Crime trump executive order cartels terrorists.

[mkess101]

Yes.

But again your last sentence is not addressing what i am addressing. I am saying 'scale' is not what determines if something is right or wrong. Stealing is wrong whether a little or a lot.

What i am addressing is the people on this issue who push a moralistic approach to this issue. The idea that the US would be right and justified to act as Mexico can and should control their border and if they do not they then forfeit over to the US the right to take action within Mexico.

Lets take the thought experiment further if you are going to continue to push 'scale'.

In this hypothetical only one thing changes. The same amount of guns and drugs are crossing each way but we find out the US has MORE bribed dirty officials (hypothetical) then Mexico does.

Does that suddenly, for you, justify Mexico attacking within the US while then preventing the US from doing so. Nothing else has changed. Same drugs and guns. I just changed the scale of the corruption of the officials and want to know if all of a sudden the 'right to action', in your view changes with it because now suddenly Mexico is no longer in the wrong and the US is???

Well there are certainly different aspects of the discussion, I guess that's what you're getting at? I'd agree that if the argument is simply "what's fair?", you absolutely have a strong case. Especially when taking into account that sovereignty matters, that the US intervening militarily over the past 50 years has caused a lot of problems (being generous) etc.

My stance is that dynamic problems can't be crammed into the neat little moral boxes we want them to be. Hypothetically, if the US carrying out missions against the cartels would make a truly significant positive difference in the drug epidemic here...that would also factor in. (I'm NOT arguing it would make that difference, this is for the sake of discussion). Whether it was "right" or not would become more blurry. Potentially millions of lives saved from the ruination of addiction etc.

There has to be a practical aspect. My view is one of extreme skepticism that us using military action vs the cartels would actually make a real and lasting difference in the drug problem here. It might "feel good" to see the cartels being outgunned and getting annihilated, but would the fallout end up being worth it? I lean that it would not.

 

[ChosenOne]

But I think you are assuming that drugs are the only problem the cartels bring to America. The other thing they're known for is human trafficking and most especially for making a living off of bringing people from all over the world through our borders illegally. Many of the people they bring through our border are then beholden to Mexican cartels and work in criminal organizations within the states.

So it's not just the drugs that are the problem and that's why I don't like this being labeled as a war on drugs because I don't think that's what it is. It's a war on the cartels.

I haven't looked deeply into the human trafficking portion of what they do. Maybe that's easier to locate and stop than meth labs, which I think are basically impossible to eradicate...

I began this thread wrongly assuming they were still growing massive amounts of cocaine which put them in a definite place that's destroyable but methlabs? There's no stopping that at least not by the United States military.

ya i was not discussing that aspect but it would not change my view much.

It is drug money that gives the cartels their guns, strength and power. If you want to impact those secondary issues with Cartels (a war on cartels) nothing really changes.

If anyone thinks simply killing Cartel members and leadership will do anything to resolve these problems, then that person is a fool. An endless supply of new drug will jump in instantly as the price soars due to disruptions. It is the endless cycle of the war on drugs, and if people want it, then be honest and intelligent about and admit they want it out of a sense of 'revenge' and not prevention.

If they really want to stop it, then focusing on the Demand side (us consumption) and payment side (US guns into mexico) will be far more effective.

Just as with the Migrants problem. The smart people in the US absolutely KNOW if the US passed a law criminalizing corporations, and jailing company executives who hired migrant workers, the issue of mass migration would dry up, over night. By massively reducing the prospect for jobs or money in the US and taking most companies out of the black market as employers, they would not come.

Smart people know simply deporting migrants while the employers then get desperate and will pay more to those who remain and are not caught yet, only attracts more migrants to keep coming.

That is why Trump plays on the 'deporting' angle ONLY, as he knows magats are dumb and cannot recognize how that will NEVER fix the problem. Trump and others know that preventing companies like his Resorts and Golf course from hiring, with threats of corporate dissolution and jail time to negligent executives would work and that is why they will NEVER support that. They WANT those workers but they also WANT the legal risk to be only on those workers.

