In one of Craig's recent posts, Dan felt compelled to weigh in with his usual vile hatred for our president. The issue was the Trump administration's targeting of narco-terrorists from Venezuela running drugs toward our shores. Our people would blow up their boats in international waters. Dan was apparently fine with Biden's open border policies which allowed all manner of scumbag to bring their fentanyl and other drugs across our borders for distribution to stupid people as well as the unsuspecting. It's said 100K died every year from such poisoning, and Dan had nothing much to say in protest. If Trump opened the borders, instead of protecting his people as is his sworn duty, Dan would be seeking his impeachment and/or imprisonment because...you know...Must Hate Trump. And Dan does indeed.
There's absolutely no policy of Trump's which is above scrutiny. It is fair, reasonable and frankly, the duty of every American to pay attention as closely as possible to discern what he's attempting to do and if it's a good thing or a bad thing.
Trump has designated several radical and/or blatantly criminal organizations as terrorists. With regard to assholes like Tren de Aragua, he has designated them as narco-terrorists who have availed themselves of Biden's stupidity and made for themselves a presence in this country. Trump...being a regular guy who actually loves his country...wasn't cool with that. Trump...being an actual man who doesn't like to mess around when serious shit hits the fan...chooses to do something about it. Trump...being an actual man who doesn't bullshit about the seriousness of a problem and what must be done to resolve it...has chosen to go on the offensive against these most offensive people.
Dan doesn't like that. Oh...it's not because Dan cares about who might get 86'd. Oh no! It's because...you know...Must Hate Trump and anything and everything he does must be opposed because Dan, knowing nothing but Must Hate Trump, presumes he can criticize the best president we've had since Ronald Reagan...another great president Dan hated.
Anyway, Dan demands people of intelligence join morons like him in pretending Trump is committing war crimes and such. It takes a modern progressive asshat to suggest protecting the people of our nation against drug cartels and their deadly products is akin to war crimes, if an asshat is what you want, then Dan is definitely your huckleberry. He's world class and card-carrying!
So Dan pretends the Trump gang has no way to know if those they've bombed out of the water are actually scumbags and by golly, the US Constitution requires the president to run on over to Dan's place and clear it with him, just as God Almighty needs to check with Dan about abominable sexual behaviors. Thus, I did some checking and in seconds I came up with the following hard core, far right extremist conservative site (?) which lists the many ways our people can identify narco-terrorists Dan is so keen to defend against the evil Donald J. Trump:
https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/detecting-drug-boats-9a18ba
Do these methods, tactics and tools ensure 100% certainty? Probably not. But I'd wager the probability of that lofty goal is far, far higher than a putz like Dan has the honor and integrity to concede. These aren't Jeff St chuckle-heads running this administration, nor are they Biden or Obama administration buffoons, either. They're actual America loving patriots who, while not being perfect, shouldn't be insulted by being mentioned in the same sentence with any of the aforementioned. None of the other are or were serious players. They're all posers and posturing frauds not worthy of recognition.
Good people disagree with this policy. Dan's not among them. I applaud it and more than that, I support taking it to the assholes in ways that have true impact on their future intentions, if not their futures altogether. When dealing with gangs like TDA and Hamas and a few others, nothing says "We're serious about solving this problem" like killing them.
Within our borders, we have laws which require proving someone is guilty before killing them, or in cases of killing them on the streets, agonizing process compels confirming no other recourse. While this works great for those who are actually innocent, it puts law enforcement and the public at great risk and so much more often than not, law enforcement and neighbors are well aware of who the most dangerous assholes are. The really bad guys murder publicly or leave the bodies out in the open as a warning. This works in areas where LE is not truly concerned with E-ing the L or protecting the citizenry. But good people can use a similar strategy to put fear where it belongs...in the black hearts of the evil.
Trump is notable for understanding the necessity of this practice. It's no good to say it incites the evil to be more evil because they're already evil. As it stands, bad actors on the world stage are not keen to drawing Trump's attention by being assholes. He made that known in his first time in office and he's done so again with the strike on Iran. His righteous assaults on drug runners from a narco state is another example and it is absolutely necessary.
The only problem with it is that it is not enough. Evil must be vanquished for the good of us all. There's way too much of it in the world and the evil thinks the world is theirs.
Dan's good with that. He's good with that so long as Trump ends up in jail.
Thursday, October 30, 2025
I'm All For It
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
There's a statement on X that has gone viral and has even become a meme; click on my name for the link.
"It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible."
I bring this up in a thread about Dan for reasons that should be obvious.
Of course, it's not certain he doesn't understand as much as knows he has no legit arguments for his positions, and certainly none for his TDS.
What is interesting is that, much like Hamas, Venezuela could stop all of this in an instant. All Venezuela needs to do is to stop the cartels from using their country as a base for smuggling. One wonders why Dan isn't demanding that those responsible for what's happening stop the smuggling.
Actually, after years of listening to Dan insist that Hamas and the people of Gaza were completely unable to stop the fake "genocide" and "famine", it seems clear that Dan doesn't completely understand the notions of agency and responsibility for one's actions.
To use an old example, Dan's right to swing his fist ends when it impacts my nose. Should I choose to respond to Dan's misuse of his freedom to swing his fist, by kicking his ass, then the responsibility is ultimately his.
As I've said, I'm not a fan or supporter of the specific actions being engaged in by the Trump administration, but I appreciate the concept of putting American citizens interests ahead of drug smugglers. I believe that Trump would have much more credibility in this if he'd direct the capture of several boats full of drugs (with the entire process documented on video), and to display the "spoils" publicly. Failing that, I'd prefer using submarines or seals to simply make the boats disappear without the fanfare. Who's going to care or complain if drug smuggling boats disappear?
Bingo.
I agree that it would have been better to risk our own people to stop the boats, and have proof of criminal intent in hand so to block incoming criticism from the hateful and stupid...like Dan. Having proven competence, then the blowing up of subsequent drug boats can proceed. Of course, the hateful and stupid...like Dan...would then question Trump for blowing up subsequent drug boats as if he hasn't already proven his competency in identifying these narco terrorists Dan pretends are just innocent people on a pleasure cruise from a narco state to Florida.
