BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

My issue is the use of military in law enforcement. I could care less about those that are breaking the law.

Maybe getting the Coast Guard more capabilities. It may be a technicality, but Homeland Security may be a better fit if we are looking to do this sort of drug enforcement.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

My issue is the use of military in law enforcement. I could care less about those that are breaking the law.

Maybe getting the Coast Guard more capabilities. It may be a technicality, but Homeland Security may be a better fit if we are looking to do this sort of drug enforcement.

---

Add that they had intelligence on the ground that these boats/submarines were loaded with drugs. This is not some happenstance bombings. These are directed at the drug cartels

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

My issue is the use of military in law enforcement. I could care less about those that are breaking the law.

Maybe getting the Coast Guard more capabilities. It may be a technicality, but Homeland Security may be a better fit if we are looking to do this sort of drug enforcement.

---

Add that they had intelligence on the ground that these boats/submarines were loaded with drugs. This is not some happenstance bombings. These are directed at the drug cartels

---

Like I said, I am not good with military for law enforcement or even border operations. Homeland Security should be doing these missions. Upgrade HSA and the Coast Guard. Hey, this is my opinion. I may be out of touch with modern maritime operations, as of 2017 Britain uses the Royal Navy for LEO and so does China.

Trump's 'Donroe Doctrine' Aims to Dominate the Americas - WSJ

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

No reply, FLBear?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

My issue is the use of military in law enforcement. I could care less about those that are breaking the law.

Maybe getting the Coast Guard more capabilities. It may be a technicality, but Homeland Security may be a better fit if we are looking to do this sort of drug enforcement.

---

Add that they had intelligence on the ground that these boats/submarines were loaded with drugs. This is not some happenstance bombings. These are directed at the drug cartels

---

Like I said, I am not good with military for law enforcement or even border operations. Homeland Security should be doing these missions. Upgrade HSA and the Coast Guard. Hey, this is my opinion. I may be out of touch with modern maritime operations, as of 2017 Britain uses the Royal Navy for LEO and so does China.

---

What is interesting is China is now embedded with Venezuelan government. No telling how much of the Fentanyl funds were coming back to Xi

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

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.

---

Obama killed criminals for years throughout the Middle East.

But as always you enjoy your double standards

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

No reply, FLBear?

---

dont have the energy to take on your foolishness today, maybe tomorrow

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

No reply, FLBear?

---

dont have the energy to take on your foolishness today, maybe tomorrow

---

Ah. No energy, but you can still take cheap shots.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Trump's 'Donroe Doctrine' Aims to Dominate the Americas - WSJ

---

We could go even further back!

BREAKING: President Trump says land action in Venezuela is next.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) October 23, 2025

Trump: "I don't think we're necessarily going to ask for a declaration of war, I think we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. We're going to kill them. They're going to be, like dead." pic.twitter.com/55NQXpZ0jf

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 23, 2025

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

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

---

If I was a Venezuelan fisherman, I think I would find another profession ASAP (Other than smuggling drugs).

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 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

---

If I was a Venezuelan fisherman, I think I would find another profession ASAP (Other than smuggling drugs).

---

And the cartels come after their families for the drug hits

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 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

---

If I was a Venezuelan fisherman, I think I would find another profession ASAP (Other than smuggling drugs).

---

Our own military personnel traffic more drugs into this country than any Venezuelan fishermen.

Don't believe the hype.

KaiBear said:

---

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

---

US citizens that abuse drugs kill themselves. They are the ones that drive the market. Should we kill all the bartenders and alcohol distributors? Alcohol kills more Amsricans than fentynal. Strange how you accept some drugs but want to kill foreigners over others.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 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

---

If I was a Venezuelan fisherman, I think I would find another profession ASAP (Other than smuggling drugs).

---

Our own military personnel traffic more drugs into the US than any Venezuelan fishermen.

Don't believe the hype.

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

---

US citizens that abuse drugs kill themselves. They are the ones that drive the market. Should we kill all the bartenders and alcohol distributors? Alcohol kills more Amsricans than fentynal. Strange how you accept some drugs but want to kill foreigners over others.

---

You are so arrogant in your insanity.

Fentanyl is far more toxic than alcohol. Have been told this many times.

But you would rather have thousands continue to die rather than admit you are wrong.

I'd keep bombing from above the less Americans we get injured the better

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

---

US citizens that abuse drugs kill themselves. They are the ones that drive the market. Should we kill all the bartenders and alcohol distributors? Alcohol kills more Amsricans than fentynal. Strange how you accept some drugs but want to kill foreigners over others.

---

The drug trade does far, far more damage than just to the individual abusers. Drugs destroy not only lives, but entire families and communities. It brings violent crime and dilapidation to our cities. It targets the young people in our society who our country rests its future on.

You can disagree with what Trump is doing, there's legit arguments for that - but you need to take your horse blinders off and recognize that the drug problem is a threat to the entire country and not just an isolated threat to individuals who choose to use them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

---

US citizens that abuse drugs kill themselves. They are the ones that drive the market. Should we kill all the bartenders and alcohol distributors? Alcohol kills more Amsricans than fentynal. Strange how you accept some drugs but want to kill foreigners over others.

