NationStates Jolt Archive

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

Meh.

Have you ever seen the OOB of the armed forces of Mexico?

It isn't exactly an OOB or a TOE meant to operate beyond its own borders.

I'm sorry, but even with all the American forces stationed throughout the world (Iraq, Afghanistan, S. Korea), Mexico wouldn't dare start an open war with the U.S.

They would lose, and they would lose badly...it's as simple as that.

I doubt it, Mexico isn't nutty enough to get into a war with the US and the US isn't going to go out of its way to pick a fight with Mexico.

Anything that happens will probably be smoothed over.

Might see another Battle of the Bands though, which would just be funny.

I have no love for the US but I have to agree, Mexico would likely find itself bombed into the dust if they attacked the National Guard, they don't have the men or the technology

I doubt if their army would be any more involved than palestine's army is. If we had a war with Mexico it would be our troops vs their citizens.

Why would Mexico attack US troops in the USA, anyway? Just because soldiers can see each other doesn't mean they start shooting each other. Even North/South Korea have been able to avoid that for the last fifty years.

I would betcha the U.S. would win within 7 days!:D

Whenever Bush says he is not going to do something, that usually means that is EXACTLY what he intends to do....:sniper:

I think not, neither side would be that silly. Perhaps though, making the border harder to cross will encourage Mexico to make the changes that will cause their people to want stay home. If they had the opportunities in Mexico that they find here there wouldn't be a problem.

Whenever Bush says he is not going to do something, that usually means that is EXACTLY what he intends to do....:sniper:

Will you stop trying to ruin a nice day?
*giggles*

Bush gave the National Guard a prison (Abu Garab) and what did they do? They dogpiled nakie ppl and took frat pictures with them. What do you think they will do with the mexcians they catch?

I would betcha the U.S. would win within 7 days!:D
Like they have in Iraq?

Bush gave the National Guard a prison (Abu Garab) and what did they do? They dogpiled nakie ppl and took frat pictures with them. What do you think they will do with the mexcians they catch?
Dude, are you trying to flamebait, or are you just bored tonight?

Dude, are you trying to flamebait, or are you just bored tonight?

1) its 7:30 AM here in Kansas, USA

2) I'm a woman

3) I may have a sharp delivery, but I am genuinely concerned that this will escalate into a fiasco. Remember the Alamo?

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers)

The Guard is better trained than many people seem to think. A lot of these Guardsmen who will probably go to the border have done at least one tour in Iraq, and a lot of Guardsmen spent time in the active Army before going in to the Guard. One of the worst things an opposing force could do is underestimate the Guard.

1) its 7:30 AM here in Kansas, USA

2) I'm a woman

3) I may have a sharp delivery, but I am genuinely concerned that this will escalate into a fiasco. Remember the Alamo?


3. As I seem to recall, Mexico lost that war too....

The Guard is better trained than many people seem to think. A lot of these Guardsmen who will probably go to the border have done at least one tour in Iraq, and a lot of Guardsmen spent time in the active Army before going in to the Guard. One of the worst things an opposing force could do is underestimate the Guard.

The proof is in the pudding.

Erm... not very likely. If it happens the Mexicans would probably let themselves be annexed and then move all to California.

Mexico going to war with the US over immigration issues is not a move that will help Mexico further their interests.
Its not going to happen.

Mexico have been planning for this war for years. They have slowly infiltrated a huge highly trained army into the US disguised as cheap labour. How can they lose.

Mexico have been planning for this war for years. They have slowly infiltrated a huge highly trained army into the US disguised as cheap labour. How can they lose.

Trained in what?

I seem to recall that kind of story about German waiters being a trained infiltrating army during the Naval Scare of 1908. Twas bollocks then, tis bollocks now.

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

Well, since only Congress can declare war... No. :D

yes there could be some scuffles along the border. things like that happen when you have people deployed in tough circumstances. some ng guy could chase a drug mule across the border, for example, then be met by the mexican army on the other side. shit could happen.

not very likely but it could

but since we are good friends with mexico, it doesnt have the potential to escalate into war. there just arent the tensions between countries that are required to let a small violation get that out of hand.

The Guard is better trained than many people seem to think. A lot of these Guardsmen who will probably go to the border have done at least one tour in Iraq, and a lot of Guardsmen spent time in the active Army before going in to the Guard. One of the worst things an opposing force could do is underestimate the Guard.
Or overestimate them. They will probably end up shooting some one or two on accident and all hell will break loose.

War with Mexico would be like Chuck Norris fighting a small child.

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers)

Actually... they are soldiers and they train constantly so this statement is false.

to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence?

Hey.. Mexican troops were already seen on the US side of the border. I call that a breach of Security.

What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops?

Which would seem prudent.. especially if Mexico wants to start something.

What if Bush's last act before impeachment

Impeachment isn't going to happen.

is to start a war with Mexico?

What if Mexico starts it?

What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

Nope.

Impeachment isn't going to happen.
Yeah, everyone is too stupid to do something obvious like impeach Bush. Maybe if we can frame him for getting a blowjob...

Bush gave the National Guard a prison (Abu Garab) and what did they do? They dogpiled nakie ppl and took frat pictures with them. What do you think they will do with the mexcians they catch?

And guess what? Those that were involved have been punished and tossed out of the military with a dishonorable discharge and have been tossed into the brig for their crimes.

Like they have in Iraq?

Well the war did last less than a month.

War with Mexico would be stupid. We don't have big enough internment camps to hold all the Mexican Americans or their sympathizers (like me).

Someone also do me a favor and look up the number of Hispanic Americans in the US Military.

1) its 7:30 AM here in Kansas, USA

Oh I was already up and awake at this time.

2) I'm a woman

Congrats. Want a medal?

3) I may have a sharp delivery, but I am genuinely concerned that this will escalate into a fiasco. Remember the Alamo?

Oh brother. You would have to use a battle that took place during the Texas War for Independence where all the defenders where wiped out by General Santa Ana's army.

The Guard is better trained than many people seem to think. A lot of these Guardsmen who will probably go to the border have done at least one tour in Iraq, and a lot of Guardsmen spent time in the active Army before going in to the Guard. One of the worst things an opposing force could do is underestimate the Guard.

Agreed 100%

3. As I seem to recall, Mexico lost that war too....

Yes they did and got trounched in 1848 as well.

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

No. Fox is Bush's brown-nose.

What if Mexico starts it?

Why would Mexico start it?

Or overestimate them. They will probably end up shooting some one or two on accident and all hell will break loose.

I spent quite a bit of time around Guard units, and there are a number of them that I'd gladly put up against Regular forces from anywhere in the world. Of course there are some that I wouldn't want up against Boy Scout Troop #4298 but such is the nature of things.

Anyway, I think stopping a military invasion by Mexico wouldn't be too difficult for the Guard, but an invasion OF (and occupation of) Mexico would be biting off a lot more than we can chew.

Why would Mexico start it?

To take back the taco.

Anyway, I think stopping a military invasion by Mexico wouldn't be too difficult for the Guard, but an invasion OF (and occupation of) Mexico would be biting off a lot more than we can chew.
Nah, just stay away from the hot salsa and you should be fine.

To take back the taco.
After taco-bellization? No, thanks, you can keep it.

Hehehehe, don't you think that if US invades Mexico, the drug dealers, would help them? :sniper: :mp5: Narcos have probably better weapons and training than the National Guard.

After taco-bellization? No, thanks, you can keep it.

We just had a proper Mexican restaurant open up in town a couple of years ago, so I finally found out what real Mexican food is. Now, every time I drive past Taco Bell I think about burning it to the ground for the filthy lies it told me.

After taco-bellization? No, thanks, you can keep it.

Rofl ... hey now ... a Mexican immigrant started Taco Bell. :p

Hi im English so this issue doesnt concern me much but i know that a war with mexico means a war with Latin america and the usa doesnt want that as many oil researves and cheap goods come from their.

I would also like to take the time to say 18% of the Usa population is Latin American this minority grows By 0.5% each year so eventually the Usa itself will be a latin american state .

Hi im English so this issue doesnt concern me much but i know that a war with mexico means a war with Latin america and the usa doesnt want that as many oil researves and cheap goods come from their.

Actually, I do not think Latin America will get involved. They know that we do not have to invade them to ruin them.

Actually, I do not think Latin America will get involved. They know that we do not have to invade them to ruin them.


Oh trust me the amount of oil in south america they can ruin the Usa very easily and venusuela and cuba have a very good army but even still i do not think there will be war Mexico has nothing to gain from war

about 241,000 troops in the Mexican army (according to wiki)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Mexico

Oh trust me the amount of oil in south america they can ruin the Usa very easily and venusuela and cuba have a very good army but even still i do not think there will be war Mexico has nothing to gain from war

Cuba wouldn't do anything because if they did, we just bomb the snot out of them. Also, they do not have the maritime capacity to send troops and if they try to airlift, they wouldn't last.

Venezuela is in the same boat as Cuba. They have problems closer to home to deal with. They also do not have the capacity to send troops and ships to combat the United States. And since most of our navy is runned on Nuclear power.....

1) its 7:30 AM here in Kansas, USA

2) I'm a woman

3) I may have a sharp delivery, but I am genuinely concerned that this will escalate into a fiasco. Remember the Alamo?

We kicked mexico and Santa Anna's butt at the Alamo. 160 or so Texans against a few K of Mexicans.

You don't hear the Mexicans saying "Remember the alamo" do you? You hear Texans say it. It should be our State motto, but no, we gotta be PC about it.

Heck, this is the way I see it.

A few hundred minutemen gather on the border, most armed with only HANDGUNS (Which are piss poor weapons to begin with) and the Mexican government sent something like a batallion. That says much about their paranoia.

