Should we declare war on mexico?

Mexico has continually proven it is not a friend, nor an ally of the United States. With the government encouraged invasion of our southern border, why shouldn't we declare war on Mexico? They are more of a threat than Iraq or Afghanistan is.

Originally posted by slackerwire
Mexico has continually proven it is not a friend, nor an ally of the United States. With the government encouraged invasion of our southern border, why shouldn't we declare war on Mexico?

Yep, lets take this out, lets do this. 10 minas after we declare war on Mexico, we will have 'won' the war with mexico, so we move in and Build school and TEACH ENGLISH. Then, not to have ours fources sit around and be targets, keep the moving, south, take everything, build schools, teach ENGLISH, keep going south, until Pannama, Now there is a strip of land that we can make sure no one crosses our vboarder, its like 30km across at some point, we could buld a great fencee, and would take only a few people to see from end to end, there we go. Oh and a added bounus is we would stop having to learn Mexican(aKa spanish) to teach in Calimexifronina, and soon all of America.

I am willing to bet we could have done that and gotten to Pannama and taught the continet engilsh in less time then we have been in Iraq since Vivtory Day!

Hmm, why shouldn't we declare war on Mexico? A very very hard to answer question, but one I'm willing to take a crack at...

If you're one of those Democrats that Bill O'Reilly warned us about, you don't want America to get involved in such a war because we'd win it.

If your a real-life Democrat, you don't want us getting involved in such a war because it involves killing people over money.

If you're a conservative Republican, the answer is that if we simply enforce our existing laws on under-the-table employers, the advantage of illegal workers will be diminished and market forces will accomplish the same objective at a much lower cost than a war.

If you're a Neocon (which you may well be if invading Mexico ever entered your mind), you're probably OK with outrageous government spending, but there is still a great reason not to invade Mexico: the war would result in a refugee crisis that would increase illegal immigration, and the military would be too busy in Mexico to seal off the border.

If you're a Libertarian, you can easily surmise what will happen to the size and cost of government if the US becomes responsible for millions of additional people who have an even lower current standard of living than Americans have.

If you hate your fellow man, believe that profit justifies anything, don't care what happens to the American working class, don't care about the long-term stability of American government, don't care about the future of the volunteer military, and just feel all warm inside when you hear about Americans killing foreigners...
well, I'm not gonna lie to you- such a war is definately for you then.

I do not consider myself a republican or a democrat, I actually believe in the Constitution.

The President and Congress both have a Constitutional obligation to defend this country against foreign invasion, yet both have failed miserably.

Ah, so invading Mexico is now a constitutional imperative?

As I recall, the powers and responsibilities of the federal government are defined in spirit by the preamble and in letter by Article 1, Section 8.

The Constitution allows the federal government to:

• form a more perfect Union,
  
• establish Justice,
  
• insure domestic Tranquility,
  
• provide for the common defence,
  
• promote the general Welfare,
  
• and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

by means of wielding the power to:

• To lay and collect taxes...
  
• To borrow money...
  
• To regulate commerce with foreign nations...
  
• To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...
  
• To coin money, regulate the value thereof...
  
• To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting...
  
• To establish post offices...
  
• To promote the progress of science and useful arts...
  
• To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court...
  
• To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations
  
• To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal...
  
• To raise and support armies...
  
• To provide and maintain a navy
  
• To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
  
• To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
  
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia...

So, first, let us evaluate which goal of our government is met by stopping illegal immigration:

"Forming a more perfect union" is out categorically given the historical context in which that statement was included- that's boiler-plate language criticizing the lack of unity that existed under the articles of confederation, which our constitution violated by claiming to be capable of ratification with less than unanimous consent of the states.

"Establishing justice" isn't it- war has nothing to do with the establishment of the judiciary.

"Insuring domestic tranquility" can only be it if you consider this to mean maintaining a homogenously white, english speaking society. I don't see illegal immigrants starting race riots.

"Providing for the common defense" may be what you'll latch onto, but I don't see this so-called invasion mounting any military attacks on us, so you're contextually way off base if you intend to use that.

I'll skip ahead one to "secure the blessings of liberty". Obviously illegal immigrants aren't stripping us of our liberty.

