Is that the same sovereignty that stopped the US from from drilling their oil after overthrowing their government?

It's odd reason given that narcotics are/were supposedly one of the principal sources of the Taliban’s financing.

What oil in afghanistan?

Even in iraq the oil reserves are managed by the iraqi ministry and went mostly to chinese companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Iraq_relations#R... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-rea...

We all moved on after finding out there were no weapons of mass destruction without even an "oops" from the public, so I wouldn't hold your breath on anyone launching a successful campaign there- still, if that's true, I would really like to see someone make a documentary or some articles about it in a format the masses will see. Could be really compelling to people not typically reached by advocates of drug reform.

Sovereignty and the concept of hostile action/influence on life can make the line blurry.

If, through inaction, violent warlords displace thousands or millions of people, are the destination countries not adversely affected? The US has millions of economic and war-affected Mexican refugees.

Same with Syria... should Germany, Turkey, Greece, etc. say "Syria is sovereign, nothing we can do" when their countries are being overrun?

The US should look to improve life in Mexico and reduce cartel power first through economic and peaceful political means, and then, PERHAPS and after much thought, bombing the shit out of every cartel leader on the same night, Godfather style. I'm only half kidding.

> The US has millions of economic and war-affected Mexican refugees.

This is false. According to the DHS, less than 1400 refugees have been granted asylum between fiscal years 2013 to 2015 (inclusive) [1].

> Same with Syria... should Germany, Turkey, Greece, etc. say "Syria is sovereign, nothing we can do" when their countries are being overrun?

Why not?

> The US should look to improve life in Mexico and reduce cartel power first through economic and peaceful political means, and then, PERHAPS and after much thought, bombing the shit out of every cartel leader on the same night, Godfather style. I'm only half kidding.

Doesn't seem like what the current administration is doing, though.

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2015/tab...

I used the refugee term in the sense of "they came here to escape poverty and gang wars", not "the State Dept allowed them in".

And "Why not"? Because of my point: Syrian war is having a very real, direct impact on the other countries, and is violating the Non-Aggression Principle. So even if someone is a Libertarian or non-absolute Pacifist, it could be argued those countries most affected by refugees have the right to self-defense against Syrian combatants.

I was thinking of police corruption myself.