Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Okay. Why don't you type what you mean. It is not difficult.

So what rules should we have about who to kill?

---

What he is saying that he would rather kill 50,000 Americans than blow up a boatload of Fentanyl with drug runners aboard. Good trade if you are in the Cartel business. Porteroso is not a Critical Thinker

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-strikes-another-boat-accused-of-carrying-drugs-near-venezuela-killing-6-trump-says

---

Luv em.

Hope Trump eventually bombs the living **** out of all the major drug labs throughout central and south America.

Would save the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans.

---

You comfortable that they are "drug dealers?" What if they aren't?

---

My gut tells me there was hard intel coming from within the country regarding these boats.

---

Mine tells me those boats do not have the fuel capacity to travel from Venezuela to the US.

I'd also like to see China better control the production and movement of the chemicals used to make fentanyl.

Until they (China) do, I bet we won't be bombing their ships.

---

Pray tell ... what where they doing? Did we miss the Venezuela Regatta? Fishing? Water skiing for tren de agua? Fundraiser for a Maryland dad?

---

You'll never know. That's the point.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Okay. Why don't you type what you mean. It is not difficult.

So what rules should we have about who to kill?

---

We already have rules. Just follow them...it's not difficult.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

a This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

I think that in exigent circumstances, such as discovering a speedboat with armed men in an area known to be full of hatred towards Americans, a military commander should have authority to order the use of force. And since the President is Commander-in-Chief, he naturally would be the logical choice to direct the on-scene commander in his available options.

---

Philosophical questions that may arise from your position for discussion.

• Does this extend to international waters? Within the 12 mile National waters of other Nations?
• Are other Nations allowed to not like us without getting blown up?
• If so, do you think it is OK for American boats to be blown up in Asian or African waters because the other Nation thinks it is carrying something they don't like?
• Do we now put our Merchant fleet on alert?
• How are we any different than the Pirates we fight off of Africa targeting ships we don't like or think are carrying drugs?
• Do we follow International Law?
• If we are "good" with "might makes right" because we are the strongest, what happens in areas we may not be the strongest? If China, Russia or another Nation comes up with a weapon stronger do we defer to them blowing up who they want? Afterall, we are no longer NeoCon Globalist that want to project power around the World, so to save money we are pulling back.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-strikes-another-boat-accused-of-carrying-drugs-near-venezuela-killing-6-trump-says

---

Luv em.

Hope Trump eventually bombs the living **** out of all the major drug labs throughout central and south America.

Would save the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans.

---

You comfortable that they are "drug dealers?" What if they aren't?

---

My gut tells me there was hard intel coming from within the country regarding these boats.

---

Mine tells me those boats do not have the fuel capacity to travel from Venezuela to the US.

I'd also like to see China better control the production and movement of the chemicals used to make fentanyl.

Until they (China) do, I bet we won't be bombing their ships.

---

Pray tell ... what where they doing? Did we miss the Venezuela Regatta? Fishing? Water skiing for tren de agua? Fundraiser for a Maryland dad?

---

Why should we care? We know they weren't approaching our shores with drugs.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

I'm fine with it especially since Venezuela
Amd Mexico have been warned about drugs and still do it

---

As long as boats have drugs.

---

Is that a capital offense?

---

no, but its something. i would rather argue capital vs non-capital than "we think they were criminals". right now, we dont even have that

---

You have next to nothing on any security intelligence and action. You seem to draw the line for drug boats.

TDSers pull stuff out of their hypocritical butts to get offended about. Sure the admin could be lying, but why? You think they just targeted "fishermen" in speedboats and subsurface boats? They didn't even have to show us the footage. The boats could just be "dissappeared". But they're clearly trying to send a message to the drug dealers and the nations that are controlled by drug dealers.
Its a lot simpler to believe that we actually have assets and intelligence regarding the drug suppliers, than to believe we're just randomly targeting boats with fishermen.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-strikes-another-boat-accused-of-carrying-drugs-near-venezuela-killing-6-trump-says

---

Luv em.