Texas> Laraza Azatlan

We kicked mexico and Santa Anna's butt at the Alamo. 160 or so Texans against a few K of Mexicans.

Umm yea... dude? Texas lost EVERYONE at the Alamo. It was at San Jucinto that Santa Anna got his butt kicked.

Bush gave the National Guard a prison (Abu Garab) and what did they do? They dogpiled nakie ppl and took frat pictures with them. What do you think they will do with the mexcians they catch?

"Don't ask, Don't Tell" This is what happens when you repress your homosexuality. It bursts out in unexpected ways.

The BEST thing for all parties id for the US to annex Mexico and make the provences states the Mexicans will no long be illieagel they will be entiled to Constitutional protection and minimum wage.The US gains a smaller more secure souther border.



What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

Umm yea... dude? Texas lost EVERYONE at the Alamo. It was at San Jucinto that Santa Anna got his butt kicked.

Because we chose to stay and fight, not cut and run.

They have a GREAT military for the Third world backwaters that they are. :rolleyes:

Oh trust me the amount of oil in south america they can ruin the Usa very easily and venusuela and cuba have a very good army but even still i do not think there will be war Mexico has nothing to gain from war

Umm yea... dude? Texas lost EVERYONE at the Alamo. It was at San Jucinto that Santa Anna got his butt kicked.

It was a Pyrrhic victory at best for the Mexican Army.

The BEST thing for all parties id for the US to annex Mexico and make the provences states the Mexicans will no long be illieagel they will be entiled to Constitutional protection and minimum wage.The US gains a smaller more secure souther border.

No because then that country would drain the US of cash without providing anything in return. Sort of like decriminalizing murder-it still gonna happen, people are still gonna die, it's just not a crime anymore.

No war with Mexico will happen. People should stop being so worried abou t any war. Personally, I find puting the National Guard on the boarder ridiculous but I find that the president is at least attempting to find a compromise for the sides in the whole immigration issue.

Well the war did last less than a month.
Have you read a newspaper or watched the news on TV recently?
eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4772195.stm
"US Helicopter shot down in Iraq" . . .yesterday.

Because we chose to stay and fight, not cut and run.

I am not questioning the bravery of those people who fought. Just telling you that we lost and that Texas lost the Alamo.

It was a Pyrrhic victory at best for the Mexican Army.

Now that is true it was. They suffered to many casualties at the Alamo.

Have you read a newspaper or watched the news on TV recently?
eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4772195.stm
"US Helicopter shot down in Iraq" . . .yesterday.

I said that the war was over. I didn't say the insurgency was over. There is a difference between the two.

The BEST thing for all parties id for the US to annex Mexico and make the provences states the Mexicans will no long be illieagel they will be entiled to Constitutional protection and minimum wage.The US gains a smaller more secure souther border. That is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. First, Mexicans still want national sovereignity. Second, the United States would have to provide for another 100 Million people who are in general poorer than the average American. The United States has enough problems with her economy right now, now imagine if 100 Million more people with a lower-standard of living and a higher crime rate became a state, no one would like it.

Bush and friends are using the immigration issue to cover up his poor handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's working!!!!!

Bush and friends are using the immigration issue to cover up his poor handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's working!!!!!

Oh brother. This fight has been going on prior to the Bush Administration. Due try to remember that.

I am not questioning the bravery of those people who fought. Just telling you that we lost and that Texas lost the Alamo.



Now that is true it was. They suffered to many casualties at the Alamo.

Bought time for the other Texan army to ambush the Mexicans at San Jacinto.

Goliad and The Alamo were rallying points for Texas and it's war for independence.

Bush and friends are using the immigration issue to cover up his poor handling of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's working!!!!!

I think it's the other way around-the piss poor handling of the immigration issue is dragging him down.

Now that is true it was. They suffered to many casualties at the Alamo.
No, they didn't. Santa Anna took 13 days to get his troops together that had stretched very far in the trek from central Mexico, but when he had them all nice and organized and decided to attack the assault lasted like 15 minutes. There were some casualties, of course, but no more than was expected of taking a fortified position.

His failure at tactics made him lose later at San Jacinto, and his cruelty at El Alamo served to incense Texian troops, but that doesn't make El Alamo a pyhrric victory.

Bought time for the other Texan army to ambush the Mexicans at San Jacinto.

Actually, the Texan army was on the run. The two Mexican armies were hot on their heels, but Santa Anna allowed his lines to stretch too thin again and that made it easy for the Texans to ambush them.

No, they didn't. Santa Anna took 13 days to get his troops together that had stretched very far in the trek from central Mexico, but when he had them all nice and organized and decided to attack the assault lasted like 15 minutes. There were some casualties, of course, but no more than was expected of taking a fortified position.

out of 1600 soldiers, about 400 of those died. That's a fourth of his army against 160-250 defenders. Yea...he suffered casualties exceding the number of defenders at the Alamo.

His failure at tactics made him lose later at San Jacinto, and his cruelty at El Alamo served to incense Texian troops, but that doesn't make El Alamo a pyhrric victory.

Despite the fact that he suffered more casualties than were defenders? Yes it was.

out of 1600 soldiers, about 400 of those died. That's a fourth of his army against 160-250 defenders. Yea...he suffered casualties exceding the number of defenders at the Alamo.

Despite the fact that he suffered more casualties than were defenders? Yes it was.
That's what's expected when taking a fortified position. Look at it this way: Santa Anna lost 25% of his forces. The defenders lost 100%. And he still had the second army.

If you want a semi-recreation of the alamo, look at how well Blackwater took care of it's compound during one of the insurgencies in Fallujah. None of them died (none of the defenders) but they sure did make life miserable for anyone within 800 meters of their compound.

That's what's expected when taking a fortified position. Look at it this way: Santa Anna lost 25% of his forces. The defenders lost 100%. And he still had the second army.

He may have had a second army but the fact is, an army should not take more casualties than defenders. That is precisely what happened at the Alamo. Four hundred troops dead compared to 250? The defenders still might have suffered 100% casualties but the point remains that the Mexican casualties were nearly DOUBLED over the Texan's casualties.

He may have had a second army but the fact is, an army should not take more casualties than defenders. That is precisely what happened at the Alamo. Four hundred troops dead compared to 250? The defenders still might have suffered 100% casualties but the point remains that the Mexican casualties were nearly DOUBLED over the Texan's casualties.
So, would you say that the defense of Stalingrad was a failure because the defenders took waaay more casualties than the attackers? Or that Vietnam was a victory because the US killed far more VC than suffered losses?

out of 1600 soldiers, about 400 of those died. That's a fourth of his army against 160-250 defenders. Yea...he suffered casualties exceding the number of defenders at the Alamo.



Despite the fact that he suffered more casualties than were defenders? Yes it was.

He got softened up for San Jacinto. Hey, Even the hardcore all mighty savior of greater mexico needs to take his siesta, no?

That's what's expected when taking a fortified position. Look at it this way: Santa Anna lost 25% of his forces. The defenders lost 100%. And he still had the second army.

160 farmers, bankers, frontiersmen and other men cut off a quarter of santa anna's army. The 160 were good, but that's gotta say something for you when your army is cut by 25% by semi-professional soldiers.

Yarrr! This thread has been hijacked! Ahoy!

So, would you say that the defense of Stalingrad was a failure because the defenders took waaay more casualties than the attackers?

Actually... I expected the USSR to take more casualties for they were on the defensive. It was still a USSR victory just like the Alamo was still a victory for the Mexican Army.

Or that Vietnam was a victory because the US killed far more VC than suffered losses?

Since this has nothing to do with Mexico, I'm not going to answer it.

So, would you say that the defense of Stalingrad was a failure because the defenders took waaay more casualties than the attackers? Or that Vietnam was a victory because the US killed far more VC than suffered losses?

The Texans didn't have a crappy ROE to deal with like Americans many years later died in nam.

So, would you say that the defense of Stalingrad was a failure because the defenders took waaay more casualties than the attackers? Or that Vietnam was a victory because the US killed far more VC than suffered losses?

Soviets were on home turf. Plus they had gazillions of draftees to pick to form into new armies.

160 farmers, bankers, frontiersmen and other men cut off a quarter of santa anna's army. The 160 were good, but that's gotta say something for you when your army is cut by 25% by semi-professional soldiers.

The Mexican army wasn't that well equipped either, mostly very old rifles. And although it had professional officers and a number of professional soldiers, most of it was made up of recruited peasants. So, it's not like it was the British army they were fighting against.

Actually... I expected the USSR to take more casualties for they were on the defensive. It was still a USSR victory just like the Alamo was still a victory for the Mexican Army.

Since this has nothing to do with Mexico, I'm not going to answer it.
Just goes to show that it's more than just the numbers.

Lightbulb War with Mexico
What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

Interesting question, highly unlikely, hopeful, LOL, ROTFLOLLMGDAO, ROTFLOL, improbable to the point of being impossible.

Well the war did last less than a month.

I've seen you post some silly stuff, but I thought that took the cake.

Until I read this:

I said that the war was over. I didn't say the insurgency was over. There is a difference between the two.

And all ya'll need to go back to the history books on the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas Revolution....

Hmm...yes, I do believe that Texas handily defeated Mexico and won its independence in 1836, and then was annexed as a state in 1845. The United States then went on to march into Mexico City in 1848, netting itself a treaty that turned the Southwest into U.S. territory. (If any of those years are wrong, please tell me and I'll make a note to study up on this again.) That said, I must note that we are talking about the early-to-mid 19th Century.

But how foolish of me, to think that anything has changed in over 150 years. Please forgive my impertinence.

