Is this the opposite stance that many Republicans have on guns? We must destroy the facilities, cripple the suppliers and limit the supply of a tool that can kill in the case of fentanyl but in the case of guns it is an individual, end user problem... those who misuse need mental health care or be put in jail? Did the war on drugs fail because we tried to focus all our efforts on only one side of the problem? If there is a demand, there will always be someone willing to supply.
Killing 80,000 people with chemical weapons is one thing. 80,000 people choosing to take a drug and dying from it is something completely different. These Republicans are completely ignoring the choices of (mostly) adults and blaming it on the creators and distributors of the drug. Basically, those 80,000 people are committing suicide - not being killed. It's a horrible situation, granted, but even eliminating this source of supply won't stop the problem.
I really despise performative politics. Everyone on the Hill, including the authors of both bills, know that this legislation will go nowhere. So why do Dan Crenshaw and Lindsay Graham do it? Fundraising. It's all about fundraising. If they can convince their constituents that they are "doing something" about the very real problem of drug abuse in America, then these poseurs have an opportunity to raise campaign funds from small donors who don't know any better. SOP in DC.
I really enjoy the logic that this AUMF wouldn't mean troops in Mexico, it just leaves it up to the president to decide if troops should be in Mexico. So if Biden does it, he's on the hook for the war (something only Democratic presidents receive pushback for) or else he's being weak by not using the powers the AUMF has granted him.
Not liking AMLO does not give us carte blanche to intervene in Mexico.
Rep. James Comer has zero military or law enforcement background. His views are as useful as some rando on FB.
The Republicans are supposed to know economics, mainly supply and demand. Even if they bomb out all the drug cartels in Mexico, users will find their fix somewhere else. If death by fentanyl is what Rep Crenshaw concerned about, what is he doing on that front?
“One of the things we learned post-Trump presidency is that he had ordered a bombing of a couple of fentanyl labs, crystal meth labs, in Mexico, just across the border, and for whatever reason the military didn’t do it,” Comer said on Fox & Friends. “I think that was a mistake.”
Which is why you are not on the foreign relations committee
Has anyone in the media been impertinent enough to inform Dan Crenshaw that as long as a market for fentany, meth, and heroin exists in the U.S., they're going to find a way to get it to us? And no amount of Delta Force raids or cruise missiles is going to change that?
I'm not trying to be flip or a nihilistic asshole. The 22 year-old son of two of my high school classmates had never done drugs in his life, until he decided to split one hydrocodone tablet in a bar in Williston, ND, with his buddy. He almost instantly died of a fentany overdose, and his funeral was excruciating. But as long as our young people equate drug use as edgy and exciting, or they're so riven with despair that they don't care if they OD or not, we're going to have to deal with this.
If this were to pass, and if strikes were done in Mexico, expect several instances of terrorism and mass casualties to take place in the U.S. There will eventually be headless bodies hanging from freeway overpasses. Eventually we will smash the cartels in a protracted and bloody campaign, cease operations in Mexico and watch the cartels some back. We need to stop the desire of Americans from wanting to get high on illegal drugs. Stick with, you know, alcohol or weed. Hashtag I'm being ironic.
The GOP are entrenching themselves in some very dangerous rhetoric and are truly enamored of the "might makes right" philosophy. No wonder they love Putin. Although, they may have to be their own cannon fodder. Forcing the military to do this would crack it. Crenshaw saying that this is only so that the President can come up with a strategy and not actually invade is BS of the highest order. What is the point? Sorry, need to stop here before my inner crank takes over.
I think the cartels would start targeting Americans in Mexico, near the border etc. Next thing you know Republicans would start clamoring for internment camps for all the Mexican and Hispanic people in the US.
Is this the opposite stance that many Republicans have on guns? We must destroy the facilities, cripple the suppliers and limit the supply of a tool that can kill in the case of fentanyl but in the case of guns it is an individual, end user problem... those who misuse need mental health care or be put in jail? Did the war on drugs fail because we tried to focus all our efforts on only one side of the problem? If there is a demand, there will always be someone willing to supply.