Hope Trump eventually bombs the living **** out of all the major drug labs throughout central and south America.

Would save the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans.

---

You comfortable that they are "drug dealers?" What if they aren't?

---

My gut tells me there was hard intel coming from within the country regarding these boats.

---

Mine tells me those boats do not have the fuel capacity to travel from Venezuela to the US.

I'd also like to see China better control the production and movement of the chemicals used to make fentanyl.

Until they (China) do, I bet we won't be bombing their ships.

---

Pray tell ... what where they doing? Did we miss the Venezuela Regatta? Fishing? Water skiing for tren de agua? Fundraiser for a Maryland dad?

---

Why should we care? We know they weren't approaching our shores with drugs.

---

Why should we care about Ukraine? Russia wasn't approaching our shores with weapons?

I guess you don't care if brown people die of drug overdoses.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Okay. Why don't you type what you mean. It is not difficult.

So what rules should we have about who to kill?

---

We already have rules. Just follow them...it's not difficult.

---

We are. It is not difficult.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

STxBear81 said:

---

I'm fine with it especially since Venezuela
Amd Mexico have been warned about drugs and still do it

---

As long as boats have drugs.

---

Is that a capital offense?

---

no, but its something. i would rather argue capital vs non-capital than "we think they were criminals". right now, we dont even have that

---

You have next to nothing on any security intelligence and action. You seem to draw the line for drug boats.

TDSers pull stuff out of their hypocritical butts to get offended about. Sure the admin could be lying, but why? You think they just targeted "fishermen" in speedboats and subsurface boats? They didn't even have to show us the footage. The boats could just be "dissappeared". But they're clearly trying to send a message to the drug dealers and the nations that are controlled by drug dealers.
Its a lot simpler to believe that we actually have assets and intelligence regarding the drug suppliers, than to believe we're just randomly targeting boats with fishermen.

---

So, add the "Security Intelligence" to the conversation. What Star Chamber is reviewing the Intel? How are we reconciling the Intel with the boats in real time? As I said, if you are going to treat Drugs as terrorist now the SAME resources have to be used to determine who we are killing. (You ignore 90% of my comments only focusing on what fits the MAGA line, but that is who you are)

You seem to have a problem with reconciling what the Hellfire blew up, who was in it and how it matches the Intel data that identified the mission. You seem to prefer, it goes fast, it is around South America, blow it up...

We have not heard from ANY Congressional oversight showing that these missions were successful besides a nice pyro technique display.

Why are you so against oversight to show HOW we are determining WHO to blow up and if we are actually doing it. Otherwise, it is not anti-terror, it is law enforcement and that is a problem without some type of due process.

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

BearFan33 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

---

You would think we would have seen something on the media besides Paul's claim. Until I do, I'm calling BS

Assassin said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

---

You would think we would have seen something on the media besides Paul's claim. Until I do, I'm calling BS

---

If the media had any scintilla of credible (or not completely incredible) evidence that we'd blown up a fishing boat, that's all we'd be hearing about 24/7.

Like it says in the Constitution, always presume the government is honest. It's the press you have to worry about!

we have resumed our irregularly scheduled bombing.

thank you for drug running.

- los fueros armados del gobierno estadounidense

d!

go bears!!

.@POTUS on potential land strikes against drug-runners: "We will hit them very hard when they come in by land, and they haven't experienced that yet but now we're totally prepared to do that." pic.twitter.com/auepQKpWcX

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 22, 2025

Assassin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Okay. Why don't you type what you mean. It is not difficult.

So what rules should we have about who to kill?

---

What he is saying that he would rather kill 50,000 Americans than blow up a boatload of Fentanyl with drug runners aboard. Good trade if you are in the Cartel business. Porteroso is not a Critical Thinker

---

This sort of mindless projection is insane. What if Russia started going around and bombing all the American yachts with weed on board. I'm sure you'd critically think your way into opposing it.

