[W:273] U.S. to Repatriate Survivors of Its Strike on Suspected Drug Vessel

[jaypatriot]

You really naive enough to think that killing some fishermen is going to stop drugs from coming in?

What proof do you have that "some fishermen" were sailing those targeted boats?

 

[jaypatriot]

This logic doesnt match up with Trump's rhetoric or behavior.

Trump has repeatedly placed narcoterrorism as arguably the biggest threat the US faces and this has been the onus for employing lethal force on this in international waters.

To capture then release alleged narcoterrorists rather than charge them with the crimes Trump has declared serious enough to use lethal force suggests either inconsistent policy or a lack of faith in the ability to prosecute them.

If the latter is true, it raises pertinent questions about the legal validity of Trumps actions.

Tell us, what do you believe would be accomplished if those captured narco-terrorists were actually brought to our country and tried and convicted of smuggling drugs into our country?
Would it make Democrats and Liberals feel better about following the rule of law?

 

[jaypatriot]

Of course the story will come out Trump is violating international laws and the Admiral in charge quit because of it.
If these guys were really drug smugglers they would have held them

Hold the drug smugglers for what reason?
To give them a show trial and then incarcerate them?
What would that prove?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Tell us, what do you believe would be accomplished if those captured narco-terrorists were actually brought to our country and tried and convicted of smuggling drugs into our country?

1. Have a plea deal arranged where they exchange information on cartel operations and get reduced sentences or the offer to become informants

2. Demonstrate American commitment to the rule of law.

By deciding instead to repatriate them the USA is saying either "we dont care about actually following the law" or "we dont have confidence in converting them on charges" which raises the question of whether the strike was valid in the first place.

 

[Tigerace117]

I believe that is the logic police in the South side of Chicago employ when dealing with rival gang banger members. Let the gang members kill each other.
But since the cartels seem to be bolder in their tactics, it stands to reason someone has to use more violent methods to tell them "enough is enough".
I think more Americans should re-visit the movie "Clear and Present Danger" to see just how effective U.S. military force can be in making drug-producing countries realize they are not safe while Americans are dying from deadly drugs.

The American troops sent to Colombia in that novel were almost entirely slaughtered once the cartel caught onto what they were doing. They deployed like a platoon’s worth of guys, and maybe a dozen survivors were rescued.

 

[jaypatriot]

The American troops sent to Colombia in that novel were almost entirely slaughtered once the cartel caught onto what they were doing. They deployed like a platoon’s worth of guys, and maybe a dozen survivors were rescued.

When you cook an omelet you need to break some eggs.

 

[jaypatriot]

1. Have a plea deal arranged where they exchange information on cartel operations and get reduced sentences or the offer to become informants

2. Demonstrate American commitment to the rule of law.

By deciding instead to repatriate them the USA is saying either "we dont care about actually following the law" or "we dont have confidence in converting them on charges" which raises the question of whether the strike was valid in the first place.

You've already concluded the strikes were not valid in the first place.
You've already decided Trump was wrong to blow up those boats.
What's the point of debating the effectiveness of destroying those boats and deciding to repatriate those survivors?
The end results won't change your mind regardless.

 

[Tigerace117]

When you cook an omelet you need to break some eggs.

Not only did the operation not actually succeed in stopping drug trafficking into the U.S, it got a bunch of US servicemen killed. The book unequivocally presented it as a bad idea, and if you didn’t notice that you weren’t paying attention

 

[Jredbaron96]

You've already concluded the strikes were not valid in the first place.

Where?

You've already decided Trump was wrong to blow up those boats.

Where?

What's the point of debating the effectiveness of destroying those boats and deciding to repatriate those survivors?

Why let them go free if they are criminals?

 

[jaypatriot]

WTF???? we live in a different time and Trump is not letting them go for that reason.

How would you know what is in Trump's mind when I comes to pardoning drug smugglers?
We still live in a time where there are brutal dictators who plan to conquer weaker countries. You believe we are so civilized that when it comes to dealing with brutal conquerors of smaller nations we should be playing by civilized rules?

 

[jaypatriot]

Not only did the operation not actually succeed in stopping drug trafficking into the U.S, it got a bunch of US servicemen killed. The book unequivocally presented it as a bad idea, and if you didn’t notice that you weren’t paying attention

Thanks for your version of the recap of the movie.
I did not see the message the way you did.

 

[JMB1911A1]

The American troops sent to Colombia in that novel were almost entirely slaughtered once the cartel caught onto what they were doing. They deployed like a platoon’s worth of guys, and maybe a dozen survivors were rescued.

Not only did the operation not actually succeed in stopping drug trafficking into the U.S, it got a bunch of US servicemen killed. The book unequivocally presented it as a bad idea, and if you didn’t notice that you weren’t paying attention

A fictional book is your source??? That is called a plot device. Let me give you a clue. Tom Clancy is as much of a soldier as you were.

