OReilly says
- Thread starter bdgan
- Start date
And yet, here we are awash in fentanyl and heroine.
The only thing about the entire situation I find fascinating is the notion that dealers can sell something that will kill all of their clients and see that as a good business model.
I'm not against taking harsh measures against big time drug smugglers, which would describe a lot of the criminals who are presently operating in Mexico.
What I AM opposed to is dropping bombs in another sovereign country without the clear consent of that country, no matter how laudable the purpose for dropping those bombs might be. Afghanistan is an exception to that given that they harbored and supported the people who took down the Twin Towers.
Drugs (particularly heroin and fentanyl) are a scourge, without doubt, But simply (and unilaterally) declaring these Mexican drug gangs "terrorists" and then sending in drones without the Mexican government's consent? No. Moreover, I can't believe it would be that difficult to get the Mexican government's consent and/or involvement in this kind of action. They already have occasional gun battles with these miscreants, no?
I never knew that Country A had to secure the blessings of Country B to appropriately and effectively address an external existential threat. Did Putin seek permission from Ukraine before attacking? Do the Israeli's and Palestinian's seek and grant mutual permissions before bombing each other?
You have a unique, and very polite, version of "conflict".
What's interesting about this entire conversation is that here Trump is looking at all options to help Americans avoid addiction and death.
"The drugs are coming from here. These drugs are killing our kids. Let's look at all options. We know who is doing this"
The state wants to spend billions on police and sniffing dogs. Not stop it at the source.
While not perfect, Trump should be seen here as acting on behalf of America.
LdN
Yes, it actually does. When have you lived in a border state? I've studied cartels for over 20 years. Lived in a border state for years. The fact is, we have no idea how much comes across the border. Furthermore, no one on this board has a clue regarding the affect this has on border communities. It is destroying them. You are clueless on this subject. Go live in Texas or Arizona and get back to me.
I think this is a legit statement that both sides should be able to respect and agree on.
I know you are stuck on economic with the drug dealing. Building a secure wall, which I am for, might help reduce drugs coming in a small degree, but in the grand scheme of things you wont see a big difference.
You know how I was saying the majority of coke and heorin comes from Italy via "Ndrangheta? "Ndrangheta has a rule that none of their drugs are to be "stepped on" by any middle men. Penalty for stepping on their product is death. They don't f'ck arround. Instead of making a larger profit by stepping on their drugs, they would rather sell it as pure as can be. I guess so people keep buying their product. This is why I am saying the economics of supply and demand would barely put a dent into reducing the drugs being dealt and bought.
I totally respect what you are saying and agree. I don't have to live by the border to realize how bad it must be for them. There has been a lot of testimony from people living on the border with no agenda other than telling the truth.
Yes, you actually do. Testimony is not reality. It's like folks talking about the Grand Canyon. City folks never get those on the ground. Not even close. One must get their hands dirty to understand. It's exactly why city folks whine like babies the moment their A/C goes out. Country folks just get it done. There is no time for whining. Ever hear a dairy farmer whine at 4am? Now, listen to pussies in the cities whine about their lattes...they're the tiktok generation of uselessness.
Last edited:
Ummmmm, no need. Build a wall. The volume of drugs will not change. As long as there is plenty of demand and money the drugs will enter this country one way or another.
I get that you and one or two others just can’t grasp that simple fact.
Well I guess that settles it. Less demand is necessary….so more Americans need to abandon their self-destructive, self-indulgent, leftist ways and embrace virtue, morality and conservative ideals.
Geez your tough even when I agree with you. When many, many people I have listened to say how bad it is living isn't that credible? I have an uncle, who recently passed that lived not far from the border and he said it was a mess and would describe certain things that went on.
In July I was at the DOC training Academy with a guy that was a dairy farmer. A dairy farmer has to be one of the toughest jobs in the world. Besides woring like 12 hour plus days, they can't take one day off. Can't go on a short vacation or the milk is ruined inside the cow.
Your caught up on the old saying....."you truly don't understand unless you experience it or live it yourself." But I am still saying of respect of how bad I here it is, I understand it sucks for them.
Yep. This is one commodity where supply chain disruption is welcomed.
That's because it refutes your whole argument of supply and economics when it comes to the drug war.
If someone like you is going to argue cartels bringing drugs into the country, maybe you should have an idea how cartels work, and you clearly don't. You are just another ignorant rightwing a-hole. I tried to be nice and infrom you because you honestly are misinformed, but it's pointless with ignorant right wingers like you.
You mentioned in your one diatribe how the less drugs would come to America if bla, bla. bla and along with the drugs being touched. I "tried" to explain to you the drugs are not "touched" or "stepped on" since you "thought" they were. And you respond like an ignorant child......"I don't care about your Keyser Sose stories"
What kind of an adult response is that? You know very little of how drugs work from where and how they are manufactured, where they are shipped to FIRST, how they get to the USA, what routes are used, what happens when they get to the USA, the prices, how much each group makes.
You know nothing of any of this but yet you act like you have all the answers. All of your ideas have been proven wrong.
You are a complete fool thinking a wall is going to have a major dent in stopping Americans get drugs. A complete fool. You keep applying simple logic as if the drug cartel business is a grocery store.
Hey folks bacon and milk went up today, so less people are buying.
Drug cartel. Hey the Americans built a wall and seized a shipment worth $50 mil. So what we have billion dollars of shipments coming from Europe and Canada.
I don't care that you dont care about "real" Kaiser Sose stories. Your f'en wall is not going to do sh1t when the majority of coke and heroin come from Europe and Canada.
Dude I don't need your make believe stories.
Show me where I said a wall would make a major dent?
Thanks
LOL, look at you. Now you are going to start to walk back your position.
Yes, you certainly implied it. Our arguement is a wall will not have any impact. I linked an article pointing out that even without a wall the southern border is not the corridor of choice for transporting drugs. Build the wall but expect the flow of drugs to always remain available to meet demand.
The wall has always been used as justification. Just watch a Dave McCormack ad on TV during this campaign. You folks fall for these simple notions time and again.
Where did you acknowledge a wall will do very little to stem the flow?
Last edited:
You just discovered that I never said or implied 'significantly' or 'major' didn't you?
You need to learn to read.
LdN
LOL, so what was your argument then regarding the wall and stopping the flow of drugs?
I didn't actually bring up the wall. I said border security.
However, with the wall my argument stands. A wall will reduce the supply of drugs into the US.
That will in turn mean less drug use.
LdN
I've read Tom Clancy. Tom Clancy is a novelist. If I recall the novel "Clear and Present Danger" where we go after the drug cartels in Columbia, the President was a crook and a putz.
yes! funny how reality follows art, isn't it?
"Clear and Present Danger" is a threshold to use USA military might. The idea is that "Clear and Present Danger" can be used to protect ourselves from powerful drug cartels just as it is against suspected terrorists in Yemen or Syria. It isn't outrageous for a president or cabinet member to discuss what clear and present danger, using military assets, against threats to the USA. In fact, I'd be disappointed if it wasn't considered. And, in the end, its potential use was used to get Mexico to protect our borders (which the current crook and putz isn't doing).
