Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, such bloodlust is contrary to longstanding law. There are other counties that tolerate and celebrate the “eye for an eye” justice that you describe.
The poisoning of Americans, including children, in exchange for money warrants lethal action. Change my mind.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, such bloodlust is contrary to longstanding law. There are other counties that tolerate and celebrate the “eye for an eye” justice that you describe.
The poisoning of Americans, including children, in exchange for money warrants lethal action. Change my mind.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I prefer living in a world where drug runners are hunted relentlessly.
I don’t miss the old world where our country “managed” the drug problem by tolerating it and training us all to accept it as a given and just part of a city’s “urban charm.” Poor enforcement is essentially a subsidy, and we know that whenever we subsidize something then we get more of that thing.
Glad we are attaching a horrific cost to drug running. These people should live in abject terror. Kill them all.
What is your definition of a "drug runner"? does it include people at every end of the chain, down to a 10 year old lookout at the corner? How about the suburban teenager who has addiction and sells some fentanyl to cover the price of the fentanyl they're taking? What about the UMC investor who snorts lines of coke at parties? After all, you don't have a drug enterprise without customers. In the US cities with the highest percentage of cocaine use, more than a fifth of adults have used cocaine. You think some impoverished guy in Venezuela held a gun to their head? By the way, drugs or no drugs, more people in the US still die from alcohol related causes as from illicit drugs. (178k per CDC, and this does NOT include alcohol-related accidents, just booze alone).
Maybe we should go all in on Islamic prohibition and just execute users while we're at it. After all, if extrajudicial killing is a good answer, wouldn't it be even better if we extended it to users?
Phoenix, Arizona (23.3% of the population has used cocaine)
Mesa, Arizona (22.5%)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (22%)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (21.8%)
Omaha, Nebraska (22.2%)
Las Vegas, Nevada (21.9%)
Wichita, Kansas (21.8%)
Fresno, California (21.8%)
Tucson, Arizona (21.8%)
Colorado Springs, Colorado (21.8%)
I guess I see a distinction here. If you are a foreign criminal involved in moving drugs into the United States then you are fair game for the United States military. The US is bound to provide for the common defense. That kind of force should be used correctly and there should be consequences for screw ups.
Once the drugs are here, the approach shifts to a mix of law enforcement and public health approaches. American citizens are afforded privileges that others lack.
People in the US illegally who are convicted of drug charges should be deported and have no reasonable expectation of ever returning to this country.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I prefer living in a world where drug runners are hunted relentlessly.
I don’t miss the old world where our country “managed” the drug problem by tolerating it and training us all to accept it as a given and just part of a city’s “urban charm.” Poor enforcement is essentially a subsidy, and we know that whenever we subsidize something then we get more of that thing.
Glad we are attaching a horrific cost to drug running. These people should live in abject terror. Kill them all.
What is your definition of a "drug runner"? does it include people at every end of the chain, down to a 10 year old lookout at the corner? How about the suburban teenager who has addiction and sells some fentanyl to cover the price of the fentanyl they're taking? What about the UMC investor who snorts lines of coke at parties? After all, you don't have a drug enterprise without customers. In the US cities with the highest percentage of cocaine use, more than a fifth of adults have used cocaine. You think some impoverished guy in Venezuela held a gun to their head? By the way, drugs or no drugs, more people in the US still die from alcohol related causes as from illicit drugs. (178k per CDC, and this does NOT include alcohol-related accidents, just booze alone).
Maybe we should go all in on Islamic prohibition and just execute users while we're at it. After all, if extrajudicial killing is a good answer, wouldn't it be even better if we extended it to users?
Phoenix, Arizona (23.3% of the population has used cocaine)
Mesa, Arizona (22.5%)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (22%)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (21.8%)
Omaha, Nebraska (22.2%)
Las Vegas, Nevada (21.9%)
Wichita, Kansas (21.8%)
Fresno, California (21.8%)
Tucson, Arizona (21.8%)
Colorado Springs, Colorado (21.8%)
Anonymous wrote:I prefer living in a world where drug runners are hunted relentlessly.
I don’t miss the old world where our country “managed” the drug problem by tolerating it and training us all to accept it as a given and just part of a city’s “urban charm.” Poor enforcement is essentially a subsidy, and we know that whenever we subsidize something then we get more of that thing.
Glad we are attaching a horrific cost to drug running. These people should live in abject terror. Kill them all.
Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, such bloodlust is contrary to longstanding law. There are other counties that tolerate and celebrate the “eye for an eye” justice that you describe.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WSJ got what everyone has suspected:
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shocked official Washington in mid-October when he announced that the four-star head of U.S. military operations in the Caribbean was retiring less than a year into his tenure.
But according to two Pentagon officials, Hegseth asked Adm. Alvin Holsey to step down, a de facto ouster that was the culmination of months of discord between Hegseth and the officer. It began days after President Trump’s inauguration in January and intensified months later when Holsey had initial concerns about the legality of lethal strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, according to former officials aware of the discussions.
Not long after, Hegseth announced that Holsey would be retiring.”
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hegseth-asked-top-admiral-to-resign-after-months-of-discord-9e7b357f?mod=mhp
OT for this thread but the Pentagon press corps seems to be doing just fine after being ousted from the building. 🙂
This is not from the pentagon press corps. There really is no one covering the the pentagon/DOD.
Yes there is, they’re just no longer in the briefing room.
This is the “pentagon press corps”:
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WSJ got what everyone has suspected:
“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shocked official Washington in mid-October when he announced that the four-star head of U.S. military operations in the Caribbean was retiring less than a year into his tenure.
But according to two Pentagon officials, Hegseth asked Adm. Alvin Holsey to step down, a de facto ouster that was the culmination of months of discord between Hegseth and the officer. It began days after President Trump’s inauguration in January and intensified months later when Holsey had initial concerns about the legality of lethal strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, according to former officials aware of the discussions.
Not long after, Hegseth announced that Holsey would be retiring.”
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/hegseth-asked-top-admiral-to-resign-after-months-of-discord-9e7b357f?mod=mhp
OT for this thread but the Pentagon press corps seems to be doing just fine after being ousted from the building. 🙂
This is not from the pentagon press corps. There really is no one covering the the pentagon/DOD.
Yes there is, they’re just no longer in the briefing room.
Anonymous wrote:We’re taking a look at getting rid of Pete,
We’re taking a look at it.
He’s what you call a liability,
It’s called libel. He's libel.
So we’re taking a look at getting rid of him.