Robert Wilson said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock 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?

---

we do have rules about who to kill. POTUS has invoked them. Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations opens up a range of policy options.

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

Depends. On a whole lot of things.

---

Why? What we're doing changes the rules of engagement with the arbitor being the leader with the list might.

Assassin said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock 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?

---

we do have rules about who to kill. POTUS has invoked them. Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations opens up a range of policy options.

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

How many times have American ships carried illegal guns? And does France actually have any naval ships anymore? Arent they all Muslim flagged?

---

All the time. All that's required is the country saying guns are flowing to the cartels from America.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

How many times have American ships carried illegal guns? And does France actually have any naval ships anymore? Arent they all Muslim flagged?

---

Depends on who you ask. You guys seem to be leaning toward might makes right. We are have a peer enemy in China that outguns us in a crucial area of the world. We condemn their island making and say freedom of navigation there and blow up boats we profile here.

Whiterock is correct, we would prevail over China, but they would inflict a heavy cost. We can't be the champions of justice and international law one day and just blow up who we want on the next. That is how we went from being loved worldwide after WW2 to not very popular in most of the world. Popularity matters in trade and alliances. But you guys keep saying "they have no choice". Do we really want it to be down to that?

---

Not to blow up these drug running boats is to continue to fund the drug cartels, condemn thousands of addicts to continued addiction, and send many to their graves. Is that something that you want on your conscience?

We finally have a true War on Drugs. This is making an impact.

---

You keep talking about stuff everyone agrees with you on like they are some unique viewpoint. Geez, we never thought that stopping the flow of drugs would be good. Come on. You know what we are talking about. Rules of Engagement matter. If we are going to war, Congress declares it. An Executive Order by POTUS may meet the technical conditions for now, but you are opening a door to a whole level of US government power at the whim of one man. As we have seen with both Biden and Trump, mental condition plays into these decisions.

Now it is drug cartels. Next? Strip clubs? The pornography epidemic is destroying lives. Do we blow up strip clubs? Who knows maybe someone POTUS knew lost everything to gambling, porn, alcohol 10th Mountain has nothing to do...


How we do it matters.

---

Not sure how you or why you moved the conversation from US citizens dying from cocaine and Fentynal to strip clubs and porn. That's kinda bizarre. There is no relation

There is no legal issue that I am aware of defending your own nation's property and people from foreign intervention. Biden did it with no problem. Why is it different for Trump than Biden who launched retaliatory strikes against the Houthis in the Red Sea and re-designated them as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group following their attacks on shipping?

They werent even killing American citizens like the cartels are doing.

Add, Biden DID NOT get congressional approval either. He was just one man running his kingdom

BREAKING:

The U.S. Navy destroyer USS Gravely has docked in Trinidad and Tobago.

It’s right next to Venezuela pic.twitter.com/LYHeGbEyi8

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2025

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Assassin said:

---

I'm absolutely for it. Blow these guys out of the water before the cocaine hits our shores. As a recovering addict (35 years), I dont want that stuff anywhere near me

Every one of these hits has been a drug boat or submarine. That whole Ecuador found a survivor from a submarine that said he wasnt running drugs was 100% BS. What idiot would be in a drug submarine if it werent carrying drugs?

This is what Rand Paul said "About 25% of the time the Coast Guard boards a ship, there are no drugs."
Not that the drug boats we have hit are not carrying drugs

---

...so, 75% of the time there are drugs?

I guarantee that 100% of Central American subs are diesel-electric boats running drugs. Why? Their national navies have none.

South American countries have a very limited amount. For example Ecuador has two Type 209 diesel-electric subs that descend from a 1960s design...but has retired 8 from service which probably are in the hands of cartels. Veneuzela has (had?) one

Submarines By Country, 2025

Some interesting information in that chart btw. The Egyptian and Algerian navies have more subs than Canada and as many (Algeria) or more (Egypt) than Australia. Of course this says nothing about the technology in these hulls, or their propulsion system.

---

From what I've read, these are 'narco surface subs'. In other words, they can't really submerge all the way, the conning tower and air breathers are above the surface. The body is submersible, but not the rest of the boat. They biggest haul of a narco sub is 17.7 tons of cocaine. These are not Naval submarines, they are built for one thing, to try to escape detection and run drugs

---

What does Gilligan have to do with this? What if he didn't know Lovey had smack on her?

