Trump Orders U.S. Military Action Against Terrorist Drug Cartels

#151
#151
MontyPython said:
Donnie is the King of Debt, Tariffman and the poster child of form over substance...

Tuesday’s strike, which killed 11 people, was unprecedented, said retired US Amb. Luis Moreno, who spent much of his career at the State Department working on counter-narcotic efforts.

“If it really was a major drug trafficking movement, why not do as we’ve always done? Get a beat on it, trace it to where they’re going to drop the drugs off, to a mothership or to someone else, and then seize the whole thing,” he told CNN.

“Just without warning, just blowing it up to smithereens in international waters, that’s not the way you’re supposed to do things,” Moreno said, arguing the strike “was done for drama, for Hollywood effect.”
Click to expand...
I’d be really interested to see what the JAG office supporting this task force had to say on the legality of the order to strike the boat.
 
#153
#153
LouderVol said:
its easy to sell yourself on the government over reach when you pretend every boat was jam packed with Marvel level super villains guilty of murdering whole orphanages, on their way to the US with a pocket nuke, and they were seconds away from detonating it in a way that would have completely collapsed our nation as we know it. but most people should recognize that level of fear mongering assumptions makes poor justifications. and its that level of justification that has gotten us into those meaningless wars you speak of.

by the time our government admits to the stuff you claim to be against, it will be far to late to stop it or even complain about it.
Click to expand...

😳

🤣🤣🤣
 
#155
#155
LouderVol said:
so you are going with these were Marvel level super villians and blowing up the ship was the only way to save the US, got it.
Click to expand...

I never claimed or implied that, you are going to very far extremes - your conversations on these subjects go to extreme levels i.e. nut. I don't know what they were doing, as I said, but what I do know is all the nuts don't really care as they never cared about the previous 100s of thousands or millions that went.

If you have some type of information, I would be more than willing to look at it but you are going to extreme lengths - we're in all kinds of countries and I/you don't even know why. Here they have at least provided a reasonable cause for the action, its not a large scale war, etc. So, if you have information - share it. But as I said the day or so after he entered office, people should be very scared and I generally support it. You might b e able to go into my history around the end of January. Now the devil is in the details, and mistakes happen.

if you aren't comfortable with Hillary, Obama, Trump or any other politician
Click to expand...

You need to get into details, the President has the power. You are implying there is a wrong, but not providing anything of substance. As long as they are acting reasonable and not doing it for other reasons which I believe was the case in other actions and ongoing in Ukraine, Syria and Iraqi - I generally don't have a problem it. Elect someone else, I don't even vote. The only reason this is even in the news is the Orange man wanted in the news, and the only reason why people are still talking about is the Orange man. Nobody really cares, I do to a degree, meaning if I find out the goal is something else but at the end of the day I have nothing else to go on at this time.

Blowing up people is not necessarily the problem, its the why that is important... maybe information will come out in the future and I will change my tune based on that info.

As far as I am concern, Trump has done a piss poor job on foreign policy i.e. Ukraine, Iran and Iraqi, he has said they are withdrawing from Syria but he was also involved in nonsense bombing.

You might be talking to the wrong person, I have no problem blowing people up under these circumstances at this point (if credible)... and you really would be upset who they were targeting closer to our border. I would generally support that as well.
 
Last edited:
#156
#156
BreatheUT said:
The lack of vision in this article that assumes they don't have intelligence on the source.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. The problem with anything that Trump claims as a "fact" is usually a "lie".

So, there's a bit of a credibility issue here, as far as I'm concerned.

And where, exactly, was this boat blown up?

And if this was a significant amount of drugs, why didn't the Navy track them to their destination - where they could have discovered their (purported) American dealer. Why *wouldn't* the Trump administration want to know this.

I'm guessing it was headed towards Marco Rubio's brother-in-law's place.

🤔
 
#158
#158
LSU-SIU said:
I never claimed or implied that, you are going to very far extremes - your conversations on these subjects go to extreme levels i.e. nut. I don't know what they were doing, as I said, but what I do know is all the nuts don't really care as they never cared about the previous 100s of thousands or millions that went.

