Its only a dollar a karma, so you have to go celibate for a week.Dilbert_X wrote:
How much do I have to donate to BF2S to get USMarine2005 permabanned?
I think I'm prepared to forego one months hooker budget, maybe two at a stretch
No but really, can't we all just be a bit more sensible?
No, to get him banned.Dilbert_X wrote:
Only a dollara karma? No way! I didn't know I could buy respect that easy.
My girls are the best, 1 month and I'd be waaaay ahead of USStormtrooper2005
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-01-22 01:14:06)
First, changing his name to "USBabykiller" in your quote is WAY over the line. Unbelievably poor taste and immature, not to mention wrong. Slander your own country's service members if you feel the need to lash out against those who serve.Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope I'm anti-bully. Its a characteristic of bullies they blame everyone for their problems but themselves.USBabykiller2005 wrote:
Ok, now you are pissing me off with your stupid ass statements. You are so anti-American it is unbelievable. The name dilbert fits you perfectly.
It's not just the Gulf of Mexico (geography ftw) and the Mexican border. It's the entire Caribbean, as the drugs can enter the US through any of the many islands out there that are US territories. Not nearly as simple of a problem to solve as you seem to think.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its not the evil Colombians forcing your fellow Americans to take drugs, the US just can't get enough.
As for borders, which has the longer coastline? North or South America?
What do you really need to police, the bay of Mexico and the Mexican border? It wouldn't be too hard - if the US govt actually wanted to.
For instance? If you're talking about the coca growers in South America, it is their governments (primarily Colombia) that are telling them they can't grow it. In Afghanistan, it's the Afghan government that's telling them (with pressure from Europe and the US) not to grow poppies and executing eradication ops. So...once again, any relevant examples?Dilbert_X wrote:
Instead the US tries to tell farmers across an entire foreign continent what they are and aren't allowed to grow, even though its the US consumer who demands these goods - ugly American anyone?
Not really, considering the gratuitous insults he sprays around the place.First, changing his name to "USBabykiller" in your quote is WAY over the line.
Uh huh, and how do these drugs then get to the mainland US from these islands? Don't you have a customs service?It's not just the Gulf of Mexico (geography ftw) and the Mexican border. It's the entire Caribbean, as the drugs can enter the US through any of the many islands out there that are US territories.
Largely due to pressure from the US. Here are a few lines from the DEA mission statement.For instance? If you're talking about the coca growers in South America, it is their governments (primarily Colombia) that are telling them they can't grow it. In Afghanistan, it's the Afghan government that's telling them (with pressure from Europe and the US) not to grow poppies and executing eradication ops. So...once again, any relevant examples?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-01-22 04:43:08)
Yes, we do. But once something gets onto pseudo-US territory, Customs is no longer a player.Dilbert_X wrote:
Uh huh, and how do these drugs then get to the mainland US from these islands? Don't you have a customs service?FEOS wrote:
It's not just the Gulf of Mexico (geography ftw) and the Mexican border. It's the entire Caribbean, as the drugs can enter the US through any of the many islands out there that are US territories.
Emphasis added. It's not the US telling other countries' farmers what to grow...it's those countries telling their own farmers what they can't grow. It's called using diplomacy to support your country's interests, which you keep saying the US needs to do more of. Have you changed your position on that?Dilbert_X wrote:
Largely due to pressure from the US. Here are a few lines from the DEA mission statement.FEOS wrote:
For instance? If you're talking about the coca growers in South America, it is their governments (primarily Colombia) that are telling them they can't grow it. In Afghanistan, it's the Afghan government that's telling them (with pressure from Europe and the US) not to grow poppies and executing eradication ops. So...once again, any relevant examples?
'Coordination and cooperation with federal, state and local law enforcement officials on mutual drug enforcement efforts and enhancement of such efforts through exploitation of potential interstate and international investigations beyond local or limited federal jurisdictions and resources. '
'Coordination and cooperation with federal, state, and local agencies, and with foreign governments, in programs designed to reduce the availability of illicit abuse-type drugs on the United States market through nonenforcement methods such as crop eradication, crop substitution, and training of foreign officials. '
Did the US threaten Colombia? No. The Colombian government doesn't want the cocaine coming from their country, either.Dilbert_X wrote:
I doubt the Colombian government gives a crap about what its farmers are growing, unless the US starts threatening them.
