Plus, we could call it a canal and charge admission...
It's not like Mexican military hasn't invaded our border in the past. They have done so several times, both on foot, and in the air.
Edit:
WASHINGTON — Two heavily armed, camouflaged Mexican soldiers crossed 50 yards inside Arizona in January and drew their guns against U.S. Border Patrol agents who confronted them in a tense standoff, according to documents obtained by The Times/Tribune Washington Bureau.
U.S. officials said it was one of nearly two dozen border incursions by Mexican soldiers into southern Arizona in the last four years.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-mexico-20140402-story.html
Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained documents from the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) that confirm a June 26, 2014, attack by a Mexican government helicopter on U.S. Border Patrol agents. The Mexican helicopter crossed into U.S. airspace before firing on U.S. Border Patrol personnel. The Mexican government initially denied that the attack near Arizona’s San Miguel Gate occurred, but later admitted to the armed incursion.
The CBP documents were released in response to a July 9, 2014, Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CBP seeking:
Any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the June 26, 2014 incident near Sells, AZ on the Tohono O’Odham Indian Reservation during which one or more Mexican military helicopters reportedly entered U.S. airspace and fired shots in the vicinity of U.S. Border Patrol personnel.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...-crossing-border-and-firing-on-border-patrol/
But, again, we've chosen to treat that as the independent actions of the soldiers/pilots/units involved, not the official actions of the Mexican government.
When we finally decide to call it an act of war, things will necessarily get...sporty.
My response was related to SMS calling for a buffer on the border, on their side.
They have no issue crossing ours and violating our territorial rights. We should have no issues violating theirs.
Similar to the DMZ in Korea. Heavily mined, with a no cross edict that says, you enter the buffer, you die.
We can stop the illegal immigration. It won't be pretty, and would be horrific in the beginning, but it can be stopped.
We spend billions of dollars defending the borders of just about every country in the world, killing people in the process, and our congress won't vote to fund our border security, nor defend it? We have no problem sending our sons and daughters to every craphole country in the world to defend their borders, and we object to the NG defending ours?
The liberal media is calling Trumps move as a "whiff of militarism in the government".
WTF?
We have an issue of the democrapic party wanting a layer of second class citizens on the government dole to become their new base.
Americans are fighting back even in commiefornika. Escondido is the latest city to go against the sanctuary city/state mandated by the moon beam Governor.
Hmmmm....
....do you suppose that the "undocumented" aliens in this country would return to Mexico to fight on their side?
Could that be something to consider in U.S. strategy?
Same answer: if we do it as official policy, it's a whole lot different than an "isolated incident." Despite our willingness to go to war in far-off lands, we do not want a hot shooting war on our borders, especially with so many sympathizers residing within our own borders.
All the arguments we give as to why armed private citizens could be a thorn in the side of a tyrannical fed.gov apply fully to the idea of a war with Mexico as well. We could conquer Mexico in a month, but we could never subdue it, and we'd pay a heavy price for trying.
We don't want to support that country. We want to stop the illegal immigration to our country. A kill zone buffer would stop it. We enforce those same buffers in other countries at the risk of American lives. We should expect no less on our border.
At what price, though? Mexico is still a major trade partner, not to mention the disapproval we'd encounter on the world stage.
Nothing happens in a vacuum; the blowback we'd encounter--worldwide--over establishing a "kill zone buffer" would be swift and severe. Markets for our goods would dry up, and suppliers for raw materials we need would turn away from us. We're quick to impose trade sanctions on countries that do things of which we disapprove; we'd find ourselves on the receiving end, and it would hurt. Wouldn't surprise me to find our foreign military bases getting restricted or closed, too.
I agree that we need to secure the border, but an honest-to-God DMZ would be hugely to our detriment, especially if it's on land we seize from another nation.
Oh, I'm taking the radical viewpoint for sure to be the devil's advocate, and I also know for sure, that a kill zone buffer is not going to happen. It just makes for an interesting discussion.
What's wrong with a buffer on our side?
Similar threads
