Im pretty sure if the government wants me dead, there are far easier ways to do it that put me on a boat in the Carribean. Far too much effort for too little gain, and to be honest I dont think the government is that competent.The problem becomes this, once a government has the ability to conduct extrajudicial killings, all they have to do to kill you without a trial or any kind of due process, is to put you into those circumstances. Want to execute an undesirable? Kidnap them, drop them on a boat with no fishing gear or lights, on a well known drug smuggling path, and then kill them.
If you are willing to best your last (whatever it was) on a 50/50 outcome, you are a fool.what nonsense don't you understand, you willing to bet against me? you don't know what a bet is? i intentionally use the word BET? if you dont know what bet is, i rest my case
I understand how many would disagree in principle. To be honest I think if you are caught dealing in certain items you should get death penalty charges. Carfentanyl and the like are already about as lethal as nerve agents. They are WMD, and its only going to get worse.Assuming they are 100% drug dealers, the US does not prescribe death sentences to the drug dealers they prosecute in the country. Even the most notorious ones get life, which is usually accompanied by additional charges of various severity. Mules (who these people allegedly are) get few years with a possibility of parole. How does sinking boats in another country or international waters reconcile with that then? I do not think it does.
But, as Feanor had already mentioned, I believe due process is a key.
??? Are trying to pretend to be illiterate ?Well, if you want to avoid the point...
The point: >>>>>> declares
Nothing in that exchange supports what you are claiming ("irrelevant").Then your 1938 is irrelevant.
"Will lead to" Is that fortune telling? If you can make current affairs that simple... Congratulations!
There is no agreement, there is no army level. You can use was too. You can also add guaranties and Ukraine's respect for the Minsk accords.
blah blah blah....usual stream of consciousness from rsemmes with no context, no formatting and apparently no point.I have to say, you are very good at avoiding the point.
My point:
"Trying to go back to the actual fighting...
You mean now? What if in ten years time China decides that it in its best interest to keep Russia "in the fight"? NATO has been supporting Ukraine for those ten years and Ukraine has been able to find men to fight for ten more years.
Russia will collapse... All right. How many more hits can Ukraine take? How many more billions is NATO providing in how many years? That Ukrainian general was talking of 9 months, not 9 years. Is the end of the world going to happen in those 6-9 months?
Edit.
Why has NATO extended a line of credit to Ukraine? Who said anything about free?"
No mention of "free".
I didn't say that you said "Russia will collapse", that was an introduction for an hypothetical about that Ukrainian general; like his 9 months, my "end of the world".
"Gift" instead of "free". Is Ukraine paying interests?
You can apply your answer to the hypothetical Chinese line of credit.
If you don't want to understand "Trying to go back to the actual fighting" as actually "trying to go back to the actual fighting"...
Edit
Yes, I was using the same post to answer some of your points and for something else, but you probably heard this before... "It's nothing personal".
That was simply, the best, most clear post you have made in some time.I don't think Russia is going to collapse, I don't think Russia will collapse; in a a far distant future, China may want to keep Russia "in the fight". I don't think it's going to happen, I think that, at that time, China may consider that its interests will be best served by a continuation of the war in Ukraine.
In the present, I don't think that NATO (I'm calling it "NATO") is in this war for Ukraine, I don't think it is in the best interest of the Ukrainian people.