---

You are going to see them put hostages on these boats. They will put women and children for the ride, maybe even the promise of dropping off on American soil.

---

They already traffic humans and drugs together on many different routes. No reason they can't do the same with these boats.

The question I have is why don't they just follow the boat and intercept at the destination? Don't you then take out even more of the trafficking participants?

---

Probably because we have been doing something like this for decades and the drug cartels were not intimidated by our court system. There was little fear of spending time in US prisons.

However getting blown to bits sends a message the cartels can understand…..clearly.

Just like when Singapore finally executed ANYONE attempting to smuggle drugs into their country ….did their drug problem get dramatically reduced.

Of course those who like the 'freedom' of drug use were outraged with the process.

---

The question is why don't they initiate the strike at the destination?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock 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?

---

we do have rules about who to kill. POTUS has invoked them. Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations opens up a range of policy options.

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

Depends. On a whole lot of things.

---

Why? What we're doing changes the rules of engagement with the arbitor being the leader with the list might.

---

As it has always been

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

How many times have American ships carried illegal guns? And does France actually have any naval ships anymore? Arent they all Muslim flagged?

---

Depends on who you ask. You guys seem to be leaning toward might makes right. We are have a peer enemy in China that outguns us in a crucial area of the world. We condemn their island making and say freedom of navigation there and blow up boats we profile here.

Whiterock is correct, we would prevail over China, but they would inflict a heavy cost. We can't be the champions of justice and international law one day and just blow up who we want on the next. That is how we went from being loved worldwide after WW2 to not very popular in most of the world. Popularity matters in trade and alliances. But you guys keep saying "they have no choice". Do we really want it to be down to that?

---

Not to blow up these drug running boats is to continue to fund the drug cartels, condemn thousands of addicts to continued addiction, and send many to their graves. Is that something that you want on your conscience?

We finally have a true War on Drugs. This is making an impact.

---

You keep talking about stuff everyone agrees with you on like they are some unique viewpoint. Geez, we never thought that stopping the flow of drugs would be good. Come on. You know what we are talking about. Rules of Engagement matter. If we are going to war, Congress declares it. An Executive Order by POTUS may meet the technical conditions for now, but you are opening a door to a whole level of US government power at the whim of one man. As we have seen with both Biden and Trump, mental condition plays into these decisions.

Now it is drug cartels. Next? Strip clubs? The pornography epidemic is destroying lives. Do we blow up strip clubs? Who knows maybe someone POTUS knew lost everything to gambling, porn, alcohol 10th Mountain has nothing to do...


How we do it matters.

---

Not sure how you or why you moved the conversation from US citizens dying from cocaine and Fentynal to strip clubs and porn. That's kinda bizarre. There is no relation

There is no legal issue that I am aware of defending your own nation's property and people from foreign intervention. Biden did it with no problem. Why is it different for Trump than Biden who launched retaliatory strikes against the Houthis in the Red Sea and re-designated them as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group following their attacks on shipping?

They werent even killing American citizens like the cartels are doing.

Add, Biden DID NOT get congressional approval either. He was just one man running his kingdom

---

Funny, you guys are literal when you want to be and then can't see the jump from the Government using the military on one vice to another? Really, you don't get the concept and the concern that the President with an Executive Order can make you a terrorist and targeted? No oversight, no checks and balances. They believe something you do is a National Emergency. You don't get that?

If you want to argue the policy implications, great. Playing like the concept is beyond your comprehension???? I will lay it out for you, since you are comprehension challenged on this subject.

1 - It is ok outside the borders and the ends justifies the means. So, everyone looks the other way,
2 - Well, it is not just outside the borders, it is in the US. Well, it is a just cause. Look the other way.
3 - Well, we did it with drugs. How about aggressive drivers (I will leave the strippers alone, they are just trying to pay for medical school), after all the number of traffic deaths are high and we used the military for that... What do we need, an Executive Order and we have precedent.

