Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.

---

More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.

---

Yet by your reasoning, he could.

---

LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.

By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.

---

Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.

---

LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.

---

Wrong.

---

Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).

I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.

---

There's nothing unconstitutional about the statute. It just has no resemblance to the nonsense that you're spouting. You've at least made clear what a completely unhinged and authoritarian theory of executive power you're harboring, so thanks for that, I guess.

---

You've gone this far into thread and have not even made one single discernible argument. But I suppose I'll give you credit for your baseless stubbornness and ego. It's impressive in a weird way.

---

Tell him that none shall pass, as per the duties of the Black Knight. pic.twitter.com/D6JILCeEnT

— Luke B. (@LukeB_CREATOR) April 12, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.

Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.

Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).

---

Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.

---

"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.

"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).

You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.

---

The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.

---

More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.

---

Yet by your reasoning, he could.

---

LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.

By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.

---

Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.

---

LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.

---

Wrong.

---

Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).

I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.

---

There's nothing unconstitutional about the statute. It just has no resemblance to the nonsense that you're spouting. You've at least made clear what a completely unhinged and authoritarian theory of executive power you're harboring, so thanks for that, I guess.

---

You've gone this far into thread and have not even made one single discernible argument. But I suppose I'll give you credit for your baseless stubbornness and ego. It's impressive in a weird way.

---

Again, there are specific conditions under which the use of military force is authorized. This is not one of them.

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

An interesting article on the people killed.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031c

Quote:

---

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.

Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.

---

---

AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.

Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin

---

the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.

Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.

A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.

War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.

---

Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.

---

It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.

---

she's missing the escalation sequence. Striking cartel logistics in the open ocean is NOT an act of war. Striking cartel command & control in Venezuelan territory IS an act of war.

You start off with the deployments. Then you hit what you can hit in international territory. Then, you engage in covert operations. Hopefully, you provoke the regime into a response that you can define as an act of war. Then, it's game on.

That's what's afoot off the coat of Venezuela.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.

Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.

Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).

---

Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.

---

"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.

"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).

You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.

---

The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.

---

More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.

---

Yet by your reasoning, he could.

---

LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.

By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.

---

Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.

---

LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.

---

Wrong.

---

Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).

I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.

---

There's nothing unconstitutional about the statute. It just has no resemblance to the nonsense that you're spouting. You've at least made clear what a completely unhinged and authoritarian theory of executive power you're harboring, so thanks for that, I guess.

---

You've gone this far into thread and have not even made one single discernible argument. But I suppose I'll give you credit for your baseless stubbornness and ego. It's impressive in a weird way.

---

Again, there are specific conditions under which the use of military force is authorized. This is not one of them.

---

I can see you and your sibling, toddler aged ...

"Nuh uh"
"Uh huh"
"Nuh uh"
"Uh huh"

Who could argue with such a cogent and well-articulated analysis?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Yes, President Trump Can Blow Up Drug Boats - Chronicles

---

The question is whether drugs, which has been a law enforcement issue, is the same as terrorism.


No one on here, from what I can see, thinks it is bad to destroy drugs entering the US. No one on here seems to think that there are not drugs on those boats. Those are not the concerns.

The concern is how we are determining a "terrorist organization", the same as how we are determining "National Emergencies". Both of those, which are avenues this Administration are using broadly, give the Executive Branch much more power and leeway than the Constitution intends.

On a personal note, I just find it amusing watching people on here who were strict Constitutionalist 18 months ago defending Trump's taking of power and then applying all sorts of mental gymnastics and economic lessons to justify it. When the truth is that if the person in the President's seat advances what you (any of us) want, we will turn the other way. If it is something we don't want, like Biden's agenda, scream that the Constitution never intended for that... At least some on here say they are willing to look the other way to stop Fentanyl, I respect that more than the gymnastics because it is honest.

Me, I agree with what he is doing but worry about "how" and if that can be used in the future in ways I don't support or on me, for whatever reason.

---

Nothing amusing with the huge number of Americans dying every year from drug overdoses.

Past rules of engagement clearly have not worked.

Very glad Trump is taking a new approach.

If I had my way, a 2nd conviction for drug smuggling into the US would receive the death penalty.

An execution which would be 'fast tracked' within 6 months.

Results would be immediate

---

And how is my finding it amusing watching people change do the exact same thing they yelled at the liberals for doing on climate undo my second and last paragraph's? They are just as bad as the Biden crowd, just different set of issues their willing to let go.

