Did Mexico just threaten the U.S? (Mexican, illegal, drugs)

[Yuptag]

So the NYT reports on a speech made by the Mexican president. Supposedly, he wants to have some countermeasures in negotiations and says:

“We will bring to the table all themes,” [president Enrique Peña Nieto] said in a speech [on Jan 23]. “Trade, yes, but also migration and the themes of security, including border security, terrorist threats and the traffic of illegal drugs, weapons and cash.”

As I read that I ask myself: Huh, terrorist threats? Huh, traffic of illegal drugs, weapons and cash? Sounds to me like a threat, but perhaps I am just misconstruing the phrases. In the next paragraph, the NYT carefully explains all:

"His hope is that by introducing broader uncertainty about the bilateral relationship — Will Mexico still cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking? Will it stop foreign terrorists from using Mexico as a way station into the United States?"

Hmmm, yeah. Really, Mexico? The plan is to let Mexico be used as a way station for terrorists into the United States? Really? Wow! What a great neighbor!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/b...ree-trade.html


P.S. where is the NYT looking to clarify the remarks from Mexican president's office? Not that I can find it in that article.

[BBMW]

Ironically, if we wall off Mexico, at some point we're likely going to have to annex it, since it would likely collapse into a completely failed state, and we'll need to stabilize it.

[TwoByFour]

Nah, that is not a threat. It is good old fashioned negotiation. He is saying there is value in Mexico stopping terrorists and he wants that value to be recognized by Trump.

[Yuptag]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Ironically, if we wall off Mexico, at some point we're likely going to have to annex it, since it would likely collapse into a completely failed state, and we'll need to stabilize it.

Obama conducted foreign policy by droning wedding parties. That policy seemed to be ok with the Democratic Party. So, perhaps if Trump drones actual terrorists hiding in the shadows of a failed Mexico, he would be doing one better than Obama.

[Yuptag]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

Nah, that is not a threat. It is good old fashioned negotiation. He is saying there is value in Mexico stopping terrorists and he wants that value to be recognized by Trump.

Mexico should be stopping terrorists any way.

[elan]

The New York Times isn't a reliable news source. I'd have to read the full transcript of the speech.

[madison999]

Originally Posted by TwoByFour

Nah, that is not a threat. It is good old fashioned negotiation. He is saying there is value in Mexico stopping terrorists and he wants that value to be recognized by Trump.

That's how I read it

[DUNNDFRNT]

I think he is just spelling out what most people already know. The reason you help stabilize or give aid to countries is so they become allies and help you with a common cause. That's their hand to play, but anyway we shouldn't worry because the wall stops all.

[WIHS2006]

Originally Posted by BBMW

Ironically, if we wall off Mexico, at some point we're likely going to have to annex it, since it would likely collapse into a completely failed state, and we'll need to stabilize it.

Ive consistently said that at the end of the day it would be cheaper to simply annex Mexico than spend untold trillions on a wall and mass deportations. Of course, the Republicans are more interested in duping their followers into thinking the scary Brown foreigner is the source of all their woes. It's easier that way, the base is all up in arms about minorities while they give away the bank to their Wall Street allies. Divide and conquer.

[Dockside]

Lets be honest here, Trump has Mexican politicos peeing down their pant's legs. It's been awhile since America asserted itself and Mexico is used to Obama saying one thing while doing nothing. There's a big scramble going on in Mexico right now.