This isn't really about the war on drugs, but about the tradition in Mexico, not uniquely more than most countries, that literally every state organ is involved in criminal activity, and is in many ways indistinguishable from the crime cartels. It varies a lot across the country, but this has been true for a lot of Mexico's history. It may look crazy to us, but the political establishment has always been a part of whatever makes money in Mexico; it just happens to be drugs these days.
The sad part is how cheaply the lives of these young people, including the future school teachers of this part of Mexico, were thrown away. In a podunk place like Iguala, where literally every state and local was on the payroll with the cartels, the apparent desperation at having a drug-carrying bus discovered galvanized not just the police, not just the 27th Battalion, but EVERYBODY, to slaughter anybody they could find on a bus. They appear to have been more organized about this mass murder than they were about anything else in their sorry careers "protecting" the people of Mexico.
Every time I feel disgusted about the state of politics in the United States, I should remind myself of what Churchill said about our system: it's the worst, except for all the others.
Yes but the more money at stake, the more violence is fueled. There's a big difference between corrupt traffic cops (Mexico in the 70s) and narcos cutting the heads off of dozens of bodies and hanging them from an overpass (Mexico today). The Zetas never would have formed if it weren't for the billions of dollars available from cartel activities. The US can't legalize drugs soon enough for me, and I don't even drink alcohol.
Often a feeling that (insert first world country) is absolutely terrible is cured by a visit to any third world or developing country. What you are describing is hardly unique to Mexico.
It is like telling a friend who just got a great job that they shouldn't be happy because there are other people who won the lottery or had far greater success stories. (I did reverse it from negatives to positives.)
Make sure to reverse all applicable portions of the argument, or it won't make sense (and even then it's not necessary that the reverse be true for the argument to be true).
It's more akin to a friend who has a terrible job spending a few days working at a good job and realizing their job is terrible (to keep it reversed), or like a friend that has a good job but thinks it's terrible spending a few days actually working a terrible job and realizing how good theirs is (to keep the argument the same as AJ007 presented).
No, because the original view was still of something bad (corrupt first world governments). They aren't as bad as something else (corrupt second/third world governments), but they aren't good.
So using jobs, it is like having a job where you have to often pull 60 hours weeks and then having to spend a few days helping a friend pulling 80 hour weeks (with same compensation). Even then, the 60 hour weeks being the norm is a bad thing and saying that someone shouldn't feel bad about it doesn't make sense.
It's all about relative experience. Your 60 hour a week job may not be good, but you may be able to see and appreciate the parts that aren't as bad as what you've now seen, and even a great job may not look as good after you've experienced the perfect job.
And to be clear, I don't think the cure for thinking that "(insert first world country) is absolutely terrible" is now good, just that it's relatively better than the initial assessment.
To get back to your original response, it's like telling your happy friend they shouldn't be absolutely content because yes, there are people out there that are doing better financially (assuming you are willing to equate financial success to happiness). It won't make them happier, but it will make their outlook more realistic (which isn't always a good thing). But again, reversing the statement like that doesn't preserve it's logical attributes. e.g. If A implies B, you can't infer that B implies A..
>> The sad part is how cheaply the lives of these young people, including the future school teachers of this part of Mexico, were thrown away.
This is what gets me about Mexico. There's simply no value to human life there anymore. It's so depressing seeing what's happening there. The corruption is so deep and so ingrained in their culture, I can't even fathom how they will ever get better.
How can it get better: Legalize drugs and drug trafficking. It's not a perfect solution, but it would take away much of the reason for the narco-gangs existence; as well as the corruption of the government/police/military.
I think it's too late for that to be a solution for crime. What would these criminal groups do if they lose their drug revenue stream? Go and find a job? I doubt it. They'll just diversify their criminal activities.
> The U.S. government is directly responsible for these and all drug war deaths.
Directly? That's a reach. Many factors lead to a situation like this, and US policy may have contributed, but don't diminish the part played by the people actually murdering and ordering the murdering.
The sad part is how cheaply the lives of these young people, including the future school teachers of this part of Mexico, were thrown away. In a podunk place like Iguala, where literally every state and local was on the payroll with the cartels, the apparent desperation at having a drug-carrying bus discovered galvanized not just the police, not just the 27th Battalion, but EVERYBODY, to slaughter anybody they could find on a bus. They appear to have been more organized about this mass murder than they were about anything else in their sorry careers "protecting" the people of Mexico.
Every time I feel disgusted about the state of politics in the United States, I should remind myself of what Churchill said about our system: it's the worst, except for all the others.