It never ceases to amaze me how someone like Dan can so criticize Trump's intelligence and wisdom...as if Trump's totally devoid of them...when Trump's done so much Dan's preferred posers never came anywhere close to demonstrating either. Dan demonstrated his lack of both intelligence and wisdom when he praised the abilities of Biden and Harris in the run-up to the stolen 2020 election. Biden and Harris then went on to prove how stupid Dan's preference for them over Trump/Vance truly was. But I believe he still doesn't see it, or being what he is, he is not honest enough to admit it.
I think they have good intelligence regarding the boats and who is operating them. And of course, we know where they are headed!
That's my believe as well. I have little doubt that isn't the case. As much to express my support for the intention behind it, I wanted to expose Dan for idiocy. He chooses to believe this administration is no more intelligent than the one which led to more drug deaths in this country. He chooses to believe this administration is just randomly murdering.
Trump is totally devoid of intelligence and wisdom, just like the rest of the goons who leave comments on this blog, Dan and Feodor included.
Look at this guy! He dares insult the intelligence of Trump and those who comment here (even Dan and feo), without doing a damned thing to prove he's possessed of either intelligence or wisdom! That's hilarious!
Given the high level of expertise in interdiction of boats, the risk would have been small IMO, but the reward would have been worth it. Both from a proof sense, as well as some good live fire training.
Further, I like the idea of simply making the boats disappear without a trace, more than showing the video. Plausible deniability and all that.
Dan would criticize Trump if he managed to cure cancer, eliminate poverty, and usher in world peace, this isn't a surprise at all. Dan's sympathy to Venezuela and drug traffickers is not a surprise in the least.
I applaud Trump's effort, I believe that there are multiple different tactics that would be equally (if not more) effective and in less of a legal grey area.
I suspect that they do have reasonably good intelligence, I simply disagree with the tactics.
That's reasonable. However...and I could be wrong here...I feel that Trump doesn't act without first understanding the risks of his actions. He's likely confident there is no real legal threats which could be lodge against him, though such a possibility fails to take into account the treachery of TDS sufferers in the Democrat Party and elsewhere. The concocted and distorted law to convict him in the hush money case. I've no doubt they're making plans of the same sort in anticipation of soon regaining the White House. It's all they care about. They certainly don't care about the nation.
Whoever this putz is, he submitted a response which will never see the light of day. The coward can't identify himself, but trolls and we feo for that.
That could be the case, yet we don't know what the situation is. We can draw conclusions based on information we have available, or we can draw conclusions based on conjecture. I'm trying to be clear that I believe that there are better ways to accomplish his goals, but am open to actual information that might change my mind.
As regard Trump's goals in relation to blowing up drug runners, what would you say they are and what better methods do you believe can be employed to reach them? (You can start a new thread below rather than continue with the Blogger imposed constant upward scrolling to find the "REPLY" button, if you think that would serve you better.)
I think part of this action is to broadcast that he ain't f**king around, and that what happened to all this ocean-going drug runners awaits all who make similar attempts. There's great value in this when dealing with scumbags, especially the world-class types.
For a long time I've believed that such methods are essential for dealing with criminals of all kinds. In a nutshell, harsh response, however that manifests, alters the ROI perspective of the criminal. Criminals don't like dying to make their bucks and while they might accept the risk is high in their line of work, it's not at all a goal of theirs. When the risk is elevated, they back off. Trump's whacking of terrorists during his first term had the desired effect, and the whole world saw it. Thus, it affected the whole world in the same way: Don't f**k with Donald Trump or his country. It's the same here.
The biggest flaw is the inability to know in advance just how bad the push back will be from his own country (Rand Paul, for example, and the incredibly stupid people like Dan Trabue). The Viet Cong lasted as long as they did because they knew leftist sentiment in the US worked in their favor. The same dynamic is at play with whining about Trump destroying murderers.
As far as Trump's "goals", I'd suggest that stopping this source of drug smuggling, sending a message, and undermining the government/economy of Nicaragua are the most likely.
As far as tactics, I've suggested two options at least once.
1. Use submarines and simply make the boats disappear with out a trace. Sow confusion among the cartels, and plausible deniability are the advantages of this.
2. Use special ops to interdict the boats, capture the narcos, and inventory the drugs. The benefits of this are providing the special ops community with some excellent training opportunities and actually demonstrating that these are drug smugglers.
If the narcos are smart, they'd load up a boat of two with nuns and children (with multiple cameras to document this) and send it out to be blown up. The PR windfall would be huge.
I think that broadcasting the out of context explosion, while it might have some deterrent value, actually emphasizes the fact that we don't have 100% certainty of the contents.
To be clear, I have no problem in principle with eliminating drug smugglers/cartels. My concern is the legality of these actions (I know that a Presidential Finding can essentially "legalize" anything). Beyond that my issues are more style as opposed to substance.
As far as the ROI, the cartels have massive financial resources and they do not value the lives of their employees particularly highly. They plan for a certain amount of product loss in transit and as long as this doesn't get too far beyond that threshold, it won't bother them a lot. Further, at some point they'll just switch tactics. There's plenty of speculation about submarines as smuggling platforms for example.
As I see it, the biggest flaw is the lack of understanding that showing videos of boats being blown up by the US military is going to rile a lot of people up. When you combine that anti-Trump sentiment with the lack of "due process" sentiment, it's foolish to think that there will not be blow back.
Yes, the VC, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the narcos have all realized how to weaponize the ASPL and use them as a means to influence policy in the favor of those groups. Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and their ilk publicly brag about how the gullibility of the ASPL helps them achieve their goals. Yet the ASPL continues to play right into their hands.
I don't disagree with any of those suggestions. They're all good ones, and perhaps even better now that Trump has made known just how strongly he's opposed to cartel activity harming our nation. To have covertly "disappeared" those boats would certainly have caused confusion for the cartels, but the message would not have been clear regarding Trump's serious intent to fight against them.
I don't think the nuns and kids thing would work, because I believe our people aren't that stupid. I believe our methods provide certainty about who it is we're about to blow up. And even if our people did indeed blow up a drug boat with nuns and kids on it, the cartel would have needed a live broadcast of the entire voyage to make that plan work. Simply filming nuns and kids boarding the boat wouldn't be enough. At least that's how I see it.
When I mentioned ROI, I was referring to the actual people making the trip...that is, their investment in labor to result in payment for services rendered. If boats are being blown up, who would want to be on any of them? But yes, the cartel would simply change tactics, as they no doubt are working on that now.