This needs to be controlled and by more than just the Executive Branch. Everything seems farfetched, until it isn't. That is why we have checks and balances. And whether some other Administration got away with it, doesn't give everyone a pass. It is a dangerous precedent.

What you are missing is that no one here has said it is ok to leave the drug situation as it is or even not use the military. It is how we are doing it - Executive Order, again.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock 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?

---

we do have rules about who to kill. POTUS has invoked them. Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations opens up a range of policy options.

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

It is cute that you think these drug boats are flagged.

Drug Cartels are generally known for complying with regulations and registration.

Robert Wilson said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is just a new point on the escalation continuum that has failed every step along the way. This "war" has only gotten more violent and riskier to the U.S. and its citizens at each point the stakes were raised.

Maybe once we start sending American soldiers home in body bags from the coca leaf jungle wars all because some schmucks need to ingest poison to feel good, we'll start questioning the strategy.

---

I'm totally down with the general sentiment that the market is going to provide things for which there is a demand. But I think you're also oversimplifying.

You want to suggest some sort of broad legalization and regulation of the drug trade, so that we are keeping the money here and arguably making product safer rather than enriching narco terrorists throughout Mexico and Central America, while tacitly encouraging overdoses on fentanyl? I'm all ears. But we both know that we as a country are nowhere near ready for that.

And given where we are, I'm totally fine letting the narcos know that while they are getting rich helping a certain portion of our population kill itself, they might just get blown the **** up. That seems like a fair occupational hazard.

Maybe that pushes the market in a slightly less unhealthy direction, maybe not, but it's good sport, and I am game to find out. There is probably some net benefit to the criminal element in those countries at least being aware that if they become too brazen we just might blow them up.

---

I'm not oversimplifying the solution, I'm only simplifying the explanation of the problem to the economics. As to the solutions, maybe we're not being creative. To try and beat the drug cartels at their own game would likely prove difficult, so simplistic "legalization" isn't a real answer. As I said earlier, you have to defeat the need for them.

I think one thing we could do from a legalization perspective is to possibly mimic Portugal in that trafficking is still illegal, but possession of all types of drugs up to a certain amount from weed to heroin is not a crime. And they attack it from a public health perspective.

The more radical ideas might revolve around allowing schedule II type substances such as oxycodone related drugs to other types that are prescription available commercially but are similarly heavily sought after in the black market (fentanyl happens to be one of them) to be sold at dispensaries. Another radical idea is to engage pharmaceutical companies in creating, for lack of a better parallel, a series of drugs intended to provide the need for a high like methadone but safer than illicit provided drugs with varying effects. Subsidize it so it's cheap and readily available, and maybe put some strings around it after extended use like a required monthly treatment meeting. Again, I'm not trying to answer the moral or ethical concerns of drug distribution and use, I'm thinking in terms of shifting the market so we reduce/remove the distribution dangers, which gives better opportunity to control/change the demand aspect.

---

Lots of interesting things to discuss there, but all of that notwithstanding I don't have a real problem with blowing up cartel guys who are getting rich off of helping our population kill itself anyone Trump tells us we should.

---

FIFY

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is just a new point on the escalation continuum that has failed every step along the way. This "war" has only gotten more violent and riskier to the U.S. and its citizens at each point the stakes were raised.

Maybe once we start sending American soldiers home in body bags from the coca leaf jungle wars all because some schmucks need to ingest poison to feel good, we'll start questioning the strategy.

---

I'm totally down with the general sentiment that the market is going to provide things for which there is a demand. But I think you're also oversimplifying.

You want to suggest some sort of broad legalization and regulation of the drug trade, so that we are keeping the money here and arguably making product safer rather than enriching narco terrorists throughout Mexico and Central America, while tacitly encouraging overdoses on fentanyl? I'm all ears. But we both know that we as a country are nowhere near ready for that.

And given where we are, I'm totally fine letting the narcos know that while they are getting rich helping a certain portion of our population kill itself, they might just get blown the **** up. That seems like a fair occupational hazard.

Maybe that pushes the market in a slightly less unhealthy direction, maybe not, but it's good sport, and I am game to find out. There is probably some net benefit to the criminal element in those countries at least being aware that if they become too brazen we just might blow them up.

