The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on October 07, 2010, 06:48:36 PM
-
What is the degree of your general support for the idea:
A. No, never. Its a violation of Mexican sovereignty
B. No, we have too many military commitments already
C. Yes, if the kill US citizens in Mexican territory
D. Yes, if they kill US citizens in US territory
E. Yes, to prop-up the failing Mexican state before it actually collapses
F. Yes, but only after an actual collapse forces our hand
If you answered Yes to any of the above: What is the depth of force you are willing to commit assuming the graduation scale includes all preceding levels:
A. Small-units/Special Operations
B. Larger maneuver units
C. Artillery strikes
D. Rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters)
E. Fixed-wing aircraft (jets)
If you answered Yes in the first question: What sort of action would you support?
A. Punitive raids
B. Disruption/interdiction
C. maneuver in force until Mexican forces gain the upper hand
D. regime change
E. Long-term occupation
ALTERNATE OPTION: Gimme 12 Texans a keg of beer
-
Yes, yes, and hell yes. All of the above on the last 2.
-
I have more than 12 Texans.......they brew their own beer, but some sandwiches and a couple rounds would do.
-
If iwas in charge and Congress was backing me up , Mexico would have first hand experiance with what used to be called an "Arc Light " Mission.
-
Apparently the severed head of the lead investigator for the Falcon Lake incident has been delivered to the Mexican army as an outright taunt.
No word yet about whether the beheading was related to the Falcon Lake episode but whether he was killed for this investigation or another one speaks the boldness of the action and makes one wonder whether the Mexicans are able to assert their own governmental power.
-
Apparently the severed head of the lead investigator for the Falcon Lake incident has been delivered to the Mexican army as an outright taunt.
No word yet about whether the beheading was related to the Falcon Lake episode but whether he was killed for this investigation or another one speaks the boldness of the action and makes one wonder whether the Mexicans are able to assert their own governmental power.
Pancho Villa part duex?
-
Pancho Villa part duex?
George Patton, IIRC, claimed 5 kills with his pistol during that episode.
Personally, we should pound them into submission and force Spain and/or France to take them back under (relatively) adult supervision.
-
There's already some talk of the Texas Militia gathering some folks to do some ops down there.
-
I'd support arming law abiding Mexicans so they could protect themselves, some 72 yo woman in Juarez blasted a couple of them to Hell, she didn't give a damnm if they'd made a law against private ownership of firearms, she's damn glad she used her (dammmn whippersnappers!)
-
There's already some talk of the Texas Militia gathering some folks to do some ops down there.
Private citizens committing acts of international armed conflict and then returning to the US where they will presumabley be shielded by US law enforcement and military is a bad idea. It would degrade US sovereignty and the presidency's plenary Article II powers (notice I said "presidency" and not "president's"). Granted, with Obama in charge there isn't much sovereignty to protect but the precedent of private citizens waging private wars but seeking US government protection is a bad idea.
Kill the little ****ers on US soil all day long if you want but if the militias go over they should stay over or come home and be arrested.
On the PR side it's a horrible idea as it plays to the stereotype of the drunk redneck racist being overly-armed and trigger-happy. Obama won't close the border or fight narco-terrorists, he'll use it as an excuse to skirt the Heller and MacDonald decisions.
-
Private citizens committing acts of international armed conflict and then returning to the US where they will presumabley be shielded by US law enforcement and military is a bad idea. It would degrade US sovereignty and the presidency's plenary Article II powers (notice I said "presidency" and not "president's"). Granted, with Obama in charge there isn't much sovereignty to protect but the precedent of private citizens waging private wars but seeking US government protection is a bad idea.
Kill the little ****ers on US soil all day long if you want but if the militias go over they should stay over or come home and be arrested.
On the PR side it's a horrible idea as it plays to the stereotype of the drunk redneck racist being overly-armed and trigger-happy. Obama won't close the border or fight narco-terrorists, he'll use it as an excuse to skirt the Heller and MacDonald decisions.
When I said, "down there", I meant on US soil, on or near the border. They're not talking about invading Mexico.
-
When I said, "down there", I meant on US soil, on or near the border. They're not talking about invading Mexico.
Then I hope they make damn sure of their targets because if they hurt a legal immigrant we'll lose every politician that might have stood up to Obama.