If you have some type of information, I would be more than willing to look at it but you are going to extreme lengths - we're in all kinds of countries and I/you don't even know why. Here they have at least provided a reasonable cause for the action, its not a large scale war, etc. So, if you have information - share it. But as I said the day or so after he entered office, people should be very scared and I generally support it. You might b e able to go into my history around the end of January. Now the devil is in the details, and mistakes happen.



You need to get into details, the President has the power. You are implying there is a wrong, but not providing anything of substance. As long as they are acting reasonable and not doing it for other reasons which I believe was the case in other actions and ongoing in Ukraine, Syria and Iraqi - I generally don't have a problem it. Elect someone else, I don't even vote. The only reason this is even in the news is the Orange man wanted in the news, and the only reason why people are still talking about is the Orange man. Nobody really cares, I do to a degree, meaning if I find out the goal is something else but at the end of the day I have nothing else to go on at this time.

Blowing up people is not necessarily the problem, its the why that is important... maybe information will come out in the future and I will change my tune based on that info.

As far as I am concern, Trump has done a piss poor job on foreign policy i.e. Ukraine, Iran and Iraqi, he has said they are withdrawing from Syria but he was also involved in nonsense bombing.

You might be talking to the wrong person, I have no problem blowing people up under these circumstances at this point (if credible)... and you really would be upset who they were targeting closer to our border. I would generally support that as well.
Click to expand...
yeah I am not the one in the extremes.

our strikes on Iran weren't large scale war, but you were against that. like I said you have a double standard when it comes to Trump.
 
#161
#161
we are going to spend far more money blowing up their ish than they would ever make selling it.

one plane goes down, and the cost benefit numbers get really out of whack. with says nothing about the risk to life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#167
#167
BeardedVol said:
Interesting to see MAGA all in on making the "war on drugs" more expensive and futile than it ever has been.
Click to expand...
You seem upset about it. Almost like you enjoy Americans dying from OD. Or Americans developing drug addictions and destroying families/communities. Trump has liberals sympathizing with cartels, I’ll be damned.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#170
#170
Majors said:
You seem upset about it. Almost like you enjoy Americans dying from OD. Or Americans developing drug addictions and destroying families/communities. Trump has liberals sympathizing with cartels, I’ll be damned.
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe using military assets to blow up a few supposed drug sites in Venezuela will have a measurable impact on drug overdoses in the United States, is very telling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and MontyPython
#172
#172
Majors said:
You seem upset about it. Almost like you enjoy Americans dying from OD. Or Americans developing drug addictions and destroying families/communities. Trump has liberals sympathizing with cartels, I’ll be damned.
Click to expand...
Bearded's party has no problem if a few Americans die as long as the goal is reached
 
#173
#173
Majors said:
You seem upset about it. Almost like you enjoy Americans dying from OD. Or Americans developing drug addictions and destroying families/communities. Trump has liberals sympathizing with cartels, I’ll be damned.
Click to expand...

Fact: More Americans die from tobacco use and alcohol than drugs.

Question: Do you support banning the use of tobacco and alcohol in the United States?

If you're a proponent of keeping drugs illegal because of the deaths / social problems they create, then you should similarly be an even bigger proponent of making tobacco and alcohol illegal because they cause significantly more harm to our society.

Conversely, instead of attacking drug cartels within a sovereign Peru, perhaps the Trump Administration should consider decriminalizing drugs. Real-world data suggest that such action may have better effect than simply blowing **** up.

Countries that have decriminalized (but not fully legalized) hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, such as Portugal, generally exhibit fewer drug-related deaths and social problems compared to the United States. No nation has outright legalized these substances for recreational use—decriminalization typically means possession for personal use is treated as a non-criminal administrative offense, with a focus on health interventions rather than punishment. Portugal's 2001 policy is the most prominent and long-studied example, shifting resources from criminal justice to treatment and harm reduction. While outcomes vary by implementation (e.g., recent challenges in Oregon and British Columbia), evidence from Portugal and similar countries like the Czech Republic shows reduced overdose rates, lower addiction-related health crises, and decreased crime compared to the U.S.'s prohibitionist approach.