 

[KnightTemplar]

heh.

Yes 'poorly educated'. You know. Why Trump loves you.

Look how easily i prove my point with you. That you applaud 'might makes right' when you think you will be the only benefactor of it but would cry 'unfair' if that was ever to change.

Even here, in this exchange i made you cry about me 'replying' to your posts even as i manipulate you to keep 'replying to mine'.

Did you even notice how easy it was to trigger you in to complaining about that as you do not have the might or ability to control it so only you get the benefit.

Trump certainly recognized his marks well.

You're command of basic English and grammar has certainly improved. Did you ask a friend who wasn't born in whatever shithole of a country you hail from to write it out for you?

 

[KnightTemplar]

None of what you say above this part would be of any consequence...

"...But then we'd have to face some really hard questions because there's no way this solution would work unless we were providing clean drugs for American citizens cooked in American labs so that the cartels had no power. You could probably convince me that's an okay solution if every cent of the profit for those drugs went to drug rehab centers to get people sober..."

The only reason to go after Cartels with or without Mexican gov't co-operation's would be for a feeling of revenge or to 'flex impotent power' as it would do zero to slow or stop the issue and like the war on drugs in America would exasperate it.

If we skip all above your excised quote and simply do that, that will be only true thing to have an impact beyond if America could truly control their side of the border to stop all guns and money flow which then would make the cartels not ship drugs.

The truly only non effective solution is the one seals like @KnightTemplar clap for, like the lemmings they are where they believe in some type of military solution as if this is a G.I movie. Sadly that type of Ra Ra type solution will ALWAYS be the easiest one to dupe the lemmings with as the war on drugs proved for decades.

Not only spazzing out in replies to my actual posts, but tagging me in others?



Rent free, boy. Rent free.

 

[ChosenOne]

Well there are certainly different aspects of the discussion, I guess that's what you're getting at? I'd agree that if the argument is simply "what's fair?", you absolutely have a strong case. Especially when taking into account that sovereignty matters, that the US intervening militarily over the past 50 years has caused a lot of problems (being generous) etc.

My stance is that dynamic problems can't be crammed into the neat little moral boxes we want them to be. Hypothetically, if the US carrying out missions against the cartels would make a truly significant positive difference in the drug epidemic here...that would also factor in. (I'm NOT arguing it would make that difference, this is for the sake of discussion). Whether it was "right" or not would become more blurry. Potentially millions of lives saved from the ruination of addiction etc.

There has to be a practical aspect. My view is one of extreme skepticism that us using military action vs the cartels would actually make a real and lasting difference in the drug problem here. It might "feel good" to see the cartels being outgunned and getting annihilated, but would the fallout end up being worth it? I lean that it would not.

yes this issue is far more complex than simply pointing at Mexico and saying 'they deserve what happens if they cannot control their border', which so many here use to justify why they US can and should take action.

I actual have more respect for the people who genuinely believe 'MIght Makes Right' is the reason but only if they are consistent and true to that belief and show they would accept and not whine if the shoe was on the other foot and in other situations they did not have the 'might' to impose their view. But if they are consistent and accept it when both in power and on the opposite side, i would give them more respect for that.


the issue is, as you see just above in my exchange with KnightsTempler, the person who pushes Might Makes Right, is often the first to cry and complain when they do not have a position of might to get their way. You see him instantly resort to whining he cannot stop me replying (he has no power) and can only stop himself, but as i manipulate him so easily he is trapped in his own whining. That is very much the norm for those who are so boastful about using the power of 'might makes right'. They almost always are the most whiny when they do not have that power.

 

[ChosenOne]

Not only spazzing out in replies to my actual posts, but tagging me in others?



Rent free, boy. Rent free.

^ so ultimately easy to manipulate each and every reply.

