Tanq, I suppose you missed the part where admin officials gave a presser afterwards stating that they knew exactly who was on the boat, exactly what they were carrying and how much, and their route and destination.

Of course, you won't believe them, but you make it sound like they saw a fast boat at night and simply blew it out of the water.

Which makes you, sir, a flipping dishonest moron.

Now proceed with your blah blah blah...

(09-04-2025 05:44 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 05:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The War on Drugs spent obscene amounts of money going after supply. The actual root cause of the problem is demand. Always has been, always will be.

Yes. Addiction is an awful state to be in. But addiction is a state that came about because of and depends on supply.

This is the same line of reasoning the progressives who want to go after guns claim. for their argument. Is it the inanimate object that causes you to commit crimes/make bad choices or is it you that determines whether you commit the crime or not?

(09-04-2025 06:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 05:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The War on Drugs spent obscene amounts of money going after supply. The actual root cause of the problem is demand. Always has been, always will be.

Exactamundo.

this isn't an argument about the whys ... and you won't find one poster that would state city/state/federal governments are doing all they can to combat the demand issue...

now, who's dat strawman, chico?!

This country has an insatiable demand for drugs, stink. Yet some people *only* blame others for supplying them.

Focusing solely and exclusively on the supply side, and blaming solely and exclusively the supply side -- is pretty much intentional blindness.

The national problem is driven by our large and almost insatiable demand for the crap. Yet it seems everyone here simply kneejerks and blames the suppliers. Some more than others.

No strawman there -- miko called out the side that is largely to blame for drug trafficking.

No demand literally means no trafficking. By literal definition. No supply only means higher prices. Basic econ 101. And a massive difference in outcomes.

again, it's not the point of this discussion, nor will one poster disagree that demand is a real fk'n problem ... just for starters, I would flood a nationwide ad campaign using real graphics that'll make one turn their head as a start to combating the demand side of the equation ... starting in EVERY PUBLIC school would be a great addition as well...

regardless, it's irrelevant, counselor, to blowing those cocksucKKKers out of the water other than using this tactic coupled with enhanced focus on border security will most certainly drive pricing north ... one could compare how few smoke ciggy butts today when they now go for 10+ bucks a pack ... that was a tag team effort on both educating the masses and going after that manufacturer PLUS, taxing the ever lovin' shite out of it...

(09-04-2025 06:03 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 05:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The War on Drugs spent obscene amounts of money going after supply. The actual root cause of the problem is demand. Always has been, always will be.

Its never been about 100% elimination of drugs and drug use. That is just impossible, just as its impossible to eliminate poverty 100%.

But you CAN curb usage and deaths considerably with the right policy such as going after the suppliers in a much more heavy handed way.

No one starts out looking to become a drug user. You have to be introduced to drugs first, and if you can curb and limit the amount of drugs and the access (not eliminate but curb) then you can cut out a fair amount of regular drug users and bring drug deaths down.

Its never been about 100% elimination of guns and gun ownership. That is just impossible, just as its impossible to eliminate poverty 100%.

But you CAN curb shootings and deaths considerably with the right policy such as going after the gun manufacturers in a much more heavy handed way.

No one starts out looking to become a violent criminal. You have to be introduced to guns first, and if you can curb and limit the amount of guns and the access (not eliminate but curb) then you can cut out a fair amount of gun crimes and bring shooting deaths down.

(09-04-2025 06:52 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, I suppose you missed the part where admin officials gave a presser afterwards stating that they knew exactly who was on the boat, exactly what they were carrying and how much, and their route and destination.

Of course, you won't believe them, but you make it sound like they saw a fast boat at night and simply blew it out of the water.

Which makes you, sir, a flipping dishonest moron.

Great, assume the all perfect government that you now are the seeming champion of. (lolz on that in the first place with you clowns whose first statement is to distrust the government on anything and everything, but Ill leave that hypocritical bright target alone) they knew who was on the boat, and what was on the boat.