:headbang:

Sarcasm aside, in the unlikely event of a conflict, one thing has not changed: the U.S. will have superior technology and strategy, and Mexico will have strength in numbers. It shouldn't come to war, though. Most immigrants, legal or not, are just here to settle down and make a better life for themselves (although this puts a terrible strain on schools and hospitals near the southern border). Only a small percentage come here as drug runners and other kinds of criminals, and as far as I can tell, those immigrants shouting for a "Reconquista" of the Southwest do not have many supporters. Besides, why would Mexico want to fight us? They would only kill the proverbial Golden Goose.

Consider this story: In 2002, I got a summer job as a clerk at my local 7-Eleven. While I worked there, an immigrant or pair of immigrants would sometimes enter the store and ask me to create a rather large money order for him/them (they were always male, I noted). I have no proof as to what these money orders were for, but since the same people kept coming back every week or so, I surmised that they were sending money back to their families in Mexico. I don't know the current currency exchange rate, but I'm willing to bet that a dollar is worth a lot of pesos, and these were large money orders. Either the folks/wife and kids back home were being well provided for, or they were getting ready to cross the border themselves and needed to pay some random coyote's blatant extortion of a fee. So there's that to consider: a lot of the money paid illegal immigrants under the table could find its way into Mexico's coffers--albeit to make life better for the immigrants' loved ones, a goal I hope all of us would strive for were we in their position. Mexico wouldn't want war with the U.S. because it would disrupt that cash flow.

But because of our overtaxed infrastructure, we have to secure the border, and not with all those Guardsmen. We should expand the Border Patrol far beyond the 6,000 new jobs that President Bush talked about last night, actually fund it for a change, and stop the illegal immigrants more effectively while allowing a friendly degree of legal immigration. No doubt there will be talks with Mexico, and compromises, but the important thing to remember is that we're all humans here. If we just talk to one another, we'll figure something out without coming to blows over it.

(And while we're talking, you can teach us Spanish while we teach you English. It'll go a lot smoother that way.)

the mexican president is pissing me off. he has encouraged illegal immigration and has tried to make it easier for them (maps etc...) and now he is trying to say that putting national guards on the border is not a good idea.

the mexican president is pissing me off. he has encouraged illegal immigration and has tried to make it easier for them (maps etc...) and now he is trying to say that putting national guards on the border is not a good idea.

Just let him try something. He's just mad because we are doing something to stop this nonsense and if he doesn't like it, well its just to damn bad. We have the right to control our borders anyway we seem fit.

Just let him try something. He's just mad because we are doing something to stop this nonsense and if he doesn't like it, well its just to damn bad. We have the right to control our borders anyway we seem fit.
Most Mexicans don't agree with his policy of "why create jobs in Mexico if we can send the unemployed to the US." The good news is that he only has a few more months left in office. The bad news is that none of the other candidates look like an improvement.

Most Mexicans don't agree with his policy of "why create jobs in Mexico if we can send the unemployed to the US." The good news is that he only has a few more months left in office. The bad news is that none of the other candidates look like an improvement.

Great. Just great. :(

Get used to the idea it WILL happen within the next 20 years

That is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. First, Mexicans still want national sovereignity. Second, the United States would have to provide for another 100 Million people who are in general poorer than the average American. The United States has enough problems with her economy right now, now imagine if 100 Million more people with a lower-standard of living and a higher crime rate became a state, no one would like it.

the mexican president is pissing me off. he has encouraged illegal immigration and has tried to make it easier for them (maps etc...) and now he is trying to say that putting national guards on the border is not a good idea.

Fox's biggest source of national income is money sent back from the US. Go figure.

Have you read a newspaper or watched the news on TV recently?
eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4772195.stm
"US Helicopter shot down in Iraq" . . .yesterday.
Just wanted to point out that two Apache helicopters were SHOT DOWn in WYOMING, no one is saying there is a WAR in Wyoming.

The WAR ended quickly. The Insurgency will continue for along time.


Alamo- A military victory, though costly, for Mexico. A morale, political, and social victory for the Texans.

:rolleyes: This has to be one of the dumbest things I've read on NS. A war with Mexico? Ridiculous, it will never happen. This entire immigration subject is just another smoke screen issue set up to deflect attention from the real crimes being commited in Washington. And again, the idiocy of the American people never fails to deliver. They take the bait and all of the media crap being fed to them and ignore the real problems. Problems like the Presidents criminal activities and eroding the Constitution, illegal NSA monitoring of citizens, security issues and wrangling within the CIA, posturing against Iran and Venezuela, spiraling energy costs, the list goes on.

America, you get what you deserve.

Rant over:upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

I like it when ignorant people like you speak. Makes me warm and fuzzy.

I like it when ignorant people like you speak. Makes me warm and fuzzy.

LOL

Like they have in Iraq?Iraq is a totally different story. That was a blantent and cheap shot. though some people think this occupation was not a smart idea, in some ways it was....but that is off subject anyway (I prefer not to argue about that situation). The mexican border guard has been proven to be more well armed than their own military, on another note the mexican economy is in such disaray that they couldn't fight AND supply a war for an extended period of time. Why do you think so many of the mexicans try to get into the U.S. other than freedom? JOBS!!!!!! Something that Mexico obviously has problems supplying. There currency isn't even worth that material its made of. I seriously doubt that a war will break out and if it did why would you consider the MExican government a threat when they can't even control the people of mexico.

And since most of our navy is runned on Nuclear power.....

Runned? Did you say runned on nuclear power?

ROFL You should get a job at the white house....:p

Runned? Did you say runned on nuclear power?

ROFL You should get a job at the white house....:p

How about running on nuclear power? or runs on nuclear power. Or how about nuclear powered ships. I could go on but the point is there.

Regarding President Vincente Fox of Mexico: Just let him try something. He's just mad because we are doing something to stop this nonsense and if he doesn't like it, well its just to damn bad. We have the right to control our borders anyway we seem fit.

This is my concern. If even 10% of the National Guard have this attitude, armed conflict will be inevitable. Emotions run high. Guns are involved. People are desparate.

Just wanted to point out that two Apache helicopters were SHOT DOWn in WYOMING, no one is saying there is a WAR in Wyoming.


Man, I would hate to get shot down over WYOMING. Isn't that where all those ranchers are playing "drop the soap"?

"I can't quit you, man..."

Regarding President Vincente Fox of Mexico:

This is my concern. If even 10% of the National Guard have this attitude, armed conflict will be inevitable. Emotions run high. Guns are involved. People are desparate.

LOL! Oh brother. The Guard won't do anything since they will actually be behind the scenes. Did you hear that part?

Iraq is a totally different story. That was a blantent and cheap shot. though some people think this occupation was not a smart idea, in some ways it was....but that is off subject anyway (I prefer not to argue about that situation). The mexican border guard has been proven to be more well armed than their own military, on another note the mexican economy is in such disaray that they couldn't fight AND supply a war for an extended period of time. Why do you think so many of the mexicans try to get into the U.S. other than freedom? JOBS!!!!!! Something that Mexico obviously has problems supplying. There currency isn't even worth that material its made of. I seriously doubt that a war will break out and if it did why would you consider the MExican government a threat when they can't even control the people of mexico.

I agree. That's why you don't hear about Taco Bells down in Mexico. That's because not only do they traffic in drugs, the mexican border guard is Taco Bueno's private thug service.

Competition is tight in the mexican food business...

LOL! Oh brother. The Guard won't do anything since they will actually be behind the scenes. Did you hear that part?

The govt always tells the guard that they will be "behind the scenes" and they always end up on the front line.

The govt always tells the guard that they will be "behind the scenes" and they always end up on the front line.

They'll be behind the scenes.

Regarding President Vincente Fox of Mexico:

This is my concern. If even 10% of the National Guard have this attitude, armed conflict will be inevitable. Emotions run high. Guns are involved. People are desparate.

Guns don't play a part in it (We all should know). The guard is perfectly suited for this. This is a threat against their own state (And many others).

OK. This is stupid. $1178.00 a year in tax burdens from illegal aliens, c'mon! I make more than that a month!

Quote from MSNBC
"In California, the state with the highest population of foreign-born residents, citizen households were saddled with an annual tax burden of $1,178 from the use of public services by immigrants, according to the study."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12801084/

I would betcha the U.S. would win within 7 days!:D


7 days?

how about 7 minutes..some serious airpower that doesnt need to refuel...shit..they would last maybe seconds.

that said....if the mex gov had the audacity/stupidity to openly attack the continental us...they would have a revolt/revolution in seconds on their hands.
americans and mexicans have deep roots and many family ties that cross the border.
most americans care deeply for our southern brothers,and most mexicans like and enjoy our country,and i will say....we have a right to protect our borders,they know it,they may not like it..but they aint stupid...it is every countries right to protect the borders of their homeland.
just like you have a right to defend your home.
it might piss off the tresspasser,but even he knows he dont belong there.

therefore...most mexicans would probably take up arms against their own government in support of us..if not..they would be dust in moments,and they know it like they know they dont want a million salvadorans cutting across their yard.

Mexican troops have already violated our national boundaries a few months ago. they were chased back over. let it begin. remember the alamo! And we beat them at San Jacinto.

1) its 7:30 AM here in Kansas, USA

2) I'm a woman

3) I may have a sharp delivery, but I am genuinely concerned that this will escalate into a fiasco. Remember the Alamo?If you remember the Alamo you are almost certainly the oldest woman in Kansas

War is already upon us.

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org
http://www.predatoryaliens.com

If any US President attempts to enforce immigration laws, our cities will burn because that it is in their nature. No national government can provide a solution. No election or legislation will solve this clash of civilizations (between Latin and Anglo populations). If will all come down to how fast we can put assault rifles and grenades into the hands of males between age 16 and 45. A war between the US and Mexico will NOT resemble the Allies vs. Axis of WWII. It will resemble the three-way shootout between Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia, complete with mass graves, rape camps and a million land mines. In the cities, it will resemble the warlord vs. warlord combat of Somalia and SubSahara Africa.