It's called combating the problem at the source. That's what I said before...the only successful points of interdiction are the source and the destination.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why does the US feel the need to meddle in South America to prevent drugs reaching the US?
And what's the problem with that?Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm aware the US now has laws allowing them to prosecute anyone anywhere in the world for conspiring to import drugs into the US.
Because the US is the only country that consumes drugs...Dilbert_X wrote:
If the US stopped consuming drugs -> problem solved.
Otherwise stop griping and stop meddling in foreign countries.
Then the problems yours, the US needs to stop blaming the rest of the world.s, we do. But once something gets onto pseudo-US territory, Customs is no longer a player.
Then you have to Police the whole world - which isn't working. Go Team America!It's called combating the problem at the source. That's what I said before...the only successful points of interdiction are the source and the destination.
I'm not saying that, I'm saying the US is the only country trying to dictate what every farmer across the world is or is not allowed to grow, and every country in the world has to prevent drugs travelling across its borders to protect the poor US citizens from themselves.Because the US is the only country that consumes drugs...
Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of the world stopped blaming the US? Oh, but we can't have even-handedness in our approach, now can we? When the US blames another country for a problem here, it's wrong. But it's completely justified if other countries blame the US for their problems? Come on, even you have to see the hypocrisy in that.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then the problems yours, the US needs to stop blaming the rest of the world.
No you don't. Unless you're implying that coca is grown everywhere in the world? Trying to tie drug interdiction efforts in one or two countries with the help of those countries' governments to "policing the whole world" is a bit of a stretch.Dilbert_X wrote:
Then you have to Police the whole world - which isn't working. Go Team America!It's called combating the problem at the source. That's what I said before...the only successful points of interdiction are the source and the destination.
No, the US isn't dictating what every farmer across the world is or is not allowed to grow. Even by your own "encyclopedic" sourcing, there's only two countries under discussion: Colombia and Afghanistan. And strangely enough, both of those countries' governments are more active in the drug interdiction role than the US is in their respective countries.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not saying that, I'm saying the US is the only country trying to dictate what every farmer across the world is or is not allowed to grow, and every country in the world has to prevent drugs travelling across its borders to protect the poor US citizens from themselves.Because the US is the only country that consumes drugs...
Either stop consuming the stuff or sort out your borders.
The DEA is active with the consent of those countries. The herbicides (where the hell do you get bioweapons?) are used by those countries.Dilbert_X wrote:
We both know the DEA is active in practically every South American country, Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru to name a few.
Plus the use of herbicides and biological weapons is the modern equivalent of Agent Orange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication
Say what you like about Wikpedia, I don't give a monkeys.
But my question in the OP, why doesn't the US try to deal with its own problems at home?
No other country tries to police the world. Why does the US?
I don't "need" more money but that doesn't stop me from trying to get some... ;-)sinnik wrote:
Hmm yeah... he really needs the money from the drug tradeDersmikner wrote:
I think the guy is a raging shitbag, a petty thug, a worthless Marxist in the classic twisted Orwellian sense of the word insomuch as he's all for everyone having the same amount of shit (read: nothing) except for his affluence-showered ruling cadre, and he probably gives some tacit approval to the drug trade because he has to or his economy would collapse and his power would disappear, but I doubt he's giving anything more than a look the other way to the drug trade.
He still needs to be raped and killed though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_So … ies_by_GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela#Economy
Nothing to do with the fact that Venezuela is now supplying all the energy needs of Cuba is it?
My personal opinion is that you can never attempt to stop something from the supply side. When you limit the supply you simply make what's left more expensive. Sure that keeps some people from getting the shit, but in all reality they'll give up other things and still get what they really want. The only way to stop drug abuse is to destroy the demand. That means instead of letting the junkie off the hook for turning in his dealer you take the junkie and throw him in a detox center for a year and move him halfway across the country when he's out, away from the druggies he knows. Or you take all the money we're spending on finding the crack dealers and open crack treatment centers. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I know it isn't limiting the supply.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bioweapons would be here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication try to pay attention.
'In addition, the U.S. has also been involved in the development of the fungus Fusarium oxysporum to wipe out coca.[1][2] In 2000, the Congress of the United States approved use of Fusarium as a biological control agent to kill coca crops in Colombia (and another fungus to kill opium poppies in Afghanistan), but these plans were canceled by then-President Clinton, who was concerned that the unilateral use of a biological agent would be perceived by the rest of the world as biological warfare. The Andean nations have since banned its use throughout the region. (The use of biological agents to kill crops may be illegal under the Biological Weapons Convention of 1975.'
