quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Stop selling Narcan or Naloxone. Stop enabling and legitimizing drug use. Drug abuse is prevalent in cities around the world; it's not just the US. Bill

The only result of that sort of a policy is more dead people. It ought to be self-evident to all at this point that trying to control drug use by outlawing it does not work. It just enables drug-dealers to make millions and it clogs the criminal justice system. It's stupid, inefficient and has been a complete failure. We should abandon that approach and try something else.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Stop selling Narcan or Naloxone. Stop enabling and legitimizing drug use. Drug abuse is prevalent in cities around the world; it's not just the US. Bill

The only result of that sort of a policy is more dead people. It ought to be self-evident to all at this point that trying to control drug use by outlawing it does not work. It just enables drug-dealers to make millions and it clogs the criminal justice system. It's stupid, inefficient and has been a complete failure. We should abandon that approach and try something else.

Because its been handled wrong.....


.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
One thing for sure…if the USA really wanted to control the influx of illicit drugs on the Southern Border…it could.

We don’t and I have never understood why. As usual…I suspect the answer is money.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
What are you talking about Mike? We have not really even tried.

If you send our military to the southern border and tell to stop all movement…they CAN do it.

If you say we don’t want the military there…outfit CBP like the military and give them the direction and they can and will. In Texas coordinate the CBP with the Texas Rangers and Department of Public Safety.

Man the border with the right equipment and directive and it CAN be stopped. It has gotten so bad that it would be a blood bath and expensive but it could be stopped. We just have to have the guts and the will to do it.

At this stage, it will take a militaristic operation to do it. But, it could be done and in my opinion should be.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
What are you talking about Mike? We have not really even tried.

If you send our military to the southern border and tell to stop all movement…they CAN do it.

If you say we don’t want the military there…outfit CBP like the military and give them the direction and they can and will. In Texas coordinate the CBP with the Texas Rangers and Department of Public Safety.

Man the border with the right equipment and directive and it CAN be stopped. It has gotten so bad that it would be a blood bath and expensive but it could be stopped. We just have to have the guts and the will to do it.

At this stage, it will take a militaristic operation to do it. But, it could be done and in my opinion should be.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
What are you talking about Mike? We have not really even tried.

If you send our military to the southern border and tell to stop all movement…they CAN do it.

If you say we don’t want the military there…outfit CBP like the military and give them the direction and they can and will. In Texas coordinate the CBP with the Texas Rangers and Department of Public Safety.

Man the border with the right equipment and directive and it CAN be stopped. It has gotten so bad that it would be a blood bath and expensive but it could be stopped. We just have to have the guts and the will to do it.

At this stage, it will take a militaristic operation to do it. But, it could be done and in my opinion should be.

Wow, that is such a spectacularly uninformed statement, I'm not even sure how to address it.

Your unaware that the BP, the DEA, the DPS and local law enforcement do drug interdiction in South Texas that is designed to prevent the flow of drugs across the border?

Partially true. But they are exponentially undermanned, underfunded, and don’t have the directive to stop it at all cost. It will take that will to change it.

The DHS budget this year is over $17 billion in relation to the effort. 65,000 full time positions. The time, money and effort spent on drug interdiction at the border is huge. And, it has been for decades. With little appreciable effect on the flow of drugs into the country.

The directive and methodology are wrong. Change those and it CAN be stopped. It will now take an action similar to taking over Iraq.

The US/Mexican border is almost 2,000 miles long. The US Army has about 480,000 active duty troops.

Where should they be sent and how should they be deployed to cover a 2,000 mile front? Where will they sleep? How will we feed them? How will we replace the soldiers deployed to the border that we have to move there from other duty stations?

Mike,
Don’t be facetious. Our military took Iraq in less than a month. Give them the correct directive, equipment, and funding…they could easily make it happen.

How do you get around posse comitatus?

I don’t see the problem here…please explain.

No offense but, setting aside all of the above, it wouldn't work anyway. The idea that drug smugglers are streaming across the border in military formations that can easily be intercepted is absurd.

We have the technology, intelligence, and know-how to do it. We CHOOSE not to.

They mule it across the river. They bring it in trucks and vehicles. They tunnel it in.

All true…but a militaristic operation can stop all of that with the right directive.

Think of something else.

I see no other option. We have to regain control of the southern border or live with the status quo. So far we have chosen status quo.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Steve,
My post just said it “could” if we had the will. I agree we don’t.

But more resources would shorten check time.

The border has changed dramatically in your lifetime. It is a violent and dangerous place today.

As kid…me and my cousins used to walk the streets of Juarez while our parents shopped. It was relatively safe down there through the 90s.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Simply not practical for the reasons outlined above.