"Promote the general welfare"- Aha! There's your best angle of attack. The general welfare is negatively affected by illegal immigration because the undocumented workforce depresses wages while simultaneously shrinking the tax base.

Alas, this is a domestic problem, and contextually there is no argument that the power to declare war is connected to this objective. Keep in mind that the original text of the constitution did not allow for a standing army. If there was not to be a standing army ready to use as an instrument of policy, clearly the power to declare war was not intended to address the ongoing perogatives of government but only the eventuality of defense.

Not only in terms of original intent in the constitution, but also in terms of practicality, other powers of government are far better suited to the responsibility to ensure the general welfare.

Given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and to collect taxes, and the power to make any laws necessary and proper to exercising those powers, the legal argument for using effective law enforcement to cause inviolable market principles (inviolable because at their core are a manifestation of self-interest) to yield the desired results is far less convoluted, and to sweeten the deal, the plan is also a lot more likely to work than waging a war, which we've already demonstrated we're really not very good at when it comes to objectives more complex than smashing armies and deposing tinpot dictators.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Ah, so invading Mexico is now a constitutional imperative?

Indeed it is, however not from Article 1 Section 8....


Article 4 Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

You realize that by "republican" they mean a representative government, not control by the Republican party right? (i'm kidding, I know it's the invasion and not the assurance of republican government you're leaning on).

But consider the last clause- domestic violence. That clearly adds context to the word invasion. It is referring to armed assaults, not simply the moving of people across a border. If that were not the case, the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 would not list the repelling of invasions and establishing a uniform law of naturalization separately.

So no invasion, in the constitutional sense of the word, is taking place.

I am very interested in why you have consistently elected not to comment on the much more clearly constitutional and much less morally objectionable alternative of actively enforcing the laws our government is empowered to make, thus eliminating the demand for illegal immigrant labor and thus cutting off the incentive for them to come here in the first place.

I don't understand why you keep coming back with this call for war wwithout even addressing the existence of the contention, twice presented already, that it would be cheaper, easier, more ethical, and more effective to get right at the root of this problem without killing anybody.

I don't mean to be accusatory but level with me here- you seem have some motive for wanting to talk exclusively about war with Mexico. Is this coming from a nationalist point of view? Class struggle? Ethno-centric? Militarist? Maybe you just REALLY wanna go to Mazatlan and wish it could have American-style infrastructure to save you money on bottled water? Help me understand this.

Originally posted by The Vagabond


But consider the last clause- domestic violence. That clearly adds context to the word invasion. It is referring to armed assaults, not simply the moving of people across a border. If that were not the case, the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 would not list the repelling of invasions and establishing a uniform law of naturalization separately.

I disagree. IMHO, the term domestic violence refers to revolution or insurrection.

So no invasion, in the constitutional sense of the word, is taking place.

Could you provide a source for your idea of the Consitutional sense of the word? Either a law dictionary from that time period or relevent writings from the founding fathers?

I am very interested in why you have consistently elected not to comment on the much more clearly constitutional and much less morally objectionable alternative of actively enforcing the laws our government is empowered to make, thus eliminating the demand for illegal immigrant labor and thus cutting off the incentive for them to come here in the first place.

it's not that I elected not to answer them, I think based upon the actions of our government, the likelihood of laws actually being enforced (or declaring war on mexico for that matter) will never happen. I personally believe it is either a globalist plan by our government, or some other reason (perhaps the mexican govt. has some incriminating info on Bush? but thats a whole nother topic). I know both will never happen, I posted this topic because it is a rarely discussed issue.

I don't understand why you keep coming back with this call for war wwithout even addressing the existence of the contention, twice presented already, that it would be cheaper, easier, more ethical, and more effective to get right at the root of this problem without killing anybody.

See my previous comment above.

I don't mean to be accusatory but level with me here- you seem have some motive for wanting to talk exclusively about war with Mexico. Is this coming from a nationalist point of view? Class struggle? Ethno-centric? Militarist? Maybe you just REALLY wanna go to Mazatlan and wish it could have American-style infrastructure to save you money on bottled water? Help me understand this.