Agent Orange is a herbicide BTW
But why don't you answer the question, why does the US seek to interfere in every South American country, and other asian countries, which according to many observers simply pushes the price of drugs up making more money for the drugs cartels, than deal with its problems at home?
I did pay attention. Perhaps you should have. I've gone ahead and highlighted the part you seemed to have missed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bioweapons would be here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication try to pay attention.
'In addition, the U.S. has also been involved in the development of the fungus Fusarium oxysporum to wipe out coca.[1][2] In 2000, the Congress of the United States approved use of Fusarium as a biological control agent to kill coca crops in Colombia (and another fungus to kill opium poppies in Afghanistan), but these plans were canceled by then-President Clinton, who was concerned that the unilateral use of a biological agent would be perceived by the rest of the world as biological warfare. The Andean nations have since banned its use throughout the region. (The use of biological agents to kill crops may be illegal under the Biological Weapons Convention of 1975.'
Agent Orange is a herbicide BTW
But why don't you answer the question, why does the US seek to interfere in every South American country, and other asian countries, which according to many observers simply pushes the price of drugs up making more money for the drugs cartels, than deal with its problems at home?
Hmmmm.... ya they do.CameronPoe wrote:
They seem to handle them better than you guysusmarine2005 wrote:
Ok Cam, so no other country has border problems. Right.
That's absurd.CameronPoe wrote:
Typical US government pap. I do not believe for one second that Chavez is involved in drugs. 'Communists' are typically virulently anti-drugs. Both the US and Venezuela need to grow out of their tit-for-tat playground media antics.
Agree with the first part - that was in my OP, doubtful on the second - it doesn't seem to work.Dersmikner is spot on. Eliminating the demand is much more effective than eliminating the supply, but there's something to be said for making the drugs so expensive that it is a "niche market" on the demand side of things. That certainly reduces the availability to a degree.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-01-25 22:02:21)
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2008-01-26 02:56:37)
The first of a 5 part Chomsky analysis of the US actions in the war on drugs and terror.FEOS wrote:
I did pay attention. Perhaps you should have. I've gone ahead and highlighted the part you seemed to have missed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bioweapons would be here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication try to pay attention.
'In addition, the U.S. has also been involved in the development of the fungus Fusarium oxysporum to wipe out coca.[1][2] In 2000, the Congress of the United States approved use of Fusarium as a biological control agent to kill coca crops in Colombia (and another fungus to kill opium poppies in Afghanistan), but these plans were canceled by then-President Clinton, who was concerned that the unilateral use of a biological agent would be perceived by the rest of the world as biological warfare. The Andean nations have since banned its use throughout the region. (The use of biological agents to kill crops may be illegal under the Biological Weapons Convention of 1975.'
Agent Orange is a herbicide BTW
But why don't you answer the question, why does the US seek to interfere in every South American country, and other asian countries, which according to many observers simply pushes the price of drugs up making more money for the drugs cartels, than deal with its problems at home?
Herbicides aren't bioweapons, BTW.
I'll answer your question again: The US doesn't seek to interfere in every S. American country. It works with the governments of those where coca is grown to attempt to eradicate the supply. Again...working the problem from both ends. Same with Asia. Is that clear enough?
Dersmikner is spot on. Eliminating the demand is much more effective than eliminating the supply, but there's something to be said for making the drugs so expensive that it is a "niche market" on the demand side of things. That certainly reduces the availability to a degree.
1. No, the DEA budget and military foreign aid budgets are completely separate.Dilbert_X wrote:
But the good news is 'The vast majority of our country's drug control program is based at home: it is dedicated to domestic law enforcement, border interdiction, and treatment and prevention programs within the United States. However, about nine percent of the federal drug control budget is dedicated to international efforts. '
I wonder if that includes the billions in military aid given to Columbia etc.
Personall I agree with Chaos Haze, I don't really care if someone wants to destroy themselves with drugs, as long as they don't affect me or anyone else.
I would object to my taxes being spent on pointless and dangerous exercises like dropping bioweapons and the latest incarnation of Agent Orange across somebody elses continent.
