Fact checking Trump part B: the war on drugs.

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
Trump's statements:

TRUMP, in a telephone call to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte: "I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem. Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that." — Philippine government transcript of April 29 phone call, reported by The Washington Post.

and the reality:

THE FACTS: Trump's own State Department's human rights report, updated in March, described in harsh terms the more than 6,000 killings by police and vigilantes of suspected Philippine drug dealers and users. The killings, carried out without formal evidence or trials, were to fulfill a Duterte campaign promise to eliminate illegal drug activity in the country by the end of last year.

The report said Duterte released lists of suspected drug criminals on at least two occasions and some on those lists were killed in police or vigilante operations. It says "authorities made promises of immunity from investigation and prosecution for officers involved in drug killings."

Obviously, the way to win the war on drugs is to kill off the drug dealers and users. It is a war, after all, and there will be casualties.

source
 
Werbung:
We can't expect the underworld to completly eliminate themselves...

You are surprised the 3rd world does things differently ?

Why shouldn't we do the same? If it works for Duterte, whom Trump admires so greatly, then it should work for Trump as well. Nothing else has worked to date.
 
It is still not clear that Deterte campaign will work. He is popular with some but some of the killings have been done without proof . I think the rule of law should still be used.
 
The be fair, we never tried.
No, we haven't.
We could simply arm DEA agents with sniper rifles and give them a license to kill. Hey, why not use drones? It works for the war on terror, so why not the war on drugs? After all, a little collateral damage is just the price we pay to go to war.
 
It is still not clear that Deterte campaign will work. He is popular with some but some of the killings have been done without proof . I think the rule of law should still be used.
Yes, I think the rule of law is still rather important in civilized nations. In Trumplandia, maybe it isn't.
 
No, we haven't.
We could simply arm DEA agents with sniper rifles and give them a license to kill. Hey, why not use drones? It works for the war on terror, so why not the war on drugs? After all, a little collateral damage is just the price we pay to go to war.
We could kill off the vegetation required for heroine and cocaine rather easily. But it will take out some surrounding flora so that's out. We are awash with half measures.
 
We could simply arm DEA agents with sniper rifles and give them a license to kill.
Why not just grow your own and sell it direct? cut out the middle man - instead of paying Iowa corn growers to produce bio-mass just get them planting coke or poppy.
That was one of the things that I thought was really screwed up in Afghanistan, the coallition should have paid the peasants to produce the poppies and bought it from them at open market prices giving them a guaranteed income and a reason to resist the war lords? Use the heroine for pharm purposes or whatever they use it for. At least the coallition would have contributed positively to a foundering economy, brought in speciallists to advise on growth for example and improve their understanding of farming and free them from the drugs barons.

Whilst there is a demand there will be a supply therefore be the supply....Just a thought....
 
Why not just grow your own and sell it direct? cut out the middle man - instead of paying Iowa corn growers to produce bio-mass just get them planting coke or poppy.
That was one of the things that I thought was really screwed up in Afghanistan, the coallition should have paid the peasants to produce the poppies and bought it from them at open market prices giving them a guaranteed income and a reason to resist the war lords? Use the heroine for pharm purposes or whatever they use it for. At least the coallition would have contributed positively to a foundering economy, brought in speciallists to advise on growth for example and improve their understanding of farming and free them from the drugs barons.

Whilst there is a demand there will be a supply therefore be the supply....Just a thought....
Can't grow it just anywhere
 
Werbung:
Why not just grow your own and sell it direct? cut out the middle man - instead of paying Iowa corn growers to produce bio-mass just get them planting coke or poppy.
That was one of the things that I thought was really screwed up in Afghanistan, the coallition should have paid the peasants to produce the poppies and bought it from them at open market prices giving them a guaranteed income and a reason to resist the war lords? Use the heroine for pharm purposes or whatever they use it for. At least the coallition would have contributed positively to a foundering economy, brought in speciallists to advise on growth for example and improve their understanding of farming and free them from the drugs barons.

Whilst there is a demand there will be a supply therefore be the supply....Just a thought....
That's a thought. Coca is a tropical plant, but opium poppies would surely grow in North America. Pot most certainly does. Meth can be made anywhere, but best in a crummy trailer than no one misses when the operation blows up.

But the issue is winning the war on drugs by simply shooting the addicts and purveyors. That's seems to be the idea that Trump admires.
 
Back
Top