This is Malthusian prophecy unfolding. Maybe H5N1 isn't such a bad thing after all...:upyours:

War is already upon us.

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org
http://www.predatoryaliens.com

If any US President attempts to enforce immigration laws, our cities will burn because that it is in their nature. No national government can provide a solution. No election or legislation will solve this clash of civilizations (between Latin and Anglo populations). If will all come down to how fast we can put assault rifles and grenades into the hands of males between age 16 and 45. A war between the US and Mexico will NOT resemble the Allies vs. Axis of WWII. It will resemble the three-way shootout between Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia, complete with mass graves, rape camps and a million land mines. In the cities, it will resemble the warlord vs. warlord combat of Somalia and SubSahara Africa.

This is Malthusian prophecy unfolding. Maybe H5N1 isn't such a bad thing after all...:upyours:




This is Malthusian prophecy unfolding. Maybe H5N1 isn't such a bad thing after all...:upyours:[/QUOTE]

do you have a link to that..what is this malthusian prophesy?

This Englishman says that this Matwhogivesafuckaboutthename guy is the Teacher who will help the worl out of her darkest hour, more or less. Don't even bother reading any link he gives you, it is a bunch of bullshit. The same thing happened at SPS.

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

or what about a Bosnian-like ethnic clensing in California?

I'm sorry, but even with all the American forces stationed throughout the world (Iraq, Afghanistan, S. Korea), Mexico wouldn't dare start an open war with the U.S.

They would lose, and they would lose badly...it's as simple as that.

Just like how Iraq lost 'badly' right? :rolleyes:

Oh wait....we're still fighting them over there.

Quite frankly, a war in Mexico would just piss me off. I enjoy my stays at Cancun and I don't want that fuck-up Bush to ruin it.

Just like how Iraq lost 'badly' right? :rolleyes:

Oh wait....we're still fighting them over there.

Quite frankly, a war in Mexico would just piss me off. I enjoy my stays at Cancun and I don't want that fuck-up Bush to ruin it.

The U.S. certainly isn't going to start a shooting war with Mexico...there's no reason for us to do so.

If Mexico starts a war, then I guarantee you that we won't be worrying about things like collateral damage and a post-war occupation. We'll simply pimp-slap them with air-power and blockade their ports so they can't conduct trade.

They would be screaming for a cease-fire in less than a week, and we wouldn't even need a single pair of boots on the ground.

I do not think it is right for mexicans to jump, swim, trunk, dodge etc their way in here. My number one question/statement is .. "Why not put forth all the effort you are puttting forth in the U.S, in your own country!!?" Then you would have no need to WANT to jump the border and Romp into our country. Meanwhile considering us theives, facists and racists! Yet.. you are running across the desert to get in here//to live up on top of and work for these thieves, facists .. racists! (That is the site our media gives us... poor so and so's only wanting a better life) but yet.. just an elbow away you see .. Europeans Go Home! You are the illegals!!! WE are indegenous!! We Hate Gringos!!! Fuck you and your facist country.. but we want in it -- BY GOD!

What a crock of shit!

But ...... I must admit .. If our government didn't want them in here.. THEY WOULD NOT be here.. I've felt the same about drugs for many years. If our government didn't want the drugs that are not grown here.. to be here.. they would not be here... period! There is shit going on, and plans going on that is far beyond our control & knowledge. I personally think they are letting our southern neighbors in to assist when we go to fucking war. I mean a big war. You think the fucking mexicans wont fight? Of fucking course they will .. even for the United fucking States.. they will fucking fight their asses off. No, I do not think this country is invincible(sp?), but we DO have, and have had enough intellegnce and technology to STOP the shit that they claim that is happening against us. No way in hell that WTC cotastraphe would've happened if we ourselves weren't involved in it. And anyone who actually thinks that all that shit got passed our CIA and all the other intelligence agencies we have.. are fucking brain dead. If I thought like they do.. I would no longer have any faith in our CIA or any of our other government intelligence. You people that mark off those that bring up controversial topics as nut jobs need to take a look at your government. WAke the fuck up!

Troops are needed on the border. Other nations have or had border military units in the past, most of the EU had them until they went full on integration. So why should the US be any different. Granted putting troops on the border is a short term solution. To cure the problem with illegal immigrants the problem isnt about stopping them with troops, its about fixing Mexico so that there are more jobs and that way less people need to try and sneak into the US illegally. Of course thats too farsighted for any politican to see beyond the election year rhetoric we typically get from both sides..as for war with Mexico, they would lose. Sorry, thats just it. Enough Americans would be disgusted by the fact, that Mexican commentators down south already view the mass tide of immigrants as a reconquest of the South West US, that you'd easily have lines at recruitment depots of folks willing to fight against Mexico. The first war went poorly for them, the second war would be just absolutely brutal. I wouldnt even given a potential war 48 hours.

Just like how Iraq lost 'badly' right? :rolleyes:

Baghdad fell on April 10, 2003. Their army surrendered as fast as they could and the Republican Guard was nearly wiped out. Yea they did lose badly. They lost the war in a month.

Oh wait....we're still fighting them over there.

Actually no. We are fighting terrorists who are killing innocent men and women to try to destablize the nation. There's a difference between a war and an insurgency.

Quite frankly, a war in Mexico would just piss me off. I enjoy my stays at Cancun and I don't want that fuck-up Bush to ruin it.

Wat if Mexico starts the war? They already violated our borders a few times. How would you feel if Mexico started the war? Would you still blame it on Bush?

The comedian and social satirist Carlos Mencia has said:

"Here's how you tell a Mexican from here [the US] and a Meixcan from Mexico. If we ever have a war with Mexico and Mexico calls all Mexicans to fight, WE'RE NOT GOING.

Don't put me in a relocation camp, give me a post and give me orders! I'll shoot Julio in the ass!"

I said that the war was over. I didn't say the insurgency was over. There is a difference between the two.
The war was declared to be over by George w Bush. How many American sercieman have been killed since then? (I think it's in the region of 2,400) America may think it has won the war but no one seems to have told the other side.

The war was declared to be over by George w Bush. How many American sercieman have been killed since then? (I think it's in the region of 2,400) America may think it has won the war but no one seems to have told the other side.

It was declared over in May though the capital fell on April 10th. The war is indeed over. Now we are dealing with an insurgency. Its a totally separate thing.

Do not teach a pig to sing it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

It was declared over in May though the capital fell on April 10th. The war is indeed over. Now we are dealing with an insurgency. Its a totally separate thing.

Iraq is Americas second Vietnam My advice is collapse dictators whos people will support you such a zimbabwe

Umm yea... dude? Texas lost EVERYONE at the Alamo. It was at San Jucinto that Santa Anna got his butt kicked.
Still, we lasted 6 days w/ 150 farmers w/ rifles vs. 6,000 professional soldiers with artillery. And we used a frickin church as a base. Santa Ana was pathetic.

"Hi, I had to send 6K of my best troops just to kill a hundred or so angry farmers in a church! Ain't I tough?"

Quit using my lightbulb.

Still, we lasted 6 days w/ 150 farmers w/ rifles vs. 6,000 professional soldiers with artillery. And we used a frickin church as a base. Santa Ana was pathetic.

"Hi, I had to send 6K of my best troops just to kill a hundred or so angry farmers in a church! Ain't I tough?"

Six days? I suggest you actually read up on the Battle of the Alamo. There was a seige then the attack that killed everyone. And the total was 180-250 vs roughly 1600 :rolleyes:

Learn alittle history MrMopar.

I must've been thinking of something else, then. Still, Mexico sucked at killing pissed-off farmers... That's the point I was trying to make.

Wiki and my old junior high school textsbooks support what I said, though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo
Yep- 6500 soliders were sent, but only 1400-1600 actually fought in the final assualt of the place.

Wiki and my old junior high school textsbooks support what I said, though...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo

I can honestly tell you that the page was altered because I looked at it yesterday and ya know what? it had something totally different on it. Besides, the history page proves me right that it was edited recently.

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?
Mexico is a US puppet in all but name. The government there knows it has no chance of ever getting away the winner in such a confrontation, and it certainly has no interest in having this degrade into a war. If the disparity between the two countrie's military machines isn't enough to make them keep a low profile, then the economic leverage will.

It's a pretty sad thing to say, but I'm pretty confident the Mexican government will bend over and ask for more no matter how much abuse they get from the US government. So no, I don't think there will ever be a war.

Yeah, I checked- it's true. Tue that someone had previously vandalised the page (Mexico's interest in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and the person who altered it changed it to its current form.

we're both wrong

On Feb. 23, 1836, a Mexican force of about 4000 men commanded by Antonio López de Santa Anna, general and later president of Mexico, reached the outskirts of San Antonio, which had been captured by Texan insurgents the previous December. The San Antonio garrison, only 155 men under the command of Col. William Barrett Travis, withdrew to the Alamo. Santa Anna deployed his troops around the structure and, when his artillery arrived, launched an intensive assault. The Texans, who were reinforced by 32 men on March 1, withstood the Mexicans until March 6, when the enemy succeeded in breaching the mission walls. Travis, his chief aides, including the American frontiersmen Davy Crockett and James Bowie, and the remainder of the garrison perished in the savage hand-to-hand struggle that followed. Of the 187 Texan defenders of the Alamo, only 6 survived the siege, and Gen. Santa Anna ordered them all killed. At the subsequent Battle of San Jacinto, in which Santa Anna was defeated, the battle cry of the Texans was “Remember the Alamo!”

Apparently it was 4000

http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=200519

User:Christian Historybuff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
May God Bless You Always!

My name is Stephen or Steve. I live in Florissant, Missouri and am 25 years old. I graduated from high school in 1999 from Hazelwood Central High School.