---

The drug trade does far, far more damage than just to the individual abusers. Drugs destroy not only lives, but entire families and communities. It brings violent crime and dilapidation to our cities. It targets the young people in our society who our country rests its future on.

You can disagree with what Trump is doing, there's legit arguments for that - but you need to take your horse blinders off and recognize that the drug problem is a threat to the entire country and not just an isolated threat to individuals who choose to use them.

---

LIQR is toeing his Party's line. His Party is "The View"

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

---

US citizens that abuse drugs kill themselves. They are the ones that drive the market. Should we kill all the bartenders and alcohol distributors? Alcohol kills more Amsricans than fentynal. Strange how you accept some drugs but want to kill foreigners over others.

---

This is like the four hundredth time you have posted your market theory. Move on to something else already. The government should address both sides of the equation.


If there wasn't a market for stolen goods, people would not steal. Go after the purchasers only. No need to bother with the suppliers, right?

If there wasn't a market for child porn, there would be no child porn. Go after the diddlers, no need to concern ourselves with the traffickers, right.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

---

US citizens that abuse drugs kill themselves. They are the ones that drive the market. Should we kill all the bartenders and alcohol distributors? Alcohol kills more Amsricans than fentynal. Strange how you accept some drugs but want to kill foreigners over others.

---

The drug trade does far, far more damage than just to the individual abusers. Drugs destroy not only lives, but entire families and communities. It brings violent crime and dilapidation to our cities. It targets the young people in our society who our country rests its future on.

You can disagree with what Trump is doing, there's legit arguments for that - but you need to take your horse blinders off and recognize that the drug problem is a threat to the entire country and not just an isolated threat to individuals who choose to use them.

---

Man have I seen this countless times.

Spouse and or kids get destroyed on drugs…..the entire family suffers for years.

Many times to pain is simply too great to bare and the family breaks up. Strange how limited pretends not to know this.

Havent you both seen alcohol do the same thing?

2022 alcohol 178,000 deaths
2022 fentanyl 114,664 deaths.

I bet both of yall know more alcoholics that are screwing up their lives than you know fentanyl problems. So why the double standard?

As long as there are people that use drugs rhere will be people willing to supply them. If fentanyl disappeared over night there would be another drug take its place. if you want to solve or diminsh the problem you have to work on the user. Of course treatment takes money, but I wonder how much we have spent killing 36 suspected drug runners?

By the way Assasin, I am proud to say I have never voted for a dem in an federsl election and I have never modeled mens underwear.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Havent you both seen alcohol do the same thing?

2022 alcohol 178,000 deaths
2022 fentanyl 114,664 deaths.

---

And one is totally preventable. Why do you want to kill 100,000s of thousands of young Americans each year? That is really sick.

As for the other, I got my 35 year chip in January which means I am one badarse MF. Less than 3,000 in the the USA with at least that many years. According to a poll about 5 years ago, that number was only about 2,200. It can be done LIQR. You never have to drink again. Put down that bottle and live!

Quote:

---

By the way Assasin, I am proud to say I have never voted for a dem in an federsl election and I have never modeled mens underwear.

---

Dude, if you're not built for modeling men's underwear and come up a bit short, take that up with God, not me.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Havent you both seen alcohol do the same thing?

2022 alcohol 178,000 deaths
2022 fentanyl 114,664 deaths.

I bet both of yall know more alcoholics that are screwing up their lives than you know fentanyl problems. So why the double standard?

As long as there are people that use drugs rhere will be people willing to supply them. If fentanyl disappeared over night there would be another drug take its place. if you want to solve or diminsh the problem you have to work on the user. Of course treatment takes money, but I wonder how much we have spent killing 36 suspected drug runners?

By the way Assasin, I am proud to say I have never voted for a dem in an federsl election and I have never modeled mens underwear.

---

Apples to oranges. Illegal drugs have a far greater abuse potential and much higher destructive influence per unit dose. Alcohol is indeed a problem, but the high number of deaths reflect it's widespread availability and use. What do you think the destructive power of fentanyl, heroin, meth, etc. would be if they were legal like alcohol, and thus used just as widely? I've never heard of people dying from an accidental drop or two of alcohol. You get a few grains of fentanyl in you, however, and you're dead. If you don't see the difference, then your opinion on this matter just isn't qualified.

It's funny how obvious it has been the whole time

The government could have been greasing these guys the whole time, they just didn't want to https://t.co/S6HpEpjNLs

— Bennett's Phylactery (@extradeadjcb) October 23, 2025

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Havent you both seen alcohol do the same thing?

2022 alcohol 178,000 deaths
2022 fentanyl 114,664 deaths.

.

---

1. A single beer will not kill you…Hell a whole 24 back of beer won't kill you

Fentanyl?

[Fentanyl is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. Just 2 milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal dose.]

2. Those numbers of deaths are about even (and all horrible). But I bet there are vastly more people consuming alcohol in the 330 million person USA than drugs with fentanyl.

So the numbers show it to be vastly more dangerous since it's being used by less people but inflicting huge deaths.

