Do you think America should invade Mexico?

[goaded]

https://youtu.be/_M8rYcjSZqo

Yes

No

I don't understand the concept of a yes/no question

[msc545]

It is unbelievable that you feel you need to even ask this question. So NO, the US should not invade Mexico.

[msc545]

Thanks for MHO

[DrPepper12]

Why not? The world loathes us enough, what's another log on the bonfire of failing empire?

[MisterWack]

Unless Mexico attacked first, think of historical context of Pearl Harbor & Lusitania & 9/11…. I personally believe that Americans shouldn’t be deployed into a war that is on their border which puts countless of innocent lives at risk from Arizona to New Mexico to Texas to more due to retaliation. I just don’t believe a war to be a good thing let alone a pointless war caused by the lousy US Government (regardless of administration)

Not to mention, we get a lot of goods from Mexico including ingredients so just like tariffs that would hit the consumer hard in the wallet at the grocery store with inflation / lead to shortages of their favorite products. As we know from inflation too / shortages, you pay more (price wise) for less (quantity), maybe even finding that the quality is not up to snuff too.

The fact is, Americans need to understand more about how these things negatively impact them so they can make a well rounded established opinion on a deeper level not looking at who is in the White House though looking at the things that negatively impact their life style / life choices. This is a serious dilemma and I’m worried about what this means for the millions of struggling families as it is.

[MisterWack]

*There were a lot of talks of invading Mexico to get the drug cartels, even to bomb areas like 2 years ago…. I just don’t think that is sensible.

[NathanDavis]

here's a funny fact...

the very moment that the "TOP COMMANDER" of all of the (military) armed forces in Mexico touched USA soil... he was immediately arrested because yeah, he has connections with cartels, obviously worked with them/for them...

the USA government decided to let him go free, and did not want to deal with him or better said, the consequences the USA government would have to deal with if what HE KNOWS (which is something we all know down here) and most Americans refuse to understand and acknowledge

the true power and influence of the actual cartels is within the United States of America... and if you declare an actual war against the actual cartels... that's a war to be fought against American entities as well...

[Texaskid1]

And do what?

Compromise our vast economic trade with one of our biggest trading partners?

You do realize that a significant amount of fruits, vegetables , automobiles , car parts and a bunch of other stuff is produced in Mexico, right? An invasion could cost losses of billions on both sides of the border.

Place the lives of 1.6 million US Citizens who live in Mexico at risk?

Of course , an invasion would later turn into an occupation - and how much would that cost the American Taxpayer? I am sure that our government will tell us we will conquer the country in a few weeks and then we will be out but keep in mind they said the same thing about Vietnam and Afghanistan - our politicians told us these would be easy wars and yet we spent 20 years in Afghanistan and years in Vietnam , lost thousands of US troops and blew billions of dollars on weapons.

[Red_Arrow]

No surprise here, Trump is always doing the wrong thing. And he has so many followers that support him. And now he has put together a cabinet of members that have no idea what their position is supposed to do, and they are totally unqualified for the positions.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

America cannot invade America. Now, Europeans... Maybe... Yeah right.

[goaded]

Slip of the brain. The United States of America, of course.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

I like slips

[Filthy_Immigrant]

no, we do not have enough money to fund our troops since Biden already sent most of our money to Ukraine. and why the fuck do we need to invade Mexico? there is never been any tension between us.

stop believing all the fake news propaganda you see on the internet

[Ladsin2]

Meh, depends on the reason. If they continue to allow hordes of people into our country unobstructed? Yes.

Said A because I can easily see a rationale for doing so. That said, they fell in line with the remain-in-Mexico policy last time so I don't see why they wouldn't acquiesce again.

[Kaneki05]

What do you mean should? They've been doing that since US was founded what's new?

[lightbulb27]

no, we should buy all of south america and divide it into states... before russia and china seize control over it.

[Snakeyes7]

Wasn't the idea to get rid of the cartels? Wouldn't Mexico be in favor of the idea because I would imagine Mexicans are tired of these cartels too considering how much of a menace they are? If I was a Mexican, I sure as hell would be.

[exitseven]

No, but something must be done with the cartels.

[goaded]

There's a trick to that that doesn't involve invading a sovereign country; it's called getting a diplomatic agreement that your people and resources can go in and help the local authorities.

[BikerCD]

Yes end the freaking war on drugs. The cartels love the black market which happens when drugs are illegal. Same when alcohol was illegal back in the 1920s

[Anonymous]

Only if Mexico refuses to stop facilitating the invasion of our country.
Otherwise Mexico isn't worth or trouble.

[Kaneki05]

You'll find it's the other way around. You invaded them.

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05 If you want to go back 200 years you will find incidents on both sides. But predominately the movement of hostile forces have been from Mexico to the USA.

The only declared war was in 1845 and that was over a border dispute after Texas joined the union.

