Mexican drug violence spills over into the US

[mickey]

we'd be busy deporting people, we'd never notice an attacker

[kobadger]

mickey wrote:

we'd be busy deporting people, we'd never notice an attacker

Don't try and argue with thoese people. I served in the Army when the cold war was still going on in the Reagan/Bush41 era(1988-91) I am telling them from 1st hand aka. "real world" knowledge that the one and ONLY thing the United States would do if Mexico were attacked by ANY other country would be to shut down the Mexico/U.S. Border and keep the destruction/war in Mexico! Mexico is not now and has never been a military allie of the United States. Mexico is not now and never has been a member of NATO. Some guy yesterday tried to use Mexico and the U.S.Navy conducting joint Naval exercise as proof of something. Both China as well as Russia both conduct those same type joint Naval exercises with Argentina,whoopie shit!! The only ones stupid enough to attack Mexico would be countries from South or Central America anyway. Columbia attacking Mexico is NOT a threat to the U.S. and no...we would NOT intervene. Why would say Russia or China attack Mexico? If they did the U.S. would simply wait for them at the border. Any invasion of Mexico by one of OUR military enemies would be to OUR advantage anyway lol. We'd just sit at the border and watch and wait and then beat any attack on OUR country right back into Mexico.

[kobadger]

I got a better way to break this whole shit down. Any Sailors out there? I was Army but had 2 years Naval Science(NJROTC). If a ship is struck whats the first thing you do? BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES!! This is done to prevent water from sinking the whole damned ship at once. Well that's exactly what would happen if Mexico were attacked by Russia or China! We'd lock down the borders and wait for em there,to contain the invasion in Mexico. Neither Russia or China would be so blatantly STUPID as to try an fight their way through Mexico in order to attack the United States. I rest my case!!

[Puppetmaster]

DandD wrote:

<quoted text>
Boy...are you naive...If some one attacked Mexico and was perceived as a threat to the US economy or it's market sare...you'd be the first to be sent there to defend every inch of mexican territory...Your gov't would send you there in a heartbeat.
You have no idea how close the US and Mexico are...it all has to do with sphere of influence...Let me tell you that the US gov't is prepared to sacrifice 500,000 US soldiers to preserve mexican terrytorial integrity....do a little resaerch moron..

Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

[kobadger]

Puppetmaster wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

The Monroe Doctrine went through dramatic changes in 1986 with the Iran-Contra debacle. I entered the Army just two years later and at that time the United States had developed a hands off approach towards Latin America.

[Kim Chee]

Stop all of this jibberish and start talking about something important. Revlon is coming out with new lipstick colors just in time for christmas. Nobody gives a rip about mexico/schmecksicko.

[Crackers]

Mexico is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) as is all 35 independent countries in the Americas, including Cuba as of this year. Chapter 6, Article 28 states: Every act of aggression by a State against the territorial integrity or the inviolability of the territory or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American State shall be considered an act of aggression against the other American States.

I think you'll find the United States helping out in any war waged against Mexico.

[kobadger]

Crackers wrote:

Mexico is a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) as is all 35 independent countries in the Americas, including Cuba as of this year. Chapter 6, Article 28 states: Every act of aggression by a State against the territorial integrity or the inviolability of the territory or against the sovereignty or political independence of an American State shall be considered an act of aggression against the other American States.
I think you'll find the United States helping out in any war waged against Mexico.

Yeah...You're right guy. Just like we helped Argentina out when Great Britan kicked the shit out of em back in 1982!! Thanks for settin ME straight friend!

[Crackers]

kobadger wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah...You're right guy. Just like we helped Argentina out when Great Britan kicked the shit out of em back in 1982!! Thanks for settin ME straight friend!

Well, I guess in that little war NATO took precedence over OAS. By the way, you got the red ass or something? All I did was quote a little passage from the OAS website. Good thing these postings are anonymous so little swole up peacocks like yourself can talk big without paying the price.

[kobadger]

Crackers wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I guess in that little war NATO took precedence over OAS. By the way, you got the red ass or something? All I did was quote a little passage from the OAS website. Good thing these postings are anonymous so little swole up peacocks like yourself can talk big without paying the price.

Yeah,once again you're right on target deadeye. I mean what do I know about it anyway right? I'm just a vetran. I'm telling you once and for all. NO enemy of the United States would attack Mexico in order to get to us. Any attack on Mexico would only come from another Latin American country and the United States would see that for exactly what it would be,just another Latin American war. Are you following what I'm saying? I mean what the hell would WE stand to lose or gain if say Columbia or Venezuela attacked Mexico? The answer is nothing.

[skinnygenes]

kobadger wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah,once again you're right on target deadeye. I mean what do I know about it anyway right? I'm just a vetran. I'm telling you once and for all. NO enemy of the United States would attack Mexico in order to get to us. Any attack on Mexico would only come from another Latin American country and the United States would see that for exactly what it would be,just another Latin American war. Are you following what I'm saying? I mean what the hell would WE stand to lose or gain if say Columbia or Venezuela attacked Mexico? The answer is nothing.

I agree with you on the attacking Mexico scenario, although my concern is weak Mexican borders would allow terrorists into the US, to conduct the next terrorist attacks. It's to our benefit to keep an eye on our southern borders, if that means helping with surveillance or training, I don't see the downside to that, do you?

[A Boot Replica]

You worry about the borders. We let bad guys into the country daily. Check the universities to see how many middle eastern kids are in schools here. We say that the rich ones that come here are our friends. Are they really? I wouldn't be so sure about that.

You all worry about Mexico. We gladly give student Visas to these guys who could be coming here as super bad guys.

