Comment by kjksf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kjksf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If you want to play the blame game, US is more to blame because that's where the money comes from. US could stop that by legalizing drugs and therefore cutting of source of cartel's income.

Columbia's sin is that it's poor and there's hardly anything they can do about it.

If you think that US is morally superior to "weak, corrupt" Columbia, consider this: during prohibition "Al Capone bought legal immunity by administering bribes to police and politicians. He practically paid off every law enforcement agent and politician in the districts in which he operated his illegal businesses." (source: http://www.umich.edu/~eng217/student_projects/nkazmers/organ...).

There's no escaping economics.

If your opponent (be it Al Capone or Pablo Escobar) can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on bribes, he will beat you unless you have billions to spend on counter measures.

And if you think that "it was then, it wouldn't happen in US today", consider Citizens United or net neutrality repeal, paid for with legal bribes by large corporations against the wishes of majority of citizens.

Comcast doesn't do anything illegal so they don't have to hide their activities the way drug lords do but the underlying mechanic is the same: they have millions to spend and they figured out a way to spend it to buy legislation that is good for them from "weak and corrupt" US Government.

To reiterate: the issue is not moral failing of Columbia or Mexico but a simple fact that rich and powerful always find a way to corrupt the system.

The bigger the imbalance of power, the bigger the corruption. In extreme cases you get extremely rich actors (drug cartels) operating in a relatively poor countries.

We should be thankful that US is a rich country so it can win at least against violent criminals but let's not kid ourselves: US is plenty corrupted.

Don't forget that the weak governments in South America exist in part due to USA interfere.

It's a strange form of chauvinism to assert that the US is responsible not only for it's misdeeds, but also the misdeeds and deficiencies of others. By claiming that the US is more responsible for the problems of Columbia than Columbians are, you tacitly deny them agency.

I would never say the US is without corruption, but it is less corrupt than Columbia. I don't think that's a function of wealth, there are poorer countries less corrupt than the US.

However, regardless of the corruption of the US, Columbia - the government and cartels operating there, are responsible for their own misdeeds. The money comes from America - sure. So legalize the drug trade in Columbia and handle it that way, or stamp out the cartels. What's not acceptable is to allow the cartels to corrupt and corrode society and commit evil on innocent people.

Do you know why Columbia can't just legalize drugs in a meaningful way?

Because US won't let them.

Source: Obama Administration (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/americas/obama-says-...).

I imagine if Obama was opposed then anti-marijuana Jeff Session is super extra opposed.

Do you know why Columbia can't just "stamp out the cartels"?

Because US spent billions helping Columbia do just that and they failed. For decades they tried every tactic you can imagine: destroying crops, military raids etc.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

By that definition trying to stamp out cartels by force is insanity.

We know you can't do it.

Columbia has as much chance of destroying cartels as US has getting Americans to stop doing drugs.

BTW: the really bad violence in Columbia started when US pressured Columbia to create a law allowing extradition of narcos to U.S. Escobar started a wave of violence against the government trying to pressure it into eliminating the law.

Let's not be naive here: Columbia agreed to US demands because US was even bigger threat to them than narcos.

My point is not to argue that Columbia has no part in the mess.

But I would assign much bigger part of the blame to US.

US was an architect and a sponsor of Columbia's failed war on cartels. A DEA agent participated in the raid that killed Pablo Escobar. US Special Forces were training Columbian anti-drug army. US supplied military equipment and billions of dollars to be used to fight drug lords.

Failure to eliminate drug trade in Colombia is as much U.S. failure as it is Columbia failure.

US, not Columbia, spent last 45 years championing failed drug policies internationally.

We won't have meaningful change until most countries legalize drugs and most countries won't do it unless U.S. also does it.

All roads lead to Rome. Or in this case Washington, DC.

There's people in Colombia literally starving and with no roof, and they can make a living by moving drugs. This is financed by [some] US citizens.

I'd put the responsibility on the one dishing out the money, not the person who's just trying to literally avoid living on the streets.

When there's a willing buyer and seller, aren't they both responsible for the consequences of the transaction? Blame is not zero-sum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com