I've little doubt Trump expected blow back. When doesn't he receive any from the usual suspects? I'm sure it was factored into his decision to act in this way. And then dismissed as inconsequential given the usual suspects. Whether or not he figured on Rand Paul's opposition is another matter.
I'd argue that confusion and fear of the unknown as to why these boats are disappearing would be as effective as what we have now regarding the current plan. It would also lower the chances of them sending out boats full of children and nuns to get blown up by the Trump administration. Beyond that, it's foolish to think that the same message could not have been sent back channel to accomplish the same results without the publicity.
I'm going out on a limb and saying that organizations that have made trillions of dollars via their illegal enterprises have the ability to easily accomplish getting a decoy boat blown up. You are correct that the narcos would have to make a trip to Radio Shack and get some wireless cameras, and Starlink portable internet and be able to live stream every single second of the trip until the explosions. Hell, if they were smart, they'd load up a boat full of kids and nuns and blow it up themselves. Their biggest hope is that the ASPL/MSM/DFL coalition continues to be their PR arm, and this kind of thing would be very effective.
I understand the concept of ROI, in this situation. The narcos have historically treated human life as an expendable commodity and have been very successful with the "Plomo Y Plata" negotiating position. Giving the families of their peons, and even sicarios enough money to live for years is a drop in the bucket compared to the PR value of a boat full of nuns and kids getting blown up. Narco peons have a history of engaging in near suicidal behavior when death is their alternative. Of course they'll change tactics, as happens in every conflict ever. Maybe kidnapping some coeds on Spring Break and sticking a couple on every boat?
Supposition is great, but only goes so far.
Hopefully I don't have a large criminal audience.
Again, you bring up some really good points regarding the current policy. However, you seem to think our people aren't competent and can be fooled into thinking a boat load of innocents would not be detected or that our people aren't looking out for such chess moves, even if they don't know specifically what crappy ploy might be set in motion. It's always a chess game, isn't it? And it's known the connection between islamists and cartels, so islamist tactics of hiding behind innocents is likely assumed to be a tactic employed at some point.
In any case, it's too late to speak of what should have been done. This is the path chosen and that's what matters. We can second guess any path they choose. The real concern is "now what?" Dishonest Dem reaction is automatic and guaranteed.
It's not that our people aren't competent as much as acknowledging that the narcos are both competent and rich enough to buy competent people. In this case, it's likely that the primary/only intel available is from satellites and the like. The chances of an actual human on the ground feeding intel back to the CIA or who ever seems pretty slim. As good as that kind of stuff is, it's not perfect.
Unless Trump is scrolling obscure blogs for ideas, this whole conversation is pointless in the sense of affecting policy. You offered an opinion on a current policy, I offered a different opinion. It's the now what that I am concerned about. It's the what happens if the narcos do manage to get a boatload of innocents blown up and Trump gives the DFL ammunition against his policies.
I'm not worried about the dishonesty from the DFL, I'm worried about what happens if they are given something True that they can use.
What do you mean by "true"? That nuns and kids died because of Trump blowing up a drug boat? Again, I don't think that would happen because I don't think our people are that Biden...I mean, Dan...I mean, stupid. I believe they would go way out of their way to make sure they're not killing innocents.
But let's say that happens. Let's say it was either Trump blowing up a boatload of nuns and kids, or the narcos doing it to pretend it was because of Trump. What's "true" in either case is that innocents died because of the narcos...not because Trump's team wasn't perfect.
I mean that if they are having this much of a field day with things that are false, imagine what they'd do if they actually had something True to bang on. Nuns/kids, widows/orphans, whatever. These narcos are evil and clever, I wouldn't underestimate their depravity.
Short of actually putting spec ops on board, how could anyone possibly guarantee that there were no innocents on one of these boats?
While that is True, in the sense that every innocent person in Gaza died because of Hamas, tell me how that line of reasoning went over with the masses? The IDF "went out of their way" to minimize or eliminate killing innocents, and tell me how that played.
It's not about being perfect, from my perspective, it's about trying to figure out how the ASPL and MSM will spin whatever happens. The reality is that as long as the only recon we are using is satellites and aircraft, we'll never know for certain what's on the boats that get blown up.
Your line of reasoning is totally dependent upon "what ifs"? We can "what if?" ourselves out of any action including those you've suggested.
"I mean that if they are having this much of a field day with things that are false, imagine what they'd do if they actually had something True to bang on."
Should we really be concerning ourselves with how assholes will spin the facts, or should we concern ourselves with doing what needs to be done and let the assholes go f**k themselves? I prefer the latter. The assholes don't get to dictate.
"Short of actually putting spec ops on board, how could anyone possibly guarantee that there were no innocents on one of these boats?"
Iron-clad guarantees would be great. Where do we go to get those, and how many will suffer while we wait around for them?
"While that is True, in the sense that every innocent person in Gaza died because of Hamas, tell me how that line of reasoning went over with the masses?"
I don't care. Why are you letting assholes dictate?
" The IDF "went out of their way" to minimize or eliminate killing innocents, and tell me how that played."
I don't care. Has that stopped the IDF from doing what they have to do? I"m pretty sure "no" is the correct answer. Why should we proceed any differently?
"The reality is that as long as the only recon we are using is satellites and aircraft, we'll never know for certain what's on the boats that get blown up."
Assuming that's the extent of our methods, I have absolutely no idea regarding how sophisticated they are. Do you? I'd wager they'd know if nuns and kids are on those boats.
I get your worries. They're legitimate. My position is blowing these boats to pieces isn't good enough. But no one wants to go there and they won't if they're whining about these actions.
What's more, the potential spin job the left will put on these and similar actions is nothing compared to the obstruction in which they'd engage if Trump waited for the approval of Congress to fight the cartels. Between the Dems and the RINOs, that's where you'd get a real guarantee...that nothing will ever get done. We've been treating the cartels like common criminals for decades and they've only grown stronger. To whatever level of sophistication might be their operations is the result of our side playing nice.
Clearly you do prefer to do whatever you think is right without regard to what anyone else thinks or how it affects others. You're not POTUS and what you do, say, or think has minimal effect on anyone else. You're absolutely right, we shouldn't care one bit about lies people tell. Why in the world should we be concerned about what other people say? Clearly you don't get invested at all over what other people say on their blogs or in the comments here. Pardon me if I see that being aware, being prepared for, and responding to the lies others tell is a good thing.