Porteroso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Okay. Why don't you type what you mean. It is not difficult.

So what rules should we have about who to kill?

---

What he is saying that he would rather kill 50,000 Americans than blow up a boatload of Fentanyl with drug runners aboard. Good trade if you are in the Cartel business. Porteroso is not a Critical Thinker

---

This sort of mindless projection is insane. What if Russia started going around and bombing all the American yachts with weed on board. I'm sure you'd critically think your way into opposing it.

---

Like I said you're not a critical thinker. That's okay, like you said, I'm not either. I agree.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

a This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

I think that in exigent circumstances, such as discovering a speedboat with armed men in an area known to be full of hatred towards Americans, a military commander should have authority to order the use of force. And since the President is Commander-in-Chief, he naturally would be the logical choice to direct the on-scene commander in his available options.

---

Philosophical questions that may arise from your position for discussion.

• Does this extend to international waters? Within the 12 mile National waters of other Nations?
• Are other Nations allowed to not like us without getting blown up?
• If so, do you think it is OK for American boats to be blown up in Asian or African waters because the other Nation thinks it is carrying something they don't like?
• Do we now put our Merchant fleet on alert?
• How are we any different than the Pirates we fight off of Africa targeting ships we don't like or think are carrying drugs?
• Do we follow International Law?
• If we are "good" with "might makes right" because we are the strongest, what happens in areas we may not be the strongest? If China, Russia or another Nation comes up with a weapon stronger do we defer to them blowing up who they want? Afterall, we are no longer NeoCon Globalist that want to project power around the World, so to save money we are pulling back.

---

OK, so one at a time, then:

Does this extend to international waters? Within the 12 mile National waters of other Nations?

Well, which do you mean? International waters is kind of the opposite of recognized national waters, and conditions are very different.

Are other Nations allowed to not like us without getting blown up?

Of course, as I am sure you know. The difference is when other nations support, even promote groups which are a threat to millions of Americans.

If so, do you think it is OK for American boats to be blown up in Asian or African waters because the other Nation thinks it is carrying something they don't like?

A question like that suggests you have no knowledge of History in any practical context. Many nations have used their military to support national policy in ways we don't like. I'm just not sure why you imagine we don't have the right to use force to defend our interests.

Do we now put our Merchant fleet on alert?

Ahhh, Hysteria has entered the chat.

How are we any different than the Pirates we fight off of Africa targeting ships we don't like or think are carrying drugs?

Again you prove no knowledge of History. How do you not know that one of the earliest uses of the US Navy was eradicating pirates from the Barbary Coast then the Caribbean, in cooperation with the Royal Navy?
Until you go back and learn that, you only make yourself look ignorant and conceited.

Do we follow International Law?

Which law do you mean? You need to be specific, because all Law depends on a governing authority, and it must be clear, accessible and accepted by all stakeholders. The problem with people clutching pearls and shrieking 'international law', is that in many case there is no relevant law to apply. The cartels have used that vacuum to operate openly in international waters, in the belief that no one could or would have the brass to counter them there. They guessed wrong, at long last.

If we are "good" with "might makes right" because we are the strongest, what happens in areas we may not be the strongest? If China, Russia or another Nation comes up with a weapon stronger do we defer to them blowing up who they want? Afterall, we are no longer NeoCon Globalist that want to project power around the World, so to save money we are pulling back

That "question" was just poorly disguised propaganda. To your first claim, China has done whatever it wanted in Asian waters for decades, including simply seizing territory from other nations, most notably Japan and Vietnam. Russia has also simply taken what it wanted, and did its utmost to bully every nation they could not force outright. So please stop pretending that using force to advance US interests will lead to bad behavior from others: they have done it all along.

As for 'stronger weapons', do I really need to remind you that Beijing, Moscow, Teheran and many other centers of power have sought a means to not merely defeat, but destroy the United States if they could. I do hope I do not have to explain to you how and why they failed.