---

I'm not oversimplifying the solution, I'm only simplifying the explanation of the problem to the economics. As to the solutions, maybe we're not being creative. To try and beat the drug cartels at their own game would likely prove difficult, so simplistic "legalization" isn't a real answer. As I said earlier, you have to defeat the need for them.

I think one thing we could do from a legalization perspective is to possibly mimic Portugal in that trafficking is still illegal, but possession of all types of drugs up to a certain amount from weed to heroin is not a crime. And they attack it from a public health perspective.

The more radical ideas might revolve around allowing schedule II type substances such as oxycodone related drugs to other types that are prescription available commercially but are similarly heavily sought after in the black market (fentanyl happens to be one of them) to be sold at dispensaries. Another radical idea is to engage pharmaceutical companies in creating, for lack of a better parallel, a series of drugs intended to provide the need for a high like methadone but safer than illicit provided drugs with varying effects. Subsidize it so it's cheap and readily available, and maybe put some strings around it after extended use like a required monthly treatment meeting. Again, I'm not trying to answer the moral or ethical concerns of drug distribution and use, I'm thinking in terms of shifting the market so we reduce/remove the distribution dangers, which gives better opportunity to control/change the demand aspect.

---

Lots of interesting things to discuss there, but all of that notwithstanding I don't have a real problem with blowing up cartel guys who are getting rich off of helping our population kill itself anyone Trump tells us we should.

---

FIFY

---

This sentence is the problem. Legal or not. Bush started it. This is not a Trump thing, Bush had just as many questions over the terror treatment from emprisonment to killing them. This is not a new question.

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

The U.S. Navy destroyer USS Gravely has docked in Trinidad and Tobago.

It’s right next to Venezuela pic.twitter.com/LYHeGbEyi8

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) October 26, 2025

---

Love it!

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Assassin said:

---

I'm absolutely for it. Blow these guys out of the water before the cocaine hits our shores. As a recovering addict (35 years), I dont want that stuff anywhere near me

Every one of these hits has been a drug boat or submarine. That whole Ecuador found a survivor from a submarine that said he wasnt running drugs was 100% BS. What idiot would be in a drug submarine if it werent carrying drugs?

This is what Rand Paul said "About 25% of the time the Coast Guard boards a ship, there are no drugs."
Not that the drug boats we have hit are not carrying drugs

---

...so, 75% of the time there are drugs?

I guarantee that 100% of Central American subs are diesel-electric boats running drugs. Why? Their national navies have none.

South American countries have a very limited amount. For example Ecuador has two Type 209 diesel-electric subs that descend from a 1960s design...but has retired 8 from service which probably are in the hands of cartels. Veneuzela has (had?) one

Submarines By Country, 2025

Some interesting information in that chart btw. The Egyptian and Algerian navies have more subs than Canada and as many (Algeria) or more (Egypt) than Australia. Of course this says nothing about the technology in these hulls, or their propulsion system.

---

From what I've read, these are 'narco surface subs'. In other words, they can't really submerge all the way, the conning tower and air breathers are above the surface. The body is submersible, but not the rest of the boat. They biggest haul of a narco sub is 17.7 tons of cocaine. These are not Naval submarines, they are built for one thing, to try to escape detection and run drugs

---

What does Gilligan have to do with this? What if he didn't know Lovey had smack on her?

---

You are going to see them put hostages on these boats. They will put women and children for the ride, maybe even the promise of dropping off on American soil.

---

They already traffic humans and drugs together on many different routes. No reason they can't do the same with these boats.

The question I have is why don't they just follow the boat and intercept at the destination? Don't you then take out even more of the trafficking participants?

---

Probably because we have been doing something like this for decades and the drug cartels were not intimidated by our court system. There was little fear of spending time in US prisons.

However getting blown to bits sends a message the cartels can understand…..clearly.

Just like when Singapore finally executed ANYONE attempting to smuggle drugs into their country ….did their drug problem get dramatically reduced.

Of course those who like the 'freedom' of drug use were outraged with the process.

---

The question is why don't they initiate the strike at the destination?

---

Possibly because it would be too easy for a Dem appointed district judge to put a haunt to it.

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

This is just a new point on the escalation continuum that has failed every step along the way. This "war" has only gotten more violent and riskier to the U.S. and its citizens at each point the stakes were raised.