Since that time Mexican have frequently crossed into the US either directly as was the case with the poncho villa raids sacking Columbus New Mexico in 1916, or via proxies with varying support or opposition from the Mexican state. Such is currently the case with the ongoing border war.

A war which has seen millions crossing illegal, including armed cartels, terrorist, and lethal drugs. Sometimes with the active support of parts of the Mexican military. Units which have even taken shots at our people to distract them from their partners elsewhere.

[Kaneki05]

I mean it's pretty simple who was there first and you'll find who invaded whom.
If I took a land and that land had people already there but I created a border claimed it mine saying they aren't allowed past it calling them the invaders if they do, who really invaded here?

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05 Ok... so we can go back before the stone age if you only believe the first people to discover land hold claim to it we would still have no idea who "rightly" belongs on what land on almost any part of the planet.

The effort to define ownership this way rejecting all conflicts is soo absurd you would would have to commit genocide just to retain any claim to any land.

If you want to dispute the outcome of past wars you need to do so by the standards of the people who fought the war. Neither side agreed with that standard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVqQosyOpg4

[Kaneki05]

By your logic the only invaders are the ones who lose that makes no sense. Those conflicts only showed the invaders won not they weren't the invaders to deny they were is ignoring facts because anyone even a simple understanding of history knows America isn't old and was only founded 200ish years ago by colonists from a very different region.
And what are colonists what are they doing? Invading.

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05 I do not question the definition of invader, merely the nature of who is being invaded is a product of who was living there at the time.

I do not dispute that Spanish, British, french, American (including Canadians), Mexicans invaded many lands of North America.
Merely that those wars were lost long ago, and were of course by no means the first invasions nor wars that has been taking place since the dawn of man in pretty much every place in which man has ever existed.

With few exceptions we have no idea who first discovered most places on earth. So its pointless to try and return the land to them.

[Kaneki05]

When was my point about other wars?
My point was about you saying about Mexicans invading your country, you'll find it's the other way. If your argument here is the Mexicans were invaders of the very same land before maybe so? But that don't matter to my point, and don't matter to the fact you invaded them not the other way.
And they've been there a lot longer, much longer.

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05
Mexico lost the Mexican-American war of 1845 decisively. They furthermore not only ceded their claim to Texas border but legally sold the rest of the South Western states to these untied States in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848,

It is also untrue that Mexico had been there longer with the country only having claimed independence from Spain in September of 1810, concluding the war with treaty in 1821.

So theses lands have been part of the union for ~176 years, while Mexico only held claim to them for around 35-38 years at best.

Spain of course claimed them like all of the Americas before that but being brittish you no more respect that claim than we do. Regardless the Spanish are the ones who conquered the native tribes of the area.

[Kaneki05]

What are you even about Mexicans have been there since over 13,000 years. Don't tell me your one of those who thinks all Mexicans come from Spain. You do know what the Aztecs's are right?

And once again you are following the logic the only invaders are the ones who lose, just because they lost a war in 1845 don't mean there people weren't the one invaded and been there much, much longer.

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05 If that is how your going to define Mexicans then Americans are 18,000 years old, when are they going to surrender their territory to our older claim?

Mexico is not the successor state to the Aztec empire and even if it were, the Aztec empire did not extend much beyond southern Mexico and was surrounded by enemies. Enemies who helped bring it down with the aid of the Spanish.
You could say those enemies included tribes living in America but the distance was soo great the Azetec were little more than trade partners.

[Kaneki05]

This is getting nowhere, just throwing around semantics here. by the way I include the Spanish as invaders too. And we could go into pointless rant about how many of an Aztecan tribes still lingers on and should have a right to that land, same with native Americans from more upper tribes.

The whole point here is how can one think a country that was made out invading land they weren't on, can then say it's bad when it happens to them.
It's Hypocritical and illogical.
One should be able to figure out if a country was only founded 200ish years ago by colonization that they don't have much a moral grounds to stand on about invasion.

That's what bothers me really is that sense of moral ground about it, yet you owe your entire civilization due to invasion.

[Opinion Owner]

I am afraid you must be getting confused, it is not mere semantics that a conquest was accomplished 100-500 years ago of nations that were themselfs conquered of the very land which was conquered. @kaneki05

Hypocritical is what your suggesting that they are somehow entitled to the land having conquered from others before we did.

[Kaneki05]

How's it hypocritical that the people there before you have more right to it than you?
And yes it is mere semantics that you are trying to conjure over the facts that you colonized therefore standing on the moral ground invasion is bad it is funny.
Unless you deny the fact you colonized and think you were there first you know I am right that it matters not who won in what war that was made due to invading in the first place smh.

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05 Because they held no such respect for the people there for them obviously.

There are very few places on earth where the current inhabitants did not conquer it from the prior inhabitants including your own "united kingdom".
Such places tend to be islands like the Falklands when the UK first discovered them or Iceland.

The fact that much of our populations ancestors came over to colonize makes no difference given that is exactly what the people who were their before did.