And refused to stop, search, and interdict. Instead they blew it up. In violation of the more than a few dozen international laws regarding the use of military force.

Cool cool.

All for a MAGA administration that seemingly cannot look beyond the use of military power for *any* fing issue they encounter.

And their bootlicker MAGA backers seem to get all agitated and excited over that use and threat of force. Its kind of MAGA style Viagra, in a sense.

Double cool cool.

As to the bolded -- no, it does not. It simply solidifies *you* for what you so glaringly demonstrate *you* are time and time and time and time again.

Triple cool cool.

So quick to answer. What a doofus. It never fails.

(09-04-2025 06:52 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Tanq, I suppose you missed the part where admin officials gave a presser afterwards stating that they knew exactly who was on the boat, exactly what they were carrying and how much, and their route and destination.

Of course, you won't believe them, but you make it sound like they saw a fast boat at night and simply blew it out of the water.

Which makes you, sir, a flipping dishonest moron.

Now proceed with your blah blah blah...

I see you edited your response to explicitly include you sticking your stubby little fingers into your ears *after* you demonstrate your innate 'whiny *****' superpower.

Neat trait.

Because I knew what was coming, Sherlock.

(09-04-2025 07:02 AM)TripleA Wrote:   So quick to answer. What a doofus. It never fails.

Maybe if you count -- it fails a lot. Again -- basic English. You have a serious 'never' and 'always' problem. Once again -- basic English that you dont seem to have a grasp on.

(09-04-2025 07:05 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Because I knew what was coming, Sherlock.

Cool beans, whiny *****.

(09-04-2025 06:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 05:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The War on Drugs spent obscene amounts of money going after supply. The actual root cause of the problem is demand. Always has been, always will be.

Exactamundo.

this isn't an argument about the whys ... and you won't find one poster that would state city/state/federal governments are doing all they can to combat the demand issue...

now, who's dat strawman, chico?!

This country has an insatiable demand for drugs, stink. Yet some people *only* blame others for supplying them.

Focusing solely and exclusively on the supply side, and blaming solely and exclusively the supply side -- is pretty much intentional blindness.

The national problem is driven by our large and almost insatiable demand for the crap. Yet it seems everyone here simply kneejerks and blames the suppliers. Some more than others.

No strawman there -- miko called out the side that is largely to blame for drug trafficking.

No demand literally means no trafficking. By literal definition. No supply only means higher prices. Basic econ 101. And a massive difference in outcomes.

again, it's not the point of this discussion, nor will one poster disagree that demand is a real fk'n problem ... just for starters, I would flood a nationwide ad campaign using real graphics that'll make one turn their head as a start to combating the demand side of the equation ... starting in EVERY PUBLIC school would be a great addition as well...

regardless, it's irrelevant, counselor, to blowing those cocksucKKKers out of the water other than using this tactic coupled with enhanced focus on border security will most certainly drive pricing north ... one could compare how few smoke ciggy butts today when they now go for 10+ bucks a pack ... that was a tag team effort on both educating the masses and going after that manufacturer PLUS, taxing the ever lovin' shite out of it...

Then I suggest you educate some on your side of the issue in this forum that the sole issue isnt supply, and that it is stupid as **** to make that sort of comment.

That was the comment I responded to, and I note miko has as well in a similar manner to mine.

(09-04-2025 07:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Exactamundo.

this isn't an argument about the whys ... and you won't find one poster that would state city/state/federal governments are doing all they can to combat the demand issue...

now, who's dat strawman, chico?!

This country has an insatiable demand for drugs, stink. Yet some people *only* blame others for supplying them.

Focusing solely and exclusively on the supply side, and blaming solely and exclusively the supply side -- is pretty much intentional blindness.

The national problem is driven by our large and almost insatiable demand for the crap. Yet it seems everyone here simply kneejerks and blames the suppliers. Some more than others.

No strawman there -- miko called out the side that is largely to blame for drug trafficking.