Maybe once we start sending American soldiers home in body bags from the coca leaf jungle wars all because some schmucks need to ingest poison to feel good, we'll start questioning the strategy.

---

I'm totally down with the general sentiment that the market is going to provide things for which there is a demand. But I think you're also oversimplifying.

You want to suggest some sort of broad legalization and regulation of the drug trade, so that we are keeping the money here and arguably making product safer rather than enriching narco terrorists throughout Mexico and Central America, while tacitly encouraging overdoses on fentanyl? I'm all ears. But we both know that we as a country are nowhere near ready for that.

And given where we are, I'm totally fine letting the narcos know that while they are getting rich helping a certain portion of our population kill itself, they might just get blown the **** up. That seems like a fair occupational hazard.

Maybe that pushes the market in a slightly less unhealthy direction, maybe not, but it's good sport, and I am game to find out. There is probably some net benefit to the criminal element in those countries at least being aware that if they become too brazen we just might blow them up.

---

I'm not oversimplifying the solution, I'm only simplifying the explanation of the problem to the economics. As to the solutions, maybe we're not being creative. To try and beat the drug cartels at their own game would likely prove difficult, so simplistic "legalization" isn't a real answer. As I said earlier, you have to defeat the need for them.

I think one thing we could do from a legalization perspective is to possibly mimic Portugal in that trafficking is still illegal, but possession of all types of drugs up to a certain amount from weed to heroin is not a crime. And they attack it from a public health perspective.

The more radical ideas might revolve around allowing schedule II type substances such as oxycodone related drugs to other types that are prescription available commercially but are similarly heavily sought after in the black market (fentanyl happens to be one of them) to be sold at dispensaries. Another radical idea is to engage pharmaceutical companies in creating, for lack of a better parallel, a series of drugs intended to provide the need for a high like methadone but safer than illicit provided drugs with varying effects. Subsidize it so it's cheap and readily available, and maybe put some strings around it after extended use like a required monthly treatment meeting. Again, I'm not trying to answer the moral or ethical concerns of drug distribution and use, I'm thinking in terms of shifting the market so we reduce/remove the distribution dangers, which gives better opportunity to control/change the demand aspect.

---

Lots of interesting things to discuss there, but all of that notwithstanding I don't have a real problem with blowing up cartel guys who are getting rich off of helping our population kill itself anyone Trump tells us we should (which is fulfilling his duty as commander in chief of the military against those designated as terrorists)

---

FIFY

---

Clarified for you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

---

You guys are ridiculous. we moved drugs from law enforcement to terror. you question what we are doing and you are now good with drug dealers. That is the problem with you maga types, you label people if they question. no one in their right mind is for drug trafficing and you know it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

---

You guys are ridiculous. we moved drugs from law enforcement to terror. you question what we are doing and you are now good with drug dealers. That is the problem with you maga types, you label people if they question. no one in their right mind is for drug trafficing and you know it.

---

Then why do you support the drug cartels killing tens of thousands of Americans? Take a stand

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Assassin said:

---

I'm absolutely for it. Blow these guys out of the water before the cocaine hits our shores. As a recovering addict (35 years), I dont want that stuff anywhere near me

Every one of these hits has been a drug boat or submarine. That whole Ecuador found a survivor from a submarine that said he wasnt running drugs was 100% BS. What idiot would be in a drug submarine if it werent carrying drugs?

This is what Rand Paul said "About 25% of the time the Coast Guard boards a ship, there are no drugs."
Not that the drug boats we have hit are not carrying drugs

---

...so, 75% of the time there are drugs?

I guarantee that 100% of Central American subs are diesel-electric boats running drugs. Why? Their national navies have none.

South American countries have a very limited amount. For example Ecuador has two Type 209 diesel-electric subs that descend from a 1960s design...but has retired 8 from service which probably are in the hands of cartels. Veneuzela has (had?) one

Submarines By Country, 2025

Some interesting information in that chart btw. The Egyptian and Algerian navies have more subs than Canada and as many (Algeria) or more (Egypt) than Australia. Of course this says nothing about the technology in these hulls, or their propulsion system.