IMO, mexico is rapidly gaining on Israel in terms of foreign governments that have too much involvement in our own government. Both influence policy that is not beneficial to the U.S. in anyway, yet either through bribes or other promises, our pathetic excuse for a government seems to put the interests of other nations ahead of our own.

it is quite obvious nothing will be done about the border problem, which will lead to one of two outcomes: A bloody civil war here in the U.S., or a reduction in our standard of living due to a mass influx of 3rd world immigrants.

The politicians here do not care what the American people think ( see thier little amnesty deal and how many supported it in the face of overwhelming objections by the American people).

I personally believe an event will happen that will ignite a war in the southwestern states between Americans and illegals and their supporters.

I propose war in mexico for one simple reason: better there than here.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So no invasion, in the constitutional sense of the word, is taking place.

I am willing to bet all my ATS points that at some point in time in the Roman Era, through some translation you will find those very words...

[edit on 8/19/2007 by TKainZero]

I've gotta warn you up front that I'm not exactly going kid-gloves in this little policy discussion of ours, and as a token of good will, so as not to be completely hostile towards you, I want to start on a point of agreement before proceeding to the points of contention. So you will find that I first reply to some of your last points.

I do want to be fair with you on the one thing you've said that I'd buy you a drink for saying. I fully agree with you that our government is complicit in the immigration problem. I believe it to be not only a globalist plot but a corporatist one.

I have written here on AP in the past on how undocumented workers who are allowed to evade taxes and collect public assistance are a way of subsidizing consumption to inflate the value of certain corporations.

The increased tax burden on American workers pushes the lower end of middle class into the working class, which is harmful to the goal of an ownership society. This in itself is a worthy goal for corporatists who seek to use employment as an instrument of tyranny, for which a man must foresake the exercise of his constitutional rights, without ever being officially stripped of them.

As a bonus, the money stolen from the American worker is placed into the hands of an exploited immigrant, who could not make it in this country under the oppression he faces if not given that bonus.

Why is he given it though? Because the powers that be want the illegal immigrant to have just enough to survive here, so that he can consume on a subsistence level in American dollars- this speeds the process of transfering America's wealth to multinational corporations whose industrial base is in non-democratic societies with lower standards of living- the kind of countries that the globalist/corporatist NWO wants to rule over.

The citizenry of America will only buy so many Chinese knicknacks and doodads at Walmart- if they make too much money, they will buy homes instead of rent, allocating a greater share of their income towards big ticket items rather than recurring purchases of small luxuries resulting in fewer retail sales and the development of an ownership society. This would make them harder to control and slow the movement of capital towards areas where it can be wielded with less regard for fairness.

To make a long and complex story short, the end result of illegal immigration is like getting Americans to make less and spend more, placing themselves in a position where they must obey their employers because they can't afford to organize and bargain. Now that's said, albeit very long windedly, and I hope that we find enough common understanding in all of that to disagree amicably, even if heatedly.


My point throughout the rest of this will be not that illegal immigration is not a problem, but that illegal immigration is a problem of financial exploitation and is best addressed through financial reforms, not a military problem to be addressed through military action.

Your answer in regard to why you focus on war as an answer seems disingenuous to me. You state that you find the enforcement of our laws unlikely. But in the same breath you say you find declaring war on Mexico unlikely. So why do you speak of one but not the other if both are unlikely. I'm a dillusional man, and the way I see it, if I'm gonna be dillusional, my dillusions may as well be pleasant ones. So I figure what the hell, while we're entertaining the idea that we can do something about all of this, let's entertain the idea that we can do it by targeting the real bad guys, not another group of poor working class schmucks who are just getting whacked with the other side of the same hammer that's beating us down.


Getting around to the beginning at last, on the first part you seem to have misunderstood me. Obviously domestic violence refers to a revolution of insurrection. I'm not saying that domestic violence refers to foreign invasion. I'm saying that the fact that the two are mentioned together gives an important context- We're talking about threats both foreign and domestic. It is explicit that the domestic threats must be violent in nature to qualify. That implies (on top of the heavy implicaition inherent to the word invasion itself) that the foreign threat as well must be violent to qualify.
The "invasion" of illegals is not explicitly violent/military in nature and therefore does not cause the government's charge under Article 4, Section 4 to be invoked.

From that rationale I draw the constitutional sense of the word invasion which you ask me to support. It's right there in the text.

