woefully misinformed" thing I've ever heard. Just because someone wants to be pro-legalization, doesn't mean they have to ignore reality.
Edit: Apparently I have a habit of using the terms drug addict and drug user interchangeably. No offense was intended by this and I'll try to be more specific in the future. I understand that there is a distinct difference.