Granted, it is a few dozen bungled policies ago, but remember when we were blowing up fishing boats in the Caribbean as part of the administration’s Operation Dude Bro antidrug strategy? Well, the results are in, and they are sadly predictable. From The Washington Post:
In a recent assessment reviewed by The Washington Post, DEA analysts found the strikes had failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States and had led traffickers to diversify beyond go-fast boats and to avoid international waters, opting instead for larger boats and hemming close to coastlines, where U.S. forces are less likely to open fire. In a closed-door briefing last month, Pentagon officials told lawmakers the strikes in international waters off South and Central America had not reduced its purity.
Oh they achieved their goal.
They killed brown people. That’s the goal of most of the policies this administration has undertaken.
OK, I’ll be that one person downvoting you. It wasn’t about killing brown people. They don’t give a fuck about brown people. It is all about power and the graft and so on and those brown people are just expendable.
Turns Out We
Blew Up All Those BoatsMURDERED ALL THOSE PEOPLE in the Caribbean for NothingFTFY, Esquire!
This regime is so far beyond the pale monstrous that it’s hard even for people trying to criticize it to avoid accidentally carrying water for it though understatement. Hell, even “beyond the pale monstrous” isn’t as emphatic as I should’ve been!
The problem is that to most Republican voters, the fact that this didn’t actually impact drug supply isn’t really all that important. What matters to them is that - theoretically - “bad people” got killed. They’re more interested in punishing people they see as evil than they are in actually improving the world. Even the ones who won’t openly admit - or even admit to themselves - that they just like seeing brown people get killed will still defend this as an ultimately good action because it satisfies their twisted notion of justice. The meting out of punishment is what matters to them, far more than whatever social good that punishment is actually supposed to achieve.
It’s the same reason why they have so little interest in welfare policies even when those policies are demonstrably cheaper than the alternative. They won’t give shelter and money to homeless people even when it’s shown to reduce crime, for example, because the most important thing to them is that no one should ever be given something that they “don’t deserve.” They’re less interested in reducing crime than they are in seeing the poor suffer for whatever imagined sins made them poor.
Exactly, the problem isn’t how bad trump is, there’s always going to be insanely evil people – the problem is the hundreds of millions who gave him power. There would be nothing wrong with a world where trump is the same amount of insane evil but ends up in prison where he belongs. He’s not the problem, the rest of us are.
What matters to them is that “BROWN people” got killed
FTFY
Its always been about racism. Same thing with all the bullshit with ICE, all of it is nothing but unfettered racism.
I literally addressed this exact argument in the comment you replied to, but you just skipped right past that part.
Yes, but you stated it like it was a secondary motive or just a bonus from killing the “bad people”. When I’m saying that the only reason for any and all action done by this administration has been to hurt people of color, plain and simple. Well that and enrich themselves in the process.
As a non expert, I would assume disrupting supply routes would decrease purity. If what you did made them use slower boats and take different routes there would have been less supply and same demand right? Aka more reasons for people to cut it until supply got back up.
So really this tells me it’s more likely that they didn’t disrupt any supply of cocaine, and may have hit normal civilians or someone with marijuana as I remember someone reported bags of weed washing up on a beach…
You dont cram double digit people on a speedboat to smuggle drugs.
Because the weight of all those people could instead be more drugs, and that’s a bunch of people to keep their mouths closed and take a payment.
They were just blowing up anything that was coming to America, because they don’t want anyone from south America coming up north for any reason.
The “theyre drug smugglers” was likely never believed by anyone. It was about showing everyone that they’ll claim you’re a smuggler and kill you.
Those weren’t drug boats. The cartels aren’t stupid, they know boats are one of the easiest ways to get intercepted. They build fucking submarines for smuggling drugs, if boats were enough you think they would go to all that effort?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine
Also as the other guy said you don’t cram 6 people on a boat full of drugs. Why would you need the extra people? Are the sharks gonna rob you so you need extra guards? If you’re afraid some rival cartel is gonna intercept you probably want the boat to be lighter so it goes faster and escapes them so less people are better in that case too.
All this means is that most likely those boats were just fishermen or civilians on recreational rides. Oh, and another thing. You don’t get the death penalty in the US for drug smuggling so why would those people be killed even if they were drug smugglers?
Americans snort way more coke weekly than what could fit on those boats combined anyway.
But was there ever any proof these weren’t just actual fishing boats?