Now as to your last cheap shot, and we both know it was a cheap shot (you are certainly intelligent enough to understand the difference between Globalism and the value of American projection of Power), Trump very clearly is not "pulling back" at all; he is redirecting both concentrations of resources and tactics in foreign relations, especially in the Americas.

Time will tell, of course, if his strategy works, but pretending it is chaotic or illegal or somehow foolish just because you prefer the plans of Biden, Obama, Bush and Clinton, which we know all failed in terms of protecting, let alone advancing American power and influence, is something I cannot pretend is rational.

The Constitution does not require the president to notify Congress; it requires the president to get permission from Congress. https://t.co/VtAbG8K3WE

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) October 22, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

The Constitution does not require the president to notify Congress; it requires the president to get permission from Congress. https://t.co/VtAbG8K3WE

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) October 22, 2025

---

I dont think this correct. Several months ago, he labeled them as terrorist groups and he can pretty much do what any country does do terrorist groups

Biden had no problems with Congress carrying out strikes against the guys from Yemen

Robert Wilson said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

---

You would think we would have seen something on the media besides Paul's claim. Until I do, I'm calling BS

---

If the media had any scintilla of credible (or not completely incredible) evidence that we'd blown up a fishing boat, that's all we'd be hearing about 24/7.

---

Haven't you heard? Ecuador says the submarine survivor wasn't clearly involved in any crime. I mean, who among us hasn't ever accidentally wandered into a drug trafficking submarine?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

---

You would think we would have seen something on the media besides Paul's claim. Until I do, I'm calling BS

---

If the media had any scintilla of credible (or not completely incredible) evidence that we'd blown up a fishing boat, that's all we'd be hearing about 24/7.

---

Haven't you heard? Ecuador says the submarine survivor wasn't clearly involved in any crime. I mean, who among us hasn't ever accidentally wandered into a drug trafficking submarine?

---

Makes sense to me. I was thinking about getting my own sub for White Rock Lake

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

---

You would think we would have seen something on the media besides Paul's claim. Until I do, I'm calling BS

---

If the media had any scintilla of credible (or not completely incredible) evidence that we'd blown up a fishing boat, that's all we'd be hearing about 24/7.

---

Haven't you heard? Ecuador says the submarine survivor wasn't clearly involved in any crime. I mean, who among us hasn't ever accidentally wandered into a drug trafficking submarine?

---

I was with you up to the word submarine

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

---

You would think we would have seen something on the media besides Paul's claim. Until I do, I'm calling BS

---

If the media had any scintilla of credible (or not completely incredible) evidence that we'd blown up a fishing boat, that's all we'd be hearing about 24/7.

---

Haven't you heard? Ecuador says the submarine survivor wasn't clearly involved in any crime. I mean, who among us hasn't ever accidentally wandered into a drug trafficking submarine?

---

Which cartel runs Ecuador?

Scattershooting while wondering what it will take for one of the TDSers to explain what these boats are doing ... let's do a poll:

1. Delivering VCRs to Best Buy in Florida
2. Water Skiing practice
3. Fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation
4. Returning classified documents to Biden's house
5. Taking Hunter Biden to the Burisma board meeting

What else? Anyone know?

Trump: And drug usage is way down. And drug usage coming from the sea. They call it ocean drugs. Little term that they use. The ocean drugs is very close to nonexistent right now pic.twitter.com/J9ah424fkO

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 22, 2025

Porteroso said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Okay. Why don't you type what you mean. It is not difficult.

So what rules should we have about who to kill?

---

What he is saying that he would rather kill 50,000 Americans than blow up a boatload of Fentanyl with drug runners aboard. Good trade if you are in the Cartel business. Porteroso is not a Critical Thinker

---

This sort of mindless projection is insane. What if Russia started going around and bombing all the American yachts with weed on board. I'm sure you'd critically think your way into opposing it.

