kurtster wrote:
“When bad folks have problems, they do bad things.” 

You could call it a "Special Military Operation."

 kurtster wrote: A very sad situation.
I'm for some sort of action, rather than "Come on over!"

 Steely_D wrote: 
I think I already addressed that with this ...

"I would get a handle on the border before entering Mexico, otherwise why bother in the first place ?"

It has been threatened before.  It is not a new one.  People gonna say things, doesn't mean they are going to happen. 

Kinda like saying we'll move our embassy to Jerusalem and it never happens.

Moving on, it also falls into the category / axiom of desperate times call for desperate measures.

Like I said, how long do we have to take this ?

Do you see a different way to solve this ?

 kurtster wrote:

OK, but let’s talk about what DeSantis said.

DeSantis said. “We have the right to hold them accountable, and it’s not just if they happen to come over our border. If Mexico is not going to help us with that, well then we’re going to have to do what we have to do,” he continued. The comments represent a growing group of Republicans calling for military intervention in Mexico, as the southern border remains one of the 2024 presidential campaign’s biggest talking points.

 R_P wrote: 
This situation as we now have has been caused by Biden's totally open border and all the Sanctuary Cities who beckoned this migration. Period end of story.

The Cartels hacked his asylum entry app and it has not been fixed.  The Cartels are running the border like it's the gate to Disneyland.  Uncle Joe is the new Walt to their Disneyland.

100 k per year poisoned and no one cares.  How long do we have to take this ?

I would get a handle on the border before entering Mexico, otherwise why bother in the first place ?

Drone-based order
DeSantis suggests he would use drone strikes against drug cartels

Republican presidential candidate Gov. Ron DeSantis (Fla.) said he would use “whatever force we need to” to take down Mexican drug cartels if elected president, with or without help from the Mexican government. The remarks came after a question at a Thursday campaign event in Iowa where he was asked if drone strikes on Mexican soil were on the table.

“We will lean in against the drug cartels. We will absolutely reserve the right. If they’re invading our country and killing our people, we have the right to defend this country,” DeSantis said.

“We have the right to hold them accountable, and it’s not just if they happen to come over our border. If Mexico is not going to help us with that, well then we’re going to have to do what we have to do,” he continued.

The comments represent a growing group of Republicans calling for military intervention in Mexico, as the southern border remains one of the 2024 presidential campaign’s biggest talking points. (...)

 haresfur wrote: 
yeah, like that was not the purpose of RP's post in the first place.  Uh huh ...

EVERYTHING he posts in this thread is meant to serve his own political vendetta.

SMH ...

 kurtster wrote:

Yeah, let's turn other peoples' tragedies into your own political vendetta

 R_P wrote: 
No doubt a direct result from the fear of Climate Change and Trump being re elected ...

US suicides hit an all-time high last year

 miamizsun wrote:
Seriously? 

Why Is America Such a Deadly Place?

The new ‘tanker war’ and US military escalation in the Persian Gulf
The last time Washington put armed personnel on private vessels was during World War II. Does Biden know what he’s getting into?

(...) The deployments involve stepping into a zone of regional rivalries and is not a simple matter of protecting good guys against bad guys. Despite the perennial fixation on Iran, Tehran’s regional rivals — including ones that are the origin or destination of much of that commercial shipping that the administration wants to protect — are just as distant from American values and interests. Saudi Arabia, traditionally the principal rival, is at least as much of an authoritarian state as Iran and an oppressive violator of human rights whose actions and ideology have had lethal consequences for Americans both individually and on a larger scale.

The stated reason for considering the placement of U.S. troops on commercial ships, and part of the background to the other U.S. military deployments to the region, involves Iran’s interception, seizure, or other harassment of some oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. With different U.S. policies, this situation could have been avoided. Iran has not intercepted shipping because Iranians have some genetic malice that compels them to do such things. As with many other Iranian policies and actions, this practice is reactive.

It was the United States, not Iran, that began the latest round of going after another nation’s tankers and seizing its oil. The U.S. actions reflect a unilateral U.S. policy of trying to prevent Iranian oil exports. This policy is not grounded in international law, and Iran unsurprisingly has labeled the U.S. seizure and selling of Iranian oil as “piracy.” The U.S. government has not found a buyer for a tanker full of Iranian oil that it seized at sea in April and brought to Houston, because shippers and potential buyers fear repercussions. (...)

Would you buy a used car from this man? 

Decades Later, the US Government Called Hiroshima and Nagasaki ‘Nuclear Tests’

In 1980, when I asked the press office at the U.S. Department of Energy to send me a listing of nuclear bomb test explosions, the agency mailed me an official booklet with the title “Announced United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 Through December 1979.” As you’d expect, the Trinity test in New Mexico was at the top of the list. Second on the list was Hiroshima. Third was Nagasaki.

So, 35 years after the atomic bombings of those Japanese cities in August 1945, the Energy Department – the agency in charge of nuclear weaponry – was categorizing them as “tests.”

Later on, the classification changed, apparently in an effort to avert a potential P.R. problem. By 1994, a new edition of the same document explained that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki “were not ‘tests’ in the sense that they were conducted to prove that the weapon would work as designed . . . or to advance weapon design, to determine weapons effects, or to verify weapon safety.”

But the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually were tests, in more ways than one.

Take it from the Manhattan Project’s director, Gen. Leslie Groves, who recalled: “To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the targets should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the first target be of such size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb.”

A physicist with the Manhattan Project, David H. Frisch, remembered that U.S. military strategists were eager “to use the bomb first where its effects would not only be politically effective but also technically measurable.”

For good measure, after the Trinity bomb test in the New Mexico desert used plutonium as its fission source on July 16, 1945, in early August the military was able to test both a uranium-fueled bomb on Hiroshima and a second plutonium bomb on Nagasaki to gauge their effects on big cities.

Public discussion of the nuclear era began when President Harry Truman issued a statement that announced the atomic bombing of Hiroshima – which he described only as “an important Japanese Army base.” It was a flagrant lie. A leading researcher of the atomic bombings of Japan, journalist Greg Mitchell, has pointed out: “Hiroshima was not an ‘army base’ but a city of 350,000. It did contain one important military headquarters, but the bomb had been aimed at the very center of a city – and far from its industrial area.”

Mitchell added: “Perhaps 10,000 military personnel lost their lives in the bomb but the vast majority of the 125,000 dead in Hiroshima would be women and children.” Three days later, when an atomic bomb fell on Nagasaki, “it was officially described as a ‘naval base’ yet less than 200 of the 90,000 dead were military personnel.”

Since then, presidents have routinely offered rhetorical camouflage for reckless nuclear policies, rolling the dice for global catastrophe. In recent years, the most insidious lies from leaders in Washington have come with silence – refusing to acknowledge, let alone address with genuine diplomacy, the worsening dangers of nuclear war.

 Coaxial wrote:

Your worst trait is that you nap so much it makes us all jealous.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Dang, bro, why you call me out like this?

in my humble opinion the level of negativity, contempt and hate that consumes you is not healthy
i hope i'm wrong and you live a long and prosperous life

Culture of coercion
America’s Love of Sanctions Will Be Its Downfall
Measures intended to punish autocrats are eroding the very Western order they were meant to preserve.