For example. Had Trump captured a few of these narco boats, full of drugs, and cartel members, he would have had the perfect counter to the narrative. He would have had irrefutable evidence. Clearly destroying the evidence is preferable to displaying it.
"Where do we go to get those, and how many will suffer while we wait around for them?"
Well, perhaps you should have paid more attention to the sentence you copy/pasted before you asked this question. The answer is, as it almost always is, is human intelligence on the ground, and spec ops intercepting a few boats. As far as how long we'd have to wait, probably about as long as it takes to load up a SEAL team and their gear in a C-17 and fly to the Gulf/Caribbean and drop them. I'm guessing a matter of a couple of hours.
"Why are you letting assholes dictate?"
What does that even mean? Are you unaware of the large protests, and fawning MSM coverage of the "victims" in Gaza? You act as if acknowledging the reality that the MSM has a voice and influence is somehow a bad thing. In legal terms, the only defense against libel/slander is the Truth. In the court of public opinion, being prepared to counter lies with Truth and evidence is simply common sense. Because clearly simply telling those who disagree with you to "F" off, is much more effective that producing a couple of boats full of drugs and narcos. I definitely see your point.
I get that you don't care. That is clearly the most effective way to deal with the PR aspect of political policy. It worked wonders for the DFL during the shutdown. It didn't stop the IDF, but it absolutely changed how they went about doing what they had to do. They could have ended the whole Gaza thing and gotten the hostages back in a week had they ignored public opinion. Instead they dragged it out for 2 years.
"I'd wager they'd know if nuns and kids are on those boats."
Sounds like your argument is based on what ifs.
Satellites and aircraft sensors have limited effectiveness. There are ways to degrade the effectiveness of those sensors that can be employed, and likely are. When you get a camera shot of bales of something in a boat, what is your degree of certainty that those bales contain drugs? Of course something as simple as loading a boat under cover renders identification ineffective.
Hypothetical situation. The narcos load 5 boats under cover which prevents anyone using only satellite/aerial surveillance ineffective. One contains drugs, three contain bales that look like drugs, one contains nuns and kids. They all leave at the same time, and split up at high speed. How would you guess that the military would be able to correctly identify the one with drugs and blow it up?
If blowing up the boats isn't "good enough", then what is?
Strangely enough, I believe that when the US resorts to extra legal means (not that Trump is doing so) to achieve something that might be good at some level, that we diminish what the US is supposed to stand for. If we merely adapt the methods of the cartels, don't we become criminals as well? If there are no limits to imposing the will of the US on those we deem unworthy, why not just level Venezuela and be don with it? Why not go Tom Clancy and bomb the cartel leaders in their homes regardless of how many wives, children, family members, and servants get blown up as well?
I get the appeal, I also see the potential danger.
I think that you may be missing my point in all of the details. I have no problem interdicting drugs being smuggled into the US. I merely want some reassurance that the means of interdiction are legal, and would prefer some "scalps" if at all possible. I want to see soaking wet narcos surrounded by piles of smuggled drugs, along with any evidence trails back to those in charge.
I know, it's crazy.
You're totally missing my point, which makes snark so much easier, but not very effective.
"Clearly you do prefer to do whatever you think is right without regard to what anyone else thinks or how it affects others."
This is wholly inaccurate. I prefer to do what's right regardless of what leftist obstructionists say as if what they say reflects reality regarding how anyone is impacted by doing what's right. In addition to that, I certainly don't care what the cartels say or how they're impacted by doing the right thing, and if the right thing is done, it will impact them negatively (from their perspective) and that's the goal.
"You're not POTUS and what you do, say, or think has minimal effect on anyone else."
A completely irrelevant statement, as it is true of you as well. Wasted keystrokes.
"You're absolutely right, we shouldn't care one bit about lies people tell. Why in the world should we be concerned about what other people say? Clearly you don't get invested at all over what other people say on their blogs or in the comments here. Pardon me if I see that being aware, being prepared for, and responding to the lies others tell is a good thing."
As I said, you're missing the point. The lies will come. It's guaranteed. The best way to deal with lies is to simply tell the truth and, where possible, provide supporting evidence. Whether it matters to the liars or not is of no concern and whether it persuades those prone to believing the liars isn't, either. What matters most, and should be the priority, is doing the right thing when it needs to be done.
You seem to ignore here that I've said twice already that I find your alternative suggestions sound. But there are two issues here distinct from each other. 1. What Trump's been doing, versus 2. What other ways he could have chosen. Let's pick one, shall we?
In the meantime, as to #1, I support Trump doing what he did as he did it. That's not to say that alternatives such as what you've described wouldn't have been better, nor that they can't still be employed going forward. But whining about how he "should have" acted is a moot point because one cannot go back and do it differently.
As to #2, I say again I find no problem with your suggestions, though I don't believe you have anything close to a perfect understanding of the capabilities of the various surveillance options employed for such operations. I, too, would presume boots on the ground can do a lot which an eye in the sky cannot. But that doesn't mean that eye can't do what we need to make the choices Trump's team has made.
You continue to come up with these "what if" scenarios and do so as if Trump's people aren't doing the same thing themselves. With that attitude, you may as well be Dan. But hey! Let's just let all drug shipments continue until we come up with the perfect plan which passes muster in your mind.
"For example. Had Trump captured a few of these narco boats, full of drugs, and cartel members, he would have had the perfect counter to the narrative. He would have had irrefutable evidence. Clearly destroying the evidence is preferable to displaying it."
Here's the thing: You're once again worrying about the narrative put out by known Trump-hating liars. Do you believe the liars? There are those who will no matter what, so how much worrying about the liars is appropriate and justifiable? How much risk should we assume just so the liars are shown to be what we know they are? Here's a good counter to the liars' narrative:
"What makes you think we're not blowing up who we say we're blowing up? Can you provide any evidence that we're not? If you do, please present it so we can ensure we never make the same mistake again."
How about that? They want proof Trump's doing what he says he's doing. Why not challenge them to provide proof he's not? They're going to question anything without any cause more legitimate than that they hate Trump regardless of what he does.
"Well, perhaps you should have paid more attention to the sentence you copy/pasted before you asked this question."