"According to a recent Gallup poll, approximately 54% of Americans reported consuming alcohol in the past year."

So that is about 178 million Americans drinking alcohol.

The deaths from it are very very bad. But proportionally are no where near fentanyl deaths

3. One substance is legal under US law. The other is not

It's an import distinction.

So maybe alcohol should be illegal..but it's not and we tried that before and found it unworkable.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

They kill US citizens by the Thousands with their drugs for profit


Yet Dem partisans ***** when we save our people.

Insanity

---

US citizens that abuse drugs kill themselves. They are the ones that drive the market. Should we kill all the bartenders and alcohol distributors? Alcohol kills more Amsricans than fentynal. Strange how you accept some drugs but want to kill foreigners over others.

---

The drug trade does far, far more damage than just to the individual abusers. Drugs destroy not only lives, but entire families and communities. It brings violent crime and dilapidation to our cities. It targets the young people in our society who our country rests its future on..

---

Amen

And let's not forget it's a national security issue and geo-security issue

It's the fuel of narco-terrorist groups

The groups become so powerful they destabilize whole counties. Even put the security of the entire Western Hemisphere at risk.

The FARC terrorist group (Marxist) used illegal drug profits to fuel their war to overthrow the democratically elected government of Colombia. A war that lasted 50 years and turned parts of the country into a war zone.

Before Bukele was elected in El Salvador the country was on a path to being a failed state. Maybe even taken over by narco-terrorists. A majority of its districts (think our counties) were under their control


[For decades, El Salvador's powerful gangs, primarily MS-13 and Barrio 18, controlled large portions of the country, acting as a de facto authority in many districts. For example, in 2018, the International Crisis Group reported that gangs were active in 94% of El Salvador's then 262 municipalities.]

Sam Lowry said:

---

ScottS said:

---

KaiBear 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

---

'We' are FINALLY going after the drug cartels in a way that might actually work.

Because our courts can be bought .

---

fair point

---

We're going after a country that has little if anything to do with America's drug problem so that we can steal their resources, enrich Trump and his cronies, and settle one of Rubio's multitude of vendettas. Cartels are just the latest advertising theme.

"Disappointed with all those other presidents' wars? Try Venezuela! You'll save American lives (and the chicks will love it)!"

Up next season: mullahs with nukes.

---

Are you saying judges can't be bought?

Alcohol causes more deaths. Whats the difference between the drig of choice to the family members? I am not for banning alcohol. I am for spending more money on teaching people how to avoid any type of harmful drug addiction. The money America spends killing runners would be better invested in treatment centers. America cant control its own drug problem so now it will try to control it in foreign countries?

The problem of drug abuse needs to be confronted in homes and clinics with drs that can help an individual learn how to manage their life.

Congrats on your 30 years of sobriety. It sounds like you found a way to solve your problem. I wont ask for specifics but if whiskey was your drug of choice, and all of a sudden al the whiskey in the world vanished, would you have been cured or would you have just found a substitute?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Alcohol causes more deaths. Whats the difference between the drig of choice to the family members? I am not for banning alcohol. I am for spending more money on teaching people how to avoid any type of harmful drug addiction. The money America spends killing runners would be better invested in treatment centers. America cant control its own drug problem so now it will try to control it in foreign countries?

The problem of drug abuse needs to be confronted in homes and clinics with drs that can help an individual learn how to manage their life.

Congrats on your 30 years of sobriety. It sounds like you found a way to solve your problem. I wont ask for specifics but if whiskey was your drug of choice, and all of a sudden al the whiskey in the world vanished, would you have been cured or would you have just found a substitute?

---

What are you even talking about? We should have spent the money that went to blowing up a few drug boats on more rehab programs? Was that a serious attempt at making a point?

80-20 issue here for Trump. https://t.co/gCCQUyvDHc

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 23, 2025

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Havent you both seen alcohol do the same thing?

2022 alcohol 178,000 deaths
2022 fentanyl 114,664 deaths.

I bet both of yall know more alcoholics that are screwing up their lives than you know fentanyl problems. So why the double standard?

As long as there are people that use drugs rhere will be people willing to supply them. If fentanyl disappeared over night there would be another drug take its place. if you want to solve or diminsh the problem you have to work on the user. Of course treatment takes money, but I wonder how much we have spent killing 36 suspected drug runners?

By the way Assasin, I am proud to say I have never voted for a dem in an federsl election and I have never modeled mens underwear.

---

Apples to oranges. Illegal drugs have a far greater abuse potential and much higher destructive influence per unit dose. Alcohol is indeed a problem, but the high number of deaths reflect it's widespread availability and use. What do you think the destructive power of fentanyl, heroin, meth, etc. would be if they were legal like alcohol, and thus used just as widely? I've never heard of people dying from an accidental drop or two of alcohol. You get a few grains of fentanyl in you, however, and you're dead. If you don't see the difference, then your opinion on this matter just isn't qualified.

---

Limited has been told all this repeatedly.

He just doesn't care.

Consistently advocates for the legalization of all hard drugs….including meth, crack , heroin and fentanyl; thereby making them far more accessible.

Consequences be damned.