🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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

>> ).  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.

>Simply sealing the border against unauthorized crossing should
>be sufficient, and is necessary.

Wouldn't require any resumption in hostilities to do so.

>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.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                mrussotto@speakeasy.net
===== 
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it. 
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration.  This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm