Trump calls for 'war'

a reply to: purplemer

That would make sense as to why the establishment would want to bring down an anti-establishment president.




HEY ERRBODY, IT'S 4:20! HAR HUR HUR

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: JoeGee

You have this idea in your head that we legalize weed and our problems go away.

Are you aware that since we've been becoming more leanant with marijuana, drug cartels have been expanding more into the heroin business?

Are you saying we should legalize heroin?

Yes. People will find it if they want it anyways. At least legal there is no shady fentanly laced stuff,or shady dealers, and we can provide programs for rehab instead of jail for possession charges with the tax revenue from it.

How do people not understand that people WILL get their drugs, no matter what? Doesn't matter the legality of it.

NO ... They wont! If you get rid of the supply, the demand is pointless because there wont be one. Again... it's not a one step process. More needs to go into this.

You are out to lunch if you think you will get rid of supply..for more than a New York minute.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: purplemer

That would make sense as to why the establishment would want to bring down an anti-establishment president.

lol... whats he ever actually done in his entire life to give you the impression his "anti- establishment"?

The basis of this entire thread is evidence of just how established he really is. If he was legitimately anti-establishment, then he wouldn't be calling for the same old tired approach that's been failing miserably since the war on drugs started.

If he was truly "anti-establishment, then he'd be advocating an entirely new approach, which has not already been tried and failed, to the point of Ad nauseam.

Maybe I’m wrong, but with the operators/ intelligence we surely have on the ground, I would think a couple warthogs and a handful of Apaches could send a powerful message really fast.

ETA: I don’t believe this is about weed for a second.
Coke, opiates, fentanyl, meth, etc. more likely.

a reply to: Oaktree

ETA: I don’t believe this is about weed for a second.
Coke, opiates, fentanyl, meth, etc. more likely.

It's about power and the money it takes to keep that power, at any cost. Coke, opiates, fentanyl, meth and humans, are just the most lucrative means to an end.

The fish rots from the head. Get the crooks out of powerful positions.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
You’re right in that I forgot to add human beings to that list of “tradables”.
People be treated as commodities is atrocious, and can not be accepted.

Who do believe to be the crooks in powerful positions?
It seems to me this has been happening for 40 years, in one way or another.
One head gets cut off, two more grow.

Remember Pakistan?
Remember Afghanistan?

We have attacked entities within sovereign borders many times before without the permission of that particular government.

Trump need merely snap his fingers. 2 F16 bombers, a gun ship, and a couple of Apache's will fix the problem within just a few short minutes.

a reply to: Oaktree

One head gets cut off, two more grow.

And, there is the rub.

a reply to: FingerMan

A headquarters or a drug cartel factory would most likely have many slave workers. Many of those abducted and innocent.
This kind of collateral damage would be a real problemo with a bunker-buster approach.

I don't think most of you realize how infiltrated the US is with the Mexican cartel. If a war was brought upon them, I am almost certain the cartel would bring the war to the US. Abduction of political figures, gorilla warfare attacking bases and or other military assets. Food for thought.

a reply to: FingerMan
Laughable, you think life is a video game.

How long did it take to get Escobar, or Guzman, you think these guys just stay at "home" they just look up the address and bomb away?

And you are going to need a helluva lot more than a gunship, and 2 bombers. Do you have the address of the thousands of labs, and fields that grow the base ingredients?

No, life is not a video game.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: FingerMan

A headquarters or a drug cartel factory would most likely have many slave workers. Many of those abducted and innocent.
This kind of collateral damage would be a real problemo with a bunker-buster approach.

Good point.
Vehicles, generators or power sources, storage supplies etc. could still be targeted, though.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Eh why not?

The whole middle eastern thing has gotten stale. Besides all those bunker busters just laying around, I mean some of that stuff has an expiration date. I just googled and it says there are an estimated 120,000 cartel members. Now that is plenty of those dedicated to the cause of donating there bodies to the cause of munitions testing. And it can be done year after year, because there will be plenty of others to take there place, even the contractors can keep sales up year after year.

But still this is about the group of Mormons living in Mexico because with the law the way it is in most states, they cant get jigy and down to there tenets? I suppose morman's are citizens to, if just barely.

But heck, lets get this party started. Just as long as everybody knows, this is going to get bloody, and collateral damage a plenty, mostly for Mexican citizens caught in the cross fire. And the whole drug management will have to be redone, or rebranded most likely. But again plenty of people willing to sign up for that. In the end, it may achieve a more stable drug management routine.

And little else. But then again, so many weapons out there, whats to point of having more bombs and toys to wipe a few countries of the face of the map, if your not going to use it.

Or you can let things just go on as they are in Mexico and the cartels. Either way, not much of a difference between those two options in the long run. Ah seems like a waste of time. Maybe just give the mormans a few air to surface missiles, obviously there convoys and arms aren't doing it, but then again that's like giving the cartels those very same weapons.

Gee, things are getting even more funny by the day. But the choices still remain hard to tell a difference between them.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: FingerMan
Laughable, you think life is a video game.

How long did it take to get Escobar, or Guzman, you think these guys just stay at "home" they just look up the address and bomb away?

And you are going to need a helluva lot more than a gunship, and 2 bombers. Do you have the address of the thousands of labs, and fields that grow the base ingredients?

No, life is not a video game.

Life is a game.
Military hunting its' target is a game.
Military obliterating taking out a few hundred gangsters would be easy.
They are not ISIS. They don't hide.

If you don't think the US knows where these gangsters are at, then you simply cannot fathom our resources and capabilities.
I'd tell you, but it's above Top Secret.

I’m glad that you summarize marijuana for a nation based on it not helping a family member ! A doctor almost killed my mother by negligence!! So by your logic all doctors cause problems ! Please think in a polymorphic manner instead of a myopic one . Appreciate your opinion , but weed has been smoked forever and it vs Alcohol is a no brainer my concerned citizen!

I’m glad that you summarize marijuana for a nation based on it not helping a family member ! A doctor almost killed my mother by negligence!! So by your logic all doctors cause problems ! Please think in a polymorphic manner instead of a myopic one . Appreciate your opinion , but weed has been smoked forever and it vs Alcohol is a no brainer my concerned citizen!

originally posted by: Oaktree
Maybe I’m wrong, but with the operators/ intelligence we surely have on the ground, I would think a couple warthogs and a handful of Apaches could send a powerful message really fast.

ETA: I don’t believe this is about weed for a second.
Coke, opiates, fentanyl, meth, etc. more likely.

See my [and others'] earlier posts.

It's not in our strategic interest to interdict most of those things. Meth is probably the one exception but we have better go-pills nowadays anyway (modafanil/provigil).

originally posted by: FingerMan
Remember Pakistan?
Remember Afghanistan?

We have attacked entities within sovereign borders many times before without the permission of that particular government.

Trump need merely snap his fingers. 2 F16 bombers, a gun ship, and a couple of Apache's will fix the problem within just a few short minutes.

The f-16 would not be an ideal ground attack platform. We have better that do not risk US servicemen.

"...gun ship?" lol Did you just complete Call of Duty?

Apaches make nice, stable targets for the latest SAMs or even RPGs if you know when and where they're going to pop up and shoot. Not hard to do in your own backyard, which is where you'd have them operating.

Flight time from a US base to most cartel targets would be more than, "a few short minutes."

I suggest you sign up. You seem to know better than everyone I've ever trained under.

The cartels are like corporate America.

The people doing the growing and work are just poor people trying to make living. The cartel guys direct the flow of product and get the money.

The generalized blowing up of fields and factories isn't really "getting" the cartel guys but it does slow down their machine.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: ChefFox

No you shouldn't.Legalizing weed makes things much worse. You would see a rapid of junkies on the streets

Lol, weed junkies.

Good one.

reefer madness.......its the '30s all over again.....

If I did ever have kids, I'd way rather them pick up a smoking habit than a drinking one. One's far more healthier.

Put five drunks together, and they'll start a fight. Put five stoners together, and they'll start a band. Seriously, though...we legalised that left-handed smoke a year ago, and the only surprise is that the government can't seem to come up with a cheap, consistently good product. But the cartels make a lot more money from hard drugs than reefer.