14 year old RAPED by Illegals....keep em coming over!!!

[CID1990]

Robert E. Lee should've sacked DC when he had the chance...stupid Jefferson Davis wouldn't let him.

Anyway, now a practical solution to our illegal immigration problem: Take over Mexico.
A border with Guatamala will be easier to defend, Mexican factories will suddenly have to compete on an even playing field with American factories, access to more oil, no longer need a passport to vacation in Cancun or Cozumel, all the Mexicans want to be Americans anyway, and our national guard will be better able to deal with the drug lords. I see it as a major win.

Agreed. The last time we took Mexican land as a buffer against the Beaners it turned out to not be enough. I say we grab them all the way down to Cozumel this time. At least get some good beaches out of the deal. Port Aransas sucks.

[Chizzang]

Robert E. Lee should've sacked DC when he had the chance...stupid Jefferson Davis wouldn't let him.

Anyway, now a practical solution to our illegal immigration problem: Take over Mexico.
A border with Guatamala will be easier to defend, Mexican factories will suddenly have to compete on an even playing field with American factories, access to more oil, no longer need a passport to vacation in Cancun or Cozumel, all the Mexicans want to be Americans anyway, and our national guard will be better able to deal with the drug lords. I see it as a major win.

Agreed. The last time we took Mexican land as a buffer against the Beaners it turned out to not be enough. I say we grab them all the way down to Cozumel this time. At least get some good beaches out of the deal. Port Aransas sucks.

Don't laugh:
But in 2002 when we were gearing up for WMD's and PU238 in every tractor trailer in Iraq with giant factories building rockets etc... I suggested to my brother: "We'd be better off taking those troops and rolling through Mexico - rounding up all the corrupt politicians and drug families and setting up an honest to god Democracy - in a place that actually wants one"

Mexico: Makes more sense than attacking Iraq..!!!

[CID1990]

Agreed. The last time we took Mexican land as a buffer against the Beaners it turned out to not be enough. I say we grab them all the way down to Cozumel this time. At least get some good beaches out of the deal. Port Aransas sucks.

Don't laugh:
But in 2002 when we were gearing up for WMD's and PU238 in every tractor trailer in Iraq with giant factories building rockets etc... I suggested to my brother: "We'd be better off taking those troops and rolling through Mexico - rounding up all the corrupt politicians and drug families and setting up an honest to god Democracy - in a place that actually wants one"

Mexico: Makes more sense than attacking Iraq..!!!

In terms of the benefit to America, I'd say that invading Mexico would have been the better option.

Caveat to Grizzalltheway: I am not advocating the invasion of Mexico, I am being snarky.

[Chizzang]

Don't laugh:
But in 2002 when we were gearing up for WMD's and PU238 in every tractor trailer in Iraq with giant factories building rockets etc... I suggested to my brother: "We'd be better off taking those troops and rolling through Mexico - rounding up all the corrupt politicians and drug families and setting up an honest to god Democracy - in a place that actually wants one"

Mexico: Makes more sense than attacking Iraq..!!!

In terms of the benefit to America, I'd say that invading Mexico would have been the better option.

Caveat to Grizzalltheway: I am not advocating the invasion of Mexico, I am being snarky.

Snarky - but - TRUE..!!!

Seriously if we rolled into Mexico in 2003 - decimated the drug lords and Political system and pumped 10 billion a month into Mexico like we are Iraq - we'd have a shining example of Democracy today

I honestly believe that

[Skjellyfetti]

Robert E. Lee should've sacked DC when he had the chance...stupid Jefferson Davis wouldn't let him.

Anyway, now a practical solution to our illegal immigration problem: Take over Mexico.
A border with Guatamala will be easier to defend, Mexican factories will suddenly have to compete on an even playing field with American factories, access to more oil, no longer need a passport to vacation in Cancun or Cozumel, all the Mexicans want to be Americans anyway, and our national guard will be better able to deal with the drug lords. I see it as a major win.

When did Robert E. Lee have a chance to sack D.C.? Closest I could think of would be Manassas... but, Lee wasn't in command and no way the Confederates could have been organized enough to launch an invasion at that point.

And, you really think the Mexican - Guatemala border would be easier to defend than the Mexico - US border.....

Why?

At least you can see for miles across a desert.

You can't see shit... either from the ground or from the air across the Guatemala - Mexico border. It's miles and miles of sparsly populated, THICK jungle.