I have an Associate's degree as a Paralegal from St. Louis Community College at Florissant Valley. I am currently finishing a Bachelor's degree in history and Teacher Certification at Lindenwood University in Saint Charles, Missouri.

I am a devoted Christian and love American history with an special interest in Midwest USA topics, American Military History from 1945, and Star Wars.

I have joined the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missouri, Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars and the Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit.


That's who edited it. A member of the Wiki's CV Unit. Who is getting a BA in history/teaching...

That's who edited it. A member of the Wiki's CV Unit. Who is getting a BA in history/teaching...

What a coincidence. I'm getting a BA in History as well. Not to mention majoring in Government and Political Affairs (AKA Political Science)

This is Malthusian prophecy unfolding. Maybe H5N1 isn't such a bad thing after all...:upyours:

do you have a link to that..what is this malthusian prophesy?[/QUOTE]

Malthusian prophecy is just a term I use. Thomas Malthus was a demographer who developed theories on population growth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

1) Cartel gunmen have already intimidated residents off of their ranches along the border so they can construct drug/human trafficking tunnels. Communities where illegals move to become shantytown squalor camps. Brothels, gambling dens and drug distributors appear. Residents are threatened with getting their homes burned down. This is called "block busting." They idolize Al Pacino's Scarface and hold this false Sopranos-sense of "honor." Unlike South America, America's 80 million gunowners will not just sit by as crimes committed by illegal immigrants become more and more organized and brazen. Like in the Balkans, it is mixed communities that become the most radicalized and most prone to retaliatory cycles of violence. Whether the government likes it or not, it cannot hold off a civil war forever. Gangs, extremist groups and roving death squads will go to war without waiting for government approval. If you're serious about defending your home, study the tactics used by all sides in Sarajevo, Grozny, Colombia and Baghdad.

2) Mexico is a failed state like most former Spanish colonial holdings. If the PRI didn't send millions of unemployed males North, there would have been revolutions many times over. Revolutionary Theology Catholicism and Pentecostalism has failed to organize Latin American patriarchial society. My only hope for Mexico is a return of an overwhelmingly powerful European Spainard elite that brutally cracks down on crime and maintains order when Republic del Norte is completely sealed off.

3) Some Mexicans have no interest in becoming American or assimilating. In fact, some Mexican legislators are lobbying for dual-citizenship in order to influence American elections. They lobby for bilingual education and seek to change the United States into a Latin American country while rejecting the Anglo values of accountability, transparency and due process in government, law and community that made the US what it is. Since the 1850s, German, Polish, Irish, Jewish and Italian immigrants have learned English and integrated into American society. I see NOTHING that indicates that Mexicans will go down the same path in the next 50 years.

4) Urban chaos: Illegals have this idea that if they do not get amnesty, that they will riot like African-Americans in the 60s and that a scared Anglo federal government will do something like the Kerner Commission and give them whatever they want. Many have watched too many action movies and have no idea no brutal an insurgent vs insurgent war can get. Illegals in isolated rural states have little chance of taking over farms because all it takes is a few roadblocks to screen traffic and pick up anyone who isn't documented. Any chaos in the cities means the freight trucks stop, which means empty supermarket shelves. But all that is theory. It could get as simple and brutal as sniping anyone who looks like an illegal or gringo. Those that have developed a sense of confidence at intimidating locals have no idea what they are in for once law and order breaks down and determined professional paramilitaries wage unrestricted warfare on them and the communities they hide in.

Those of you who are afraid of being put in an Ejercito/Mechista concentration camp should apply for a rifle permit in your state and practice, practice, practice. We will probably lose this war but at least you will die on your feet.

Those of you who are afraid of being put in an Ejercito/Mechista concentration camp should apply for a rifle permit in your state and practice, practice, practice. We will probably lose this war but at least you will die on your feet.

:rolleyes: Right. Learn how to shoot them mexicans or else they'll put "Anglos" in a concentration camp in a "war."

Your name leads me to believe you're not but a paranoid nazi and your arguments support that conclusion. Am I right, or are you in denial?

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

WTF?

If Mexico did try to take back Texas, I would be pissed. Secondly, I would start shooting Mexican soldiers. 3rdly, Mexico would need a very large army which it doesn't have. 4th, Texas is hometurf to Bush and he would savagely rape Mexico with a bayoneted boot turned sideways for invading his homestate.

Bush isn't getting impeached. Get over it.

:rolleyes: Right. Learn how to shoot them mexicans or else they'll put "Anglos" in a concentration camp in a "war."

Your name leads me to believe you're not but a paranoid nazi and your arguments support that conclusion. Am I right, or are you in denial?


He's wrong in the fact that the border states don't require a permit to own anything firearm related.

Also it's a good idea to learn how to shoot human silhouettes, because well, there's never a bad time and looters/illegal burglars/car thieves are always in stock. Remember the Mogadishu drill when dealing with never do wells.

:rolleyes: Right. Learn how to shoot them mexicans or else they'll put "Anglos" in a concentration camp in a "war."

Your name leads me to believe you're not but a paranoid nazi and your arguments support that conclusion. Am I right, or are you in denial?

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050503/NEWS03/505030393/1019/NEWS03

Accused killer lived here illegally
By STEVE LIEBERMAN
slieberm@lohud.com
THE JOURNAL NEWS
May 3, 2005

A Guatemalan citizen charged with murdering a New City woman had lived illegally in the United States since 2001 after his six-month tourist visa expired, Clarkstown police said today.

Police detectives yesterday confirmed the identity of the accused killer as Ronald Douglas Herrera Castellanos, 29. The police contacted federal agencies in Guatemala and spoke with San Francisco police officers.

As police investigated the background of the man accused of killing 42-year-old Mary Nagle, officers found her cell phone and wallet dumped in the woods behind Georgetown Oval, not far from Nagle's Tamarac Avenue house.

The accused killer allegedly made 51 calls Friday from her cell phone to Nagle's friends and family, making threatening comments and providing lurid details of his sexual attack on Nagle, police said.

Police still were searching today for a black plastic garbage bag. Police believe the bag contained the clothes the accused killer wore when Nagle was strangled, beaten and stabbed while being raped Friday inside her house.

When police arrested Herrera on Friday, his California driver's license gave the name of Douglas Martin Herrera, 39.

A man by that name in San Francisco told homicide detectives there that he didn't know the accused killer or how his personal information came to be on someone else's driver's license, Clarkstown Detective Lt. Charles Delo said today.

Delo said Herrera entered the United States in October 2000 on a tourist visa, which allowed him to stay for six months before he had to return to Guatemala.

Herrera's visa didn't expire until 2010, which meant he could have returned to the United States.

Shawn Saucier, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, said it was common for people to overstay their visas. He said a good portion of the estimated 8 million to 12 million people in the country illegally probably were those who overstayed their visa.

"If you can get a visa to enter the country for six months and even ask for an extension, why would you enter the country illegally?" Saucier said.

Herrera has been charged with murder in the first and second degrees and being held without bail in the county jail.

A Ramapo warrant for his arrest under the name Ronald Douglas has been active since 2002 when he didn't show up in court to answer a misdemeanor assault charge accusing him of beating up a former girlfriend.

OMGZ ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS R TEH MURDERERS

Interesting article, but irrelevant to what I was saying. Thanks for posting it. Sieg heil.

He's wrong in the fact that the border states don't require a permit to own anything firearm related.

Also it's a good idea to learn how to shoot human silhouettes, because well, there's never a bad time and looters/illegal burglars/car thieves are always in stock. Remember the Mogadishu drill when dealing with never do wells.

Of course. It's not bad idea to be proficient with a gun in general.

But it's his reasoning - war with Mexico? to avoid getting put in a concentration camp? - that is horribly flawed.

Iraq is a totally different story. That was a blantent and cheap shot. though some people think this occupation was not a smart idea, in some ways it was....but that is off subject anyway (I prefer not to argue about that situation). The mexican border guard has been proven to be more well armed than their own military, on another note the mexican economy is in such disaray that they couldn't fight AND supply a war for an extended period of time. Why do you think so many of the mexicans try to get into the U.S. other than freedom? JOBS!!!!!! Something that Mexico obviously has problems supplying. There currency isn't even worth that material its made of. I seriously doubt that a war will break out and if it did why would you consider the MExican government a threat when they can't even control the people of mexico.

Like you I seriously doubt there will be awr between Mexico & USA. It i snot in either's interest. Their leaders have good relations and are well aware of the problems of the other. My point in comparing a potential war to what has happened in Iraq is that civilians in a modern war are politicised and will fight on and put a resistnece long after the ned of official hostilies. The US has a bad record when it comes to getting involved in conflicts with technologically inferior forces who stubbornly refuse to admit defeat despite getting massacred in conventional battles. I could have used the example of Vietnam but Iraq seemed more relevant as conventional forces were defeated very quickly and yet the conflict rumbles on. I don't think it is plausible to describe what has happened in Iraq as a victory for the US since victory implies that objectives have been met . . .'nuff sed

It was declared over in May though the capital fell on April 10th. The war is indeed over. Now we are dealing with an insurgency. Its a totally separate thing.
No it isn't. Iraq was invaded and defearted in conventional battel since then the war has continued through guerilla tactics. Sure not everyone having a crack at Coalition forces in Iraq is an Iraqi but it is still the same conflict. The concept of an "insurgency" as an entirely separate entity is nothing but spin since there has been continuous violence in Iraq.

No it isn't. Iraq was invaded and defearted in conventional battel since then the war has continued through guerilla tactics. Sure not everyone having a crack at Coalition forces in Iraq is an Iraqi but it is still the same conflict. The concept of an "insurgency" as an entirely separate entity is nothing but spin since there has been continuous violence in Iraq.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this statement is 100% false.