I do love the poorly educated as Trump does. Endlessly manipulation.

 

[KnightTemplar]

^ so ultimately easy to manipulate each and every reply.

I do love the poorly educated as Trump does. Endlessly manipulation.

Please keep this up. It's like rape; it's no fun for me if you don't try to fight back.

 

[Scerpi]

id like to explore trumps decision to declare cartels terrorist groups. I've heard a lot of negative from the left about this... mainly centered around comparing this to the war on drugs which has been an absolute disaster. however I don't see the validity of that comparison. a war on drugs means stings and tons of man hours wasted to catch low level criminals, process them and eventually just release them back into the world or see them replaced the next day by other criminals.

declaring cartels as terrorists gives the United States the right to KILL these despicable actors dead.... no need to waste man hours processing them or housing them in jails. this gives the states real power to stop cartels in their tracks and end their reign. and its not as if members of cartels don't have it coming.

cartels are responsible for an immense amount of pain and suffering heaped upon humanity including trafficking children and women and bringing bad actors into the states who are then beholden to the cartels but living in the states.

the United states has been involved in a lot of wars in my lifetime and MOST of them have been total bullshit where we had no real moral authority or clear reason for being there. but waging war on the cartels seems like a moral good and a moral victory and a true use of our military that is not despicably mingled with ulterior motives and agendas.... I cant see why the left is so against this one.

id like to hear everyone's thoughts for and against this particular move by trump.

Such a slippery slope....

It would be huge mistake to go after the Cartels unless our eyes are wide open that there will be retribution here in the States and the US also needs to work with the Mexican Government and not just toss them aside like the US does when going after terrorist organisations in the Middle East.

It's a whole other ballgame with the Cartel located on our border and our border being swiss cheese if you have the right resources to by-pass almost security. Which the Cartel's possess.

This has the potential to be the ugliest conflict the US has even been involved with... Though it may be necesary.

If it's successful, the Mexican People might get their country back.

If it's stalemate, could be a massive bloodbath for a decade or two.

 

[mkess101]

yes this issue is far more complex than simply pointing at Mexico and saying 'they deserve what happens if they cannot control their border', which so many here use to justify why they US can and should take action.

I actual have more respect for the people who genuinely believe 'MIght Makes Right' is the reason but only if they are consistent and true to that belief and show they would accept and not whine if the shoe was on the other foot and in other situations they did not have the 'might' to impose their view. But if they are consistent and accept it when both in power and on the opposite side, i would give them more respect for that.


the issue is, as you see just above in my exchange with KnightsTempler, the person who pushes Might Makes Right, is often the first to cry and complain when they do not have a position of might to get their way. You see him instantly resort to whining he cannot stop me replying (he has no power) and can only stop himself, but as i manipulate him so easily he is trapped in his own whining. That is very much the norm for those who are so boastful about using the power of 'might makes right'. They almost always are the most whiny when they do not have that power.

I'm not getting into your argument with another poster, but I would say the "might makes right" angle isn't necessarily the best wording here. ALL nations more or less act in their own best interests. Yes, the US being the most powerful nation on earth allows for that to encompass a wider scope. To the point where we often overstep imo and end up hurting ourselves as much as helping.

The point is that sovereignty massively complicates any issue like this. Our representatives (the ones who actually make some effort to uphold their oaths) are supposed to look out for OUR citizens first. We are a member of the global community yes, but my representatives should care more about MY welfare than they do the welfare of a Mexican or British or Japanese or Libyan citizen. So...the question is "Where is the line between not overstepping the bounds of another nation's sovereignty and putting the safety and well being of your own citizens first"?

It's not an easy question to answer.

 

[ChosenOne]

Please keep this up. It's like rape; it's no fun for me if you don't try to fight back.

yes because the guy who complained about replies (you) is the guy who really wants more replies.

Your 5D chess brain is so impressive.



