Would Invading Mexico Solve All USAs Immigration Problems?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

There are either of two ways to "solve" the immigration problem once and for all.

1) We could just desolve the border and assign those who are currently task with defending it to other duties.

2) We can build some type of structure which would render the border impassable. This could be a wall too high too fly over and anchored too deep to dig under, or station guards shoulder to shoulder with automatic weapons and oders to shoot to kill.

You asked if an invasion would be necessary, and I have attempted to give you an alternative.

So the real answer is no

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Invading? No. Absorbing them into the largest of all the new UNITED STATES? Well...maybe

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Don't give them any ideas. They think up enough nonsense on their own.

second line

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Eunuchorn

What gives America the right to invade a sovereign country?

Cause it MERICA RAR RAR RAR!!!!

God tells them to to spread there freedumb!

/sarc


Thats what you get when you has such a massive military. You get tempted to use it....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Eunuchorn

What gives America the right to invade a sovereign country?

Our military might for one.

Thankyou for proving my point.

What? It's true. No country has a military that can stop ours, so if we want to annex Mexico, who's going to stop us? I'm not saying I agree with such recklessness, but the fact is that we can do whatever we want and no one has the resources to stop us.

True case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely.

You become the bad guys you built your military up to defend against.....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kryties

What is China going to do all the way on the other side of the world?

Call your debt in

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kryties

That's cool. China still has to cross the ocean to get to us. Too bad they don't have a Navy that can compete with ours or one that can utilize their superior numbers.

They don't need a navy to lob several hundred nukes at you then follow up with an invasion of 2 billion people.

Well they do kinda need a navy to land those 2 billion troops.


Just saying....

originally posted by: doompornjunkie

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Why stop at Mexico?

Good point. Eunichorn also brought up Canada in the OP..

Last time you tried that the Canadians burned DC

Dont piss off the Canadians

a reply to: tadaman

Yeah cause we are so much more advanced than others. /sarcasm

Of course we need to get done tearing up other people's countries until they are a pile of dirt so that we win.
And stop screwing over their citizens when we aren't bombing them into heaven,or poisoning their resources for profit.
Yeah,if only the rest of the world was like us......

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Eunuchorn

What gives America the right to invade a sovereign country?

Our military might for one.

Thankyou for proving my point.

What? It's true. No country has a military that can stop ours, so if we want to annex Mexico, who's going to stop us? I'm not saying I agree with such recklessness, but the fact is that we can do whatever we want and no one has the resources to stop us.

True case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely.

You become the bad guys you built your military up to defend against.....

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." -Harvey Dent The Dark Knight

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Eunuchorn

What gives America the right to invade a sovereign country?

Our military might for one.

Thankyou for proving my point.

What? It's true. No country has a military that can stop ours, so if we want to annex Mexico, who's going to stop us? I'm not saying I agree with such recklessness, but the fact is that we can do whatever we want and no one has the resources to stop us.

While I admit that my knowledge of history is a bit rusty, I seem to recall that sometime around the 1930's there was a guy named Adolf who was saying something quite similar. I'll have to look into it and get back to you.

a reply to: pfishy

And it took the combined might of the rest of the world PLUS Hitler making huge tactical errors in Russia to stop him. So keep that in mind too.

a reply to: kaylaluv
I still say it is a very bad idea. Mexico is a mix of cultures and heritages, that are unique to that part of the world. Would you support say another reservation or 2? Could you see multiple people who are claiming to be of say another tribe and demanding their own land? It would be a mess and one that would cause more problems than what all it would be worth. And further still, there would be other issues beyond that, which would not be considered here.

The first problem would be disease. While, yes there are controls on one side of the border, there may be a different set on the other side. Parasites and other things of that nature, that neither side is prepared to deal with that could ravage the other's population.

Then there is the economic and the very individual laws that govern each country and the very states. Mexico is a hodge podge of such and it is very confusing to say the least.

Euny want me to say that he did not abandon his thread, he was banned for 3 days
LOL!
Ban Hammer: 2
Eunuchorn: 0

No ,hell no we have to fix what WE have not take someone elses we have NO buisiness taking.
The US dosn't invade to colonize we DON'T need to ,THEY come here.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

No reason to go through all that trouble.