Seriously if we rolled into Mexico in 2003 - decimated the drug lords and Political system and pumped 10 billion a month into Mexico like we are Iraq - we'd have a shining example of Democracy today

I honestly believe that

Maybe this is sarcasm... but, we'd have a MUCH more difficult time invading Mexico than Iraq.

[CID1990]

Maybe this is sarcasm... but, we'd have a MUCH more difficult time invading Mexico than Iraq.

I dunno. We didn't have much problem with it in the 1840s, and the disparity between our respective militaries is much greater now than it was then.

It would make a nice tabletop exercise, though.

[Skjellyfetti]

Maybe this is sarcasm... but, we'd have a MUCH more difficult time invading Mexico than Iraq.

I dunno. We didn't have much problem with it in the 1840s, and the disparity between our respective militaries is much greater now than it was then.

It would make a nice tabletop exercise, though.

That's what people said about Iraq as well. "A nice tabletop exercise."

Mexico's military is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close. All of Iraq's equipment was incredibly outdated because of sanctions.

And, you're right. We didn't have much of a problem in the 1840's. If both armies fight in tight, orderly formations... we'd wipe them clean again.

I'm sure a military guy knows this... but, no 3rd world country (and, really no country at all for that matter) is going to fight us traditionally. They're all familiar with our problems in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mexico is far more of a mess than Iraq was in 2003. We'd be fighting the Mexican government with their Army, Air Force, and Navy... But what would end up fucking us would be from fighting the cartels with billions upon billions of dollars... and weapons and explosives out the wazoo.

Of course our military is of no comparison's to any other country's... but, Mexico give us far more of a hurting than Iraq or Afghanistan.

[native]

I dunno. We didn't have much problem with it in the 1840s, and the disparity between our respective militaries is much greater now than it was then.

It would make a nice tabletop exercise, though.

That's what people said about Iraq as well. "A nice tabletop exercise."

Mexico's military is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close. All of Iraq's equipment was incredibly outdated because of sanctions.

And, you're right. We didn't have much of a problem in the 1840's. If both armies fight in tight, orderly formations... we'd wipe them clean again.

I'm sure a military guy knows this... but, no 3rd world country (and, really no country at all for that matter) is going to fight us traditionally. They're all familiar with our problems in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mexico is far more of a mess than Iraq was in 2003. We'd be fighting the Mexican government with their Army, Air Force, and Navy... But what would end up **** us would be from fighting the cartels with billions upon billions of dollars... and weapons and explosives out the wazoo.

Of course our military is of no comparison's to any other country's... but, Mexico give us far more of a hurting than Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Mexico's army is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close...." ??!?!???

What the hell do you think you are trying to say, skelly? Is this post derived from the same inspiration as your enthusiastic proposal over on ags last year, to invade Pakistan?

You military analytical skills are both nonexistent and irrelevant. The salient part of this discussion in both Iraq and Mexico is not military, but political. What would be the justification for invasion and what would be the strategic objectives?

After the successful military invasion, how would we succeed at the required "nation-building," at which we have a very mixed record? I claim success in Germany and Japan, something less than success in the Philippines and Iraq.

[kalm]

The funny thing is Mexico has been invading us for years with the help of illegal employers and the war on drugs.

[native]

The funny thing is Mexico has been invading us for years with the help of illegal employers and the war on drugs.

I would like to see some serious jail time and successful civil suits against the employers, large and small, of illegal aliens.

[BDKJMU]

That's what people said about Iraq as well. "A nice tabletop exercise."

Mexico's military is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close. All of Iraq's equipment was incredibly outdated because of sanctions.

And, you're right. We didn't have much of a problem in the 1840's. If both armies fight in tight, orderly formations... we'd wipe them clean again.

I'm sure a military guy knows this... but, no 3rd world country (and, really no country at all for that matter) is going to fight us traditionally. They're all familiar with our problems in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mexico is far more of a mess than Iraq was in 2003. We'd be fighting the Mexican government with their Army, Air Force, and Navy... But what would end up **** us would be from fighting the cartels with billions upon billions of dollars... and weapons and explosives out the wazoo.

Of course our military is of no comparison's to any other country's... but, Mexico give us far more of a hurting than Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Mexico's army is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close...." ??!?!???