However, if you would insist on an additional source, I recommend Federalist No. 3, the second of the federalist articles on the subject of dangers from foreign force and influence.
Full text at WikiSource

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.

At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.

Amazingly, I didn't have to capitalize those words for emphasis- John Jay did. The first sentence of the second quoted paragraph supports my own argument.

You may come back at me with the first sentence of paragraph 6 in the same document, but Mexico hasn't violated the treaty go Guadalupe Hidalgo- they aren't trying to govern the conceded territories, so in the absence of a treaty making them responsible for keeping our border secure, I don't see that one happening.


Now, having hashed out to constitutional argument, let's get back to the latest note, which is better there than here. As I began with, my question is, "why anywhere?".
Destroying the people of Mexico is a big, ugly, inhuman, not to mention inconvenient job. The angel on my left shoulder and the devil on my right shoulder are saying the same thing on this one- "why the hell would you wanna fight a war with Mexico?"

What they don't agree on is the alternative. The angel on my shoulder says that if Americans would think about their decisions, communicate, and above all, actually show up to vote in both the primaries and general elections, that would be enough to solve the problem. And it would be. A 60% victory with 75% voter turnout would be fraud-proof- there would either be such an overwhelming disparity between exit polls and results that an American "Orange Revolution" would be forced, or else reported voter turnouts would exceed 100%, with the same result. I figure it would take 2 hours a week, starting one year before primary elections. In other words, 1/3 as much time as the average American spends watching TV commercials. That would be plenty of time to sample dark horses, communicate, coordinate a draft campaign of an honest man, and get him elected.

Now, on the other hand, the Devil says how about a revolution here in America. At least then we're fighting the bad guys, not the other victims, and granted a revolution is a hell of a lot more realistic than thinking you can get Americans to ignore television commercials and read something that could help them save democracy (sad isn't it?). And we'd win that war just as easily as a war on Mexico- it'd be tough times afterward, but winning the revolution wouldn't be the hard part, or nearly as bloody as war with Mexico.

But any way you slice it- pure politics, or revolutionary reform in order to make politics viable, establishing a fair game here in America is where its at. If we got a government that would go to war with Mexico, that government would just fall under the influence of the Military Industrial Complex as a result and we'd be right back where we started, except ALL mexicans would be within the new borders of the US then.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by The Vagabond]

reply to post by TKainZero


Actually, the saying was very much the opposite in Rome. Hannibal Et Portes. How's your latin? I can translate that if you need.

Tell me when women and children are fleeing in panic at the words "Pablo is at the gates".

Now, will you be giving me those points by cash or check?

I cant disagree with any of that.

incidentally, I'm new here so maybe its something I'm not aware of, but is there a bug in the ATS software that prohibits quoting long posts? I tried to do this in one post, but the text box kept jumping around making BB code impossible to edit.




[edited out large quote)

[edit on 19-8-2007 by The Vagabond]

It sounds like you are describing a problem with character limits. A single post by a member can only contain a few thousand keystrokes. If you need more space, you have to make a second post to continue. It's not designed really to restrict how much you can post, but just to make people pay a little more attention to how long winded they are.

Back in the old days, before we had the limits, some of us (especially me, I'm embarrassed to admit) used to go on and on and on with quote-an-repsonse style posts that could be thousands of words long. I've literally had ATS posts that were longer and more detailed than term papers

So, if I make a post that is 5,000 characters long, and your character limit is 5,000 characters, then there is no room for you to add anything, and it will keep bouncing you back to the beginning of the post, wanting you to delete part of the quote to make room.


We have been asked to quote in moderation. There are a couple of threads explaining why.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The reader's digest version is that it breaks up the flow of threads, takes up server space, and hurts our google ratings when people make very large quotes, so its best to only quote enough to let people understand what you are replying to.

We recently included a "reply to" feature- at the top right corner of a post, click reply to, and instead of quoting, it will automatically generate the name of who you replied to, and a link that will take people to the whole post you are replying to.

Also, we don't quote the post directly above our own post... so if i'm replying to the last post on the thread, i don't quote it. Everyone just read it before they got to my post- they know what it says.


Its not a big thing- everyone has to learn as they go. Just something to keep in mind.