Interesting article, but irrelevant to what I was saying. Thanks for posting it. Sieg heil.



Of course. It's not bad idea to be proficient with a gun in general.

But it's his reasoning - war with Mexico? to avoid getting put in a concentration camp? - that is horribly flawed.

WEll, go read what Laraza and Azatlan wants. Not too far out of the question.

Mexican troops have already violated our national boundaries a few months ago. they were chased back over. let it begin. remember the alamo! And we beat them at San Jacinto.

You should run for the republican party and in there is to be war with Mexico and the USA then UN troops should intervene after all thats what the name peace keeping troops means to keep peace unless the USA has bussiness interests in Mexico then of course the UN will do nothing

There have been a lot of naysayers and ostriches on this thread that need to give this issue more than just a cursory thought. If a war, even a "non-war" erupts between the US and Mexico OR ANY OF ITS CITIZENS, it will not only bankrupt the very states that whine about supporting the illegals, but it will break the back of our military that is already overtaxed by nation building in the the middle east.

Below is an excerpt from a front page MSN story. The headline reads:

‘It will always be like this’
As Bush tries to stop migrants, Mexicans vow to continue illegal trips north


What it says in a nutshell is that the idea of a 370-mile, Berlin Wall type "fence" is very insulting to Mexico, its government and its people.

“Somebody is going to start shooting, and then there will be problems between the two countries,” predicted Santana, the Tijuana truck driver."

The government of Mexico expresses its concerns:
“Most countries want to bring their people together and tear down physical, commercial and cultural barriers,” presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar said Thursday. “Anyone who proposes separating them is out of line. Walls are a sign of distrust, and that will never be the basis of a good friendship between two countries.”

The full article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12860863/

It's a pretty sad thing to say, but I'm pretty confident the Mexican government will bend over and ask for more no matter how much abuse they get from the US government. So no, I don't think there will ever be a war.

Mexico is our neighbor and our friend. We have treated Mexico shabbily, allowing her economy to languish and stumble as ours soared through the stratosphere. We are now paying for that lack of concern with a flood of immigrants who want nothing more than a better life.

We have ignored years of political corruption in Mexico and watched the gap between their haves and haves-not widen over the years. And now our own economic gap is becoming unbearabley wide from that same attitude. Karma, perhaps?

You cannot turn a blind eye to justice and not expect it to come back and bite you on the ass.

The only way out of this, I am afraid, is the most painful in the short run, the most humanitarian in the long run. Open the border. Let the flood of economical refugees come. Let the economic differences between the US and Mexico balance out. The US will be a little bit less affluent, Mexico will be a little more affluent, and in the end it will set the course for us all becoming one big Canadian-US-Mexico super-union. The longer we forstall the equality, the more dramatic the change will have to be. A war may well be inevitable unless we act for justice voluntarily.

Mexico is our neighbor and our friend. We have treated Mexico shabbily, allowing her economy to languish and stumble as ours soared through the stratosphere. We are now paying for that lack of concern with a flood of immigrants who want nothing more than a better life.

We have ignored years of political corruption in Mexico and watched the gap between their haves and haves-not widen over the years. And now our own economic gap is becoming unbearabley wide from that same attitude. Karma, perhaps?

You cannot turn a blind eye to justice and not expect it to come back and bite you on the ass.

The only way out of this, I am afraid, is the most painful in the short run, the most humanitarian in the long run. Open the border. Let the flood of economical refugees come. Let the economic differences between the US and Mexico balance out. The US will be a little bit less affluent, Mexico will be a little more affluent, and in the end it will set the course for us all becoming one big Canadian-US-Mexico super-union. The longer we forstall the equality, the more dramatic the change will have to be. A war may well be inevitable unless we act for justice voluntarily.

Mexico is NOT our friend. Not by a longshot.

What are the reasons that Mexico is not our friend?

1) Remember the Alamo?
NO. And stop acting as if it has any relevance now. Im just sick and tired of hearing about the time Mexico kicked your ass!

What are the reasons that Mexico is not our friend?

Pancho Villa

MS-13

Drug Cartels

200 invasions since 1996 in American territory

Aiding and abetting criminals into gaining illegal entry into US territory, indirectly causing the deaths of US citizens

Publishing materials intending to aid illegals into escaping the border patrol

That CIA trained anti-communist squad that turned Marxist with the help of the mexican gov that now guards and commits drug trafficking.

Screaming bloody murder when we put a few thousand NGs on our border with them but saying nothing of their own southern border with Guetamala

Failing to control their side of the border adequately allowing for attacks on freight trains, illegal alien predations on Rancher's cattle

I could go on.

What are the reasons that Mexico is not our friend?

They have brown people.

They have brown people.

I was supposed to get married to one of those "brown people". So no, I don't hate them. I DO hate the crime though.

I was supposed to get married to one of those "brown people". So no, I don't hate them. I DO hate the crime though.

Uh huh. Why, just last week Pancho Villa murdered ten Americans. *shakes fist* Damn you, Mexico!

And your statement about "200 invasions" is just ass-ignorant. Just goes to show that America, having not been invaded since about 1812 or so, no longer understands what the word means.

Uh huh. Why, just last week Pancho Villa murdered ten Americans. *shakes fist* Damn you, Mexico!

And your statement about "200 invasions" is just ass-ignorant. Just goes to show that America, having not been invaded since about 1812 or so, no longer understands what the word means.

There is a ton of information out there about Mexico's intrusions into sovereign American territory-I think it's mostly Texas. They've even held US citizens up at gunpoint on their own land in the US. Mind you, armed mexican troops. Sorta sounds like panch villa to me. Confronted a guy and his daughter shooting targets on his own land and caused an incident.

There is a ton of information out there about Mexico's intrusions into sovereign American territory-I think it's mostly Texas. They've even held US citizens up at gunpoint on their own land in the US. Mind you, armed mexican troops. Sorta sounds like panch villa to me. Confronted a guy and his daughter shooting targets on his own land and caused an incident.

There's a lot of misinformation and speculation about it, that's for sure. Why don't you site some reliable sources. But it still doesn't change the fact that you bringing up Pancho Villa as a reason why Mexico isn't our friend is kind of like bringing up Napoleon as to why France isn't our friend, or Hitler for Germany.

It's a stretch and you know it.

And your statement about "200 invasions" is just ass-ignorant. Just goes to show that America, having not been invaded since about 1812 or so, no longer understands what the word means.

actually.... this statement not 100% accurate.

I was supposed to get married to one of those "brown people". So no, I don't hate them. I DO hate the crime though.

Good thing you overcame that momentary lapse of reason, huh? You coulda had a whole brood of little brown criminals.

War with Mexico is like...well it won't happen.

I may have a sharp delivery, but I am genuinely concerned that this will escalate into a fiasco. Remember the Alamo?
Wait, but we won that war too.

Wait, but we won that war too.

Actually...the US didn't win the Texas War for Independence and we LOST at the Alamo.

To quote Robert Frost: "Good fences make good neighbors."
Just something to chew on.

Actually...the US didn't win the Texas War for Independence and we LOST at the Alamo.

We lost at the Alamo but it gave great excuse to steal half of Mexico's country.

Actually...the US didn't win the Texas War for Independence and we LOST at the Alamo.
Well, technically it wasn't the US, but they were given technical and material support to the rebels, plus "accidentaly" letting people slip through the border to join them. All this while denying they had any interest in getting involved in a Mexican internal matter, of course.

Actually...the US didn't win the Texas War for Independence and we LOST at the Alamo.
Americans won the war (though they did set up a different country and everything, essentialy they were Americans).
And I know that we lost at the alamo, but seriously, we've lost battles in every war that we've fought, this one just happened to turn into a very effective and (obviously) long lived battle cry.

What if this deployment of thousands of US national guardsmen (the guys that don't have much practice being soldiers) to the US-Mexican border escalates into violence? What if that violence is met by deployment of thousands more troops? What if Bush's last act before impeachment is to start a war with Mexico? What if Mexico takes back Texas? California? Do you think is probable?

You are far removed from reality.

We lost at the Alamo but it gave great excuse to steal half of Mexico's country.
Awww... do they want it back? Oh, wait, that's what they tried to do in 1845 and got their asses handed to them by General Taylor. Oh well, too bad for the Mexicans, you lost, twice, so stop bitching.

Americans won the war (though they did set up a different country and everything, essentialy they were Americans).
And I know that we lost at the alamo, but seriously, we've lost battles in every war that we've fought, this one just happened to turn into a very effective and (obviously) long lived battle cry.

You always lose battles and the United States is famous for losing the opening battle of about all of our wars. We then redeem ourselves by generally kicking ass from then on out though.

Awww... do they want it back? Oh, wait, that's what they tried to do in 1845 and got their asses handed to them by General Taylor. Oh well, too bad for the Mexicans, you lost, twice, so stop bitching.

In hindsight what Mexico did was quite foolish. If I remember correctly, Mexico was offered peace if they gave up Texas but hey, they didn't want part of their country taken from them, they are proud and said fuck you. Bad choice given they lost the war then half their country. Still, it was a war of American agression, our Manifest Destiny just had to play out. The Texas thing was a sham anyway, greedy Texans didn't want to play by the rules they agreed to with Mexico. But hey lets not think of it that way but twist it into some kind of heroic rebellion?

You always lose battles and the United States is famous for losing the opening battle of about all of our wars. We then redeem ourselves by generally kicking ass from then on out though.
yup, it's because we always underestimate our enemies. Oh well...:rolleyes:

We lost at the Alamo but it gave great excuse to steal half of Mexico's country.

uh? What war are you talking about?

Awww... do they want it back? Oh, wait, that's what they tried to do in 1845 and got their asses handed to them by General Taylor. Oh well, too bad for the Mexicans, you lost, twice, so stop bitching.