[Kaneki05]

There you go again talking about other wars and other places. Tell me when did I once defend UK? When did that even have anything to do with my point...
Tell me do you think of me as one who is arguing against this all the sudden changes my mind when you give an example of another country or including my own doing it?
I think I've been clear in my views that you should know that's not going to.

You'll find yet again that's the other way around. It's you who's defending yourself from been so called invaded though you are the invaders.
And whether not the other's are also invaders before you that matters not? All that means is your been invaded because you invaded can't you figure that out? Then you complain as if it's a surprise or it's such a bad thing.
If your point is it's okay to invade other invaders but then same would go back to you no?

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05 We were discussing the idea of whom was invading whom in which it was my understanding that because we had previously invaded anther group this groups invasion of our country was not an invasion.

I maintain it is called an invasion simply because they are not currently controlling the area in question nor welcomed by those who do.

On the tangent of moral right to the area as we were discussing, you seemed to be implying that Mexico nation and its people is the successor state to the aztect.
I said this is not true, but to the degree it is America would be the successor state of its various native groups, which in this case include Alaskan sites which are older.

Regardless Being in favor of my own culture I have every right to be as against its invasion and colonization as every other culture. We should not pretend that we are on the same side and should hold the same opinion about everything.

AS mentioned elsewhere Mexico's desire to undermine the sovereign integrity of the USA in hopes of advancing their own nationalistic and cultural interest, does not mean I should agree with them.

[Kaneki05]

All I said was they were there first but you seem to have hard time grasping of this concept despite it been true either way you look at it.
Nothing you have said means they weren't there first. If you regarding the Spanish who invaded they were there before you, if you regard the indigenous tribes they were there first.

Therefore logic dictates you guys been last in was and still are the invaders.
Pretty sure the difference was 100 years or so, it wasn't as if you all invaded at the same time and decided to share the land peacefully, because then yeah in that case you wouldn't be but since that's not what happen you guys are the invaders to them.

[Opinion Owner]

What is the point of a definition of "invader" that includes the current occupation? @Kaneki05
The English language needs words to have distinct meaning and if your application cannot distinguish between sides what propose is there?

[Kaneki05]

Interesting so you now think invader don't apply to current occupation...
Well, I've got some news for you currently those immigrants in your country are currently occupied within it.
And I guess history now shows no one actually invaded anyone by such logic longs if they currently occupy their location. Wonder how colonization happens without it been defined as invasion if your point is current occupiers aren't invaders.

Is there some time limit you've arbitrary made where the cut off point happens?
Think the wars in the middle east would prove that line don't really exist, wars for land can exist for a very long time, and we know America hasn't defeated that issue yet otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about this in the first place.
It's still a pretty close to home issue who has right to enter that border.

[Kaneki05]

The point being you class them as invaders, they class you as invaders. And in objective truth the one who is right is the ones there first which wasn't you. Don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. But I am getting bored of repeating this point.

[Opinion Owner]

@Kaneki05
For Americans to currently be invaders, Latin Americans would have to control the land in question today or in the past since which there has been on going conflict with their particular group.

Only a minority of them can claim via their Mexican nationality to have ever been in conflict over land of about 8 states not the other 42 in which they are invading via those state, and those claims were settled by the treaty of 1848.

For the majority that are not Mexican, there is no claim at all to any past conflict much less never ending conflict over the land they nor any group to which they can associate had ever before occupied.

I can only assume your making the racist assumption that they are native Americans and have some kind of generic "native American" heritage claim which is incorrect on both accounts.

Theses are people from all over the world not just Latin America. Those that are from Latin America are generals what the Spanish called Mestizo. Which is a term for someone of mixed European and native ancestry. That is native to lands south of the border.

The Native Americans who lived in the U. S. or Canada are still in the U. S. and Canada either blended into our population or upon reservations.

These people are no more related to the tribes in North America than the United Kingdom is to Spain.

[Kaneki05]

At this point can you even read? I've explained to you several times you are last no matter how you look at it. So I have no clue why you keep berating this point and circling back to this strawman argument of yours about what race is this or what.
You were last, you are the invaders. It's also funny your on about me making a racist assumption when I think the only one been racist here is you, after all you keep bringing it up after I've explained several times that don't matter either way.
Plus you practically just said to me for one to invade someone they have to be a certain race, which is not how that works at all, you do know invading some place counts no matter their race or even if your invading not the indigenous people right?

But while we are on that you have to at least admit they have more native blood than you do with the way it mixed in right? Not that I think this matters at all but ya know if we want to go down your route you must be a certain race for invasion...

[Opinion Owner]

Your strange definition of the word "invader" as mentioned is somewhat useless. @Kaneki05

[Kaneki05]

Nope my definition is just exactly what it is there is a reason why they called it the colonization of America, not the returning to home.

[BikerCD]

Lol no more freaking wars

[zagor]

Already did and kept the best parts.

[4ngelic]

what