We do not have the resources, the disruption to both commerce and our military would be too great to allow this plan to succeed.

You mention a take over plan similar to Iraq, just who's is the enemy and who will be taken over? Not only not practical, but likely not constitutional either.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Simply not practical for the reasons outlined above.

We do not have the resources, the disruption to both commerce and our military would be too great to allow this plan to succeed.

You mention a take over plan similar to Iraq, just who's is the enemy and who will be taken over? Not only not practical, but likely not constitutional either.

Get mad at me all you want, but as usual the folks all lathered up about Ukraine, the Kurds, the Somalis and Ethiopians aren't interested in lifting a finger for the Americans and Latin Americans in their own neighborhood.

I saw a headline about a journalist all beat up over in Chechnya. I hope we send Patton and the Third.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Heard a news report on the radio this morning that some cocaine was found in the west wing.

Liberal privilege?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
What are you talking about Mike? We have not really even tried.

If you send our military to the southern border and tell to stop all movement…they CAN do it.

If you say we don’t want the military there…outfit CBP like the military and give them the direction and they can and will. In Texas coordinate the CBP with the Texas Rangers and Department of Public Safety.

Man the border with the right equipment and directive and it CAN be stopped. It has gotten so bad that it would be a blood bath and expensive but it could be stopped. We just have to have the guts and the will to do it.

At this stage, it will take a militaristic operation to do it. But, it could be done and in my opinion should be.

Wow, that is such a spectacularly uninformed statement, I'm not even sure how to address it.

Your unaware that the BP, the DEA, the DPS and local law enforcement do drug interdiction in South Texas that is designed to prevent the flow of drugs across the border?

Partially true. But they are exponentially undermanned, underfunded, and don’t have the directive to stop it at all cost. It will take that will to change it.

The DHS budget this year is over $17 billion in relation to the effort. 65,000 full time positions. The time, money and effort spent on drug interdiction at the border is huge. And, it has been for decades. With little appreciable effect on the flow of drugs into the country.

The directive and methodology are wrong. Change those and it CAN be stopped. It will now take an action similar to taking over Iraq.

The US/Mexican border is almost 2,000 miles long. The US Army has about 480,000 active duty troops.

Where should they be sent and how should they be deployed to cover a 2,000 mile front? Where will they sleep? How will we feed them? How will we replace the soldiers deployed to the border that we have to move there from other duty stations?

Mike,
Don’t be facetious. Our military took Iraq in less than a month. Give them the correct directive, equipment, and funding…they could easily make it happen.

How do you get around posse comitatus?

I don’t see the problem here…please explain.

No offense but, setting aside all of the above, it wouldn't work anyway. The idea that drug smugglers are streaming across the border in military formations that can easily be intercepted is absurd.

We have the technology, intelligence, and know-how to do it. We CHOOSE not to.

They mule it across the river. They bring it in trucks and vehicles. They tunnel it in.

All true…but a militaristic operation can stop all of that with the right directive.

Think of something else.

I see no other option. We have to regain control of the southern border or live with the status quo. So far we have chosen status quo.

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Heard a news report on the radio this morning that some cocaine was found in the west wing.

Liberal privilege?

I'm sure they have the visitor log as well as plenty of video of who had been in and out of the West Wing.
It will all be swept under the rug of course.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Simply not practical for the reasons outlined above.

We do not have the resources, the disruption to both commerce and our military would be too great to allow this plan to succeed.

You mention a take over plan similar to Iraq, just who's is the enemy and who will be taken over? Not only not practical, but likely not constitutional either.

Get mad at me all you want, but as usual the folks all lathered up about Ukraine, the Kurds, the Somalis and Ethiopians aren't interested in lifting a finger for the Americans and Latin Americans in their own neighborhood.

I saw a headline about a journalist all beat up over in Chechnya. I hope we send Patton and the Third.

Not mad at you at all Scott, but as I asked Lane, please define who we are invading, for what purpose, and how we know when the task is complete.

I would prefer a more practical approach is all. The Southern border should be secure, no doubt about it. I think Lanes approach is the wrong answer as to how we should secure it.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Simply not practical for the reasons outlined above.

We do not have the resources, the disruption to both commerce and our military would be too great to allow this plan to succeed.

You mention a take over plan similar to Iraq, just who's is the enemy and who will be taken over? Not only not practical, but likely not constitutional either.

Get mad at me all you want, but as usual the folks all lathered up about Ukraine, the Kurds, the Somalis and Ethiopians aren't interested in lifting a finger for the Americans and Latin Americans in their own neighborhood.

I saw a headline about a journalist all beat up over in Chechnya. I hope we send Patton and the Third.