What the hell do you think you are trying to say, skelly? Is this post derived from the same inspiration as your enthusiastic proposal over on ags last year, to invade Pakistan?

You military analytical skills are both nonexistent and irrelevant. The salient part of this discussion in both Iraq and Mexico is not military, but political. What would be the justification for invasion and what would be the strategic objectives?

After the successful military invasion, how would we succeed at the required "nation-building," at which we have a very mixed record? I claim success in Germany and Japan, something less than success in the Philippines and Iraq.

When it comes to the military, Jelly is proving himself dumber than dirt

[native]

In terms of the benefit to America, I'd say that invading Mexico would have been the better option.

Caveat to Grizzalltheway: I am not advocating the invasion of Mexico, I am being snarky.

Snarky - but - TRUE..!!!

Seriously if we rolled into Mexico in 2003 - decimated the drug lords and Political system and pumped 10 billion a month into Mexico like we are Iraq - we'd have a shining example of Democracy today

I honestly believe that

Look, it was an inspired response to this thread and all,

...but you "really believe" that we would have created a "shining example of democracy today" had we invaded Mexico instead of Iraq?



You have some great - even inspired - ideas, cleets, but they are often untempered by facts or thoughtful analysis.

In some ways, I admire your incomparable ability to shoot before you aim and aim before you are ready. It provokes great conversation and an occasional keen insight.

I know you don't really care, but your irrational exuberance also undermines your credibility.

In any case, your fearless and careless disregard for facts or analysis offers superb entertainment!

[Chizzang]

Snarky - but - TRUE..!!!

Seriously if we rolled into Mexico in 2003 - decimated the drug lords and Political system and pumped 10 billion a month into Mexico like we are Iraq - we'd have a shining example of Democracy today

I honestly believe that

Look, it was an inspired response to this thread and all,

...but you "really believe" that we would have created a "shining example of democracy today" had we invaded Mexico instead of Iraq?



You have some great - even inspired - ideas, cleets, but they are often untempered by facts or thoughtful analysis.

In some ways, I admire your incomparable ability to shoot before you aim and aim before you are ready. It provokes great conversation and an occasional keen insight.

I know you don't really care, but your irrational exuberance also undermines your credibility.

In any case, your fearless and careless disregard for facts or analysis offers superb entertainment!

Thanks - I was beginning to think nobody appreciated my creativity



What else are we going to argue about..?
Seriously: the stuff that's already happened (like Iraq) lacks a dynamic element of fun to it...

[CitadelGrad]

That's what people said about Iraq as well. "A nice tabletop exercise."

Mexico's military is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close. All of Iraq's equipment was incredibly outdated because of sanctions.

And, you're right. We didn't have much of a problem in the 1840's. If both armies fight in tight, orderly formations... we'd wipe them clean again.

I'm sure a military guy knows this... but, no 3rd world country (and, really no country at all for that matter) is going to fight us traditionally. They're all familiar with our problems in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mexico is far more of a mess than Iraq was in 2003. We'd be fighting the Mexican government with their Army, Air Force, and Navy... But what would end up **** us would be from fighting the cartels with billions upon billions of dollars... and weapons and explosives out the wazoo.

Of course our military is of no comparison's to any other country's... but, Mexico give us far more of a hurting than Iraq or Afghanistan.

"Mexico's army is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close...." ??!?!???

What the hell do you think you are trying to say, skelly? Is this post derived from the same inspiration as your enthusiastic proposal over on ags last year, to invade Pakistan?

You military analytical skills are both nonexistent and irrelevant. The salient part of this discussion in both Iraq and Mexico is not military, but political. What would be the justification for invasion and what would be the strategic objectives?

After the successful military invasion, how would we succeed at the required "nation-building," at which we have a very mixed record? I claim success in Germany and Japan, something less than success in the Philippines and Iraq.

jellybelly likes to talk about things he doesn't understand. I'm not sure what he does understand. Appalachian studies, I suppose. And buggery.

[Skjellyfetti]

"Mexico's army is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close...." ??!?!???

What the hell do you think you are trying to say, skelly?

This is based on current figures... after we have pumped billions into beefing up Iraq's military. I think it's safe to assume their military is far better now than it was in 2003.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countrie ... detail.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish it had an option to compare Iraq's military in 2002 to Mexico's current military.

The salient part of this discussion in both Iraq and Mexico is not military, but political. What would be the justification for invasion and what would be the strategic objectives?