---

From what I've read, these are 'narco surface subs'. In other words, they can't really submerge all the way, the conning tower and air breathers are above the surface. The body is submersible, but not the rest of the boat. They biggest haul of a narco sub is 17.7 tons of cocaine. These are not Naval submarines, they are built for one thing, to try to escape detection and run drugs

---

What does Gilligan have to do with this? What if he didn't know Lovey had smack on her?

---

You are going to see them put hostages on these boats. They will put women and children for the ride, maybe even the promise of dropping off on American soil.

---

They already traffic humans and drugs together on many different routes. No reason they can't do the same with these boats.

The question I have is why don't they just follow the boat and intercept at the destination? Don't you then take out even more of the trafficking participants?

---

Probably because we have been doing something like this for decades and the drug cartels were not intimidated by our court system. There was little fear of spending time in US prisons.

However getting blown to bits sends a message the cartels can understand…..clearly.

Just like when Singapore finally executed ANYONE attempting to smuggle drugs into their country ….did their drug problem get dramatically reduced.

Of course those who like the 'freedom' of drug use were outraged with the process.

---

The question is why don't they initiate the strike at the destination?

---

Not too many posts ago, you lauded the Singapore Solution (death penalty for users). Why would you not also laud a death penalty equivalent (military strike) for traffickers?

And if we destroy their craft, destroy their bases, and destroy the regime giving them safehaven, will you still insist we execute our own citizens as the only viable solution?

And remember, this isnt totally about the drug boats. Maduro is about to be overthrown. This is partially about the Columbians coming in once he is overthrown. Right now there are 10s of thousands of Columbians mercenaries in the country. Venezuela used to be one of the most modern countries in SA. Triple digit inflation has wiped the country out. And Venezuela has the highest oil reserves in SA also. And some of the highest of rare minerals

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

---

You guys are ridiculous. we moved drugs from law enforcement to terror. you question what we are doing and you are now good with drug dealers. That is the problem with you maga types, you label people if they question. no one in their right mind is for drug trafficing and you know it.

---

Then why do you support the drug cartels killing tens of thousands of Americans? Take a stand

---

Like ATL, they've argued themselves into a corner, in opposition to a supermajority of public opinion, which does matter in a republic built on democratic processes.

BREAKING: 71% of Americans back Trump's attacks on drug cartel boats: Harvard/Harris pollhttps://t.co/kjbQlvYqvL

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) October 25, 2025

Assassin said:

---

And remember, this isnt totally about the drug boats. Maduro is about to be overthrown. This is partially about the Columbians coming in once he is overthrown. Right now there are 10s of thousands of Columbians mercenaries in the country. Venezuela used to be one of the most modern countries in SA. Triple digit inflation has wiped the country out. And Venezuela has the highest oil reserves in SA also. And some of the highest of rare minerals

---

We're going to keep ratcheting-up the pressure on Venezuela until either Maduro. has to respond militarily to mollify his key regime supporters, or until some lieutenant in some Venezuelan unit looses his head and fires something at us, or until it collapses from internal fractures. Either way, Maduro goes away.

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

---

You guys are ridiculous. we moved drugs from law enforcement to terror. you question what we are doing and you are now good with drug dealers. That is the problem with you maga types, you label people if they question. no one in their right mind is for drug trafficing and you know it.

---

Then why do you support the drug cartels killing tens of thousands of Americans? Take a stand

---

Tens of thousands of Americans are killing themselves. No one is forcing them to take drugs. If this is analogous to terrorism then every user is a sleeper cell or lone wolf enabling the crime (or terror) plaguing our nation.

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And remember, this isnt totally about the drug boats. Maduro is about to be overthrown. This is partially about the Columbians coming in once he is overthrown. Right now there are 10s of thousands of Columbians mercenaries in the country. Venezuela used to be one of the most modern countries in SA. Triple digit inflation has wiped the country out. And Venezuela has the highest oil reserves in SA also. And some of the highest of rare minerals

---

We're going to keep ratcheting-up the pressure on Venezuela until either Maduro. has to respond militarily to mollify his key regime supporters, or until some lieutenant in some Venezuelan unit looses his head and fires something at us, or until it collapses from internal fractures. Either way, Maduro goes away.

