MTG Let's Bomb Mexico

I'm talking about the illegal uses(?) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Exactly.

 

She's known for sometimes saying what needs to be said. THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE SEEMED CURIOUSLY UNINTERESTED IN HIM: MTG: Ray Epps ‘should be in jail.’

Soon she will have her committees back and Lying Schiff and SwallowsWell (Banger of Fang) will be committee stripped!

If there are labs in the Mexico border region poisoning Americans then it's perfectly proper for Congress to have an open debate on military options.

 

So you don't agree that we should have killed Osama bin Laden? You are saying that the Obama administration engaged in an act of war with Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons?

This is non sequitur. The fact that they are everywhere is why we strategic striking is feasible. If the cartels were isolated or centralized in the middle of a heavily populated metropolis and they only used underground tunnels for transportation, then, yes, to bomb them would necessarily mean mass casualties, thus ruling out the feasibility of a strategic strike. But because of, not in spite of, the fact that they are everywhere, we can be strategic in what we bomb. Instead of bombing a lab in the middle of a metropolis, aided by intelligence, we can strategically choose areas where the moment of impact would have little to no collateral damage, such as the countryside and the jungles. You are describing Mexico as it if was one big, complete, heavily populated metropolis, where to bomb any subnetwork of the cartel would necessarily mean mass casualties, and that's just simply absurd.

 

So precisely how much collateral damage (those pesky innocent men, women, and children) would be acceptable to you?

 

1 million Mexicans. 100 million Chinese. Note that while I'm sure many would be appalled neither of those translate into "genocide"

 

Enough to be within the scope of the definition of a strategic strike.

 

"We" didn't murder Bin Laden. He likely died of kidney failure in late 2001. But even if that fairy tale is actually not a fairy tale, the assassination of an unarmed man who could have easily been captured alive and returned to the US to face trial (assuming it wasn't in a kangaroo court) was one of the dumbest moves ever with zero value, never mind a war crime. The objective, whoever was actually murdered in cold blood, if anyone, was obviously for coverup purposes.

 

Did you actually expect an answer like "the murder of even one innocent person is appalling and barbaric"? No instead you get "1 million" or "100 million" (but not the "g" word even though it obviously is) and you also get it called a "strategic strike" to make it sound like a video game to pretend no one actually gets killed.

 

Killing 100 million Chinese (regardless of the appalling number) would still leave the overwhelming vast majority of Chinese alive. How could that be "genocide"?

 

Yeah, what you said. Kudos!

 

Well, how many is that and is there an upper limit?

 

I have to run this card through a machine, the logic of which is a mesh of tabulating algorithms, to give you the exact amount of collateral damage deaths deemed appropriate to fit within the definition of a surgical strike. I should have it to you by the morning.

 

yes, and the synthetic fentanyl has been caught at the border, at the point of entry or close thereabouts in most cases whether it was in the NYC harbor or on the South of the Border. However, drug addiction overall is a major problem in this country. And I like the drug courts that Ohio has done and I think that should be done nationwide in every state following their model. And like every other addiction, it is a constant battle whether that addiction is sex, drugs, alcohol, or others. Furthermore, if we reduce addiction in this country, we will reduce the number of drugs being made here and being smuggled in. Remember, meth is a US-manufactured drug that is very popular in suburbia along with the illegal use of prescription medicine, oxycodone for instance. And why fentanyl is just a repeat of the oxycodone epidemic we still have in this country,.

 

WOW! After all this time, drug wars, laws, prisons, gangs, deaths over the last 80 years, You still cling to the ridiculous ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

We are currently sending scores of billions of dollars to Ukraine, and there has been a lot of collateral damage in that war. Therefore, since you two are so opposed to collateral damage to protect American lives, should we stop sending billions of dollars to Ukraine, which will inevitably lead to the deaths of innocent Russians and civilians in neighboring countries, such as Poland, in which Ukraine has bombed in this war that the United States is engaging in by proxy?

 

False equivalency. My 8 year old granddaughter spotted that one.

 

Take your time. One or more is to many, no?

 

False equivalency? What do you mean? Why is it okay to kill many innocent Russians and Polish people, but it is not okay to kill innocent Mexicans?

 

1.) We are not killing them.
2.) We are supplying Ukraine with the tools to fend off the Russian invasion.
If you don't see that, well, I guess that my granddaughter is smarter than you are.

 

We are funding the killing of innocent Russians and Polish people, and that makes it okay?

Let me see if I understand your logic: collateral damage is okay as long as we are not directly causing it, just funding the people that are causing it?

 

"We" are doing no such thing, at least I'm not, maybe you are. I am not a "we".

What utter nonsense. In the first place, I'm opposed to murder of any kind no matter what idiotic label you want to put on it. In the second place, there is no such thing as collateral damage that protects American lives or the life of anyone in any country. I don't know where you get this nonsense from, maybe from playing too many video games but human life is not a game nor is it "collateral damage".

"War is a racket" - Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

 

Are you for or against sending billions of dollars to Ukraine in their war effort against Russia?

 

That is not the discussion. The discussion is about bombing Mexico (see topic title) which is really about mass murder (genocide in this case), a barbaric bloodthirsty agenda YOU support. If you want to start a thread on funding Ukraine, feel free to do so. Defending innocent lives and property against an invader is not the same thing as committing mass murder no matter how much you want to try to make it so.

 

The reason I bring up Ukraine is to see if you are consistent in your prevention of innocent people dying by bombs being dropped on or near them. In other words, I just want to see if you are a hypocrite or not. I was hoping, HOPING, for some consistency on the left side of this forum. I was hoping you would say, "I am not for bombing anyone. Period. I am not for funding the war in Ukraine, because that has led to the deaths of innocent Russians and Polish people. I don't want to see innocent people caught in the crossfire. Therefore, I am against funding Ukraine, which has led to the deaths of many innocents." I hoped, and, of course, I was let down. Judging from your dodging the question, I am going to assume you are for funding Ukraine, even though that leads to funding a war that has caused collateral damage, but you are hypocritically against bombing the cartels, because of the possibility of killing innocent Mexicans.