How far do you go for ends justifies the means? Obviously, for Fentanyl you are good with what is going on. Get it a trigger for you. But, there are ALOT of other people that don't have Fentanyl or illegal drug issues in their life. Some believe prescription drug abuse is more of a problem. Some believe the Climate is more of a problem. Some believe aggressive driving and traffic deaths are more of an issue. I can go on, depends on what happened to each of us individually. How fare are you willing to go? Automated camera traffic ticketing? Raids on Doctor's offices? Allowing Elon to take over the sky? All can be done by the President with a swipe of the pen as a National Emergency.

Change the law. The system is in place for a reason, we have *******ized it and the ramifications are brutal. As you know, what we agree on with the President can be turned to something else, very easily, both left and right.

---

You closed with a false dilemma. There is no law preventing a POTUS from ordering the US Navy in international waters to sink drug cartel watercraft engaged in hostile acts against the USA. In fact, he has cited explicit statutory authority to do so.

Underneath nearly all arguments against what POTUS is doing to the watercraft of drug cartels designated as terror groups is the faulty premise that non-citizens outside of our jurisdiction engaged in illegal activity may ONLY be dealt with via law enforcement measures. Not. So. If Hizballah is running drugs to raise cash (and they've done that forever) are we obligated to reel in military options and instead treat them as a LE problem? No. We should refuse to treat them as a LE problem, because to do so would require us to bring them into the jurisdiction of our courts to do so at enormous risk and cost to the taxpayer. Far cheaper and wiser to dispatch them abroad with military assets.

Small powers avoid direct confrontation of great powers, and instead choose asymmetrical warfare tactics designed to harass those greater powers, to distract and dissuade and ideally destabilize them if possible. A hostile power like Venezuela allowing drug cartels into its ruling coalition affords it the de facto proxies necessary to wage asymmetrical warfare against us, in ways that (ironically) prompt people otherwise inimical to Venezuela and drug cartels to defend the de facto alliance between Venezuela and the Cartels of the Sun from the full force of USG policy response. (as if Venezuela has some right under international law to allow its state institutions to be a safe haven for drug cartels operating against the USA).

---

Whether or not we created a law in 1973 or in 2003 after 911 doesn't change the concern. Both are modern laws that delegate authority from one branch to the other. Using these powers so close to the US or even in the US itself begs the question of when is Executive Power too much. Opinion polls and laws on the books are not the end all for policy. There are bad laws on the books, there are legal acts that are immoral or just not good ideas, and there are Executives that are more Authoritarian than others that use those laws.

---

"close to the US" is neither a concern nor a factor. You deal with the problem where it is.

"In the US itself" is manifestly not a factor. We have LE and Courts to handle it there. No role for the military inside the country until/unless things get wildly out of hand (i.e. total breakdown of civil order). This issue is about how we deal with the problem OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of US courts. (FYI, international law on piracy is written in context of "hot pursuit" scenarios or universal law claims. US has never exercised a universal law claim (in no small because we do not want to empower lesser powers to invoke it against US interests).

You are simply not addressing the issue at all. There is nothing illegal about what we are doing to the speedboats of the drug cartels who have been designated as terror organizations. If they attempt to run a blockade, they will be destroyed.

---

The concern is absolutely valid. Trump has just as much authority to order such strikes inside the country as to order them in the Caribbean. He's already declaring bogus emergencies (i.e. "breakdowns of civil order") as a way of involving the military.

---

More fiction. He has not claimed any right for US military or civilian assets to drone-strike anyone transporting drugs on our streets.

---

Yet by your reasoning, he could.

---

LOL, no. Unlike in the foreign policy realm, where lack of US jurisdiction which sharply limits the need for due process to limit the hand of the executive, inside the USA we have robust systems of state & federal law to guide policy responses to problems.

By your reasoning, we will need a lawyer to accompany every rifleman on the battlefield.

---

Again, the law provides jurisdiction to search and seize, and we exercise it routinely. If this were a battlefield, other laws would apply.

---

LOL it is a battlefield, thanks to the terror designation, ergo there is no obligation to search & seize. Kinetic options suffice.

---

Wrong.

---

Until SCOTUS overturns the designation, or the statute empowering it, the drug cartels we are shooting at are legally defined as terrorist organizations, rendering kinetic options an appropriate response (no matter how much you may not like it).