1848 :D

Awww... do they want it back? Oh, wait, that's what they tried to do in 1845 and got their asses handed to them by General Taylor. Oh well, too bad for the Mexicans, you lost, twice, so stop bitching.
1846 (ended 1848), and it wasn't started by Mexico.

1848 :D
meh, same difference. Point is they tried to get back their lost territory and we wiped the floor with their asses.

meh, same difference. Point is they tried to get back their lost territory and we wiped the floor with their asses.

yep yep

1846 (ended 1848), and it wasn't started by Mexico.
I guess not technically, but they weren't really trying to avoid a conflict either.

I love it when students at my school go around saying "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."

Really?! :eek:

You were alive almost 2 centuries ago?! :p

War with Mexico is as likely as a war with Canada. Only a direct attack by either armed forces would spark this. And even then, I doubt we'd go the same route as taking more of Mexico's land either.

Mexico's encouragement of illegals continuing to cross the border is annoying to say the least. I've heard that the politicians over there are unhappy with this. Only one thing to say: Screw them.

In hindsight what Mexico did was quite foolish. If I remember correctly, Mexico was offered peace if they gave up Texas but hey, they didn't want part of their country taken from them, they are proud and said fuck you. Bad choice given they lost the war then half their country. Still, it was a war of American agression, our Manifest Destiny just had to play out. The Texas thing was a sham anyway, greedy Texans didn't want to play by the rules they agreed to with Mexico. But hey lets not think of it that way but twist it into some kind of heroic rebellion?
No, Mexico was going to be offered a compensation for letting go of Texas and open negotiations to establish a commonly agreed border. But Mexicans thought that the US was just going to take everything claimed by Texas (which was a lot more than what Texas was) and sent the envoy back with a big no.

This was going to be used as the excuse for war, but wasn't because just a few days after that a US patrol in Mexican territory was intercepted by a Mexican patrol. And that was the excuse for war.

I'm sorry, but even with all the American forces stationed throughout the world (Iraq, Afghanistan, S. Korea), Mexico wouldn't dare start an open war with the U.S.

They would lose, and they would lose badly...it's as simple as that.
Badly, is not the word to describe it. We would probaly be eating Mexi-Burgers by the time were done with the mexican goverment. I hear that the meat is rather tasty this time of year.

uh? What war are you talking about?

Mexican-American War.

I guess not technically, but they weren't really trying to avoid a conflict either.
Yeah, we were supposed to give in to your bullying and say thank you? At least we got to kill a few of you. It wasn't much but it was something.

Mexican-American War.

With a post connected with the Texas Independence War?

:D You always lose battles and the United States is famous for losing the opening battle of about all of our wars. We then redeem ourselves by generally kicking ass from then on out though.

Can't say so about GFW1&2.

Mexico played tinpot dictator with Santa anna and the Mexican settlers rebelled.

They became texans

Yeah, we were supposed to give in to your bullying and say thank you? At least we got to kill a few of you. It wasn't much but it was something.
Your mexican eh?Stop crossing are border and stealing are jobs and eating are peanut budder! No realy, would you want a million some americans crossing your border illegaly everyday to take your job?

No, Mexico was going to be offered a compensation for letting go of Texas and open negotiations to establish a commonly agreed border. But Mexicans thought that the US was just going to take everything claimed by Texas (which was a lot more than what Texas was) and sent the envoy back with a big no.

This was going to be used as the excuse for war, but wasn't because just a few days after that a US patrol in Mexican territory was intercepted by a Mexican patrol. And that was the excuse for war.

I seem to remember learning that Mexico sent troops into Texas to put down the rebellion and Texas asked the U.S. for help and got it.

I seem to remember learning that Mexico sent troops into Texas to put down the rebellion and Texas asked the U.S. for help and got it.
Right you are. MY PEANUT BUDDER!

Your mexican eh?Stop crossing are border and stealing are jobs and eating are peanut budder! No realy, would you want a million some americans crossing your border illegaly everyday to take your job?
Sure, no problem by me. I think people should be free to cross borders and look for better lives wherever they want or need to.

Mi casa es su casa, as we say.

I don't really like peanut butter.

With a post connected with the Texas Independence War?

One led directly to the other and I often think the Texas revolution as a farce as it led quickly to the United States involving itself to take Mexican land.

Yeah, we were supposed to give in to your bullying and say thank you? At least we got to kill a few of you. It wasn't much but it was something.
Hmm... ok, well if that's how you feel about it. I'm sorry that Mexico was claiming land which it had no right to, and which they really had means of control over. You didn't have to say thank you, but maybe setting up a viable border with the country (Texas) which had beaten you in combat instead of reclaiming the land that had been fought over in the first place would have been a good move. This isn't to say the Polk and the Americans didn't act selfishly, but the Mexicans could have played their hand a lot better as well.

I seem to remember learning that Mexico sent troops into Texas to put down the rebellion and Texas asked the U.S. for help and got it.
Yes, but not officially. Texas asked for help, Mexico asked the US not to intervene in an internal matter. The US said they wouldn't intervene and then helped the Texans. Good ol' foreign diplomacy.

Hmm... ok, well if that's how you feel about it. I'm sorry that Mexico was claiming land which it had no right to, and which they really had means of control over. You didn't have to say thank you, but maybe setting up a viable border with the country (Texas) which had beaten you in combat instead of reclaiming the land that had been fought over in the first place would have been a good move. This isn't to say the Polk and the Americans didn't act selfishly, but the Mexicans could have played their hand a lot better as well.
Mexico was victim of slanderous rumours against the US, although the US would have invaded no matter what, I feel. Mexico had control over that land which the Texans reclaimed. In fact, Texas had been trying to get control by sending expeditions and incursions into those territories they claimed, but had been stopped by Mexico time and time again.

The only part over which Mexico had no control was Texas proper, that is the northeast corner of what used to be Coahuila y Texas.

Yes, but not officially. Texas asked for help, Mexico asked the US not to intervene in an internal matter. The US said they wouldn't intervene and then helped the Texans. Good ol' foreign diplomacy.
It's not like the US lost anything in the interaction. Really, Texas would have been introduced into the Union long before it actually was if not for the whole slavery issue. In essence, a Mexican army threatening it would be a direct threat on American soil (or quasi-American soil, whatever).

:D

Can't say so about GFW1&2.

I was thinking of wars where we did not pull the trigger ourselves. WWII and Korea being the obvious examples.

Mexico played tinpot dictator with Santa anna and the Mexican settlers rebelled.

They became texans

Most of the Texans who rebelled were American settlers who went there after agreeing to Mexican terms. Mexico wanted people to populate the territory and Americans were glad to do it. They lied of course to Mexico and did what they wanted and then when their numbers grew enough they decided they didn't want to listen to Mexico anymore and rebelled.

It's not like the US lost anything in the interaction. Really, Texas would have been introduced into the Union long before it actually was if not for the whole slavery issue. In essence, a Mexican army threatening it would be a direct threat on American soil (or quasi-American soil, whatever).
Perhaps, but there was no army threatening Texas. Mexico had been kind of busy fighting a French invasion, you see, and by the time that was done, Texas was pretty much consolidated and Mexico resigned to it going its own way. The only matter left to settle was the border issue.

Perhaps, but there was no army threatening Texas. Mexico had been kind of busy fighting a French invasion, you see, and by the time that was done, Texas was pretty much consolidated and Mexico resigned to it going its own way. The only matter left to settle was the border issue.

Then why did Santa Anna do all he can to supress the Texan rebellion if Mexico was going to let it go?

Perhaps, but there was no army threatening Texas. Mexico had been kind of busy fighting a French invasion, you see, and by the time that was done, Texas was pretty much consolidated and Mexico resigned to it going its own way. The only matter left to settle was the border issue.
Really, Mexico was resigned? That's why they didn't recognize Texas as a country? You can settle a border dispute after you acknowledge that the other side is legit, it makes the negotiations easier. And there were Mexican forces along the border, or did that American patrol all die of natural causes?

Then why did Santa Anna do all he can to supress the Texan rebellion if Mexico was going to let it go?
The Texans rebelled in 1836 that's what Santa Anna tried to put out. The French invaded in 1838-39, then Mexico had it kind of rough for a few years in which it was in no condition to threaten anyone (and Santa Anna spent them partly in Cuba, partly in his hacienda), and then the US invaded in 1846.

By the way, it was thanks to the US that Santa Anna was able to go back to Mexico from Cuba. He scammed them.

By the way, it was thanks to the US that Santa Anna was able to go back to Mexico from Cuba. He scammed them.
Yeah, aren't we great!:)

The Texans rebelled in 1836 that's what Santa Anna tried to put out. The French invaded in 1838-39, then Mexico had it kind of rough for a few years in which it was in no condition to threaten anyone (and Santa Anna spent them partly in Cuba, partly in his hacienda), and then the US invaded in 1846.

By the way, it was thanks to the US that Santa Anna was able to go back to Mexico from Cuba. He scammed them.

Ok......

If he was resigned to the new border then why didn't he agree to the new border?

Really, Mexico was resigned? That's why they didn't recognize Texas as a country? You can settle a border dispute after you acknowledge that the other side is legit, it makes the negotiations easier. And there were Mexican forces along the border, or did that American patrol all die of natural causes?
Yup, Mexico was pretty much resigned, the only basic condition to recognize Texas would be if they didn't join the US (over concerns that the US would want to take more territory later, not too wrong about that). The only military presence was a limited amount of troops to fight the indians and the occassional Texan incursions. Of course, when the US invites Texas to join, Mexico sends some more troops to the disputed territory to be able to maintain a valid claim. Same reason why the US sends a sub from time to time through the Northwest passage, to keep Canada to claim it as part of its territory. And it wasn't the Mexican troops who crossed the line.