No demand literally means no trafficking. By literal definition. No supply only means higher prices. Basic econ 101. And a massive difference in outcomes.

again, it's not the point of this discussion, nor will one poster disagree that demand is a real fk'n problem ... just for starters, I would flood a nationwide ad campaign using real graphics that'll make one turn their head as a start to combating the demand side of the equation ... starting in EVERY PUBLIC school would be a great addition as well...

regardless, it's irrelevant, counselor, to blowing those cocksucKKKers out of the water other than using this tactic coupled with enhanced focus on border security will most certainly drive pricing north ... one could compare how few smoke ciggy butts today when they now go for 10+ bucks a pack ... that was a tag team effort on both educating the masses and going after that manufacturer PLUS, taxing the ever lovin' shite out of it...

Then I suggest you educate some on your side of the issue in this forum that the sole issue isnt supply, and that it is stupid as **** to make that sort of comment.

That was the comment I responded to, and I note miko has as well in a similar manner to mine.

my comments applied to him or any other tossing in demand as an 'out' to argue against this tactic...

name one poster that has claimed supply is the "sole issue" ... again, it's NOT the point of this discussion...

#GFL

(09-04-2025 06:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 05:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  The War on Drugs spent obscene amounts of money going after supply. The actual root cause of the problem is demand. Always has been, always will be.

Exactamundo.

this isn't an argument about the whys ... and you won't find one poster that would state city/state/federal governments are doing all they can to combat the demand issue...

now, who's dat strawman, chico?!

This country has an insatiable demand for drugs, stink. Yet some people *only* blame others for supplying them.

Focusing solely and exclusively on the supply side, and blaming solely and exclusively the supply side -- is pretty much intentional blindness.

The national problem is driven by our large and almost insatiable demand for the crap. Yet it seems everyone here simply kneejerks and blames the suppliers. Some more than others.

No strawman there -- miko called out the side that is largely to blame for drug trafficking.

No demand literally means no trafficking. By literal definition. No supply only means higher prices. Basic econ 101. And a massive difference in outcomes.

again, it's not the point of this discussion, nor will one poster disagree that demand is a real fk'n problem ... just for starters, I would flood a nationwide ad campaign using real graphics that'll make one turn their head as a start to combating the demand side of the equation ... starting in EVERY PUBLIC school would be a great addition as well...

regardless, it's irrelevant, counselor, to blowing those cocksucKKKers out of the water other than using this tactic coupled with enhanced focus on border security will most certainly drive pricing north ... one could compare how few smoke ciggy butts today when they now go for 10+ bucks a pack ... that was a tag team effort on both educating the masses and going after that manufacturer PLUS, taxing the ever lovin' shite out of it...

From a purely personal standpoint - I have zero problems with the USN blowing up a boat carrying illegal drugs to the U.S. It feels good to have the perception that our gov't is trying to protect us. It sends a message. However, the message is NOT to the drug cartels, Venezuela (used to be Columbia decades ago) or China. The message is to the American people. But it will mostly resonate with his base and some centrists and center/right citizens.

Rogue countries and cartels will simply find another way to deliver the drugs. Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?

(09-03-2025 07:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2025 07:29 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(09-03-2025 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2025 08:38 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(09-03-2025 08:31 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  They aren't Americans, and in fact are killing Americans, and thus have no due process.

You’d think this simple fact wouldnt need to be explained, but then again, the Dems arent the brightest bulbs. When will a radical leftist judge declare this strike unconstitutional and say we are no longer allowed to do them?

So just blow up anyone there. Without regard. Cool cool.

Nice inclusion of the 'radical leftist judge' fallback de jure. Lol.

Do you think that we just randomly picked that boat with those people aboard and blew them up for no reason? That's the only explanation for defending them. If a boat full of armed men from anywhere was known to be headed to America with a lethal cargo would you be concerned for their welfare also or would it be OK to blow them up, eliminating the threat once and for all?