I would advise making a case for policy alternatives with a better chance of success rather than taking the right-wing knuckle-dragger option of declaring everything you don't like as unconstitutional.

---

There's nothing unconstitutional about the statute. It just has no resemblance to the nonsense that you're spouting. You've at least made clear what a completely unhinged and authoritarian theory of executive power you're harboring, so thanks for that, I guess.

---

You've gone this far into thread and have not even made one single discernible argument. But I suppose I'll give you credit for your baseless stubbornness and ego. It's impressive in a weird way.

---

Again, there are specific conditions under which the use of military force is authorized. This is not one of them.

---

I can see you and your sibling, toddler aged ...

"Nuh uh"
"Uh huh"
"Nuh uh"
"Uh huh"

Who could argue with such a cogent and well-articulated analysis?

---

Whiterock and I have had this argument on several threads. I don't need to rehash the whole thing for every heckler who stumbles into the conversation. I'll keep calling out the shameless BS when I see it, though.

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

An interesting article on the people killed.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031c

Quote:

---

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.

Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.

---

---

AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.

Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin

---

the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.

Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.

A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.

War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.

---

Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.

---

It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.

---

she's missing the escalation sequence. Striking cartel logistics in the open ocean is NOT an act of war. Striking cartel command & control in Venezuelan territory IS an act of war.

You start off with the deployments. Then you hit what you can hit in international territory. Then, you engage in covert operations. Hopefully, you provoke the regime into a response that you can define as an act of war. Then, it's game on.

That's what's afoot off the coat of Venezuela.

---

As a strategy to invade Venezuela, it is a good strategy. Poke them a bit with sticks until they give you an excuse for invasion.

As a strategy to stop drugs from coming into the United States, it is pathetic.

Do you think we are trying to invade Venezuela? Make it an example to the other South American countries who traffick drugs?

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

An interesting article on the people killed.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031c

Quote:

---

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.

Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.

---

---

AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.

Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin

---

the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.

Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.

A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.

War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.

---

Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.

---

It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.

---

she's missing the escalation sequence. Striking cartel logistics in the open ocean is NOT an act of war. Striking cartel command & control in Venezuelan territory IS an act of war.

You start off with the deployments. Then you hit what you can hit in international territory. Then, you engage in covert operations. Hopefully, you provoke the regime into a response that you can define as an act of war. Then, it's game on.

That's what's afoot off the coat of Venezuela.

---

As a strategy to invade Venezuela, it is a good strategy. Poke them a bit with sticks until they give you an excuse for invasion.

As a strategy to stop drugs from coming into the United States, it is pathetic.

Do you think we are trying to invade Venezuela? Make it an example to the other South American countries who traffick drugs?

---

Non sequitur. If a blockade to stop shipments of drugs from Venezuela is effective enough to destabilize the regime, it by definition is effective in harming cartel logistics & finance.

We are at war with Venezuela = a continuation of politics via other means. We are muscling the cartels to destabilize the regime in order to stop drug smuggling into our country, in order to interdict Chinese and Iranian and Russian influence in the country, to prevent Venezuela from invading Guyana, to promote democracy in the region.. Iran built a military drone factory in Venezuela. China is investing lots of money. Russia is sending in all kinds of military hardware.

Venezuela can avoid regime collapse if they change policy. But they aren't going to do that. So we are going to continue to escalate politics via other means. Hopefully, either a general or a mob does the hard work for us.

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

An interesting article on the people killed.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031c

Quote:

---

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.

Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.

---

---

AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.

Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin

---

the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.

Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.

A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.

War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.

---

Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.

---

It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.

---

she's missing the escalation sequence. Striking cartel logistics in the open ocean is NOT an act of war. Striking cartel command & control in Venezuelan territory IS an act of war.

You start off with the deployments. Then you hit what you can hit in international territory. Then, you engage in covert operations. Hopefully, you provoke the regime into a response that you can define as an act of war. Then, it's game on.

That's what's afoot off the coat of Venezuela.

---

As a strategy to invade Venezuela, it is a good strategy. Poke them a bit with sticks until they give you an excuse for invasion.

As a strategy to stop drugs from coming into the United States, it is pathetic.

Do you think we are trying to invade Venezuela? Make it an example to the other South American countries who traffick drugs?

