4 ms·

You can't fight your own population the same way you fight a foreign population. Could you imagine what would happen if it got out that the US government was d

You can't fight your own population the same way you fight a foreign population. Could you imagine what would happen if it got out that the US government was doing any of these options? There would be armed riots in the street the next day. It would trigger a civil war and you might damn well lose. You can't hide a conspiracy of this magnitude. The only way anyone in America could possibly prosecute the drug war in the way you are suggesting would be if the population at large was also in support of scorched earth drug war.

danieltillett 9y ago
I am not advocating for any of these policies, just that this is what a real war on drugs would mean. I think you might be surprised how much public support such policies would have. You only have to look at the Philippines to see the wide support even the crudest of these ideas has.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  You might not be advocating for those policies but it's disingenuous to use them as arguments for why the war on drugs was not a real war. The United States could have won the Vietnam War overnight by dropping nuclear bombs over every inch of Indochina and then repopulating it with new citizens. Just because the United States didn't do the "obvious" solution to win a war doesn't mean the Vietnam War wasn't real. Waging and winning war has little to do with all out tactics. It's funny because the brains behind the American Vietnam War did almost everything SHORT of dropping nuclear bombs on indochina and still failed. Proof that hearts and minds often matter more than threats of violence.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    The Vietnam (American) war is a very good analogy - it was never a formal war and fought under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution [1] to explicitly avoid the declaration of war. If the US had declared war on North Vietnam I suspect the outcome would have been different even without the use of nuclear weapons - either the US would not have fought in the first place (the most likely) or if they did they would have fought a total war like in WWII. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  I know you're not advocating them. I'm saying your hypothetical policies couldn't possibly be enacted because it would be suicide. I've been to the Philippine's and talked to Duterte supporters. It is perhaps more fair to describe the situation as extremely anti-meth rather than generally extremely anti-drug. The reason this position is popular to begin with is because of a broken court system. People are choosing quick-and dirty summary justice over the perceived no justice of the court system. The "death squads" are tolerated because there are a lot of legitimate targets for this brand of illegitimate justice. Its a case of hate the principle, love the result. In general the Filipino people are not irrationally rabid about private, responsible, recreational drug use.

danieltillett 9y ago

I am not advocating for any of these policies, just that this is what a real war on drugs would mean. I think you might be surprised how much public support such policies would have. You only have to look at the Philippines to see the wide support even the crudest of these ideas has.

verylittlemeat 9y ago
You might not be advocating for those policies but it's disingenuous to use them as arguments for why the war on drugs was not a real war. The United States could have won the Vietnam War overnight by dropping nuclear bombs over every inch of Indochina and then repopulating it with new citizens. Just because the United States didn't do the "obvious" solution to win a war doesn't mean the Vietnam War wasn't real. Waging and winning war has little to do with all out tactics. It's funny because the brains behind the American Vietnam War did almost everything SHORT of dropping nuclear bombs on indochina and still failed. Proof that hearts and minds often matter more than threats of violence.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  The Vietnam (American) war is a very good analogy - it was never a formal war and fought under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution [1] to explicitly avoid the declaration of war. If the US had declared war on North Vietnam I suspect the outcome would have been different even without the use of nuclear weapons - either the US would not have fought in the first place (the most likely) or if they did they would have fought a total war like in WWII. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
IIAOPSW 9y ago
I know you're not advocating them. I'm saying your hypothetical policies couldn't possibly be enacted because it would be suicide. I've been to the Philippine's and talked to Duterte supporters. It is perhaps more fair to describe the situation as extremely anti-meth rather than generally extremely anti-drug. The reason this position is popular to begin with is because of a broken court system. People are choosing quick-and dirty summary justice over the perceived no justice of the court system. The "death squads" are tolerated because there are a lot of legitimate targets for this brand of illegitimate justice. Its a case of hate the principle, love the result. In general the Filipino people are not irrationally rabid about private, responsible, recreational drug use.