Sometimes it helps to divide a post into subjects without quoting.

example: "Vagabond, you mentioned that you're dillusional- I totally agree with that."
You also mentioned a second thing- see my previous statement in relation to that.
You also mentioned a third thing- see above."

I'm going to edit the quote out of your question, because of its size, but don't be offended, its just so another staff member doesn't come along and raise the same issue twice.

If you have any questions, always feel free to U2U me.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

My point throughout the rest of this will be not that illegal immigration is not a problem, but that illegal immigration is a problem of financial exploitation and is best addressed through financial reforms, not a military problem to be addressed through military action.

When people of one nation violate the sovereignty of another, why is that not a military problem?

Your answer in regard to why you focus on war as an answer seems disingenuous to me.

It was not. As I stated, this is a solution that is seldom, if ever talked about. Is it the best one? No, I have my own ideas of the most feasible way to stop illegal immigration : Extremely large fines and prison time for anyone found to employ illegals, as well as cutting off all social services illegals receive.

You state that you find the enforcement of our laws unlikely. But in the same breath you say you find declaring war on Mexico unlikely. So why do you speak of one but not the other if both are unlikely.

IMO, it is widely known and obvious that laws will never be enforced, plus on the internet that topic is debated ad nauseam. I always try to find alternative methods.

Getting around to the beginning at last, on the first part you seem to have misunderstood me. Obviously domestic violence refers to a revolution of insurrection. I'm not saying that domestic violence refers to foreign invasion. I'm saying that the fact that the two are mentioned together gives an important context- We're talking about threats both foreign and domestic. It is explicit that the domestic threats must be violent in nature to qualify. That lends implies (on top of the heavy implicaition inherent to the word invasion itself) that the foreign threat as well must be domestic to qualify.
The "invasion" of illegals is not explicitly violent/military in nature and therefore does not cause the government's charge under Article 4, Section 4 to be invoked.

I can see your point, but an invasion must not be an armed one in order to qualify as such. Even dictionaries make the distinction. What about retaliating against Mexico for the countless instances where their military has crossed our border and fired shots at our Border Patrol?

However, if you would insist on an additional source, I recommend Federalist No. 3, the second of the federalist articles on the subject of dangers from foreign force and influence.
Full text at WikiSource

Are borders not defacto treaties? From your source:The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence.

You may come back at me with the first sentence of paragraph 6 in the same document, but Mexico hasn't violated the treaty go Guadalupe Hidalgo- they aren't trying to govern the conceded territories, so in the absence of a treaty making them responsible for keeping our border secure, I don't see that one happening.

Do you completely discount the belief in the idea known as La Reconquista?

Destroying the people of Mexico is a big, ugly, inhuman, not to mention inconvenient job. The angel on my left shoulder and the devil on my right shoulder are saying the same thing on this one- "why the hell would you wanna fight a war with Mexico?"

I never said anything about destroying the people of mexico, simply the government and the military.

What they don't agree on is the alternative. The angel on my shoulder says that if Americans would think about their decisions, communicate, and above all, actually show up to vote in both the primaries and general elections, that would be enough to solve the problem. And it would be. A 60% victory with 75% voter turnout would be fraud-proof- there would either be such an overwhelming disparity between exit polls and results that an American "Orange Revolution" would be forced, or else reported voter turnouts would exceed 100%, with the same result. I figure it would take 2 hours a week, starting one year before primary elections. In other words, 1/3 as much time as the average American spends watching TV commercials. That would be plenty of time to sample dark horses, communicate, coordinate a draft campaign of an honest man, and get him elected.

No disagreement there.

Now, on the other hand, the Devil says how about a revolution here in America. At least then we're fighting the bad guys, not the other victims, and granted a revolution is a hell of a lot more realistic than thinking you can get Americans to ignore television commercials and read something that could help them save democracy (sad isn't it?). And we'd win that war just as easily as a war on Mexico- it'd be tough times afterward, but winning the revolution wouldn't be the hard part, or nearly as bloody as war with Mexico.

I am all in favor of a revolution here, however my discussion of it is limited until I get a better idea of who may be monitoring ATS.

But any way you slice it- pure politics, or revolutionary reform in order to make politics viable, establishing a fair game here in America is where its at.

Fair is very subjective though, life isnt fair, and it wont be fair for everyone here.

