🚀 go-pugleaf

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> 
> In article <3D10C122.57AB6A3@earthops.net>,
> Tiny Human Ferret  <ixnayamspay_klaatu@earthops.net> wrote:
> >Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >>
> >> I doubt it, but even if it were so, so what?  The only penalty for violating
> >> a peace treaty is resumption of hostilities... which wouln't help you --
> >
> >Sure it would. It would put a rifle in my hand and not merely permission,
> >but encouragement -- nay, actual orders -- to use it.
> 
> You wouldn't make it past Basic.

You never know. 

> 
> >> suppose the US goes down and kicks Mexico's butt (and would there be any
> >> doubt?
> >
> >Yes. There are about 20 times as many Mexican nationals in the US as there
> >are US citizens under arms in the military. Attempting to fight a war
> >against an enemy which has already deployed into your heartland some 20
> >times your available forces, generally it's not thought to be militarily
> >sensible. And hence not done.
> 
> ROTFL.  Sure, there's lots of Mexican nationals.  Know what most of them
> would be doing?  Keeping their heads down like pretty much any
> civilians, that's what.  They aren't Swiss.  Know what the Mexicans here
> illegally would be doing?  Same thing, that's what. 

Including the infamous Mexican Mafia, the equally infamous 18th Street Gang,
and the MS-13? Oh, that's right, MS-13 is Salvadoran and not Mexican, so
sorry. 

> They aren't an
> invading army loyal to the Estados Unidos Mexico infiltrating the United
> States, no matter how much you may think so.

Illegal-alien gangs are in effect criminal foreign militias engaging in
operations -- continuing criminal enterprise, for that matter -- on US soil. 

> 
> >> ).  Now what?  The US must either annex the territory (which makes
> >> all those 'illegals' 100% legal, and as free to cross the state border
> >> as anyone else) or run Mexico as an occupied territory (a really bad
> >> idea).
> >
> >Resumption of hostilities need not be total, as I'm sure you're aware. "Low
> >intensity conflict" is the preferred mode for the US, and for most other,
> >militaries.
> 
> Low intensity conflict is simply a way of tossing away money and lives
> on the installment plan.  If you're going to fight a war, pick an
> objective and obtain it.

I agree. However, as you pointed out, those objectives aren't desirable,
being either annexation or occupation, eh?

> 
> >Simply sealing the border against unauthorized crossing should
> >be sufficient, and is necessary.
> 
> Wouldn't require any resumption in hostilities to do so.

Hey, to hear Presidente Fox speak of it, it will be a resumption of
hostilities for the US to fail to amnesty or "regularize" those 7.7 millions
of Mexican illegals known to be present in the US. 

> 
> >Since Mexico is not doing a sufficient job
> >of living up to their obligations to keep Mexicans in Mexico, we should
> >simply help poor Mexico live up to her obligations, which would simply be
> >the Us living up to its obligations under the treaty, which is to be a 'good
> >neighbor'. And good fences make good neighbors, do they not?
> 
> Not according to Frost, who didn't have much good to say about the neighbor.

<snips>
-- 
    Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth:  Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/