-
I know I don't have a dog in this hunt so to speak - but wouldn't the best plan be to use military assets to properly enforce the border ?. Prevention rather than cure.
-
I know I don't have a dog in this hunt so to speak - but wouldn't the best plan be to use military assets to properly enforce the border ?. Prevention rather than cure.
Ya think? :thatsright: That would be nice. Doesn't seem to be much of an option these days though.
-
Actually I wouldn't have a problem unleashing an Einsatzkommando on their asses.
-
Actually I wouldn't have a problem unleashing an Einsatzkommando on their asses.
Hey...I'm on the Border, 3 hours to the murder capital of the world. I'll rent you a spot for gun embankments, but.....
-
I'm gonna go with large unit armored incursion (with close air support) to establish a buffer zone 100 miles deep into Mexico.......advise their government that they can have it back when they prove that they can maintain order there, accompanied by a promise that if they don't perform, the next incursion won't stop until the southern suburbs of Mexico City are secured.
Fun to speculate about, but such a plan would require a US government with a set of balls........which we well know doesn't exist.
Two problems solved......illegal immigration, and narcoterrorism..........
doc
-
Private citizens committing acts of international armed conflict and then returning to the US where they will presumabley be shielded by US law enforcement and military is a bad idea. It would degrade US sovereignty and the presidency's plenary Article II powers (notice I said "presidency" and not "president's"). Granted, with Obama in charge there isn't much sovereignty to protect but the precedent of private citizens waging private wars but seeking US government protection is a bad idea.
Kill the little ****ers on US soil all day long if you want but if the militias go over they should stay over or come home and be arrested.
On the PR side it's a horrible idea as it plays to the stereotype of the drunk redneck racist being overly-armed and trigger-happy. Obama won't close the border or fight narco-terrorists, he'll use it as an excuse to skirt the Heller and MacDonald decisions.
They've already comitted acts of war. There are countless incidents where the Border Patrol has come under fire by Mexican Army units....units that have crossed the border into the U.S. to provide cover for the drug runners.
Last time I checked...on country crossing a sovergn boder and committing violent acts constitutes war.
-
Fun to speculate about, but such a plan would require a US government with a set of balls........which we well know doesn't exist.
How about a Governor with an entire Mechanized Infantry Division in his state?
They are his troops. What's going on cross border is civil unrest/civil emergency.
We've already got a Brigade Combat Team headquartered in Weslaco.
-
How about a Governor with an entire Mechanized Infantry Division in his state?
They are his troops. What's going on cross border is civil unrest/civil emergency.
We've already got a Brigade Combat Team headquartered in Weslaco.
Hey....it works for me!!
doc
-
As far as the Texas Militia, I haven't read of any ROEs, yet. One would HOPE that they wouldn't get crazy and just start shooting at people. I would also hope that IF they did get into the shooting thing, it would be, "fire on only IF fired upon".....
But, you are right, this could go very badly with the wrong people involved. I've already read a comment by one of them that didn't give me the warm fuzzies.
-
They've already comitted acts of war. There are countless incidents where the Border Patrol has come under fire by Mexican Army units....units that have crossed the border into the U.S. to provide cover for the drug runners.
Last time I checked...on country crossing a sovergn boder and committing violent acts constitutes war.
OK.
But Thor and I were discussing the TX militia and I mistakenly interpreted his "go down there" as an insinuation that they would be crossing the border.
Personally, I'd be OK with repelling Mexican army units by force. In the interests of fairness, however, I must wonder aloud/in writing if the Mexican government has sanctioned these incursions and the use of force. I suspect the Mexican government barely contrls the bathrooms in their own government buildings these days an I would not be surprised to hear these are renegade units.
-
I'd definitely support military action against the cartels - with overwhelming force. Armor, artillery, light weapons infantry, ground support aircraft, whatever it takes to send the unmistakable message that we will defend our borders.
Beforehand, however, I'd send a message to the U.N. to butt the **** out of our little adventure. Resolutions, demands, requests, political pressure, all of that emanating from the U.N. is meaningless. We're going to do what we have to do.
-
I'd definitely support military action against the cartels - with overwhelming force. Armor, artillery, light weapons infantry, ground support aircraft, whatever it takes to send the unmistakable message that we will defend our borders.