Mexico's current war will be going on for a long while 2-3 yrs easy.

[skinnygenes]

A Boot Replica wrote:

You worry about the borders. We let bad guys into the country daily. Check the universities to see how many middle eastern kids are in schools here. We say that the rich ones that come here are our friends. Are they really? I wouldn't be so sure about that.
You all worry about Mexico. We gladly give student Visas to these guys who could be coming here as super bad guys.
Mexico's current war will be going on for a long while 2-3 yrs easy.

Very true, although why make things easier on them? Just because we have students from the Middle East attending our schools doesn't mean that we should keep our borders porous. Shoring up our borders and limiting foreign students from non-friendly countries should go hand in hand.

[Crackers]

kobadger wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah,once again you're right on target deadeye. I mean what do I know about it anyway right? I'm just a vetran. I'm telling you once and for all. NO enemy of the United States would attack Mexico in order to get to us. Any attack on Mexico would only come from another Latin American country and the United States would see that for exactly what it would be,just another Latin American war. Are you following what I'm saying? I mean what the hell would WE stand to lose or gain if say Columbia or Venezuela attacked Mexico? The answer is nothing.

You're talking out of you a$$, badger. Mexico is the third largest supplier of crude oil to the US. Mexico is highly dependent on exports to the U.S., which represent more than a quarter of the country's GDP. And, 40 persent of all foreign investment in Mexico is by the US.

I doubt seriously if the US will stand by and let some other country invade Mexico and cost us all those billions in investments, not to mention all the crude oil.

[kobadger]

Crackers wrote:

<quoted text>
You're talking out of you a$$, badger. Mexico is the third largest supplier of crude oil to the US. Mexico is highly dependent on exports to the U.S., which represent more than a quarter of the country's GDP. And, 40 persent of all foreign investment in Mexico is by the US.
I doubt seriously if the US will stand by and let some other country invade Mexico and cost us all those billions in investments, not to mention all the crude oil.

Have you ever asked yourself why we are NOT allowed to drill for oil off the coast or other spots here that we KNOW are oil rich? Well you have just answered your OWN question. I am not saying you or any one elese is stupid but due to the unit I served with(3/75th) and the location(Ft.Benning Ga.) I have more "first hand" info than the average person as to just what steps the United States would take should Mexico ever be attacked.

[kobadger]

In case you missed my point,your scenario about Mexico and their oil becoming tied up in the event of an attack is exactly why the U.S. has not only oil reserves but known locations that are rich with oil right here at home yet are NOT allowed to be drilled...yet!! There IS a very specific reason for this.

[kobadger]

Crackers wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, I guess in that little war NATO took precedence over OAS. By the way, you got the red ass or something? All I did was quote a little passage from the OAS website. Good thing these postings are anonymous so little swole up peacocks like yourself can talk big without paying the price.

NATO will ALWAYS take precedence over any OAS. Like I said,I was at Ft. Benning and in a "RRF" or Rapid Reaction Force and I know the drill. I am also all too familiar with the infamous "School of the Americas" out at Benning as well.

[kobadger]

skinnygenes wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you on the attacking Mexico scenario, although my concern is weak Mexican borders would allow terrorists into the US, to conduct the next terrorist attacks. It's to our benefit to keep an eye on our southern borders, if that means helping with surveillance or training, I don't see the downside to that, do you?

We do train with Mexico as far as Police units go. We also have paid for a large portion of the border security on THEIR side of the border as well. Well the downside is this "skinny". You see contrary to what Mexico wants us here in the U.S.to believe,Mexico is NOT poor! Mexico if they so chose could be the leader of L.America. Not by force but could be instrumental in forming some sort of L.American union that could then compete with and even rival the United States. That I'm afraid would take work and dedication on Mexicos part and that class of elite society down south just ain't gonna roll up their sleeves when they can guilt the U.S. into handing them something. I would like to see the U.S. take a total "Quid Pro Quo" (Latin to English meanining something for something) approach with Mexico from now on!!

[skinnygenes]

kobadger wrote:

<quoted text>We do train with Mexico as far as Police units go. We also have paid for a large portion of the border security on THEIR side of the border as well. Well the downside is this "skinny". You see contrary to what Mexico wants us here in the U.S.to believe,Mexico is NOT poor! Mexico if they so chose could be the leader of L.America. Not by force but could be instrumental in forming some sort of L.American union that could then compete with and even rival the United States. That I'm afraid would take work and dedication on Mexicos part and that class of elite society down south just ain't gonna roll up their sleeves when they can guilt the U.S. into handing them something. I would like to see the U.S. take a total "Quid Pro Quo" (Latin to English meanining something for something) approach with Mexico from now on!!

Honestly, I don't think that Mexico's elite is too interested in changing the system they've got down there, they have a habit of neglecting their people, and blaming the US for their lack of development or compassion.

[kobadger]

skinnygenes wrote:

<quoted text>
Honestly, I don't think that Mexico's elite is too interested in changing the system they've got down there, they have a habit of neglecting their people, and blaming the US for their lack of development or compassion.

Yes I know. That is too bad because Mexico could become the leader of a viable Latin American Union. Mexicans are just too damned concerned about certain other Mexicans to give a damn. The FIRST thing Mexicans want to do here in OUR country though is rally all the support they can by proclaiming themselves not as Mexicans but..."Latinooooooooos " They(La Raza) are such a bullshit decitful group of people it honestly makes me sick!!! You should have seen us dancing in the streets this summer when the Georgia Supreme Court rulled against them in their efforts to thwart 287g. It left La Raza's Atlanta chapter destitute,bankrupt and best of all LEAVING!!