Ok, I’ll bite and explain why I think that’s a bad idea....Hoodasnacks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:54 am My opinion on this, while logical, has admittedly moved to an extreme--I would love some honest discussion on the following thought:
The power of the cartels, and the lack of competence/caring/pure corruptness of the Mexican government causes 10's of thousands of deaths per year in the United States based on drug-related issues. Human trafficking, sex slavery, and thousands of other crimes are also more prevalent than they should be because of the failed state on our border. Then there is the further cost on our education system, healthcare system, etc., due to the masses of people that come here as a result of these circumstances. The cost of this failed state in lives and dollars for us is likely much higher than the cost of a war. There is no end in site to this death and destruction that will be forced on our dear country. Additionally, Mexico also has a great deal of natural resources, and a very small southern border which is strategically preferable--and a ton of good people that I would be happy to welcome as brothers and sisters.
Why not take it over? We would probably be greeted like liberators. Mexico can keep its flag and pride in their heritage just as Texas has. We certainly should be more concerned with a failed state on our border than failed states in the middle east.
I have moved past the "what happens in their country is none of our business" because it is our business. What happens there impacts the liberties of US citizens every day.
Not trying to troll---this is a forum of intelligent people that I respect. I always try to think out of the box and this is one consideration to at least examine before we rule it out. I would love to see a poll of the Mexican citizens of what they would think about this--I am genuinely curious.
First of all, that’s a HUGE assumption that we’d be greeted as liberators. Remember how long that idea lasted in Iraq/Afghanistan? Some Mexican citizens might be in favor of the idea, but mostly only because they would see it as removing a barrier to US largess.....NOT because they are particularly "Amerophiles". That’s why, instead of choosing a pathway to citizenship when they get here, they view themselves as here temporarily, to earn money, which they can send back to their families in Mexico, or whatever Central/Southern American country they come from. And the truth is—which we can see even in our own country and culture—that more people prize security over liberty, than those who prize liberty over security. They prefer the known "security" of the bondage they have, to the unknown insecurity of the liberty they don’t have. That’s why so many US citizens are willing today to sell capitalism down the river for the "security" of the socialist nanny state. With the possible exception of those who make the journey north, citizens of Mexico most likely feel the same way. They prefer the known to the unknown, and an invading army is an ENORMOUS unknown.
Secondly, do not make the mistake of assuming that Mexicans aren’t patriots. Are you willing to kill a whole lot of otherwise innocent Mexican patriots, defending their homeland from a foreign invasion, so that you can kill a few thousand cartel members? I despise what my federal gov’t has become, but if another country was foolish enough to invade us, I would fight them, tooth and nail—because I love my country even if I don’t love it’s government. I love the principles on which it was founded, along with its founding documents—even if the gov’t has largely abandoned those principles and nullified those documents. I would fight an invader tooth and nail, NO MATTER WHO IT IS, in the hopes that once they were defeated and driven out, it would present an opportunity to restore MY gov’t to its founding principles, using its founding documents as a reliable guide. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that a LARGE part of the Mexican population wouldn’t feel exactly the same way.
Thirdly, don’t make the mistake of thinking that an invasion of Mexico would be seen as anything less than a race-war, all over the world as well as by Mexicans, including among at least half of our OWN population. In modern day Mexico, Hernan Cortés is so reviled as the bringer of "whiteness" and Christianity to Mexico, and as the eradicator of Aztec life and culture, that there is seldom any mention or celebration of his name by the country's gov’t, educational institutions, museums, and oral history. In the country's most important museums, where there are displayed artifacts and bones of the Aztecs, there is frequent mention of the Aztec proclivity for human sacrifice (as many as 8,000-12,000 victims per year at the Aztec "capital" of Tenochtitlan), and they even talk about when the practice ended. But there is NO mention that it was ended by Hernan Cortés, who as bad as he was, saw something even darker and worse in the murdering of thousands to appease pagan gods. That’s how hated he is. Tribal memories die hard. Cortés is their Hitler. And there is currently happening in Mexico a rebirth of interest in the cultures and religions of their first people. Earlier this year, the president of Mexico even sent a letter to King Felipe VI of Spain, demanding that he apologize for Spain’s invasion of Mexico back in the 1500s. The letter was rightly refused and ridiculed, but that doesn’t change the fact that a LOT of Mexican citizens self identify as Aztec descendants....even many white students of Spanish descent. There’s an interesting article about it here: https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2019/05 ... mbivalent/. In any case, a large military incursion by an army of norteamericanos isn’t likely to be well received by Mexicans, and it would have a high probability of bogging down, just as our adventures into Iraq and Afghanistan did. And it would be compounded by shifting public attitudes in the US—a nation exhausted by 18 years of war—and by feckless leadership in DC with poorly defined and constantly changing goals.
Lastly, take a lesson from the reunification of East and West Germany....which is a huge topic on its own. But suffice it to say that when a vibrant and growing capitalist economy tried to absorb a nearly equal population of people raised under a competing political ideology and economic theory, it made for very hard cheese for Germans for a time. Sure, the former East Germans prospered....or rather....they collected more benefits....but it took a long time before they learned west German style capitalism and got themselves off the public dole. West Germany paid the price for supporting that state of affairs longer than they should have. The exact same situation will face the Koreas if they ever reunite, and it will CERTAINLY face us if we tried to absorb Mexico into the Union.
Nope. Best to not try to "take over" Mexico.