I know this. It was a silly hypothetical scenario that I was going along with. I didn't bring it up.

But, I haven't heard anyone give a reason why invading Mexico would be easier than Iraq...... except Citadel1990's point that it was easy in the 1840's.

So, anyone want to actually provide argument or just call me stupid?

[native]

"Mexico's army is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close...." ??!?!???

What the hell do you think you are trying to say, skelly?

This is based on current figures... after we have pumped billions into beefing up Iraq's military. I think it's safe to assume their military is far better now than it was in 2003.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countrie ... detail.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish it had an option to compare Iraq's military in 2002 to Mexico's current military.

The salient part of this discussion in both Iraq and Mexico is not military, but political. What would be the justification for invasion and what would be the strategic objectives?

I know this. It was a silly hypothetical scenario that I was going along with. I didn't bring it up.

But, I haven't heard anyone give a reason why invading Mexico would be easier than Iraq...... except Citadel1990's point that it was easy in the 1840's.

So, anyone want to actually provide argument or just call me stupid?

No, it's not safe to assume, you knucklehead. Even the pre-2003 Republican Guard that was decimated after 1991 would wipe the earth with the worthless Mexican Army.

Take a look at the current disparities in weaponry and funding:
Air-Based Weapons 651 (Iraq) vs 365 (Mexico)
Total Land-Based Weapons 8,380 vs 1,171
Towed Artillery Systems 2,250 vs 130
Defense Budget / Expenditure $17,900,000,000 va $6,070,000,000

The disparities would have been even greater in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But you cannot even begin to compare the combat experience among the troops or the ruthlessness of the political leadership.

Iraq was a lopsided decisive military victory, but it was not a cakewalk. Militarily, Mexico would be the biggest cakewalk in history.

"Nation building" would be an entirely different affair.

[Skjellyfetti]

Take a look at the current disparities in weaponry and funding:
Air-Based Weapons 651 (Iraq) vs 365 (Mexico)
Total Land-Based Weapons 8,380 vs 1,171
Towed Artillery Systems 2,250 vs 130
Defense Budget / Expenditure $17,900,000,000 va $6,070,000,000

LOL. Nice cherry picking.

Iraq has a decent sized Air Force now... but, in no way did they in 2003. They had 180 aircraft... only half of which were usable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856907.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why did you leave out all the other categories?

[native]

Take a look at the current disparities in weaponry and funding:
Air-Based Weapons 651 (Iraq) vs 365 (Mexico)
Total Land-Based Weapons 8,380 vs 1,171
Towed Artillery Systems 2,250 vs 130
Defense Budget / Expenditure $17,900,000,000 va $6,070,000,000

LOL. Nice cherry picking.

Iraq has a decent sized Air Force now... but, in no way did they in 2003. They had 180 aircraft... only half of which were usable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856907.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why did you leave out all the other categories?

The "cherry picking" was for your enlightenment and benefit. For example, Iraq's funding at triple Mexico's rate is not to be overlooked. Do you also judge Israel's military by numbers you don't understand in the first place?

Look, son, I don't want to call you names despite your invitation to do so. I was not trying to make you look bad by responding to your post. But you try the patience. The "military capabilites" argument is NOT one that you are equipped to undertake in such an arrogant fashion. Nor is it apparent that you want to actually learn anything. So be it.

Move on to political matters, where at least you stand up for your absurd ideas with some knowledge of the territory and a wider appreciation and understanding of at least some of the facts.

[Cap'n Cat]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/13/po ... latestnews


Maybe someday they will rape somebody that matters and our government will finally start protecting our citizens like we hired them to do.

"Penalty. Fifteen yards. Failure to use trustworthy news source. Loss of board cred."

[houndawg]

"Mexico's army is FAR better than Iraq's was in 2003. Not even close...." ??!?!???

What the hell do you think you are trying to say, skelly? Is this post derived from the same inspiration as your enthusiastic proposal over on ags last year, to invade Pakistan?

You military analytical skills are both nonexistent and irrelevant. The salient part of this discussion in both Iraq and Mexico is not military, but political. What would be the justification for invasion and what would be the strategic objectives?

After the successful military invasion, how would we succeed at the required "nation-building," at which we have a very mixed record? I claim success in Germany and Japan, something less than success in the Philippines and Iraq.

jellybelly likes to talk about things he doesn't understand. I'm not sure what he does understand. Appalachian studies, I suppose. And buggery.