If we got a government that would go to war with Mexico, that government would just fall under the influence of the Military Industrial Complex as a result and we'd be right back where we started, except ALL mexicans would be within the new borders of the US then.

Why would going to war with mexico be any different than the various other wars we have entered? We are currently fighting 2 and the military industrial complex has stayed where it was prior to these conflicts.




[edit on 19-8-2007 by slackerwire]

[edit on 19-8-2007 by slackerwire]

reply to post by The Vagabond


That explains it all, thanks.

I believe that the violation of our borders is not chiefly a military problem because the threat is not violent in nature. The most common legitimate purpose military action is to defeat or preempt an act of aggression which will not be resolved in a just manner by other means.

Economic, diplomatic, and social problems can become military problems- the American Revolution provides a ready example, as does our Civil War, wherein aggression that was not entirely military in nature never the less was causing a tangible harm for which no redress could be found through non-violent means. However the doctrine of last resort is not merely a checklist item but a legitimate and serious tenet of international law with both moral and material implications which cannot be ignored.

I suggest that illegal immigration only becomes a military problem if it cannot be solved by other means. My suggestion from the beginning has been an economic solution. The motive for their coming here is, afterall, economic.

I propose that if a reformed American government (a necessity of either war or peaceful resolution, we have already mutually agreed) were to compell business interests to pay a fair wage to any employee whatsoever, and abide by our tax laws, not only under penalty of fines but of imprisonment, the chief advantage that an illegal immigrant has in job competition is eliminated. Therefore the American citizen or legal resident holds a distinct advantage by virtue of his likelihood to be better educated, the fact that he, unlike the illegal immigrant, has not demonstrated a willingness to commit a crime, etc.

The reduced demand for illegal labor reduces the incentive to immigrate illegally. If there is no incentive to do it, it will not be done. That's market forces for you- if you punish those who demand illegal labor, eliminating the demand, nobody will attempt to provide a supply. Problem solved, and nobody is dead.

Surprisingly it turns out that we agree on this. It makes me wonder if perhaps I spoke too generally regarding the use of "market forces" previously- as I have infact been attempting to communicate support for something it turns out you support as well. Appologies if I have hidden my communication amidst my speech.


As for alternate ideas, I have to rest on our previous agreement that war is as unlikely as enforcement of current laws- I hesitate to use the word "never" in regards toe either however. What must be remembered is that the world fundamentally operates on the fact that people take actions, and actions have consequences. Governments don't take actions, laws dont take actions, decreees dont take actions- people do. Governments can only ask people to take actions. It's our perogative to make things happen as we like, particularly in a democracy. Whether we think we will or think we won't, we're right either way.

While dictionaries provide for multiple meanings of the word invasion, the context of the constitution, especially with the reinforcement of the federalist papers, clearly indicate that the word was intended in the military since in this particular application.

True enough the Mexican military has been involved in low-level border hostilities ever since the treaty go Guadalupe Hidalgo (it might have something to do with the actions of fillibusters like William Walker). This is clearly unacceptable though, so I propose that we nuke Mexico City.

No, I make a point by way of hyperbole, and the point is proportional response. Have the Army attatch a squadron of Apaches to the border patrol, and next time they shoot at our boys, blow up the guys who are doing the shooting. I'm not a pacifist- if a guy shoots at me I strongly advise him to make the first shot a hit, because I do believe in shooting back. But I believe in shooting back at him. I don't believe that I should shoot back at him, then also go into his neighborhood and kill his family and all his friends and burn his house down (have you ever seen Unforgiven? I love that line).

I addressed your objection that borders are treaties before you even brought it up. If you will go back to the post you quoted, and look at the second paragraph after the quote of the external source, I said,

You may come back at me with the first sentence of paragraph 6 in the same document, but Mexico hasn't violated the treaty go Guadalupe Hidalgo- they aren't trying to govern the conceded territories, so in the absence of a treaty making them responsible for keeping our border secure, I don't see that one happening.