I did. But you presume only a SEAL team is good at their job and not those running this particular operation. Your position requires that the current operation is inadequate for the task at hand...that they can be easily duped (but SEAL teams can't) into killing innocent people used as shields. But tell me, on the one hand, you speak of the cartels being sophisticated in their operations enough to dupe this administration, but you suppose they'd not be sophisticated enough to suppose covert operatives could seek to undermine their efforts? They wouldn't be prepared for that? How close could a SEAL team get without detection in order to know that only drugs are being loaded onto those boats and not nuns and kids? Do you think they can get close enough to peek in the windows or to hear the prayers and whimpering of nuns and kids in crates?
I have no idea of the extent of their capabilities any more than I am those working the operation as it now exists. Thus, I can only speak on that and speculate on the rest 'till the cows some home. As such, I can support what the Trump team is doing now while at the same time hope he can or even is doing more and better.
"What does that even mean?"
It was self-explanatory. You keep worrying about the narrative and back it up by pointing out what the assholes say about other situations of a similar kind. While you can argue that the tactics employed by the IDF were, at least in part, dictated by the lies of assholes, I would remind you that they do what they have to do nonetheless and without the iron-clad guarantee of no collateral damage whatsoever. Also, they may simply prefer not to kill civilians, as I believe is the case with our people.
But then you go back to chiding me over alternative suggestions with which I do not disagree, and pretend that relevant to what I'm defending. I'm not at all saying Trump's current methods are the best, but only that I don't have a problem with it at present. With that in mind, and stated just as clearly as I already have more than once, this is where you stick your snark up that dark smelly place whence it came.
"Sounds like your argument is based on what ifs."
Sounds like a double standard. If you can speculate, why can't I?
"Satellites and aircraft sensors have limited effectiveness."
Do you know how limited exactly? Re-read my link, which provides all methods thought to be employed...some of which compare to your SEAL team idea. To what extent any of these are being employed neither of us can know with any certainty. I prefer at this point to believe Trump's team knows what it's doing.
"Hypothetical situation."
How do you know a SEAL team can get close enough for the iron-clad guarantee you believe they WILL provide?
"Strangely enough, I believe that when the US resorts to extra legal means (not that Trump is doing so) to achieve something that might be good at some level, that we diminish what the US is supposed to stand for."
Not necessarily. Laws are enacted to protect the innocent. If there are no innocents at risk when blowing up criminals, then we've not compromised our principles.
"If we merely adapt the methods of the cartels, don't we become criminals as well?"
No. It depends on which methods we adopt and how we employ them.
" If there are no limits to imposing the will of the US on those we deem unworthy, why not just level Venezuela and be don with it?"
Hmmm. "Imposing our will" on known criminals and terrorists. That's a bad thing? How do we win wars without imposing our will on the enemy?
We don't have to level Venezuela. That's a really absurd thing to suggest.
"Why not go Tom Clancy and bomb the cartel leaders in their homes regardless of how many wives, children, family members, and servants get blown up as well? "
OK. Better them than their victims. They're dead family members are on their heads. And again, it comes down to how many of our own must die before we do something which might result in collateral damage?
"I get the appeal, I also see the potential danger."
So do I, and it's insulting you suppose I don't.
Here's the bottom line: I support what Trump is doing, while acknowledging there are other ways to achieve the goal which may be better, though I don't know what they'd be having no personal expertise in such things. I do know I want criminality extinguished for the sake of the law-abiding, and have far less regard for the "rights" of the criminals than I do the lives of the law-abiding. Law are to protect the innocent, but they too often protect the guilty, and a trial isn't the only way to determine guilt. Ask a police detective. They are routinely convinced by experience as the guilt of most people they arrest who nonetheless are not convicted. I believe Trump is dealing with such people and do not require pictures of confiscated drugs, though they wouldn't hurt.
I guess I'm missing the difference what you clarified as opposed to what I wrote. You've been clear in this thread and elsewhere that you will do what you think is right (or advocate for what you think is right) with little or no regard for what others think or what objections they might raise. Unfortunately what you may or may not thing is "right" is not the same as that thing being legally, morally, or objectively "right". If (for example) Trump's actions were demonstrated by be conclusively illegal, I can't believe you'd support illegality, although your statements could be interpreted that way.
The difference is that I'm not insisting on the objective "rightness" of my suggestions. I am, merely, explaining my concerns and offering alternatives.
"The best way to deal with lies is to simply tell the truth and, where possible, provide supporting evidence."
I agree, and believe that I've said so. The problem is that grainy, IR video of a boat exploding isn't "supporting evidence" and without "supporting evidence" it's hard to sustain claims of your position being True. My suggestions, have the benefit, of actually attempting to collect "supporting evidence".
As I've never said anything remotely close to "let all drug shipments continue until we have a perfect plan", I fail to see how that straw man helps your case.
Yipee, you agree with Trump. Shocking, You haven't offered any "supporting evidence" of Trump's legal ability to engage in the actions he's engaging in, nor have you or Trump provided any "supporting evidence" that these are drugs and that those drugs are 100% guaranteed to be headed for the US. You and Trump are operating to some degree on "what if" scenarios (based on the "supporting evidence" we have), as well. We literally have no idea what Trump's people are doing as all we've seen is the IR videos, as far as I'm aware.
I understand that offering suggestions and alternatives to do things better, is a problem, as is criticism of Trump in this case. I apologize for expecting US presidents to hold themselves to a high standard.
"Here's the thing:..."
Not in the least. I AM suggesting that the best way to shut up the liars, or to go around them, is to demonstrate that they are lying. In other words, provide proof. As proving a negative is an absurd request, I fail to see how demanding that someone do the impossible to avoid Trump doing the possible helps you at all.
No, I understand that (in the US military) the SEALS are the primary unit which trains extensively in interdicting ocean going vessels. Well, I guess you being wrong about my "position" isn't going to stop anything. But here goes. My "position" is that satellites and aircraft do not possess the necessary technology to do what a human being on the scene can. The technology has a place, but it also has limitations. For example can you, based on the evidence you have, tell me with a high degree of certainty what specific types of drugs were on the boats that were destroyed? Can you tell me to a high degree of certainty if drugs were on those boats? If so, based on what evidence? Obviously using humans to gather more accurate intelligence carries higher risks, at the trade off of more accurate intelligence. The answer to your question is much closer than an IR camera on a satellite, or aircraft can.