---

Are you on medications ? This post of yours....like so many others......is just ridiculous.

I always thought it was against the law for our military to kill civilians, even criminals.

The survivors of one attack were taken back home. Ecuador tried one of them and released him for lack of evidence.

Our military has been used to kill around 36 civilians so far. No trial, no jury.

Assassin said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

This kind of tripe spins your little wheel.

The reality that tens of thousands of Americans die from the illicit use of this drug doesn't matter to you at all.

Probably best for all concerned you have moved to southeast Asia.

---

Is bombing boats we suspect have drugs on them really the best way to save lives? Kill a few to save many?

---

Did you oppose or support the U.S. entry into World War II?

---

Was the Nazi takeover of the world comparable to some druggies in ski boats?

---

You posted: "Kill a few to save many?"

Do you believe that or not? Is killing a few worth saving many? Yes or no?

You posted it - answer you own question or be smarter.

---

Morally, the question is easy. We have a system setup to answer the moral question. If these ski boats near Venezuela are a real threat, we can declare war on them. Congress can do that. And then endless bombing ski boats.

If they approach our coast with drugs, we can interdict the boats, and yes sink them if they are unresponsive.

But to go to Venezuela and start bombing, is difficult to make a moral argument for.

We need to secure our border, not go around the world killing people that might one day try to sneak some pills into our country. Tere is n moral or legal justification. Especially when we will make mistakes and kill innocents.

---

So we should not kill a few to save many. That is your position?

---

We should have rules about who to kill, so that any fool who comes along can't just claim they are saving the world by killing a few. What do you think about that?

---

Okay. Why don't you type what you mean. It is not difficult.

So what rules should we have about who to kill?

---

What he is saying that he would rather kill 50,000 Americans than blow up a boatload of Fentanyl with drug runners aboard. Good trade if you are in the Cartel business. Porteroso is not a Critical Thinker

---

the cumulative total is nearing 2,000,000....

Attaboy Pete & Co -

Keep it up. Soetoro and Hewlett Packard did nada zip zilch squat for years.

Glad we are finally fighting back.

- uncle fred

D!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

Go Bears!!

Beat The 'Nattis!!!

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Scattershooting while wondering what it will take for one of the TDSers to explain what these boats are doing ... let's do a poll:

1. Delivering VCRs to Best Buy in Florida
2. Water Skiing practice
3. Fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation
4. Returning classified documents to Biden's house
5. Taking Hunter Biden to the Burisma board meeting

What else? Anyone know?

---

I've seen the latest footage of a strike on a boat and the tone by PH was less bravado with more facts. Again this was a cigar boat that was moving fast. After the strike they showed packages floating around a burning boat. So it looks like they are at lest trying to provide some evidence this was drug related.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Assassin said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

We don’t blow up boats off Miami because 25% of the time suspicion is wrong.

We shouldn’t do it off Venezuela either. These are small outboards with no fentanyl and no path to Florida.

We can’t just kill indiscriminately because we are not at war. It’s summary execution!… pic.twitter.com/CMb4m1aUF1

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) October 21, 2025

---

So is he saying we have blown up fishing boats or boats with small outboard motors with civilians in them? The boats I have seen getting torched are plowing through the water throwing up big wakes. In the ocean, that means big motors. The width and length of them lends more toward cigarette type (not exactly but similar) boats than fishing boats

---

Me too, I've seen high speed boats and a submarine blown up.

---

You would think we would have seen something on the media besides Paul's claim. Until I do, I'm calling BS

---

If the media had any scintilla of credible (or not completely incredible) evidence that we'd blown up a fishing boat, that's all we'd be hearing about 24/7.

---

Haven't you heard? Ecuador says the submarine survivor wasn't clearly involved in any crime. I mean, who among us hasn't ever accidentally wandered into a drug trafficking submarine?

---

If you cannot trust a Latin American junta who can you trust?