I can keep you here as long as i want to and you are helpless to stop that as the poorly educated tend to be.

 

[ChosenOne]

Such a slippery slope....

It would be huge mistake to go after the Cartels unless our eyes are wide open that there will be retribution here in the States and the US also needs to work with the Mexican Government and not just toss them aside like the US does when going after terrorist organisations in the Middle East.

It's a whole other ballgame with the Cartel located on our border and our border being swiss cheese if you have the right resources to by-pass almost security. Which the Cartel's possess.

This has the potential to be the ugliest conflict the US has even been involved with... Though it may be necesary.

If it's successful, the Mexican People might get their country back.

If it's stalemate, could be a massive bloodbath for a decade or two.

"...Though it may be necessary...."

Absolutely serious and earnest question... "necessary" to what ends?

Do you mean "necessary to stop the drugs and other issues with Cartels coming in to the US'?

Of do you mean "necessary" as in certain citizens demand some form of retaliation and revenge even if pointless, self defeating, and bound to make things worse and not better?


I think, if anyone accepts it as "necessary" it has to be for the latter reason, which is why the gov't gave them the War on Drugs and the War on Terror prior. Things that do zero to end the problem (in fact makes it worse) but can give the citizens who want to feel a sense of some retribution or revenge the theater they need to see.

 

[terrapin]

ya i was not discussing that aspect but it would not change my view much.

It is drug money that gives the cartels their guns, strength and power. If you want to impact those secondary issues with Cartels (a war on cartels) nothing really changes.

If anyone thinks simply killing Cartel members and leadership will do anything to resolve these problems, then that person is a fool. An endless supply of new drug will jump in instantly as the price soars due to disruptions. It is the endless cycle of the war on drugs, and if people want it, then be honest and intelligent about and admit they want it out of a sense of 'revenge' and not prevention.

If they really want to stop it, then focusing on the Demand side (us consumption) and payment side (US guns into mexico) will be far more effective.

Just as with the Migrants problem. The smart people in the US absolutely KNOW if the US passed a law criminalizing corporations, and jailing company executives who hired migrant workers, the issue of mass migration would dry up, over night. By massively reducing the prospect for jobs or money in the US and taking most companies out of the black market as employers, they would not come.

Smart people know simply deporting migrants while the employers then get desperate and will pay more to those who remain and are not caught yet, only attracts more migrants to keep coming.

That is why Trump plays on the 'deporting' angle ONLY, as he knows magats are dumb and cannot recognize how that will NEVER fix the problem. Trump and others know that preventing companies like his Resorts and Golf course from hiring, with threats of corporate dissolution and jail time to negligent executives would work and that is why they will NEVER support that. They WANT those workers but they also WANT the legal risk to be only on those workers.

Agreed on The deportation thing. We know who hires them. We know where they work and going after the employers would cost infinitely less money and accomplish the same end....

 

[ChosenOne]

I'm not getting into your argument with another poster, but I would say the "might makes right" angle isn't necessarily the best wording here. ALL nations more or less act in their own best interests. Yes, the US being the most powerful nation on earth allows for that to encompass a wider scope. To the point where we often overstep imo and end up hurting ourselves as much as helping.

The point is that sovereignty massively complicates any issue like this. Our representatives (the ones who actually make some effort to uphold their oaths) are supposed to look out for OUR citizens first. We are a member of the global community yes, but my representatives should care more about MY welfare than they do the welfare of a Mexican or British or Japanese or Libyan citizen. So...the question is "Where is the line between not overstepping the bounds of another nation's sovereignty and putting the safety and well being of your own citizens first"?

It's not an easy question to answer.

Ya again i am making a different point.

Many of the same people who would stand up and applaud the US just acting 'because they are powerful and they can and no one can stop them', try to wrap a moral foundation to it. They convince them it is also RIGHT to do for 'reasons'.