Sounds like another blue chip recruit for the citadel.

[Cap'n Cat]

jellybelly likes to talk about things he doesn't understand. I'm not sure what he does understand. Appalachian studies, I suppose. And buggery.

Sounds like another blue chip recruit for the citadel.

Or YSU.


Lay off the Mexicans, they're good people.


"Si, Conkos! Escuchan ustedes a la Capitan Gato! Go peek on thee nee-goors and no los molestan La Raza"!!!!!!!!

[houndawg]

This is based on current figures... after we have pumped billions into beefing up Iraq's military. I think it's safe to assume their military is far better now than it was in 2003.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countrie ... detail.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish it had an option to compare Iraq's military in 2002 to Mexico's current military.



I know this. It was a silly hypothetical scenario that I was going along with. I didn't bring it up.

But, I haven't heard anyone give a reason why invading Mexico would be easier than Iraq...... except Citadel1990's point that it was easy in the 1840's.

So, anyone want to actually provide argument or just call me stupid?

No, it's not safe to assume, you knucklehead. Even the pre-2003 Republican Guard that was decimated after 1991 would wipe the earth with the worthless Mexican Army.

Take a look at the current disparities in weaponry and funding:
Air-Based Weapons 651 (Iraq) vs 365 (Mexico)
Total Land-Based Weapons 8,380 vs 1,171
Towed Artillery Systems 2,250 vs 130
Defense Budget / Expenditure $17,900,000,000 va $6,070,000,000

The disparities would have been even greater in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But you cannot even begin to compare the combat experience among the troops or the ruthlessness of the political leadership.

Iraq was a lopsided decisive military victory, but it was not a cakewalk. Militarily, Mexico would be the biggest cakewalk in hiastory.

"Nation building" would be an entirely different affair.

Military this, military that. We have the most powerful military the planet has ever seen and we are busy losing two wars with it. Pull your head out, military victories don't mean what they used to. In fact, as soon as we leave Afghanistan our military effort there won't mean a thing. Same with Iraq; another 10-15- years and we'll be looking for yet another counterweight to Iran to replace our last one and the current one. Le plus ca change.....

[Cap'n Cat]

No, it's not safe to assume, you knucklehead. Even the pre-2003 Republican Guard that was decimated after 1991 would wipe the earth with the worthless Mexican Army.

Take a look at the current disparities in weaponry and funding:
Air-Based Weapons 651 (Iraq) vs 365 (Mexico)
Total Land-Based Weapons 8,380 vs 1,171
Towed Artillery Systems 2,250 vs 130
Defense Budget / Expenditure $17,900,000,000 va $6,070,000,000

The disparities would have been even greater in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But you cannot even begin to compare the combat experience among the troops or the ruthlessness of the political leadership.

Iraq was a lopsided decisive military victory, but it was not a cakewalk. Militarily, Mexico would be the biggest cakewalk in hiastory.

"Nation building" would be an entirely different affair.

Military this, military that. We have the most powerful military the planet has ever seen and we are busy losing two wars with it. Pull your head out, military victories don't mean what they used to. In fact, as soon as we leave Afghanistan our military effort there won't mean a thing. Same with Iraq; another 10-15- years and we'll be looking for yet another counterweight to Iran to replace our last one and the current one. Le plus ca change.....

Word. Paper tigers.




Closed circuit to houndawg: Send more weed.

[GannonFan]

Military this, military that. We have the most powerful military the planet has ever seen and we are busy losing two wars with it. Pull your head out, military victories don't mean what they used to. In fact, as soon as we leave Afghanistan our military effort there won't mean a thing. Same with Iraq; another 10-15- years and we'll be looking for yet another counterweight to Iran to replace our last one and the current one. Le plus ca change.....

We lost Iraq? Really?

[Cap'n Cat]

Military this, military that. We have the most powerful military the planet has ever seen and we are busy losing two wars with it. Pull your head out, military victories don't mean what they used to. In fact, as soon as we leave Afghanistan our military effort there won't mean a thing. Same with Iraq; another 10-15- years and we'll be looking for yet another counterweight to Iran to replace our last one and the current one. Le plus ca change.....

We lost Iraq? Really?

Yup.

"Mission Accomplished"?