---

50 million dollars on his head. Someone is going to take him out sooner or later

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Assassin said:

---

I'm absolutely for it. Blow these guys out of the water before the cocaine hits our shores. As a recovering addict (35 years), I dont want that stuff anywhere near me

Every one of these hits has been a drug boat or submarine. That whole Ecuador found a survivor from a submarine that said he wasnt running drugs was 100% BS. What idiot would be in a drug submarine if it werent carrying drugs?

This is what Rand Paul said "About 25% of the time the Coast Guard boards a ship, there are no drugs."
Not that the drug boats we have hit are not carrying drugs

---

...so, 75% of the time there are drugs?

I guarantee that 100% of Central American subs are diesel-electric boats running drugs. Why? Their national navies have none.

South American countries have a very limited amount. For example Ecuador has two Type 209 diesel-electric subs that descend from a 1960s design...but has retired 8 from service which probably are in the hands of cartels. Veneuzela has (had?) one

Submarines By Country, 2025

Some interesting information in that chart btw. The Egyptian and Algerian navies have more subs than Canada and as many (Algeria) or more (Egypt) than Australia. Of course this says nothing about the technology in these hulls, or their propulsion system.

---

From what I've read, these are 'narco surface subs'. In other words, they can't really submerge all the way, the conning tower and air breathers are above the surface. The body is submersible, but not the rest of the boat. They biggest haul of a narco sub is 17.7 tons of cocaine. These are not Naval submarines, they are built for one thing, to try to escape detection and run drugs

---

What does Gilligan have to do with this? What if he didn't know Lovey had smack on her?

---

You are going to see them put hostages on these boats. They will put women and children for the ride, maybe even the promise of dropping off on American soil.

---

They already traffic humans and drugs together on many different routes. No reason they can't do the same with these boats.

The question I have is why don't they just follow the boat and intercept at the destination? Don't you then take out even more of the trafficking participants?

---

Probably because we have been doing something like this for decades and the drug cartels were not intimidated by our court system. There was little fear of spending time in US prisons.

However getting blown to bits sends a message the cartels can understand…..clearly.

Just like when Singapore finally executed ANYONE attempting to smuggle drugs into their country ….did their drug problem get dramatically reduced.

Of course those who like the 'freedom' of drug use were outraged with the process.

---

The question is why don't they initiate the strike at the destination?

---

Not too many posts ago, you lauded the Singapore Solution (death penalty for users). Why would you not also laud a death penalty equivalent (military strike) for traffickers?

And if we destroy their craft, destroy their bases, and destroy the regime giving them safehaven, will you still insist we execute our own citizens as the only viable solution?

---

You can't destroy their craft. We produce drugs domestically. When are you attacking our citizens? When are you invading China?

Also, I never "lauded" the Singapore solution, just pointed out with out demand or need change, we'll just continue to escalate. You're now talking a global war over drugs. That's simply crazy talk.

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

---

You guys are ridiculous. we moved drugs from law enforcement to terror. you question what we are doing and you are now good with drug dealers. That is the problem with you maga types, you label people if they question. no one in their right mind is for drug trafficing and you know it.

---

Then why do you support the drug cartels killing tens of thousands of Americans? Take a stand

---

Tens of thousands of Americans are killing themselves. No one is forcing them to take drugs. If this is analogous to terrorism then every user is a sleeper cell or lone wolf enabling the crime (or terror) plaguing our nation.

---

Yet these are Americans, not cartel drug runners. Why are you supporting the drug runners?

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

---

You guys are ridiculous. we moved drugs from law enforcement to terror. you question what we are doing and you are now good with drug dealers. That is the problem with you maga types, you label people if they question. no one in their right mind is for drug trafficing and you know it.

---

Then why do you support the drug cartels killing tens of thousands of Americans? Take a stand

---

Tens of thousands of Americans are killing themselves. No one is forcing them to take drugs. If this is analogous to terrorism then every user is a sleeper cell or lone wolf enabling the crime (or terror) plaguing our nation.

---

Yet these are Americans, not cartel drug runners. Why are you supporting the drug runners?