To clarify, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo establishes our border with Mexico, and is a recognition of our right to rule the on this side of the border. Mexico has not violated that because Mexico has not attempted to rule our territory. There is no treaty which makes Mexico responsible for keeping that border secure- it is our territory and it is our duty to secure it, not theirs. We have failed in that duty by not enforcing our existing laws.
If the argument were made that Mexico is responsible to make its citizens respect that border, then America is responsible for the actions of William Walker in his attempt to liberate Baja and Sonora. You might say William Walker wasn't government supported. It took an American court 8 minutes to find him not guilty. I call that a pretty strong endorsement from the judicial branch of our government.
And that's not even to mention (as I already did) that America violated the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo before the ink was even dry when we reneged on our pledge to respect property rights of Mexicans and Spaniards living in the ceded territories.

The reconquista is no answer to this argument unless it is the official policy of the government of Mexico. I know a thing or two about this reconquista business because the schools I grew up in were 70+% hispanic. My grandpa was a rancher who tangled with the UFW more than once around that time that people started turning up dead in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys.
The Reconquista is the official policy of 13 year old school children and demagogues who earn a living on delivering rhetoric but not results to the aging remains of chicano nationalist movements that fizzled in the 80s. I didn't encounter it in the Marine Corps. I didn't encounter it in college. I don't see it in the policies of Mexico. It delivers low five-figure amounts- political chump change- to a hand full of California politicians, and bitter also-rans.
I can't emphasize enough what a joke this fossil of a movement is. The boogieman is dead.


And lets not kid ourselves, destroying the government and military of Mexico is destroying the people of Mexico. The lagging civilian casualties of such operations are well documented realities of post Desert Storm strategic analysis. Smart weapons level populations and leave cities standing. It's a great for enabling people like George Bush to tell you "what a good sense of Iraq" they gained by flying over it, but it doesn't make things any better at street level.


The last issue is what a war would do for the MIC. Do you seriously claim that the MIC has not advanced during these wars? The increasing role of private military contractors? The proposal for a "Civilian Reserve Corps" in the State of the Union? (Justin Oldham did a great piece on that for us, you should look it up).

I gotta run for now. Will continue this later. Got a redhead to call.

I have a better idea.




The 51st state.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I have a better idea.

The 51st state.

Grady, you may have said that as a joke, but with our current border policies, we are just as well to do so.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by slackerwire
With the government encouraged invasion of our southern border, why shouldn't we declare war on Mexico?

Now what government are you refering to? The one that by decades has ignore to enforce there own laws or the government that can not provide to their citizens and as a result their residents have to flee to another country?

I think you underestimate what it means to leave the place that you call home and go to another country work hard for the minimum in order to sustain your family. You call it invasion, have you call your senator lately?

Instead of declaring war on Mexico, let's call war on corruption, on lobbyist, on businesses that contract them, on people that buy products that are pick up by illegals.

This is a problem of OUR own making, the fact that Mexican government don't act is because is not on their best interest. Should we blame them? Who should we blame? What is the root of the illegal inmigration problem? I don't think starts in Mexico, is starts right here my friend, think about that before you start calling out for military action against a country that has nothing to do with our own failing to enforce our own laws.

War on Mexico? Please!

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Bunch]

Actually, the saying was very much the opposite in Rome. Hannibal Et Portes. How's your latin? I can translate that if you need.
Now, will you be giving me those points by cash or check?

My Latin is terrible, i took one week of in it high school, and it basicly consisted meeting one girl and then dropping the class... But i belive that is "Hannibal is at the Gates" From when the Carthigian General Hannibal put Rome under 'Siege' in the 2nd Punic war in 212 BC, a siege that was purly a diversion in which Hannibal tried to get the Roman forces away from the City of Caupa about 40 miles south, and was under Hannibals Control as was much of sourthn Italy. Hannibal never had the Manpower to take Rome and after Caupa fell it was only a matter a time before Hannibal had to leave italy, but the fear Hannibal at the gates had was the 'catch phrase of fear' for the Roman world for almmost 700 years after that. Not quite what is going on with mexico/

What i am talking about is the the end of the Roman empire, when the people of the germanic and the Barbarian tribes in northern Eupore, begain to 'buy' thier way into the Roman empire and 'buy' citezenship in the last 100 years of the empire. These new barbairans were not acustumed to Roman ways, or language, so tell me, the new barbarians of today, who are they? I think we all know that... But now who is the Hannibal to Todays Rome? Ive got a few ideas. How about you.