Last I saw, when a force can track a boat, it can sure as hell can interdict it.

Last I saw the policy was to interdict, board, gather evidence and hand them over.

Now I guess it is to simply spot someone and blow it up. Seems pretty inane to me given the above. Something best reserved to a tinpot authoritarian and geared to those who dont really understand anything but 'show of force' as the only solution to anything and everything.

But Trump seemingly has to play 'splodey macho man to his minions who think that every issue is best solved with a missile, or best solved with sending military force in to quell stuff in the streets.

The DC mayor has asked that the program Trump launched to help clean up DC be continued indefinitely, that's how badly that's going.

Now, if I have intel that tells me there's a boat heading to America full of deadly drugs, I'd blow them right out of the water too. There's no risk of flight, no expense to American taxpayers to take them to trial and then house and feed them and no chance for recidivism. They are not Americans, they are hostile actors who may as well be an invading force, they are heading to your homeland with drugs enough to probably kill 100k or more and you're worried about their due process??

What if there was actionable intel that stated they had a dirty bomb on board? Would you be OK with advocating for their rights to due process then? Or would you be OK with taking them out in the middle of the ocean?

Answer me that without equivocating or erecting strawmen to support your asinine support of not just your garden variety criminals, but also insane killers who would cut your throat without a second thought.

Yours must be a pretty neatly packaged world where everything is in black and white, where there is no room for autonomous thought and everything is strictly by the book. If you can tell me that you have never in your life sidestepped to get something or compromised your principles for anything then you're an effing saint and I'll submit your name for canonization.

If it was up to me we'd still be hanging dangerous criminals in the middle of Anytown, USA's town square.

If you were a criminal defense attorney are there any cases you would turn down because the act your potential client is accused of is so horrifying that your conscience wouldn't allow you to be engaged by them? Delivering drugs that will contribute to our death toll of kids and adults dying from poisoned drugs should carry the death sentence. And yeah, I know, they are just as entitled to a legal defense as you or I but could you be that kind of lawyer or would your conscience prevent it?

Please note that I have not attacked you and have tried to be as respectful as I possibly can toward someone with whom I usually find myself in disagreement. I will always defer to your experience in matters of the law but I won't usually agree with your opinions on the issues you seem to favor talking about.

(09-04-2025 07:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  name one poster that has claimed supply is the "sole issue" ... again, it's NOT the point of this discussion...

#GFL

WaSoms -- "addiction is a state that came about because of and depends on supply."

Made just above.

However, tbf, miko brought up the issue of demand having a huge impact on the drug trade first.

(09-04-2025 07:21 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Exactamundo.

this isn't an argument about the whys ... and you won't find one poster that would state city/state/federal governments are doing all they can to combat the demand issue...

now, who's dat strawman, chico?!

This country has an insatiable demand for drugs, stink. Yet some people *only* blame others for supplying them.

Focusing solely and exclusively on the supply side, and blaming solely and exclusively the supply side -- is pretty much intentional blindness.

The national problem is driven by our large and almost insatiable demand for the crap. Yet it seems everyone here simply kneejerks and blames the suppliers. Some more than others.

No strawman there -- miko called out the side that is largely to blame for drug trafficking.

No demand literally means no trafficking. By literal definition. No supply only means higher prices. Basic econ 101. And a massive difference in outcomes.

again, it's not the point of this discussion, nor will one poster disagree that demand is a real fk'n problem ... just for starters, I would flood a nationwide ad campaign using real graphics that'll make one turn their head as a start to combating the demand side of the equation ... starting in EVERY PUBLIC school would be a great addition as well...

regardless, it's irrelevant, counselor, to blowing those cocksucKKKers out of the water other than using this tactic coupled with enhanced focus on border security will most certainly drive pricing north ... one could compare how few smoke ciggy butts today when they now go for 10+ bucks a pack ... that was a tag team effort on both educating the masses and going after that manufacturer PLUS, taxing the ever lovin' shite out of it...