Those same people, invariably are amongst the biggest cry babies when the shoe is on the other foot and it is not their 'side' who has the power advantage. Suddenly they want things like 'morality' and 'fairness' to dictate actions.

The people who would vote to allow slavery in the past would suddenly find a reasons why voting is not the best method if they are not the majority vote and it could be them enslaved by vote.

these people do not envision (or care) about a far off future where China might have the might and the US is on the decline, and how if the US flexes 'Might is the only thing that makes right' now, how the next generations will have to eat that.

 

[ChosenOne]

Agreed on The deportation thing. We know who hires them. We know where they work and going after the employers would cost infinitely less money and accomplish the same end....

Not to nitpick but i do not think it would accomplish the same ends.

if you simply deport the migrants who take the jobs, all that does is deplete the work force and make the employers compete harder and pay more to fill the jobs which simply attracts more migrants. it is an endless predictable cycle that will NEVER succeed much like arresting the gang selling the drugs (supply) will not work if you cannot find a way to reduce demand.

If however you put in two stage punishment for corporations and their Executives, where a company would lose it charter and be shut down, and Executives who could not prove a fiduciary duty to follow best practices to prevent illegal workers getting on their payroll, would be fined and/or jailed, that would END this issue real quick.

Corporate boards would route and remove executives who put their charter at risk, as that wipes out their investment. Gambling to make more profit would just not be worth it, for the vast amount of industries that do it now.


So we need to be REALLY honest why such an EASY fix is never acted upon if truly the US does not want these mass migrant waves coming.

That answer is the real powers that be, know America needs the migrants workers on two levels. They need for the work they do. And they need the waves to continue as a political prop.

 

[mkess101]

Ya again i am making a different point.

Many of the same people who would stand up and applaud the US just acting 'because they are powerful and they can and no one can stop them', try to wrap a moral foundation to it. They convince them it is also RIGHT to do for 'reasons'.

Those same people, invariably are amongst the biggest cry babies when the shoe is on the other foot and it is not their 'side' who has the power advantage. Suddenly they want things like 'morality' and 'fairness' to dictate actions.

The people who would vote to allow slavery in the past would suddenly find a reasons why voting is not the best method if they are not the majority vote and it could be them enslaved by vote.

these people do not envision (or care) about a far off future where China might have the might and the US is on the decline, and how if the US flexes 'Might is the only thing that makes right' now, how the next generations will have to eat that.

Okay...

But if we accept that

A) All nations will act in their own self interests (in a general sense)

And

B) There will always be an imbalance of power (where right now the US sits atop)

Then the question of what's "right" becomes murky and subjective. It's not necessarily a failure to envision a future where the power dynamic has shifted. It's the fact that everyone, EVERYONE will always want that dynamic tilted in their favor. Those who have it will fight like hell to keep it. Those who don't will try like hell to get it. That's human nature.

The effort isn't and never will be to strive to be as "fair" and "virtuous" as possible so that if the power dynamic shifts, the new top dog will show us benevolence. The effort is to ensure there won't be a new top dog.

 

[ChosenOne]

Agreed on The deportation thing. We know who hires them. We know where they work and going after the employers would cost infinitely less money and accomplish the same end....

One of many examples of what i am talking about below. And if you read it and are honest to yourself you understand this is all theatre for the poorly educated or dupes that will fall for it. In Roman times this was the circus given when people could not get their bread (or cheap eggs) and it is directed at Magats who fall for it.




.
.
.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Selective outrage: DeSantis, GOP lawmakers give pass to companies violating immigration laws
As Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida legislators discuss rushing to convene a special session on immigration, there’s something key to remember:

These politicians want undocumented workers in this state. We have the legislation and their own recorded words to prove it.

Two years ago, GOP lawmakers passed a law that specifically ensures companies making illegal hires don’t get punished.

That’s like vowing to crack down on human trafficking while giving the traffickers a pass.