Simply restart the draft and watch 'em beat feet back home.

There will be those undocumented who will wish to serve and become US citizen's. Awesome. The majority won't want nothing to do with it.

Even Ralph Nader now regrets involvement in ending the draft and now advocates it's return.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No country has a military that can stop ours

One word, Three syllables

Vietnam.

^ ( you should always add the amount of syllables when using that particular phrase

)


& has the US learned their mistake of invasion & occupation?
Baby steps, lol.

There is quite a difference, though, in Vietnams army attempting to liberate the mexican peoples. Not to mention the exponential growths in technology since that time.

Its also important to remember the Rukes Of Engagement that were imposed upon our troops in Vietnam, while the "Viet Kong" were not limited in such a way by their politicians and citizenry. If it was all out warfare, like in ww2 pretty much, we would've won the war in less than a month, and that's without using nukes. We are so insanely superior militarily, that we like to tie one of our hands behind our back so it's at least a little bit of a challenge. That being said, the North Vietnamese put up a good fight. They just would not have stood a chance if we were using both hands like they were.

I still can't believe Krytes doesn't realize the error of sending every single one of their citizens into a radioactive wasteland, nevermind the error in initiating Mutually Assured Destruction with another nuclear nation, nevermind the error in operating as if warfare and technology are at the same state as in Napoleans time... nevermind the error in minimalizing the logistical nightmare of sending 2 billion people across the Pacific with what could, in that particular situation, be referred to as No Navy. Besides, it would be a matter of hours before they would literally have no navy if they were to try such a thing.

It just goes to show the error of being emotionally involved in a hypothetical exercise: You end up making lots of errors.

To Krytse (sp?): It's ok though, I still love you buddy. But keep in mind that we have had several hypothetical discussions about Russia and China, and usually others, joining to invade the USA. Nobody cried about that, so why let yourself get all torn up about this thread?

a reply to: PsychoEmperor

Not for Mexico, but invading Canada would trash relations with the UK and Commonwealth...

Still, interesting mental exercise none the less. I prefer the protectorate idea on the basis of "rescuing" them from drug lords and corruption.

a reply to: 3n19m470

ts also important to remember the Rukes Of Engagement that were imposed upon our troops in Vietnam

Not this old chestnut again.

If the " Rules Of Engagement " where so restrictive, why did it not stop atrocities being carried out by The U.S. Military ?

The Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files is a collection of (formerly secret) documents compiled by Pentagon investigators in the early 1970s, confirming that atrocities by U.S. forces during the Vietnam War were more extensive than had been officially acknowledged.[46][47] The documents are housed by the United States National Archives and Records Administration, and detail 320 alleged incidents that were substantiated by United States Army investigators (not including the 1968 My Lai Massacre). (See also Winter Soldier Investigation)

The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians, most of them women and children, conducted by U.S. soldiers from the Company C of the 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the 23rd (Americal) Infantry Division, on 16 March 1968. Some of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of Mỹ Lai and My Khe of Sơn Mỹ village during the Vietnam War.[48][49] Of the 26 U.S. soldiers initially charged with criminal offenses or war crimes for actions at My Lai, only William Calley was convicted. Calley only served 3 years & a half under house arrest instead. The incident prompted widespread outrage around the world, and reduced U.S. domestic support for the Vietnam War. Three American Servicemen (Hugh Thompson, Jr., Glenn Andreotta, and Lawrence Colburn), who made an effort to halt the massacre and protect the wounded, were sharply criticized by U.S. Congressmen, and received hate mail, death threats, and mutilated animals on their doorsteps.[50] Thirty years after the event their efforts were honored.[51

en.wikipedia.org...

However lets give the benefit of the doubt regarding Vietnam. The Korean War was not a matter of The U.S. Military's astounding success. All that was gained was " Stalemate " at best.

a reply to: alldaylong

I think that's the problem.

These warhawks WANTED more atrocities.

There idea of being free of " Rules Of Engagement " is to be able to firebomb, massacre and rape everything in sight.

Cause thats what the "good guys" do USA USA USA! RAR RAR RAR Freedumb!