Its a massively growing problem in many European countries. The UK is having the same issues but some of the strictest laws on drugs in Europe.

At least you get some tax money back from it, unlike us.

Thats WHY they killed him. Cant have those “evil blood thirty terrorists” calling for peace now can they? That would ruin the optics of their special military operation or whatever they’re calling their invasion of Lebanon.

It’s mad that they have operatives so high up in Hezbollah that they can compromise the entirety of their means of communication in one stroke but couldn’t use those same operatives and compromised lines of communication to see the October attacks coming.

Hopefully, mossad waited long enough before doing this that no one will think to try and reconcile the two.

Exactly, the idea that you go up a floor because there’s a roof over your head is very silly.

OK but what about going onto the ground?

Like, in your garden, is that the first floor of the planet?

When you get off an airplane, do you say

“Its great to be back on solid first floor of the earth.”

?

I don’t think I explained it very well.

They dont look to own the country when they overthrow it. Thats old school colonialism. Its expensive to maintain and people will dislike you for it. Neo colonialism has them pay for their colonisation from the start.

It’ll be for access to specific resources. Say they had, oh I dunno, oil. You install a puppet government thats 100% dependent on you, who knows they’ll be killed if they lost US backing, and you force them sell you their oil fields for a fraction of their worth.

Then, any revolution or even democratic vote that tries to take them back, despite how wrong and unlawfully they were obtained, would be seen as breaking international law and have them cut off from the rest of the world. Cuba was and still is meant as a warning to the rest of the Americas.

You don’t need the rest of the country to be prosperous for that. In fact, that would just push up the labour costs.

I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying. However, I think the reason it’s not sitting right with you is your assumption of good faith on their part.

What if they never cared if the country is more profitable generally and they just wanted to rip them off as much as possible before they realise what’s going on?

To me, their actions make far more sense if I presume that was what they really intended to do. More so, any assumption of good faith, as you point out, makes their behaviour seem, at best, bizzare.

100%. People only think them failures or the CIA as incompetent as they presume the CIAs illegal actions, in those instances, to have been done in good faith, despite the contradiction.

As always, the intended outcome was access to that particular country’s resources, for a very small group of wildly wealthy people, at regime-change prices.

When it comes to that, the CIA are amazing at what they do.

Na, his policies were nothing close to definitive on any positions. Honestly, that part of the left has been fighting the far right so long that they’ve lost track of where the lines are supposed to be and just lie as policy.

Well known by who? Where are these people? Are they in the room with us right now?

There isn’t anything to corroborate that he was ever either one of those, let alone switched. The people who didn’t want him to win the leadership simply declared it to be thus and such. Despite their claims, that not the same thing as it being true.

The “he switch after he won the leadership” is the part they made up. You have to realise that the label of neoliberal was given to him not only by his enemies within the party but by people who also don’t actually know anything at all about neoclassical economics and simply use the term as a slur to throw at anyone right of the socialist campaign group that they dont like. In fact, the term has all but lost its meaning due to them.

You’d have thought that there was something in-between being a socialist and a neoliberal but, Apparently, were to beleive thats not the case.

The problem is presuming someone needs incentive or malice to do that. The guy was soft-left and known to be so for years, right up until the very second he ran in the leadership election against corbyns heir Rebecca Long Bailey. At that exact moment, as if by magic, he became a neoliberal.

Its almost as if people made it up.

Its missleading to bass too much on that analysis. The parties don’t compete for the popular vote but to concentrate votes within seats they feel they can win.

No one was aiming to win the popular vote. I agree that’s a problem but we can’t really read to much into the split imo.

And you can just re-drclare your baseless nonsense too.

No, weaponised ignorance and a burden of proof falacy is not a cogent rebuttal and pretending it wouldn’t work either side of the boarder is desperate, at best.

I already did. You just didn’t like it and, again, declared it wouldn’t work without a hint of evidence or even any argumentation.

I don’t need a magic bullet to disprove “nothing will help.” Youre just failing to realise how poor a declaration it was.

Also, I never needed to prove you wrong in the first place. You never proved yourself right. You just declared it to be thus and such.

Yes, yes we are talking about Mexico. Any hit to the cartels profits, be it in America or Mexico, is going to help battle the cartels, even if you don’t want to beleive it and even if you declare it not to be true.

You see, they actually sell drugs in Mexico too. Itll also bring down the price of drugs in the US, as the market will be flooded. Its really not hard. You just don’t like it and that’s not the same thing as it not helping.

Of course I’m aware.

Wait, are you trying to tell me you think it wouldn’t translate into helping, if they did it on the other side of the boarder too? I have to check because that’s pretty wild.

Okay but you are aware that you just declared it wouldn’t help, despite evidence to the contrary right?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/legal-marijuana-medical-use-crime-rate-plummets-us-study

https://www.sandiego.edu/news/detail.php?_focus=84160

It cuts into their profits given them less clout and less reason to kill each other. As such, it will help, as can be seen with the example of weed.

Edit: in fact, the only reason drugs remain illegal at all is because some very wealth and powerful people make too much money from it remaining so. Well, that and so the CIA can fund illegal wars around the world.

Thats literally the point I’m making. I don’t get what you don’t get here.

Neither do I. I’m not sure of your point?

Yes to the first part but what do you think would happen to the American drug market if they did that?