"I prefer at this point to believe Trump's team knows what it's doing."
This pretty much sums your whole argument up. You don't know that they do, you don't know that what they're doing is legal, your preference is to believe Trump. My preference is to see actual evidence before giving a president an unlimited hunting license and no bag limit. But since it's all just personal preference, who cares?
"Laws are enacted to protect the innocent."
As SCOTUS has been clear that laws and LE are not intended to prevent crime, and US legal code only criminalizes and punishes actions, I'm not sure how the "protect the innocent" thing is correct. For decades US law has made assassination of the civilian leadership of other countries illegal, yet this law potentially protects the less than innocent, does it not?
"If there are no innocents at risk when blowing up criminals, then we've not compromised our principles."
Well, that is quite the unproven assumption. Given that standard, why not dip the criminals in vats of acid to extract information from them as well? I was unaware that "our principles" had no limits? The problem you seem to have is whether or not these people are criminals committing a crime (one standard of justice) or enemy combatants engaging in acts of war or terrorism (another standard). Under what section of US legal code is the executive branch authorized to blow up suspected criminals in international waters (or the territorial waters of another country)? What US law (or any other law) specifically was broken that justifies blowing up these boats? Is a drug smuggler in a boat more than 13 miles off of the US coast guilty of violating US law, even if the intent is to smuggle drugs into the US?
" It depends on which methods we adopt and how we employ them."
What did they call this logic back in the day? Situational ethics? Are you suggesting that it's OK to blow up these boats as long as we don't do so in ways that the narcos blow things up?
"That's a bad thing? How do we win wars without imposing our will on the enemy?"
For starters, this isn't a war. As you noted earlier, you believe that these guys are "criminals" not enemy combatants. Are there limits to "imposing our will"? If that's the goal, why not go whole hog and stop playing around with a few little boats? Why not napalm the fields and the processing plants? Wouldn't that be more efficient? If the narcos, as you suggest, are responsible for their own collateral damage why wouldn't that theory extend to places like Venezuela, Columbia, and Mexico being held responsible for allowing the narcos free reign? Why not "impose our will" on those countries? Why not "impose our will" by simply damaging the boats?
Look, I get that you like this. It does have a certain appeal. I'm strangely concerned with US officials and military members following US law.
"They are routinely convinced by experience as the guilt of most people they arrest who nonetheless are not convicted."
If that is the case, why do the detective not simply shoot those they believe to be guilty, much as Trump is doing on a larger scale? There is a difference between arresting people based on actual evidence, and blowing people up with less evidence.
But support away.
CRAIG
I'm going to copy/paste your last two comments and place them below, because it's easier than to continue scrolling if the length of my responses force me to publish it in parts.
Craig said,
I guess I'm missing the difference what you clarified as opposed to what I wrote. You've been clear in this thread and elsewhere that you will do what you think is right (or advocate for what you think is right) with little or no regard for what others think or what objections they might raise. Unfortunately what you may or may not thing is "right" is not the same as that thing being legally, morally, or objectively "right". If (for example) Trump's actions were demonstrated by be conclusively illegal, I can't believe you'd support illegality, although your statements could be interpreted that way.
The difference is that I'm not insisting on the objective "rightness" of my suggestions. I am, merely, explaining my concerns and offering alternatives.
"The best way to deal with lies is to simply tell the truth and, where possible, provide supporting evidence."
I agree, and believe that I've said so. The problem is that grainy, IR video of a boat exploding isn't "supporting evidence" and without "supporting evidence" it's hard to sustain claims of your position being True. My suggestions, have the benefit, of actually attempting to collect "supporting evidence".
As I've never said anything remotely close to "let all drug shipments continue until we have a perfect plan", I fail to see how that straw man helps your case.
Yipee, you agree with Trump. Shocking, You haven't offered any "supporting evidence" of Trump's legal ability to engage in the actions he's engaging in, nor have you or Trump provided any "supporting evidence" that these are drugs and that those drugs are 100% guaranteed to be headed for the US. You and Trump are operating to some degree on "what if" scenarios (based on the "supporting evidence" we have), as well. We literally have no idea what Trump's people are doing as all we've seen is the IR videos, as far as I'm aware.
I understand that offering suggestions and alternatives to do things better, is a problem, as is criticism of Trump in this case. I apologize for expecting US presidents to hold themselves to a high standard.
"Here's the thing:..."
Not in the least. I AM suggesting that the best way to shut up the liars, or to go around them, is to demonstrate that they are lying. In other words, provide proof. As proving a negative is an absurd request, I fail to see how demanding that someone do the impossible to avoid Trump doing the possible helps you at all.
No, I understand that (in the US military) the SEALS are the primary unit which trains extensively in interdicting ocean going vessels. Well, I guess you being wrong about my "position" isn't going to stop anything. But here goes. My "position" is that satellites and aircraft do not possess the necessary technology to do what a human being on the scene can. The technology has a place, but it also has limitations. For example can you, based on the evidence you have, tell me with a high degree of certainty what specific types of drugs were on the boats that were destroyed? Can you tell me to a high degree of certainty if drugs were on those boats? If so, based on what evidence? Obviously using humans to gather more accurate intelligence carries higher risks, at the trade off of more accurate intelligence. The answer to your question is much closer than an IR camera on a satellite, or aircraft can.
November 12, 2025 at 3:43 PM
Craig said,
"I prefer at this point to believe Trump's team knows what it's doing."
This pretty much sums your whole argument up. You don't know that they do, you don't know that what they're doing is legal, your preference is to believe Trump. My preference is to see actual evidence before giving a president an unlimited hunting license and no bag limit. But since it's all just personal preference, who cares?
"Laws are enacted to protect the innocent."
As SCOTUS has been clear that laws and LE are not intended to prevent crime, and US legal code only criminalizes and punishes actions, I'm not sure how the "protect the innocent" thing is correct. For decades US law has made assassination of the civilian leadership of other countries illegal, yet this law potentially protects the less than innocent, does it not?
"If there are no innocents at risk when blowing up criminals, then we've not compromised our principles."