### Key Example: Portugal vs. United States
Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 amid a heroin crisis, reorienting policy toward public health. Possession of up to a 10-day supply is an administrative violation, handled by dissuasion commissions (panels of social workers, lawyers, and health experts) that recommend treatment, fines, or warnings rather than jail. Trafficking remains criminalized. This was paired with expanded treatment access, needle exchanges, and harm reduction.

- **Overdose Deaths**: Portugal's rates plummeted post-decriminalization. From 369 deaths in 1999 (36 per million), they fell over 80% to around 80-81 annually in recent years (6-10 per million aged 15-64), among Europe's lowest. The U.S., by contrast, saw ~105,000 overdose deaths in 2023 (~318 per million overall), driven by fentanyl and opioids—over 40 times higher per capita. Recent upticks in Portugal (e.g., doubling in Lisbon since 2019) are linked to funding cuts post-2008 crisis, but rates remain far below pre-2001 levels and U.S. figures.

- **Addiction and Health Issues**: Problematic drug use declined; heroin addicts dropped from ~100,000 in 2001 to ~25,000 by 2018. HIV cases from injection fell from 1,287 in 2001 to 16 in 2019. Overall drug use rates are below EU averages, with no major spikes post-decriminalization. The U.S. has ~2.6 million opioid use disorder cases, with rising fentanyl-driven addiction and limited treatment access (less than half receive medication-assisted therapy).

- **Crime and Social Costs**: Drug-related prisoners fell from 40% of the total in 2001 to 15.7% in 2019 (below EU average). Crime linked to drugs dropped from 70% of reported incidents. Social costs of drug misuse decreased 18% by 2010. In the U.S., ~45% of federal prisoners are held for drug offenses, with high racial disparities and costs exceeding $80 billion annually in incarceration alone.

| Metric | Portugal (Post-2001) | United States (Recent) |
|-------------------------|----------------------|------------------------|
| **Annual Overdose Deaths** | ~80-81 (6-10 per million aged 15-64) | ~105,000 (~318 per million overall) |
| **HIV from Injection** | Down 98% (1,287 to 16 cases, 2001-2019) | ~6,000 new cases annually (stable but high) |
| **Problematic Opioid Users** | ~25,000 (from 100,000 in 2001) | ~2.6 million with opioid use disorder |
| **Drug-Related Prisoners** | 15.7% of total (down from 40%) | ~45% of federal prisoners |
| **Social Costs Trend** | Decreased 18% by 2010 | Rising, with $80B+ annual incarceration costs |
| **Drug Use Rates** | Below EU average; stable or slight rise | High and rising, especially synthetics |

### Other Countries
- **Czech Republic**: Decriminalized since 1990s; low overdose rates (similar to Portugal's), reduced HIV, and stable use without major crime spikes.
- **Switzerland**: Heroin-assisted treatment since 1990s; overdose deaths down 64% (1995-2019), lower crime.
- **Netherlands**: De facto decriminalization for small amounts; overdose rates ~20 per million, below U.S.
- **Mixed Results**: Oregon (2020-2024) and British Columbia saw overdose rises (50%+ in Oregon) and public disorder, leading to partial recriminalization. Critics cite insufficient treatment funding and rapid rollout without Portugal's support systems.

### Criticisms and Challenges
Portugal's model isn't flawless: Recent rises in visible use, overdoses, and encampments stem from austerity cuts (health spending fell post-2008) and global trends like fentanyl. Some argue it hasn't fully eradicated stigma or addressed supply-side issues. However, even critics acknowledge lower harms than under prohibition. Success hinges on robust funding for treatment (Portugal spends 90% of drug budget on health vs. U.S.'s enforcement focus) and cultural shifts viewing addiction as a health issue.
 
Last edited:
#174
#174
headhunter15 said:


We are about to get bogged down.
Click to expand...

Interesting choice of words by the administration if that's how they stated it. Do we have moles inside .gov that require dropping bombs on theirs houses while they are home? Is this how some of these officials are living beyond their salary?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top