Not mad at you at all Scott, but as I asked Lane, please define who we are invading, for what purpose, and how we know when the task is complete.

I would prefer a more practical approach is all. The Southern border should be secure, no doubt about it. I think Lanes approach is the wrong answer as to how we should secure it.

If I remember correctly and please tell me if I'm wrong, The US worked with the nation of Colombia to successfully curtail the drug cartels there in Colombia. As I understand it, Colombian Cartels are not the powerhouse they used to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
What are you talking about Mike? We have not really even tried.

If you send our military to the southern border and tell to stop all movement…they CAN do it.

If you say we don’t want the military there…outfit CBP like the military and give them the direction and they can and will. In Texas coordinate the CBP with the Texas Rangers and Department of Public Safety.

Man the border with the right equipment and directive and it CAN be stopped. It has gotten so bad that it would be a blood bath and expensive but it could be stopped. We just have to have the guts and the will to do it.

At this stage, it will take a militaristic operation to do it. But, it could be done and in my opinion should be.

Wow, that is such a spectacularly uninformed statement, I'm not even sure how to address it.

Your unaware that the BP, the DEA, the DPS and local law enforcement do drug interdiction in South Texas that is designed to prevent the flow of drugs across the border?

Partially true. But they are exponentially undermanned, underfunded, and don’t have the directive to stop it at all cost. It will take that will to change it.

The DHS budget this year is over $17 billion in relation to the effort. 65,000 full time positions. The time, money and effort spent on drug interdiction at the border is huge. And, it has been for decades. With little appreciable effect on the flow of drugs into the country.

The directive and methodology are wrong. Change those and it CAN be stopped. It will now take an action similar to taking over Iraq.

The US/Mexican border is almost 2,000 miles long. The US Army has about 480,000 active duty troops.

Where should they be sent and how should they be deployed to cover a 2,000 mile front? Where will they sleep? How will we feed them? How will we replace the soldiers deployed to the border that we have to move there from other duty stations?

Mike,
Don’t be facetious. Our military took Iraq in less than a month. Give them the correct directive, equipment, and funding…they could easily make it happen.

How do you get around posse comitatus?

I don’t see the problem here…please explain.

No offense but, setting aside all of the above, it wouldn't work anyway. The idea that drug smugglers are streaming across the border in military formations that can easily be intercepted is absurd.

We have the technology, intelligence, and know-how to do it. We CHOOSE not to.

They mule it across the river. They bring it in trucks and vehicles. They tunnel it in.

All true…but a militaristic operation can stop all of that with the right directive.

Think of something else.

I see no other option. We have to regain control of the southern border or live with the status quo. So far we have chosen status quo.

Not a single real answer here. The fact that our military took Iraq in a month (I'll let you define "took" in relation to the number of subsequent casualties we incurred during the occupation before we withdrew) is an absurd analogy in relation to stopping drug interdiction. Has zero application. Apples and oranges. In fact, it cuts against your argument. Even with a full blown military invasion and occupation with virtually unlimited resources, the Iraqi's were able to successfully resist the occupation and inflicted 35,000 casualties on the US military during the occupation. Doesn't sound like a very good model to base anything on.

The rest of your answers are throwaways and utterly unresponsive. You offer no viable solutions and then you complain about the status quo. This is why we've had the status quo for the last 50 years.

quote:

But, by all means.....let's scream COVERUP!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Huvius:

quote:

But, by all means.....let's scream COVERUP!!!!

Well Mike, then you agree that they should have the owner in custody already, no?
When there is no arrest, it will be clear.

"The cocaine was found in an area of the West Wing that is used by both guests and staff. An anonymous law enforcement official told Politico on Wednesday that the culprit was unlikely to be discovered."

Already laying down the expectations, aren't they?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Simply not practical for the reasons outlined above.

We do not have the resources, the disruption to both commerce and our military would be too great to allow this plan to succeed.

You mention a take over plan similar to Iraq, just who's is the enemy and who will be taken over? Not only not practical, but likely not constitutional either.

Get mad at me all you want, but as usual the folks all lathered up about Ukraine, the Kurds, the Somalis and Ethiopians aren't interested in lifting a finger for the Americans and Latin Americans in their own neighborhood.

I saw a headline about a journalist all beat up over in Chechnya. I hope we send Patton and the Third.

Not mad at you at all Scott, but as I asked Lane, please define who we are invading, for what purpose, and how we know when the task is complete.

I would prefer a more practical approach is all. The Southern border should be secure, no doubt about it. I think Lanes approach is the wrong answer as to how we should secure it.

If I remember correctly and please tell me if I'm wrong, The US worked with the nation of Colombia to successfully curtail the drug cartels there in Colombia. As I understand it, Colombian Cartels are not the powerhouse they used to be.