---

Non sequitur. If a blockade to stop shipments of drugs from Venezuela is effective enough to destabilize the regime, it by definition is effective in harming cartel logistics & finance.

We are at war with Venezuela = a continuation of politics via other means. We are muscling the cartels to destabilize the regime in order to stop drug smuggling into our country, in order to interdict Chinese and Iranian and Russian influence in the country, to prevent Venezuela from invading Guyana, to promote democracy in the region.. Iran built a military drone factory in Venezuela. China is investing lots of money. Russia is sending in all kinds of military hardware.

Venezuela can avoid regime collapse if they change policy. But they aren't going to do that. So we are going to continue to escalate politics via other means. Hopefully, either a general or a mob does the hard work for us.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

Been there, done that.

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

Been there, done that.

---

Never thought I would see you turn your head and run away. But there you are.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

Been there, done that.

---

Never thought I would see you turn your head and run away. But there you are.

---

And you won't.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

I think the basic problem is that most of us that are wary of Trump are concerned exactly for that reason, he prefers Authoritarian solutions. You say you won't respond, but that IS the issue for many who are questioning him. HOW he is doing it, not really what he is doing. If you won't respond because the "how" doesn't matter than there is not much more to say.

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

I think the basic problem is that most of us that are wary of Trump are concerned exactly for that reason, he prefers Authoritarian solutions. You say you won't respond, but that IS the issue for many who are questioning him. HOW he is doing it, not really what he is doing. If you won't respond because the "how" doesn't matter than there is not much more to say.

---

Here's the thing, though. Authoritarian isn't an argument in and of itself. Does he have those tendencies? Yes. Do they sometimes bother me (e.g. flag burning nonsense)? Yes. Question is what is the surrounding legal framework. I was on record early saying he was on a limb there, but it appears the limb is largely holding. So it is what it is. Other limbs have and will break, and for good reason.

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

Been there, done that.

---

Never thought I would see you turn your head and run away. But there you are.

---

And you won't.

---

But you've been doing it a lot lately. We all have seen your backside. It's not a pretty sight

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

whiterock said:

---

he's playing typically fast & loose with the definition of the word "argument."

---

I largely quit interacting with him when I realized his feelings were so much more important to him than his standards for any actual logical argument.

---

That's because you don't know the difference. You're the right-wing equivalent of the callow young leftist who thinks "rationality" is a certain fixed set of opinions.

---

I could take any side of any argument and beat you like a redheaded stepchild. You're not even good at arguing for your own positions.

---

Take Whiterock's side and have at it. He needs all the help he can get.

---

If you ever actually responded to his argument other than just saying "authoritarian," I'd ponder it.

---

Been there, done that.

---

Never thought I would see you turn your head and run away. But there you are.

---

And you won't.

---

But you've been doing it a lot lately. We all have seen your backside. It's not a pretty sight

---

Sometimes it's better to do your own homework. Who knows, it might even inspire some curiosity.

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

An interesting article on the people killed.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-boat-strikes-drugs-cocaine-trafficking-e4fcf945e48e36bf2c510f9f111e031c

Quote:

---

In dozens of interviews in villages on Venezuela's breathtaking northeastern coast, from which some of the boats departed, residents and relatives told Garcia Cano the dead men had indeed been running drugs but were not narco-terrorists, as alleged by the Trump administration, or leaders of a cartel or gang.

Most of the nine men were crewing such craft for the first or second time, making at least $500 per trip, residents and relatives said. The four dead men included a fisherman, a down-on-his-luck bus driver, a former military cadet and a local crime boss. Others included laborers and a motorcycle driver.

---

---

AP News... I'm sure that's accurate and proven.

Down on the luck bus driver, fisherman, an ex military cadet and local crime dude drive off in an ocean going vessel with 4 massive outboard motors, hauling millions of dollars worth of drugs. Make sense...probably just a fishing boat looking for marlin

---

the article is just more social justice narrative = poverty makes it ok, particularly when it's the "little guy" sticking it to "the man" (the USA). No handsome, jewelry-adorned Pablo Escobar-esque businessmen in Panama hats in sight, ergo it's just the underclass forced into common crime by the many dysfunctions of global capitalism.