Ok......

If he was resigned to the new border then why didn't he agree to the new border?
Mexico was resigned to an independent Texas, not to the recognize the entirety of the Texan claim, over which Mexico still retained control. Still they were more or less willing to negotiate some compromise.

Mexico was resigned to an independent Texas, not to the recognize the entirety of the Texan claim, over which Mexico still retained control. Still they were more or less willing to negotiate some compromise.

Well I guess that ended that theory. They didn't want to negotiate at all.

Either this thread is a joke or the starter is clueless when it comes to current issues.

Either this thread is a joke or the starter is clueless when it comes to current issues.

He was clueless.

Well I guess that ended that theory. They didn't want to negotiate at all.
After the US asked Texas to join, Mexico hardened its position, although not entirely unwilling to compromise it would have been harder. Of course, the US plans did not include any compromise and would have had war no matter what. They really, really, really, reeeeeeeally, wanted that territory.

In hindsight, war was inevitable. The US was a very dynamic society, growing at such an amazing rate than more than expansion it was an explosion. On the other hand Mexico was a very static, stratified society which was also very deeply divided and lacked a national vision and even a national conscience. The war affected both countries very deeply and at least helped Mexico get that sense of national identification.

He was clueless.
Or maybe they just wanted to start a flaming war across the Rio Grande.

After the US asked Texas to join, Mexico hardened its position, although not entirely unwilling to compromise it would have been harder. Of course, the US plans did not include any compromise and would have had war no matter what. They really, really, really, reeeeeeeally, wanted that territory.

In hindsight, war was inevitable. The US was a very dynamic society, growing at such an amazing rate than more than expansion it was an explosion. On the other hand Mexico was a very static, stratified society which was also very deeply divided and lacked a national vision and even a national conscience. The war affected both countries very deeply and at least helped Mexico get that sense of national identification.
Whoa now, Texas was petitioning to join the US, the US wasn't asking Texas to join them. The question of slavery was such a big problem that many people didn't want anyone else to join the Union, not to mention that at the time the US was busy consolidating its own territory, and expansion wasn't the first thing on its agenda. The US does have a very dynamic society, but at that time, it was in a bit of a funk, or a partially dormant period, as most of the world's attention was focused on Europe, and Napoleon.

The Texas war for independence started with a gun grab by the Mexicans. Isn't that odd?

In the 1820s, Stephen Austin won the Mexican government's approval to bring American families into the sparsely settled Tejas (Texas) region. Vast land grants would be awarded to the settlers if Austin could sponsor 300 families and assure the officials that the newcomers would:

Be loyal to the Mexican government
Learn the Spanish language
Convert to Roman Catholicism.
Only the earliest Texans paid much attention to these requirements and the vast distance from the Mexican central government left the settlers free to follow their own inclinations. This area's great attraction was the fertile soil, ideal for cotton production. By the early 1830s, transplanted Americans, many of them slave owners, outnumbered the Tejanos; the Mexican government soon understood that it had committed a great error by encouraging the migration of U.S. citizens.
At first, the settlers were content to live under Mexican rule, but several events helped to incline Texan minds toward independence:

In 1831, Mexico abolished slavery, following the lead of most western nations. This loss of unpaid labor, if actually enforced in Tejas, would have been a severe blow to the region's emerging cotton economy. It also reminded many transplanted citizens of the tolerant official view of slavery held by the United States.

The Mexican government, recognizing its diminished control in Tejas, abolished immigration. The residents there, who had friends and relatives in the United States, were outraged.

As a further means to loosen the ties between the U.S. and Tejas, Mexico enacted heavy duties on the importation of foreign goods.

In 1833, General Antonio López de Santa Anna came to power in Mexico, pledging to consolidate power and strengthen national unity. The rise of a Mexican nationalist was viewed with alarm in the north, where the Texans preferred to continue their near autonomy.
Unrest became rebellion on October 2, 1835 when Mexican forces tried to take possession of the town cannon in Gonzales, east of San Antonio. The locals prevailed in this incident and, in other early encounters, the rebels pushed the paltry Mexican forces out of the area.
In December 1835, a group of disgruntled settlers took control of the Alamo, an old mission in San Antonio. Santa Anna moved his army of several thousand men into the area and decided to make an example of the insurgents. Only a few dozen fellow settlers arrived from other areas in Texas to reinforce their compatriots in the Alamo. The defenders, hoping to be rescued by Samuel Houston’s forces, refused to surrender. The siege of the Alamo lasted two weeks and ended in hand-to-hand fighting on March 6, 1836. More than 180 defenders lost their lives, including such notables as William Travis, James Bowie and Davy Crockett; losses among the Mexican forces were estimated at 600. On Santa Anna’s orders, all prisoners were executed; the only survivors were a woman, her infant child and a slave, who were directed to take word of the Mexican victory to other Texan rebels.

Later in March, a second momentous event occurred. Santa Anna's army managed to force the surrender of 342 Texans near Goliad. After some initial wavering, Santa Anna ordered the execution of all of the prisoners.

The two massacres, the Alamo and Goliad, served to bring bickering Texans together in opposition to Santa Anna. On April 21, 1836 the Mexicans were surprised by an inferior Texan force and completely routed in the Battle of San Jacinto. Many Mexican prisoners were executed in retaliation for previous Mexican acts. Santa Anna was captured, but released when he agreed to Texan independence and the establishment of the border at the Rio Grande. Santa Anna quickly repudiated his concessions.

During the course of the Mexican revolt, the United States was far from neutral. Public opinion openly favored Texan independence and the government actually sent a military force onto Texan soil, weakly explaining that the soldiers were needed to restrain local Indians from raiding American settlements across the border.

In the fall of 1836, Samuel Houston was inaugurated as president of the Republic of Texas. The new administration promptly sent a representative to Washington, and repealed the prohibition on slavery. Andrew Jackson believed that Texas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state, but withheld action out of fear of the political consequences. On his final day in office, Jackson extended official diplomatic recognition to independent Texas.

Incoming president Martin Van Buren was opposed to annexation. The Panic of 1837 and the resulting depression tended to mute the issue of admitting Texas to the Union. Disappointed Texans, anxious to join the Union, began conversations with other nations. Britain was particularly attracted to the cotton supply Texas offered, but was repelled by the existence of slavery.

The short history of the Texan Republic was troubled. Financing the new government proved to be difficult — foreign investors were leery about loaning money and Texas residents showed little interest in paying taxes. Perhaps the prime need of the time was to create a highly mobile armed force to protect the populace against attacks from raiding Indian parties; the Texas Rangers developed during this time to answer the need. To a lesser extent, the relationship with Mexico also was a problem because of conflicting boundary claims; occasional skirmishes occurred between the citizens of the two nations.

A growing body of Texans came to favor annexation by the United States.

Whoa now, Texas was petitioning to join the US, the US wasn't asking Texas to join them. The question of slavery was such a big problem that many people didn't want anyone else to join the Union, not to mention that at the time the US was busy consolidating its own territory, and expansion wasn't the first thing on its agenda. The US does have a very dynamic society, but at that time, it was in a bit of a funk, or a partially dormant period, as most of the world's attention was focused on Europe, and Napoleon.
It went a bit of both ways. First the US president asked Texas that if they wanted to join, they wouldn't say no. This was then discussed by the Texan Congress and barely approved, and then the US Congress approved too, not easily as you say, because there were concerns both over slavery and Mexican reaction who were protesting the whole thing. The first official move towards annexation was made by the US, but there was a lot of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" in all that.

And don't kid yourself, the US was in explosive expansion, consolidation would come later, after the Civil War even. Back then they were still in the "openning new frontiers" phase. I'm not saying that the US had become by then a world power, but it certainly was the regional heavy-weight.

Found these pics of some guys who are already patrolling the border. Private citizen. No wonder Fox is freaked out!

http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcolt18rz.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcolt24jp.jpg

http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcolt30qg.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcolt46vi.jpg

Off Topic:
Non-Sactioned Milita?

On Topic:
The U.S.M. would be soundly defeated in a war with the U.S.A. We conquered the U.S.M. once, but only took thare northern lands and gave everything else back. We would have no problem finishing the job.

Off Topic:
Non-Sactioned Milita?

On Topic:
The U.S.M. would be soundly defeated in a war with the U.S.A. We conquered the U.S.M. once, but only took thare northern lands and gave everything else back. We would have no problem finishing the job.

It's on private land, and nothing the gov or Federales could do about it. Of course, if the Federales wanted to start something...:D

What is the USM? United states of Mexico? United states of migrants?

Why the hell would we be stupid enough to invade Mexico ? We have plenty of Mexicans already and who would want that mess ? Shit if we wait long enough half the damm country will be Mexican anyway...at least FROM Mexico...only they become AMERICANS when they become citizens just like all the rest of the immigrants who come here legally . And most are VERY proud of it . Take a look at the military of the US . VERY diverse group and one that reflects the American ideal .

Either this thread is a joke or the starter is clueless when it comes to current issues.

Or maybe the hornet's nest is just too irresistible....:D

The U.S.M. would be soundly defeated in a war with the U.S.A. We conquered the U.S.M. once, but only took thare northern lands and gave everything else back. We would have no problem finishing the job.
Yeah, but even France conquered us twice, so it's not like it's a big accomplishment or something.

Why the hell would we be stupid enough to invade Mexico ? We have plenty of Mexicans already and who would want that mess ? Shit if we wait long enough half the damm country will be Mexican anyway...at least FROM Mexico...only they become AMERICANS when they become citizens just like all the rest of the immigrants who come here legally . And most are VERY proud of it . Take a look at the military of the US . VERY diverse group and one that reflects the American ideal .

We're going to abduct their mexicans :D !

Mexico, a country that, five years ago, Bush deemed to be our most important ally.