From a purely personal standpoint - I have zero problems with the USN blowing up a boat carrying illegal drugs to the U.S. It feels good to have the perception that our gov't is trying to protect us. It sends a message. However, the message is NOT to the drug cartels, Venezuela (used to be Columbia decades ago) or China. The message is to the American people. But it will mostly resonate with his base and some centrists and center/right citizens.

Rogue countries and cartels will simply find another way to deliver the drugs. Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?

agree to most of that ... what it does is essentially take out another artery that is currently being utilized ... and those are some big arse ponds .... over time, it limits their ability to maneuver effectively ... would be akin to creating choke points by expanding the wall on our southern border...

technology has given any gov't that's serious about cracking down on the delivery mechanism(s) another tool that didn't exist during the Columbian days .... that's a big deal ... and it's a risk/reward message that has now been added to any suppliers list of 'how to next'...

(09-04-2025 07:28 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  name one poster that has claimed supply is the "sole issue" ... again, it's NOT the point of this discussion...

#GFL

WaSoms -- "addiction is a state that came about because of and depends on supply."

Made just above.

However, tbf, miko brought up the issue of demand having a huge impact on the drug trade first.

noted...

Demand is a critical component of the illegal drug trade and is worthy of consideration and discussion IMO. It may not be germane to this conversation but it is noteworthy. I smoke a little weed but have taken to driving to a legitimate dispensary in Missouri just so I can know that what I'm getting was grown under direct supervision and there's little worry about what might be added to it. The stuff I can find from just about any local drug dealer is sketchy these days, some of it may be tinged with fentanyl and that's a concern.

But I think this discussion is more about meth, heroin, cocaine, those are huge problems for users. Not so much with weed. I'm not about to encourage anyone to smoke it because it does have some long term effects on cognitive skills. But so does alcohol. The other three? They are the devil. I've had a few too many friends lose everything because of cocaine. I've had friends whose 18 year old son was found in a van down by the river with his minor g/f, both dead from heroin overdoses or whose 19 year old daughter is now hooking just to keep up with her meth addiction. Those are the drugs that we should be focusing on. Anyone delivering them or refining them into their final forms should be shot, no due process, no courts, no lawyers. It worked well for us in the first 150 years of our birth as a country.

(09-04-2025 07:30 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:21 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  this isn't an argument about the whys ... and you won't find one poster that would state city/state/federal governments are doing all they can to combat the demand issue...

now, who's dat strawman, chico?!

This country has an insatiable demand for drugs, stink. Yet some people *only* blame others for supplying them.

Focusing solely and exclusively on the supply side, and blaming solely and exclusively the supply side -- is pretty much intentional blindness.

The national problem is driven by our large and almost insatiable demand for the crap. Yet it seems everyone here simply kneejerks and blames the suppliers. Some more than others.

No strawman there -- miko called out the side that is largely to blame for drug trafficking.

No demand literally means no trafficking. By literal definition. No supply only means higher prices. Basic econ 101. And a massive difference in outcomes.

again, it's not the point of this discussion, nor will one poster disagree that demand is a real fk'n problem ... just for starters, I would flood a nationwide ad campaign using real graphics that'll make one turn their head as a start to combating the demand side of the equation ... starting in EVERY PUBLIC school would be a great addition as well...

regardless, it's irrelevant, counselor, to blowing those cocksucKKKers out of the water other than using this tactic coupled with enhanced focus on border security will most certainly drive pricing north ... one could compare how few smoke ciggy butts today when they now go for 10+ bucks a pack ... that was a tag team effort on both educating the masses and going after that manufacturer PLUS, taxing the ever lovin' shite out of it...

From a purely personal standpoint - I have zero problems with the USN blowing up a boat carrying illegal drugs to the U.S. It feels good to have the perception that our gov't is trying to protect us. It sends a message. However, the message is NOT to the drug cartels, Venezuela (used to be Columbia decades ago) or China. The message is to the American people. But it will mostly resonate with his base and some centrists and center/right citizens.