 

[Tigerace117]

Thanks for your version of the recap of the movie.
I did not see the message the way you did.

….then you weren’t paying any attention, because they were pretty unequivocal in the messages that the plan was not a good idea in the first place.

 

[multivita-man]

So you're a friend of cartels and Russia?

I'm asking if you believe the Navy is killing/interdicting drug traffickers? You believe that's the reason we're attacking Venezuelan drug cartels when everyone knows the worst drugs (fentanyl) are produced in China and then sent to Mexico, where cartels bring them into the US. But Venezuela.

Believe what you want, I guess.

 

[jaypatriot]

Where?



Where?



Why let them go free if they are criminals?

OK, give me some honest answers:

Were the strikes on those boats valid in the first place?

Was Trump wrong to blow up those boats?

What would be the point of trying them as criminals?

Would you feel morally superior if we did?

 

[Tigerace117]

A fictional book is your source??? That is called a plot device. Let me give you a clue. Tom Clancy is as much of a soldier as you were.

Well gee dude, a couple of things.

Firstly, it was jaypatriot who brought up the book as an example of “just how effective U.S. military force can be in making drug-producing countries realize they are not safe while Americans are dying from deadly drugs.” in post 99.

Which, of course, is not supported by the actual events of the novel itself.

But I get that “attention to detail” clearly isn’t something you were taught, being in the military

Oh, and secondly Clancy’s works during this period were extensively praised for authenticity and technical accuracy

 

[Jredbaron96]

OK, give me some honest answers:

Were the strikes on those boats valid in the first place?

Was Trump wrong to blow up those boats?

Im not sure its a great idea to blow up alleged drug trafficking boats based on the possibility of killing random civilians and given this administrations approach to military matters its a valid concern about the reliability of their intelligence.

What would be the point of trying them as criminals?

Would you feel morally superior if we did?

I think the rule of law is generally a good thing.

 

[jaypatriot]

Well gee dude, a couple of things.

Firstly, it was jaypatriot who brought up the book as an example of “just how effective U.S. military force can be in making drug-producing countries realize they are not safe while Americans are dying from deadly drugs.” in post 99.

Which, of course, is not supported by the actual events of the novel itself.

But I get that “attention to detail” clearly isn’t something you were taught, being in the military

Oh, and secondly Clancy’s works during this period were extensively praised for authenticity and technical accuracy

Sorry you had to be involved in a discussion over the use of a good movie as a metaphor for how we should deal with drug cartels poisoning our citizens.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Weren’t you literally just making excuses for murdering human beings on the justification that the world would be better off without them?
Or do they not count because they didn’t have Kirk’s complexion?

you're comparing Charlie Kirk to drug cartels

the hate is on a roll today

 

[Jetboogieman]

Tell us, what do you believe would be accomplished if those captured narco-terrorists were actually brought to our country and tried and convicted of smuggling drugs into our country?
Would it make Democrats and Liberals feel better about following the rule of law?

Oh I see.

You're a POE account.

I didn't realize that until now.

My bad.

 

[Tigerace117]

Sorry you had to be involved in a discussion over the use of a good movie as a metaphor for how we should deal with drug cartels poisoning our citizens.

Again, the plan literally did not work, and got a bunch of American soldiers killed. The ex DGI operative working for the cartel figures out what’s going on pretty damn early.

 

[jaypatriot]

Im not sure its a great idea to blow up alleged drug trafficking boats based on the possibility of killing random civilians and given this administrations approach to military matters its a valid concern about the reliability of their intelligence.



I think the rule of law is generally a good thing.

I, too, think the rule of law is "generally" a good thing.
But when it comes to scummy humans involved in poisoning Americans with deadly drugs, I really don't care what happens to them.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Well gee dude, a couple of things.

Firstly, it was jaypatriot who brought up the book as an example of “just how effective U.S. military force can be in making drug-producing countries realize they are not safe while Americans are dying from deadly drugs.” in post 99.

Which, of course, is not supported by the actual events of the novel itself.

A fictional novel.

But I get that “attention to detail” clearly isn’t something you were taught, being in the military

Well, my drill instructor would disagree with you. But then again, I made it through the program and never quit.

Oh, and secondly Clancy’s works during this period were extensively praised for authenticity and technical accuracy

By who? What were their credentials?

 

[Jredbaron96]

I, too, think the rule of law is "generally" a good thing.
But when it comes to scummy humans involved in poisoning Americans with deadly drugs, I really don't care what happens to them.

Even when theyre let go, apparently.

 

[jaypatriot]

Again, the plan literally did not work, and got a bunch of American soldiers killed. The ex DGI operative working for the cartel figures out what’s going on pretty damn early.

OK,OK, you made your point, exhaustively.
Now we all know your point of view.
Maybe I'll come with another movie with a violent theme like "Dr. Strangelove".
Maybe you can tell us how we should think about that movie.