The politicians claimed their 2023 law cracked down on companies that don’t use the federal government’s E-Verify database to first vet their hires. But read the actual law. I did. It says that companies caught breaking it will only be punished if they’re caught breaking the law three times — and after they’re given 30 days to fix their law-breaking ways. You tell me another law handled that way.

...
This was a law passed specifically to ensure that the companies profiting off illegal labor can continue doing so.

You can believe the frothy, tough-on-immigration rhetoric you hear these guys spew. Or you can actually read the legislation they passed (SB 1718) for yourself. I dare you.

This is a state run by politicians who demonize the workers doing back-breaking work in farm fields, on construction sites and in landscaping jobs while making sure that their campaign donors who profit off this labor get a free pass. It’s exploitation, plain and simple. And it’s ugly.

The American Farm Bureau admits on its website that “The majority of farm workers in the U.S. are unauthorized …” and previously estimated it the number was high as 70%. Florida lawmakers passed laws to ensure that remains the case.

Want more proof? Look back to when DeSantis made national news for flying planeloads of newly arrived migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard. Note that DeSantis didn’t fly migrants out of Florida — the state he actually runs and frequently says is full of undocumented workers.

Want even more proof? Listen to the GOP lawmakers themselves — when they think no one else is listening.

Eighteen months ago, when they didn’t know they were being recorded, GOP legislators Rick Roth and Alina Garcia begged migrant workers in South Florida to ignore all the tough talk they were hearing about the immigration law they’d both supported, promising it was more talk than action.

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[KnightTemplar]

yes because the guy who complained about replies (you) is the guy who really wants more replies.

Your 5D chess brain is so impressive.



I can keep you here as long as i want to and you are helpless to stop that as the poorly educated tend to be.

Seriously, what worthless little shithole of a country do you come from, since English is obviously not your first language? Are you Mexican? That would explain why you are so upset by the idea of America killing cartel members.

 

[terrapin]

Not to nitpick but i do not think it would accomplish the same ends.

if you simply deport the migrants who take the jobs, all that does is deplete the work force and make the employers compete harder and pay more to fill the jobs which simply attracts more migrants. it is an endless predictable cycle that will NEVER succeed much like arresting the gang selling the drugs (supply) will not work if you cannot find a way to reduce demand.

If however you put in two stage punishment for corporations and their Executives, where a company would lose it charter and be shut down, and Executives who could not prove a fiduciary duty to follow best practices to prevent illegal workers getting on their payroll, would be fined and/or jailed, that would END this issue real quick.

Corporate boards would route and remove executives who put their charter at risk, as that wipes out their investment. Gambling to make more profit would just not be worth it, for the vast amount of industries that do it now.


So we need to be REALLY honest why such an EASY fix is never acted upon if truly the US does not want these mass migrant waves coming.

That answer is the real powers that be, know America needs the migrants workers on two levels. They need for the work they do. And they need the waves to continue as a political prop.

I think you misunderstood my post that you just replied to because I was saying that the real answer is to go after the corporations, not the migrants.....

 

[Scerpi]

"...Though it may be necessary...."

Absolutely serious and earnest question... "necessary" to what ends?

Do you mean "necessary to stop the drugs and other issues with Cartels coming in to the US'?

Of do you mean "necessary" as in certain citizens demand some form of retaliation and revenge even if pointless, self defeating, and bound to make things worse and not better?


I think, if anyone accepts it as "necessary" it has to be for the latter reason, which is why the gov't gave them the War on Drugs and the War on Terror prior. Things that do zero to end the problem (in fact makes it worse) but can give the citizens who want to feel a sense of some retribution or revenge the theater they need to see.

lol... What happens to every Mexican Government official or candidate that tries to stand up to the Cartels...

In Mexico, a wave of political murders ahead of elections eats away at democracy​

From September to May, 34 candidates or aspiring candidates have been assassinated, with most killings linked to drug cartels seeking to influence local elections.

