quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Obama drone striked a WEDDING, in another country, that we weren't at war with, with no declared war by congress --

I am pretty okay with hitting OTHER TERRORIST organizations with the same -

Call me the odd man out, I'm against bombing Mexico over a drug war that has been going on since Nixon was POTUS. These terrorist organizations operate on both sides of the border, why not save some jet fuel and start dropping bunker buster bombs here Stateside? The answer is obvious, same reason we shouldn't be doing it in Mexico.

quote:

Obama drone striked a WEDDING

https://www.hrw.org/report/201...age-procession-yemen

A Wedding That Became a Funeral

On December 12, 2013, a United States aerial drone launched four Hellfire missiles on a convoy of 11 cars and pickup trucks during a counterterrorism operation in rural Yemen. The strike killed at least 12 men and wounded at least 15 others, 6 of them seriously.

https://checkyourfact.com/2020...ren/#google_vignette

FACT CHECK: Did Obama Order A Drone Strike On A Wedding That Killed 10 Women And 23 Children?
2:15 PM 01/31/2020 Elias Atienza | Senior Reporter

https://www.washingtonpost.com...b96304e34_story.html

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Obama drone striked a WEDDING, in another country, that we weren't at war with, with no declared war by congress --

I am pretty okay with hitting OTHER TERRORIST organizations with the same -

Call me the odd man out, I'm against bombing Mexico over a drug war that has been going on since Nixon was POTUS. These terrorist organizations operate on both sides of the border, why not save some jet fuel and start dropping bunker buster bombs here Stateside? The answer is obvious, same reason we shouldn't be doing it in Mexico.

Obviously no reason for us to argue here and I'll make this my last comment, not an argument.so I looked and Trump did make the cartels FTO, Foreign Terrorist Organization. I support this, I see no difference between ISIS and the Cartels.

So we can't bomb Cartels in America because we know anyone on American soil has American rights.

But in pursuit of FTO's in Afghanistan it looks like we killed about 50k civilian Afghans.

In pursuit of FTO's in Iraq we killed about 200k Iraqis.

Without American intervention in Mexico, the drug war there and the pursuit of FTO's by the Mexican authorities is still killing 10's of thousands of civilian Mexicans. Not to mention Americans killed on this side of the border.

So if the cartels are FTO, I can't see any reason to not attack them other than like I said, it's far more palatable to fight way, way, "Over There!".

The US should attack Mexico because Americans can't control their own drug habits? No.

I don't buy into the "FTO" designation. Terrorists have political ends. They normally aren't in it for profit.

The cartels are drug dealers, in it for the money. If the demand dries up, the cartels go away.

I'm not saying we should ignore the supply side of the equation. We should do everything we can to support a Mexican war on the cartels, including sending troops if requested. But we can't just attack Mexico over OUR drug abuse problem.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Scott.

The difference between Afghanistan and Mexico is that we were at war with Afghanistan.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The difference between Afghanistan and Mexico is that we were at war with Afghanistan.

We were NOT at "war" with Afghanistan - We haven't, CONSTITUTIONALLY declared "war" since 1942 -

the term of "art" is "Authorization for Use of Military Force" - which arises from the War Powers Act / Resolution (i believe of 1973, but i am not going to bother looking it up) aimed at limiting the President's power to commit US military forces without congressional authorization -

Wanna GUESS who was the only president to violate that act?

I won't bother with you lack of understanding of "terrorism" and it's lack of definition - Here' let's like a harvard EXPERT tell you, in his own words
Harvard law professor Richard Baxter, a leading expert on the law of war, was a skeptic: "We have cause to regret that a legal concept of 'terrorism' was ever inflicted upon us. The term is imprecise; it is ambiguous; and above all, it serves no operative legal purpose.

- you should stick with real estate and contract law, jim... or is it family law?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The US should attack Mexico because Americans can't control their own drug habits? No.

I don't buy into the "FTO" designation. Terrorists have political ends. They normally aren't in it for profit.

The cartels are drug dealers, in it for the money. If the demand dries up, the cartels go away.

I'm not saying we should ignore the supply side of the equation. We should do everything we can to support a Mexican war on the cartels, including sending troops if requested. But we can't just attack Mexico over OUR drug abuse problem.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Scott.

Ah, the "dealer" defense -- "if they wouldn't buy it, i couldn't sell it, so not my fault" If there's no drugs, there's no market - math goes both ways, why quibble?

How about we do things like, IDK, arrest cartel members in the US and either deport them or imprison them? With a safe level of force and remove used to protect Law Enforcement? This could be from ICE raids to Drone strikes on camps -

it's not like we haven't used force in other countries to disrupt the drug trade, with or without that government's support, knowledge, or even an official military action -- aka covert ops by "contractors"

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The US should attack Mexico because Americans can't control their own drug habits? No.

I don't buy into the "FTO" designation. Terrorists have political ends. They normally aren't in it for profit.

The cartels are drug dealers, in it for the money. If the demand dries up, the cartels go away.

I'm not saying we should ignore the supply side of the equation. We should do everything we can to support a Mexican war on the cartels, including sending troops if requested. But we can't just attack Mexico over OUR drug abuse problem.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Scott.

Ah, the "dealer" defense -- "if they wouldn't buy it, i couldn't sell it, so not my fault" If there's no drugs, there's no market - math goes both ways, why quibble?

How about we do things like, IDK, arrest cartel members in the US and either deport them or imprison them? With a safe level of force and remove used to protect Law Enforcement? This could be from ICE raids to Drone strikes on camps -

it's not like we haven't used force in other countries to disrupt the drug trade, with or without that government's support, knowledge, or even an official military action -- aka covert ops by "contractors"

How is this different from how the drug war has been run since the 70's? You just described SOP.