Rogue countries and cartels will simply find another way to deliver the drugs. Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?

agree to most of that ... what it does is essentially take out another artery that is currently being utilized ... and those are some big arse ponds .... over time, it limits their ability to maneuver effectively ... would be akin to creating choke points by expanding the wall on our southern border...

technology has given any gov't that's serious about cracking down on the delivery mechanism(s) another tool that didn't exist during the Columbian days .... that's a big deal ... and it's a risk/reward message that has now been added to any suppliers list of 'how to next'...

Yes, it shows that method of shipping drugs to the U.S. is known and being watched. I still wonder though if it's about the drugs themselves or if it's who was transporting those drugs. We've seen too many instances where the government - thru various spook orgs with CIA being #1 - propped up certain drug suppliers while going after those not in bed with our clandestine orgs.

Agree - we have more tech at our disposal than ever before to where we can go after the suppliers. However, we've had the tech to find those underground tunnels from Mexico to the U.S. but never seriously went after it. Which raises a highly cynical question again...is the USG serious about solving the drug problem or is it all about the wrong people bringing the drugs in? I'm skeptical that we haven't been able to make a bigger dent into the supply side. I don't think the USG wants to solve the drug problem - they want to manage it for other purposes.

(09-04-2025 07:30 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 07:21 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:56 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 06:35 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  this isn't an argument about the whys ... and you won't find one poster that would state city/state/federal governments are doing all they can to combat the demand issue...

now, who's dat strawman, chico?!

This country has an insatiable demand for drugs, stink. Yet some people *only* blame others for supplying them.

Focusing solely and exclusively on the supply side, and blaming solely and exclusively the supply side -- is pretty much intentional blindness.

The national problem is driven by our large and almost insatiable demand for the crap. Yet it seems everyone here simply kneejerks and blames the suppliers. Some more than others.

No strawman there -- miko called out the side that is largely to blame for drug trafficking.

No demand literally means no trafficking. By literal definition. No supply only means higher prices. Basic econ 101. And a massive difference in outcomes.

again, it's not the point of this discussion, nor will one poster disagree that demand is a real fk'n problem ... just for starters, I would flood a nationwide ad campaign using real graphics that'll make one turn their head as a start to combating the demand side of the equation ... starting in EVERY PUBLIC school would be a great addition as well...

regardless, it's irrelevant, counselor, to blowing those cocksucKKKers out of the water other than using this tactic coupled with enhanced focus on border security will most certainly drive pricing north ... one could compare how few smoke ciggy butts today when they now go for 10+ bucks a pack ... that was a tag team effort on both educating the masses and going after that manufacturer PLUS, taxing the ever lovin' shite out of it...

From a purely personal standpoint - I have zero problems with the USN blowing up a boat carrying illegal drugs to the U.S. It feels good to have the perception that our gov't is trying to protect us. It sends a message. However, the message is NOT to the drug cartels, Venezuela (used to be Columbia decades ago) or China. The message is to the American people. But it will mostly resonate with his base and some centrists and center/right citizens.

Rogue countries and cartels will simply find another way to deliver the drugs. Also something to consider - when the USN destroyed that boat was the goal to prevent the drugs from coming into the U.S. or was it to prevent THAT GROUP from bringing drugs into the U.S.?

agree to most of that ... what it does is essentially take out another artery that is currently being utilized ... and those are some big arse ponds .... over time, it limits their ability to maneuver effectively ... would be akin to creating choke points by expanding the wall on our southern border...

technology has given any gov't that's serious about cracking down on the delivery mechanism(s) another tool that didn't exist during the Columbian days .... that's a big deal ... and it's a risk/reward message that has now been added to any suppliers list of 'how to next'...

What have you done with stink?? If you keep talking like this I won't have an exclusive on stinkese!

Whatever it was, welcome back! You've been missed my brutha...