In Mexico, a wave of political murders ahead of elections eats away at democracy

From September to May, 34 candidates or aspiring candidates have been assassinated, with most killings linked to drug cartels seeking to influence local elections.

www.nbcnews.com

The War on Drugs wasn't a full blown conflict... and was a total failure in the end.

The Mexican Government is completely incapable of standing up to the Cartels on their own. Anyone who sticks their neck out, ends up having their head removed.

Most of them are already working for the Cartels anyway....every level of government, from police, mayors to the highest members in the military. They have people on the inside everywhere.

Furthermore, will most Mexican citizens support the US basically invading their country, even if its to go after the Cartels? I think most would be insulted and extremely angry about it. Then we're dealing with a native population that now see the Cartels as the good guys... like when the US goes into Middle Eastern countries. Just fucking ugly.

So if the US Government (and it's citizens) don't have the stomach for a bloody fight, then it's best to not go in in the first place.

We can't do the bullshit that we do in the Middle East... half assed... It will have have to be a full blown war with the Cartels, knowing full well that US Citizens will be killed when the Cartels retaliate. Both in Mexico and on US Soil. I mean... go with air strikes, tanks, all of it... Overwhelming force like Bush Senior did to Iraq in the early 90's. Then get out and don't let the US Military linger in the country indefinitely.

Offer to provide security for Mexican Officials who are willing to stand up to the Cartels. Soldiers who can't be bought...

lol.. And even then, I bet the Cartels will be able to buy US personal. They have too much money.

My initial impulse is that it's bad idea to go after the Cartels. I don't think most people realize what consequences would be.

I thought the same thing when the US was fixing to invade Iraq. I'm conservative, but I absolutely don't agree with all Republican decisions. I was in back in Denver during for Iraq and I told my liberal friends Bush was grandstanding and i didn't he would be stupid enough to actually invade. Because what would be end game after Saddam was removed?

lol... I was fucking wrong.

I have a bad feeling about this....

 

[ChosenOne]

Okay...

But if we accept that

A) All nations will act in their own self interests (in a general sense)

And

B) There will always be an imbalance of power (where right now the US sits atop)

Then the question of what's "right" becomes murky and subjective. It's not necessarily a failure to envision a future where the power dynamic has shifted. It's the fact that everyone, EVERYONE will always want that dynamic tilted in their favor. Those who have it will fight like hell to keep it. Those who don't will try like hell to get it. That's human nature.

The effort isn't and never will be to strive to be as "fair" and "virtuous" as possible so that if the power dynamic shifts, the new top dog will show us benevolence. The effort is to ensure there won't be a new top dog.

I don't fully agree but i think there are many grey areas where i might.

For instance i can believe it is wrong for Putin (Russia) or China to take neighboring lands by force just because they are stronger and it would be wrong for the US to do so, to. My view is not tied to who is strongest and if they were weaker and subject to it my view would not change. And that is because my view is principal based. i am saying these keyboard warriors WOULD change instantly if the US was subject to the the Might Makes Rule domination rule. Suddenly they would become principal based and see it is an issue of right and wrong.

Again, on this topic anyway, i was responding to a very specific thing and that was those pushing the idea that this would be the 'right' or 'moral' or 'just' thing for the US to do because Mexico won't (can't) control their border. They are not just saying 'we can because we are stronger' (which is more acceptable IMO) but need to feel they would be in the 'right' in doing do so.

it is that bubble they wrap themselves in that i am tackling.

For instance i think if you talked to top officials in China they would say 'if you can enforce it you get your way and right now America can enforce it and we have to all follow their way.' But those same Chinese officials believe within a few generations China will dominate and i do not think their view will change one iota. They will have the force and they will believe that is all that is needed for them to get their way. They will be consistent on that and fuck your claimed water way or air rights if you cannot enforce it.

I may not like the result of CHina's consistency (if i was still alive) but i would note they are consistent.