---

By presenting solutions to remove the need for drug cartels, I'm supporting drug runners? Good grief you guys are obtuse…

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

And what you are missing FL is that POTUS have been doing it for decades, most recently Biden in Yemen. HE DID NOT SEEK CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Did it bother you then, when a liberal used an EO to make it happen?

---

The difference is that Yemen was firing missiles at US ships. That is an act of war.

We are now using the military for what was law enforcement through EO changing their status. That is a big difference.

---

This is an Act of War moreso than a few sailors with bandaids under Biden. According to provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were an estimated 48,422 deaths from synthetic opioid overdoses, primarily fentanyl, in the United States in 2024. That doesnt take into effect all the cocaine that came into this country. That is what you are fighting for, the importation of drugs. Never pegged you as one of those. Since 1971, we have been fighting the War on Drugs. Apparently this is not something you feel we should participate in, now that we are actually fighting the War on Drugs

---

You guys are ridiculous. we moved drugs from law enforcement to terror. you question what we are doing and you are now good with drug dealers. That is the problem with you maga types, you label people if they question. no one in their right mind is for drug trafficing and you know it.

---

Then why do you support the drug cartels killing tens of thousands of Americans? Take a stand

---

Tens of thousands of Americans are killing themselves. No one is forcing them to take drugs. If this is analogous to terrorism then every user is a sleeper cell or lone wolf enabling the crime (or terror) plaguing our nation.

---

Yet these are Americans, not cartel drug runners. Why are you supporting the drug runners?

---

By presenting solutions to remove the need for drug cartels, I'm supporting drug runners? Good grief you guys are obtuse…

---

So you presented a solution that no one in their right mind would present. And you ignore that fact that the drugs are gonna come into the country anyway so that the next generation will try them. Doesnt exactly make sense, does it? Just come out and agree that you want to drug runners to keep coming to the US. The former has already been proven not to work. Now we are trying the latter

Bob Ross painting happy little accidents in the form of Venezuelan boats.

Isn’t America great? pic.twitter.com/GXD5xcxLGb

— AmericanPapaBear™ (@AmericaPapaBear) October 25, 2025

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock 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?

---

we do have rules about who to kill. POTUS has invoked them. Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations opens up a range of policy options.

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

Mitch, you really aren't living in the same world as the rest of us.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Assassin said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock 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?

---

we do have rules about who to kill. POTUS has invoked them. Designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations opens up a range of policy options.

---

That is the question, can the President unilaterally declare someone a terrorist? What is the check and balance on that? I know this sounds bad, but I believe it is a reality and happens covertly. For some reason that doesn't bother me. This open announcement, broad daylight execution raises questions.

The open President pointing a finger and saying "As of today you are a terrorist, watch for drones" puts a different spin on it. It is more transparent, but is that what we want?

---

Yes. He has clear statutory authority to do designate countries and organizations as terror entities. Kinetic options flow from there.

---

Yeah, Executive Order 14157. I guess we can blow up boats at sea.

---

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-02004/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially

---

Well, he is getting real serious now, they have ordered the Ford to the Caribbean.

Ok, then. If we are going to do it and he is allowed, do it right...

---

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with blowing these guys sky high

---

it is not the blowing up of scum. it is the process and controls on the Executive Branch...But as far as i can tell, Trunp is within his rights

---

No he isn't.

---

Only if the Constitution of Sam is in effect. However it's the Constitution of the USA

---

These boats are in international waters. Is it ok for France to blow up an American flagged boat in the Atlantic saying they are carrying illegal guns?

---

Mitch, you really aren't living in the same world as the rest of us.

---

He commutes...

Rand Paul on Trump's strikes on boats: "I would call them extrajudicial killings. This is akin to what China does, what Iran does with drug dealers -- they summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public. So it's wrong." pic.twitter.com/NPCIt9kzgT

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 26, 2025

Venezuela fentanyl = Iraq WMD.
Neocon war lies. https://t.co/U49LCHWlRY

— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) October 25, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

Venezuela fentanyl = Iraq WMD.
Neocon war lies. https://t.co/U49LCHWlRY

— Daniel McAdams (@DanielLMcAdams) October 25, 2025

---

Starting to believe that the cartels are funding Rand Paul's political career.