And did they even bother to say they found drugs on the venezuelan oil tanker they seized at that time?
What they did though is proceed to attack Venezuela for its oil.
But was there ever any proof these weren’t just actual fishing boats?
The proof would have been capturing a boat full of cocaine. Hard to do that when it’s blown to bits and scattered across the bottom of the ocean.
Even if we knew the boats were full of cocaine, the penalty for smuggling drugs into the US is not death. And even if the penalty was death, it would (or rather, should) not be a summary execution without a trial.
These are clearly illegal orders, and everyone participating in these strikes needs to be removed and tried for their crimes, starting with Hegseth, and going all the way down to the man who pushed the button to fire the missile.
Americans
I have a question, are you American?
It wasn’t for nothing. It was to make low IQ mouth breathers think they were doing something. Aggression is always a positive for conservative voters. And the Republican party always needs ways to make it look like they’re doing something of value for the American people while robbing them blind.
“We” did not do anything. The US federal government’s actions are so far removed from the will of the people that we might as well considered separate entities at this point.
I think that’s how US leadership’s felt for a long time. You’re very separate.
No? Really?
/s for the clueless.
You know tone indicators are used by neurodivergent people who struggle to understand intent, right?
I know I’m neurodivergent and am clueless about a lot of social monkey clicks and twitches. Sarcasm and the inability to recognize it has nothing to do with being on the spectrum. Its is more a function of one of the forms of intelligence.
Okay even then the point still stands. You don’t just shun people because they can’t recognize social cues, and you don’t assume they’re any less intelligent for it. It’s just presumptuous.
Not only that, but most cues for the intent of a message are either through tone of voice or body language. It’s disingenuous to assert that there’s no hindrance in the efficacy of communication when being done through a strictly written format. Something your first source lines out explicitly:
Other research has show[n] that sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when communicated electronically. In one study, 30 pairs of university students were given a list of statements to communicate, half of which were sarcastic and half of which were serious. Some students communicated their messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance. By comparison, the e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their sarcastic statements. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of their sarcastic statements via e-mail. What’s more, the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were also decidedly overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mails they received about 90 percent of the time. They were considerably less overconfident about their ability to interpret voice messages.
Given the risks and benefits of sarcasm, your best bet is to keep salty remarks limited to conversations with those you know well, lest you offend others—even as you potentially help them think more creatively.
That last argument I quoted can be directly overcome through the use of tone indicators, regardless of “how intelligent” the recipient is.
I get it. You can’t accept I don’t agree with you.
It’s less about you not agreeing with me and more about your opinion being based on false presumptions. You’re entitled to thinking that sarcasm and the ability to detect it is associated with intelligence; I would agree with you on that. But assuming it’s as simple as that without taking into account the method of communication is misleading.
No its not any of those things. Its you not agreeing with me and me not agreeing with you. Just another day ending in Y on the internet. bye.
You can’t win. There are too many shipping containers, boats, planes, automobiles, an endless stream of commerce with a thousand different points of opportunity.
Every “victory” is Pyrrhic, the tighter you grip the more it will slip out of your fingers. You’re trying to treat a “disease” by controlling only one symptom, not the cause itself.
If you “succeed” in one facet, another will become much worse. For example, the war against opiates is what created the Fentanyl market. Good job, idiots.
Just let it go. Sell it all over the counter and control the quality to reduce overdose. Addicts are better off without you throwing them in dungeons. Leave it alone.
Didn’t it instead exacerbate the crisis in Cuba that is also the fault of the US?
aw pissyboy just wanted to play soldier after talking it so much on fox
I mean the whole thing was optics anyway right?
“Trump’s so tough on crime he launches missiles at it” kinda stuff. It’s stupid but his supporters think it makes their side strong. They’re even more about it if the “criminal” is brown.
i’m mostly mad at the AF drone operators who chose not to miss
I don’t think you can whiff a thermal signature
Edit: but your rage is justified reguardless
Hellfires are laser guided.
I grew up near an afb. Convenient target for rage since DC is all the fuckin way over there
Edit: but sure, those boats were comin right at em
Conservative voters value aggression. The GOP knows this. That’s why this took place.
Hey now, giving Hegseth an orgasm isn’t “nothing”.
Did any of those exploded boats even have drugs on them?
No.
When the biggest coke heads are in the highest levels of government, the war on drugs is as rigged as a carnival.