Truth is, cartel mules don't wear uniforms and drive vehicles emblazoned with logos carrying goods with QR codes and guaranteed analysis labels on them. They are street level criminals in an international drug cartel trying to remain inconspicuous. One way to shut down a drug cartel is to destroy its distribution operation by making it impossible to find boat crews (who know that pulling away from port on the Paria Peninsula in a fishing boat laden with bale of cocaine is a certain death sentence). To the extent that pressuring the drug cartels thusly also puts pressure on the national government who is protecting & promoting said cartels......well, that is good policy.

A blockade is an act of war. Notably, we are not blockading commercial traffic in/out of Venezuela. Neither the cargo ships, nor the oil tankers nor the airliners or cruise ships, etc.....just drug smuggling boats. Venezuela cannot claim such is an act of war without admitting they are allowing drug smugglers to operate from its shores. So Maduro has to bend over and take it. The cartel leadership in his cabinet is railing at him to do something. But he can't. If he does, he provokes US military response against himself directly. He knows what happened to Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin. Nobody in their right mind, most particularly a head of state worth billions of dollars, wants to spend a decade hiding in a hole waiting for the inevitable end = to get shot a couple hundred times in the middle of the night by Seal Team 6.

War is a continuation of policy by other means. Drug cartels are overwhelming US law enforcement. Ergo we are bringing "additional resources" to bear on their operations abroad.

---

Going to war with cartels should mean trying to get the leaders, stop distribution, as you say.... which is different from killing the impoverished fishermen desperate enough to take a risky job. A losing strategy. There are quite a few poor folks in Central America.

---

It's pretty funny you think the cartel would just handover millions of product to random "poor fisherman." You do you Boogers & Glue.

---

she's missing the escalation sequence. Striking cartel logistics in the open ocean is NOT an act of war. Striking cartel command & control in Venezuelan territory IS an act of war.

You start off with the deployments. Then you hit what you can hit in international territory. Then, you engage in covert operations. Hopefully, you provoke the regime into a response that you can define as an act of war. Then, it's game on.

That's what's afoot off the coat of Venezuela.

---

As a strategy to invade Venezuela, it is a good strategy. Poke them a bit with sticks until they give you an excuse for invasion.

As a strategy to stop drugs from coming into the United States, it is pathetic.

Do you think we are trying to invade Venezuela? Make it an example to the other South American countries who traffick drugs?

---

Non sequitur. If a blockade to stop shipments of drugs from Venezuela is effective enough to destabilize the regime, it by definition is effective in harming cartel logistics & finance.

We are at war with Venezuela = a continuation of politics via other means. We are muscling the cartels to destabilize the regime in order to stop drug smuggling into our country, in order to interdict Chinese and Iranian and Russian influence in the country, to prevent Venezuela from invading Guyana, to promote democracy in the region.. Iran built a military drone factory in Venezuela. China is investing lots of money. Russia is sending in all kinds of military hardware.

Venezuela can avoid regime collapse if they change policy. But they aren't going to do that. So we are going to continue to escalate politics via other means. Hopefully, either a general or a mob does the hard work for us.

---

So you do hope Venezuela falls, either to a mob, or U.S. invasion. I don't see us invading. Let them deal with their issues. Don't destabilize Central America like it's filled with oil.

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't trust Trump with the Truth, nor lil Petey.

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't trust Trump with the Truth, nor lil Petey.

---

In that case would you have us allow these drug boats to resume bringing their poisons to our shores ?

Over 100,000 Americans have been dying annually from these poisons. Past approach's to the problem haven't worked.

Whats your alternative ?

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't trust Trump with the Truth, nor lil Petey.

---

In that case would you have us allow these drug boats to resume bringing their poisons to our shores ?

Over 100,000 Americans have been dying annually from these poisons. Past approach's to the problem haven't worked.

Whats your alternative ?

---

lol he wants the US Navy to get a US federal judge to issue a warrant allowing them to blow up boats carrying drugs....boats we can see in real time have big bundles of drugs on them....boats we watch get loaded.....while we listen to the comms between known cartel members loading the boats....

The critics should just be honest and say they don't mind how many drugs get smuggled into the country, since it makes Trump look bad.

---

KaiBear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't trust Trump with the Truth, nor lil Petey.

---

In that case would you have us allow these drug boats to resume bringing their poisons to our shores ?

Over 100,000 Americans have been dying annually from these poisons. Past approach's to the problem haven't worked.

Whats your alternative ?

---