🚀 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.
>
> >> 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
>

Are wetbacks breaking the law when they violate our border, or immigration laws?
Isn't it funny how leftists will support foreign invaders breaking our laws, but
they hate you Christians ou who want to exercise your constitutional right to march
in front of an abortion clinic.  They want you put in jail.