Well, that is quite the unproven assumption. Given that standard, why not dip the criminals in vats of acid to extract information from them as well? I was unaware that "our principles" had no limits? The problem you seem to have is whether or not these people are criminals committing a crime (one standard of justice) or enemy combatants engaging in acts of war or terrorism (another standard). Under what section of US legal code is the executive branch authorized to blow up suspected criminals in international waters (or the territorial waters of another country)? What US law (or any other law) specifically was broken that justifies blowing up these boats? Is a drug smuggler in a boat more than 13 miles off of the US coast guilty of violating US law, even if the intent is to smuggle drugs into the US?
" It depends on which methods we adopt and how we employ them."
What did they call this logic back in the day? Situational ethics? Are you suggesting that it's OK to blow up these boats as long as we don't do so in ways that the narcos blow things up?
"That's a bad thing? How do we win wars without imposing our will on the enemy?"
For starters, this isn't a war. As you noted earlier, you believe that these guys are "criminals" not enemy combatants. Are there limits to "imposing our will"? If that's the goal, why not go whole hog and stop playing around with a few little boats? Why not napalm the fields and the processing plants? Wouldn't that be more efficient? If the narcos, as you suggest, are responsible for their own collateral damage why wouldn't that theory extend to places like Venezuela, Columbia, and Mexico being held responsible for allowing the narcos free reign? Why not "impose our will" on those countries? Why not "impose our will" by simply damaging the boats?
Look, I get that you like this. It does have a certain appeal. I'm strangely concerned with US officials and military members following US law.
"They are routinely convinced by experience as the guilt of most people they arrest who nonetheless are not convicted."
If that is the case, why do the detective not simply shoot those they believe to be guilty, much as Trump is doing on a larger scale? There is a difference between arresting people based on actual evidence, and blowing people up with less evidence.
But support away.
"I guess I'm missing the difference what you clarified as opposed to what I wrote."
A good guess. A better guess is that I'm missing how you seem intent on conflating what you think my position is rather than dealing with it specifically, as I've been quite clear. Note the bottom line of my last comment.
"You've been clear in this thread and elsewhere that you will do what you think is right (or advocate for what you think is right) with little or no regard for what others think or what objections they might raise."
Indeed. Conflating. My position is that I don't care what the usual suspects think. I believe I've even stated that more than once. If the NeverTrumpers/"OrangeManBad" types object, I don't care...because they don't care about innocents, laws, "our democracy" or anything else but attacking Trump at every turn. Is this clear to you now, or do I need to repeat it again?
"Unfortunately what you may or may not thing is "right" is not the same as that thing being legally, morally, or objectively "right"."
A silly, totally unnecessary "no duh" statement. However, it's not out of the realm of possibility that I'm right on any given subject in at least one of those areas. Frankly, "objectively" needs to be explained. If I'm morally right, then clearly I'm objectively right because I don't regard "moral" as a subjective thing. The only question is whether or not this action is legal. That question has not been determined.
"If (for example) Trump's actions were demonstrated by be conclusively illegal, I can't believe you'd support illegality, although your statements could be interpreted that way."
Two issues with this statement:
1. It depends on who's accusing him of illegality. We both know that there are those who make shit up in order to find Trump guilty of something to further their agenda of removing him from office.
2. "Legal" and "moral" are not the same things. An illegal act could still be a moral one. Sometimes laws can interfere with doing what's right. The consequences still apply, but I can weigh the two and decide (based on as much available details as can be had) whether what's moral was fulfilled despite it being illegal. In this case, I don't have that detailed info. I'm going strictly by the act itself, how it is described by this administration and trusting that...at the very least...the intentions were pure.
"The difference is that I'm not insisting on the objective "rightness" of my suggestions. I am, merely, explaining my concerns and offering alternatives."
I know. And I regard them as sound alternatives. But you're insisting that what you think I'd "prefer" is crap. We can review what I'd prefer later. I'm only expressing my support for what's been done. No more. No less.
"The problem is that grainy, IR video of a boat exploding isn't "supporting evidence"..."
You're assuming that's all there is. I don't believe this administration acts in this manner. That they're not willing to reveal all they have is no different than discussing an ongoing investigation. As in all actions, I await more details before I string Trump up by the short hairs. The "grainy, IR video" is simply a demonstration of what's been done.
"As I've never said anything remotely close to "let all drug shipments continue until we have a perfect plan", I fail to see how that straw man helps your case."
I'm sorry. I forgot. Only YOU get to indulge in such snarky hyperbole. At the same time, you've said it without saying it.
"You haven't offered any "supporting evidence" of Trump's legal ability to engage in the actions he's engaging in..."
Nor am I in any way obligated to do so in order to express my support for his actions in fighting against these drug runners.
"...nor have you or Trump provided any "supporting evidence" that these are drugs and that those drugs are 100% guaranteed to be headed for the US."
Well, Dan...I mean, Craig...you could see if there is any such evidence to satisfy your strict standards by researching those involved in blowing up drug boats. I'm not required to provide a damned thing. I'm simply expressing my support for him blowing up drug boats. I've no reason to suspect his people have no idea what they're doing. I leave that crap to those like Dan. You should as well. And be sure you take that to mean We The People aren't entitled to know at some point, because that's the kind of thing you like to do.
"I understand that offering suggestions and alternatives to do things better, is a problem, as is criticism of Trump in this case."
No it's not, nor has it ever been. What's a problem is you wetting yourself over my support for this action and giving Trump the benefit of the doubt UNTIL someone can show he's fucked up. Why that's a problem for YOU is curious to say the least. And again, I'm damned certain I've agreed your alternatives were quite sound. Would I be more convincing if I said, "That dummy Trump is crazy!!" or some shit like that as well? That's not likely to happen.
"I AM suggesting that the best way to shut up the liars, or to go around them, is to demonstrate that they are lying. In other words, provide proof. As proving a negative is an absurd request,..."
What the fuck!!! They're basically accusing him of the murder of innocent people! What do you mean it's absurd to demand proof of that accusation?? And if they're accusing him of illegal behavior, cite the law which applies. Remember this "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
"I fail to see how demanding that someone do the impossible to avoid Trump doing the possible helps you at all."
I fail to see where I made that claim. I simply offered a good response to leftist mischaracterizations of Trump's actions and intentions. It's YOU who has been so concerned about how the left will react. But while we both agree there's nothing the guy can do to stop them from lying about him and attacking him on false bases, you worry about responding to their bullshit. I'm merely saying they aren't deserving of any response to their allegations but the demand that they prove they have a legitimate objection.
So the issue here is, if anyone is concerned that Trump is doing wrong, it is up to them to provide evidence he might be. If no evidence is available, on what basis should anyone be accusing him? How is this hard to understand for you?
And before you move to demand that Trump must do the same regarding the drug boats, on what basis can you suggest his team doesn't know what they're doing? It comes off as you actually think they're just randomly blowing up boats without any idea whatsoever of who it is they're blowing up. Is that it?
As to surveillance methods, I offer the following:
https://skywatch.com/highest-resolution-satellite-imagery-what-you-should-know/
https://thetechylife.com/can-a-satellite-track-a-person/
https://www.slashgear.com/1568720/how-powerful-are-spy-satellite-cameras-what-can-they-see/
What these links provide is an explanation of the sophistication of such surveillance techniques as well as their limitations. I think they're better than your comments suggest you believe, while I don't think they're as perfect as we would like. However, they can certainly bring a good deal of info which can more positively identify targets and behaviors on the ground. And these are satellites in space. But it's only one method among others used to make decisions regarding the actions of cartel personnel. Assuming SEALS can actually get close enough to look inside boats, warehouses or any other facility whence originates these "blowed up" boats, to confirm both the cargo and destination...and assumption upon which neither of us can confidently confirm or deny...that doesn't make these other methods so poor as to compel no confidence at all.
In addition, I offer this AI response to a comparison between SEALs and the Coast Guard:
"The U.S. Coast Guard is specifically trained and equipped for drug interdiction operations at sea, utilizing specialized vessels and aircraft for this purpose. While Navy SEALs are highly skilled in various operations, the Coast Guard focuses primarily on law enforcement and maritime security, making them better suited for intercepting drug boats."
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2025/august/interdicting-narcotics-sea-coast-guards-counterdrug-mission-team
"This pretty much sums your whole argument up. You don't know that they do, you don't know that what they're doing is legal, your preference is to believe Trump."
What I DO know is that he's proven himself competent on a host of issues for which his detractors predicted disaster. I'm inclined to assume this case will be no different. It will hold me until more details are revealed.
"My preference is to see actual evidence before giving a president an unlimited hunting license and no bag limit."
I get that. But all we have is what has happened. If he ever asks me rather than you about how he should proceed in the future, I will likely tell him some mix of both of our opinions. Rest assured I won't shortchange yours because ONCE AGAIN, I believe your opinions are sound.
"As SCOTUS has been clear that laws and LE are not intended to prevent crime, and US legal code only criminalizes and punishes actions, I'm not sure how the "protect the innocent" thing is correct."
Sadly, I have to explain what I thought should have been obvious. Our laws protect the innocent by assuming they are innocent until proven guilty. Does that sound familiar to you at all? Often, the guilty are protected as well due to other laws and regulations regarding evidence, witness testimony and the like.
More later... gotta go!
"Well, that is quite the unproven assumption."
No it's not. It is not against our principles to destroy evil, or at least to fight against it. That's what's happening here and the debate about the legalities or methods doesn't change that. It's a good debate to have and necessary, but it's about how to uphold our principles regard the response to evil.
"Given that standard, why not dip the criminals in vats of acid to extract information from them as well?"
What info are you after specifically? That will determine whether such an act is justified. This was the waterboarding debate.
"I was unaware that "our principles" had no limits?"
Were you not aware that evil has no limits?
"The problem you seem to have is whether or not these people are criminals committing a crime (one standard of justice) or enemy combatants engaging in acts of war or terrorism (another standard)."
I don't have that problem at all, for it's not an issue which makes the slightest difference to me. What does is whether or not we can stop the cartels from operating and delivering drugs or drug making materials to our country. I don't care how we classify scum. Those who care the most in this case, unfortunately, are Trump-haters who wish to exploit these actions to destroy him, not caring about the suffering he's trying to end. If I had a vote, I would push for Congress to formally declare war on the cartels and any who support them. Criminals...enemy combatants...no freakin' difference except in law. Their victims don't care what you call them. They only want their victimization to end. I've long felt that's what should be done for any organized criminal organization, be they street thugs or mafia or whomever. But hey, that's just me. I'd love for law-abiding citizens to live freely and safely.
"What did they call this logic back in the day? Situational ethics?"
It depends on which methods we adopt and how we employ them...and in what situation. This bombing of drug runners is exactly that, whether or not it was the purpose. The scum love to employ violence in public where everyone can see it. These bombings are just like that, except it's the scum being targeted.
"For starters, this isn't a war."
Of course it is.
"As you noted earlier, you believe that these guys are "criminals" not enemy combatants."
Oh, goody! More semantic games!
"Are there limits to "imposing our will"?"
Only those we place on ourselves. And again, does evil have limits?
"Why not napalm the fields and the processing plants?"
That's a great idea!
"If the narcos, as you suggest, are responsible for their own collateral damage why wouldn't that theory extend to places like Venezuela, Columbia, and Mexico being held responsible for allowing the narcos free reign?"
I'd love to see us impose our will on bad foreign actors! As you've belabored, there are many options for doing that. Why you insist on suggesting only one type for this goal is curious to me.
"I'm strangely concerned with US officials and military members following US law."
"Strangely"? I'm justly concerned. The debate as to whether this operation is outside our laws is ongoing. I'm even more concerned that if the results of that debate means Trump can't bomb drug runners, and no more effective options are implemented, that would be a huge problem. I suggest that's how it will all end up and the cartel operations will resume because "the law" will keep them safe.
"If that is the case, why do the detective not simply shoot those they believe to be guilty, much as Trump is doing on a larger scale?"
They're not Trump. They're not even the head of their units.
"There is a difference between arresting people based on actual evidence, and blowing people up with less evidence."
You're assuming here. I'm not. You're assuming Trump's team doesn't have sufficient evidence to justify their actions. Neither of us have any idea, but I prefer to await evidence Trump's team acted criminally before we hang them all. I'm goofy that way. While I await this disclosure, fewer crooks in boats are available, and that's a good thing.
The standard of proof in a court of law is extreme. Failing to meet that standard doesn't mean the accused isn't guilty. It's more than common that cops would prefer a criminal die in a shoot out than to risk the scum being released on a technicality or worse, by a Soros appointed prosecutor or judge.
Post a Comment