Columbia doesn't have a 2,000 mile border with the United States.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
Simply not practical for the reasons outlined above.

We do not have the resources, the disruption to both commerce and our military would be too great to allow this plan to succeed.

You mention a take over plan similar to Iraq, just who's is the enemy and who will be taken over? Not only not practical, but likely not constitutional either.

Get mad at me all you want, but as usual the folks all lathered up about Ukraine, the Kurds, the Somalis and Ethiopians aren't interested in lifting a finger for the Americans and Latin Americans in their own neighborhood.

I saw a headline about a journalist all beat up over in Chechnya. I hope we send Patton and the Third.

Not mad at you at all Scott, but as I asked Lane, please define who we are invading, for what purpose, and how we know when the task is complete.

I would prefer a more practical approach is all. The Southern border should be secure, no doubt about it. I think Lanes approach is the wrong answer as to how we should secure it.

If I remember correctly and please tell me if I'm wrong, The US worked with the nation of Colombia to successfully curtail the drug cartels there in Colombia. As I understand it, Colombian Cartels are not the powerhouse they used to be.

Columbia doesn't have a 2,000 mile border with the United States.

Of course you are correct, am I right in my recollection that the United States partnered with the nation of Colombia to attack Colombian Cartels successfully?

If my dim memories are accurate, it seems reasonable the United States partner with Mexico for anti Cartel operations. Hopefully successfully.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
What are you talking about Mike? We have not really even tried.

If you send our military to the southern border and tell to stop all movement…they CAN do it.

If you say we don’t want the military there…outfit CBP like the military and give them the direction and they can and will. In Texas coordinate the CBP with the Texas Rangers and Department of Public Safety.

Man the border with the right equipment and directive and it CAN be stopped. It has gotten so bad that it would be a blood bath and expensive but it could be stopped. We just have to have the guts and the will to do it.

At this stage, it will take a militaristic operation to do it. But, it could be done and in my opinion should be.

Wow, that is such a spectacularly uninformed statement, I'm not even sure how to address it.

Your unaware that the BP, the DEA, the DPS and local law enforcement do drug interdiction in South Texas that is designed to prevent the flow of drugs across the border?

Partially true. But they are exponentially undermanned, underfunded, and don’t have the directive to stop it at all cost. It will take that will to change it.

The DHS budget this year is over $17 billion in relation to the effort. 65,000 full time positions. The time, money and effort spent on drug interdiction at the border is huge. And, it has been for decades. With little appreciable effect on the flow of drugs into the country.

The directive and methodology are wrong. Change those and it CAN be stopped. It will now take an action similar to taking over Iraq.

The US/Mexican border is almost 2,000 miles long. The US Army has about 480,000 active duty troops.

Where should they be sent and how should they be deployed to cover a 2,000 mile front? Where will they sleep? How will we feed them? How will we replace the soldiers deployed to the border that we have to move there from other duty stations?

Mike,
Don’t be facetious. Our military took Iraq in less than a month. Give them the correct directive, equipment, and funding…they could easily make it happen.

How do you get around posse comitatus?

I don’t see the problem here…please explain.

No offense but, setting aside all of the above, it wouldn't work anyway. The idea that drug smugglers are streaming across the border in military formations that can easily be intercepted is absurd.

We have the technology, intelligence, and know-how to do it. We CHOOSE not to.

They mule it across the river. They bring it in trucks and vehicles. They tunnel it in.

All true…but a militaristic operation can stop all of that with the right directive.

Think of something else.

I see no other option. We have to regain control of the southern border or live with the status quo. So far we have chosen status quo.

Not a single real answer here. The fact that our military took Iraq in a month (I'll let you define "took" in relation to the number of subsequent casualties we incurred during the occupation before we withdrew) is an absurd analogy in relation to stopping drug interdiction. Has zero application. Apples and oranges. In fact, it cuts against your argument. Even with a full blown military invasion and occupation with virtually unlimited resources, the Iraqi's were able to successfully resist the occupation and inflicted 35,000 casualties on the US military during the occupation. Doesn't sound like a very good model to base anything on.

The rest of your answers are throwaways and utterly unresponsive. You offer no viable solutions and then you complain about the status quo. This is why we've had the status quo for the last 50 years.

If you believe the US Military could not shut down movement across our southern border if properly charged with the responsibility…you are delusional. It can be done…if we had the will.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
So who is it exactly we go to "war" with? What is our stated goal? How do you know when you have achieved it?

You are talking about organized crime, not a foreign Government. I do not see how using our military to fight the cartels is even possible, let alone practical. We cannot just invade every country that has a cartel operating inside it's borders. Would you or Lane flesh out the details of the scenario that you envision?