So now the Republicans that started the war on drugs that led to the rise of the cartels, wants to start another war. Makes no sense to me.
Killing 80,000 people with chemical weapons is one thing. 80,000 people choosing to take a drug and dying from it is something completely different. These Republicans are completely ignoring the choices of (mostly) adults and blaming it on the creators and distributors of the drug. Basically, those 80,000 people are committing suicide - not being killed. It's a horrible situation, granted, but even eliminating this source of supply won't stop the problem.
I really despise performative politics. Everyone on the Hill, including the authors of both bills, know that this legislation will go nowhere. So why do Dan Crenshaw and Lindsay Graham do it? Fundraising. It's all about fundraising. If they can convince their constituents that they are "doing something" about the very real problem of drug abuse in America, then these poseurs have an opportunity to raise campaign funds from small donors who don't know any better. SOP in DC.
I really enjoy the logic that this AUMF wouldn't mean troops in Mexico, it just leaves it up to the president to decide if troops should be in Mexico. So if Biden does it, he's on the hook for the war (something only Democratic presidents receive pushback for) or else he's being weak by not using the powers the AUMF has granted him.
Not liking AMLO does not give us carte blanche to intervene in Mexico.
Rep. James Comer has zero military or law enforcement background. His views are as useful as some rando on FB.
The Republicans are supposed to know economics, mainly supply and demand. Even if they bomb out all the drug cartels in Mexico, users will find their fix somewhere else. If death by fentanyl is what Rep Crenshaw concerned about, what is he doing on that front?
“One of the things we learned post-Trump presidency is that he had ordered a bombing of a couple of fentanyl labs, crystal meth labs, in Mexico, just across the border, and for whatever reason the military didn’t do it,” Comer said on Fox & Friends. “I think that was a mistake.”
Which is why you are not on the foreign relations committee
I feel like we’ve seen this Tom Clancy movie before, and it ended with high-profile Senate investigations.
Has anyone in the media been impertinent enough to inform Dan Crenshaw that as long as a market for fentany, meth, and heroin exists in the U.S., they're going to find a way to get it to us? And no amount of Delta Force raids or cruise missiles is going to change that?
I'm not trying to be flip or a nihilistic asshole. The 22 year-old son of two of my high school classmates had never done drugs in his life, until he decided to split one hydrocodone tablet in a bar in Williston, ND, with his buddy. He almost instantly died of a fentany overdose, and his funeral was excruciating. But as long as our young people equate drug use as edgy and exciting, or they're so riven with despair that they don't care if they OD or not, we're going to have to deal with this.
Of course these dumb motherfuckers can't grasp historical context.
Once you open this door, you don't just skip right back out. This is a goddamn sinkhole.
Someone tell these wannabe Rambos to go read (or more likely watch, in their cases) Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger.
If this were to pass, and if strikes were done in Mexico, expect several instances of terrorism and mass casualties to take place in the U.S. There will eventually be headless bodies hanging from freeway overpasses. Eventually we will smash the cartels in a protracted and bloody campaign, cease operations in Mexico and watch the cartels some back. We need to stop the desire of Americans from wanting to get high on illegal drugs. Stick with, you know, alcohol or weed. Hashtag I'm being ironic.
The GOP are entrenching themselves in some very dangerous rhetoric and are truly enamored of the "might makes right" philosophy. No wonder they love Putin. Although, they may have to be their own cannon fodder. Forcing the military to do this would crack it. Crenshaw saying that this is only so that the President can come up with a strategy and not actually invade is BS of the highest order. What is the point? Sorry, need to stop here before my inner crank takes over.
I think the cartels would start targeting Americans in Mexico, near the border etc. Next thing you know Republicans would start clamoring for internment camps for all the Mexican and Hispanic people in the US.
I apologize, I did not have US initiated hostilities in Mexico on my bingo card.
In honor of the name Desert Storm, what would you name the conflict? Cancun Storm? Rum Punch Storm?
These f*cking idiots. This passes and next thing we know GOP governors will order NG deployments into Mexico