Beforehand, however, I'd send a message to the U.N. to butt the **** out of our little adventure. Resolutions, demands, requests, political pressure, all of that emanating from the U.N. is meaningless. We're going to do what we have to do.
Indeed. I don't understand why more people don't understand how heinous this is. It is an invasion. No doubt. This isn't a trifling issue.
-
Indeed. I don't understand why more people don't understand how heinous this is. It is an invasion. No doubt. This isn't a trifling issue.
The only way you will get dems to turn their backs on 12 to 20 million undocumented voters is if the GOP can exploit the Catholic up-bringing of the illegals to swing issues like abortion and gay marriage.
If we could do that the dems would pillage every Home Depot within 500 miles of the US-Mexican border to put up a fence.
-
OK.
But Thor and I were discussing the TX militia and I mistakenly interpreted his "go down there" as an insinuation that they would be crossing the border.
Oh ok...sorry late last night when I read that millitia equated to national Guard. Sorry.
Personally, I'd be OK with repelling Mexican army units by force. In the interests of fairness, however, I must wonder aloud/in writing if the Mexican government has sanctioned these incursions and the use of force. I suspect the Mexican government barely contrls the bathrooms in their own government buildings these days an I would not be surprised to hear these are renegade units.
I don't think it's the Mexican Government sanctioning it per se...more like the Cartels buying off whole Infantry companies along the border from the reports I've read.
I would be a great deterrent to illegals and the drug runners to see an M2A2 Bradley patrolling the border or see an M1A2 Abrahams parked at a checkpoint.
-
What is the degree of your general support for the idea:
A. No, never. Its a violation of Mexican sovereignty
B. No, we have too many military commitments already
C. Yes, if the kill US citizens in Mexican territory
D. Yes, if they kill US citizens in US territory
E. Yes, to prop-up the failing Mexican state before it actually collapses
F. Yes, but only after an actual collapse forces our hand
If you answered Yes to any of the above: What is the depth of force you are willing to commit assuming the graduation scale includes all preceding levels:
A. Small-units/Special Operations
B. Larger maneuver units
C. Artillery strikes
D. Rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters)
E. Fixed-wing aircraft (jets)
If you answered Yes in the first question: What sort of action would you support?
A. Punitive raids
B. Disruption/interdiction
C. maneuver in force until Mexican forces gain the upper hand
D. regime change
E. Long-term occupation
If it comes to it, I would also be in support of a regime charge, but at least until Mexican forces get the advantage, we need to step in. Hell, the Mexican forces SHOULD be dealing with their corrupt government, but first, they have to deal with their cartels.
We definitely need military action.
-
The only way you will get dems to turn their backs on 12 to 20 million undocumented voters is if the GOP can exploit the Catholic up-bringing of the illegals to swing issues like abortion and gay marriage.
If we could do that the dems would pillage every Home Depot within 500 miles of the US-Mexican border to put up a fence.
I like the way you think. :cheersmate:
-
Yes, full scale kick ass. Take territory and create a no mans land, until the cartels, gangs and border runners are brought under control. Then return the land, with stipulations. And F**k the UN.
-
No. Let them deal with their own problem like Columbia did. There when the cartels killed "enough" civilians, the rest of the people turned on them. As long as we keep putting band-aids on this they will sit back and expect us to take care of them. Unless and until they clean their own houe the murders will continue. Besides, thus far it is the druggies killing each other. good. thousands less mexican drug smugglers is a good thing. Let them kill each other. I do not care.
-
No. Let them deal with their own problem like Columbia did. There when the cartels killed "enough" civilians, the rest of the people turned on them. As long as we keep putting band-aids on this they will sit back and expect us to take care of them. Unless and until they clean their own houe the murders will continue. Besides, thus far it is the druggies killing each other. good. thousands less mexican drug smugglers is a good thing. Let them kill each other. I do not care.
I don't care either, as long as they keep it on their side of the fence, when they start pissing on my lawn, I start caring.
-
No. Let them deal with their own problem like Columbia did. There when the cartels killed "enough" civilians, the rest of the people turned on them. As long as we keep putting band-aids on this they will sit back and expect us to take care of them. Unless and until they clean their own houe the murders will continue. Besides, thus far it is the druggies killing each other. good. thousands less mexican drug smugglers is a good thing. Let them kill each other. I do not care.
If they kept their shit in Mexico, that shit hole of a country, I wouldn't care. However, they have dragged their murderous and drug crazed battles into OUR country. I say we meet them head on, at the border and kill every single one of them. If they are bringing drugs, violence & murder into this country, it's time to kill them when they enter.
-
No. Let them deal with their own problem like Columbia did. There when the cartels killed "enough" civilians, the rest of the people turned on them. As long as we keep putting band-aids on this they will sit back and expect us to take care of them. Unless and until they clean their own houe the murders will continue. Besides, thus far it is the druggies killing each other. good. thousands less mexican drug smugglers is a good thing. Let them kill each other. I do not care.
Let me echo what Tots and Thor said. As you're a noob, foghorn, I'll refrain from a stinging bitchslap because of your failure to pay attention, but let's take a look at what the issue is:
Undeclared war by Mexico on the U.S by proxy. If you think the Messican government isn't corrupt enough to turn a blind eye to the cartels raising hell along our borders, you might've had some of that Kool-Aid that's routinely passed out. And our president stands around with his dick in his hands. The fact that Mexico can't get a handle on its drug cartels and the fact that the Mexican government (fed and local) keeps losing people to decapitation and other forms of murder is a pretty clear indicator that the government is both incompetent and corrupt to the point that allowing them to handle their own problem doesn't work.
In the absence of control, anarchy rules. That's what's happening down there. When anarchy is the order of the day, all bets are off. You cut the problem off at the head.
And take no prisoners, of course.
It's time for our president to stop stroking his crank and grow a pair.
-
No. Let them deal with their own problem like Columbia did. There when the cartels killed "enough" civilians, the rest of the people turned on them. As long as we keep putting band-aids on this they will sit back and expect us to take care of them. Unless and until they clean their own houe the murders will continue. Besides, thus far it is the druggies killing each other. good. thousands less mexican drug smugglers is a good thing. Let them kill each other. I do not care.
In addition to the already noted fact that the cartels are reaching into the US I would like to point out that the US played/plays a significant role in Colombia's work against their cartels. US military and intel assets played an integral part in nailing Pablo Escobar, for example.
Just tossin' that out there.
-
Long was the PRI in cahoots with the drug runners, a good book to read on how that worked is "The Drug Lord" by Terrance Papas, when PAN took over, the allliegncy (and the manner of the Govt cut of drug profits) nhad to be reworked, this opened up big gaps in the business that the drugrunners are competing to dominate. Mexico, a socialist state run by an oligarchy, is corrupt thru and thru, when they take out a big mnarco...it is because they have aligned with his replacement already, if htere ever was sucha thing as a non-corrupt Mexican official, they were killed long ago, and any new ones stand little chance of living long, either thewir own people will kill them, or set them up tp be bumped off by the Narcos.
-
In addition to the already noted fact that the cartels are reaching into the US I would like to point out that the US played/plays a significant role in Colombia's work against their cartels. US military and intel assets played an integral part in nailing Pablo Escobar, for example.
Just tossin' that out there.
The above is a quote from someone else.
Actually, the locales ratted out Pablo Escobar because he killed too many uninvolved women and children. As long as he killed other druglords and their minions, no one cared. Yes, the U.S. chased him, but the local citizenry dealt him the final blow by ratting him out. "nuff said.
Let the Beaner druggies kill each other.
-
Long was the PRI in cahoots with the drug runners, a good book to read on how that worked is "The Drug Lord" by Terrance Papas, when PAN took over, the allliegncy (and the manner of the Govt cut of drug profits) nhad to be reworked, this opened up big gaps in the business that the drugrunners are competing to dominate. Mexico, a socialist state run by an oligarchy, is corrupt thru and thru, when they take out a big mnarco...it is because they have aligned with his replacement already, if htere ever was sucha thing as a non-corrupt Mexican official, they were killed long ago, and any new ones stand little chance of living long, either thewir own people will kill them, or set them up tp be bumped off by the Narcos.
PRI ruled Mexico for most of the 20th century after the bloody Mexican revolution, the bloodiest period in the Americas. Mexico is one of the largest economies in the world, but the nearly all the wealth is in a few hands. Mexico is stuck in the 16th century and is very aristocratic. It is ruled by 10 families who have ruled since the first Spaniard set foot on Mexico. The Mexican government is really a puppet for the ruling class.