I have been saying that Mexico is a greater threat to the United States than Iran ever will be. regardless of what we do in the Iranian "situation" we know that we can handle it strategically at any time. With the Mexican invasion it is a different story. The clear and rpesent danger presented by Mexico will prove to be catastrophic and we are very under prepared. Meixco will be the issue at the heart of the next American civil war/ Mexican War.

ARTICLE LINK:
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.htm...3,2359,650,3525

ARTICLE EXERPT:

I would say Iran is more of a serious threat, for if a American-Mexican war broke out, you would see more people willing to fight to drive them back. Plus as we all know we the USA have a way more superior military force and if needed would demolish Mexico in a matter of days. For it would hit to close to home, in fact our home directly if some criminal aspects of Mexico thought they could seriously conquer parts of the U.S. While it may be true they could do some damage... I live in Phoenix and I can tell you that loads of people here have firearms and know how to use them and would shoot beaners by dozens if they step out of line and tried to pull some ###### like this. Now believe me I do in fact think it is a threat and it needs to be resolved promply.. but in reality Iran actually has more power to inflict a more serious chaotic catastrophe to us and to the world than Mexico does. Though we could just nuke Iran if need be, nuking Mexico would not be smart since it is just south of us and undesired affects are very likely.

Iran or Mexico .....

the simlpe truth is: America will ALWAYS find some threat or another !

oh, and of course - "take it to heart"

say, there wasn't either of mentioned - o you think America would be content and consider "natioanl security" interest (one of main excuses to bomb and invade other nations) as an oudated? I doubt it !

reminds me the line by Nicolas Cage in "Lord of War" (not exact quote) : "Some people say - evil prevails when good people stay aside and do nothing. But the simple truth is : evil prevails !". it is even necessary for America to make it seem that there are WMD in Iraq or nukes in Iran - or whatever - to justify their foreign policy at least to their own people, which even that becomes encreasingly hard, not to mention world comunity. why? simple: to be able to continue profiting on weapons trade. if particular product produced and faces shortage of demand for it - what will happen? and how to make sure that there is always sufficient market ? to arrange some "hot zones", send there its onw troops or suply weaons to one of side (even better - to BOTH, as caused Watergate scandal )

show must go on !

Mexico has never invaded the USA, in spite of the fact that we stole one third of their land. Pancho Villa in Presidio, Texas or Columbus, New Mexico doesn't count as the nation of Mexico at that time. They weren't invading the USA at Palo Alto or Resaca de Las Palmas either; on the contrary, the Americans were invading Mexico (I rode past those places countless times, plus the tree where the General's horse relieved himself, near the King Ranch).

If you compare the military forces of the two countries, Mexico has always known they didn't have the prayer of a beginning of an inkling of a chance to beat the USA. It's silly.

The USA never invaded Mexico, from an American perspective, either. Both claimed sovereignty over the territory in question. But in the reign of de Santa Anna Mexico was one of the world's greatest military powers, and had already emerged victorious from conflicts with Great Britain and France. The conclusion was not foregone.

If you'll visit the Parks Service's headquarters in Brownsville, upstairs they have two maps. The first, printed at federal expense shortly after Texas won its war against Mexico in 1836, show the southern boundary of Texas at the Nueces River. While the USA claimed that its annexation of Texas ran south to the Rio Grande, that's an unsubstantiated claim.

Neverthelss, even if that were true, the USA most surely invaded Mexico. Do you know the origin of the line from that religious hymn or anthem, for the US Marine Corps? "...from the halls of Montezuma..." In a very bogus attempt to say the desert between those two rivers was US property (not too different from Saddam Hussein claiming that northernmost Kuwait was a province of Iraq), they entered Mexico at its northern border and its eastern port of Veracruz, proceeding inland to the capital. That's an invasion.

Even the patriotic Mexicans don't give as much credit for Santa Ana as the general himself did.

Regardless how much of a military power Mexico was around 1848 (a minor one, I would think), any modern comparison of its power to the USA's superpower is like a gnat to a condor.

Which war are you referring to? In the Texas War of Independence, Texas was forced to secede from Mexico after numerous abuses from the Mexican government and after de Santa Anna made himself dictator. Texas was far from the only province to be in revolt against the government in Mexico City at that time. It was generally abusive and controlling, and the Texans were right to secede.

The Mexican-American War began on April 24th, 1846, when a 2,000 man strong detachment of Mexican cavalry attacked a 63 man American patrol, killing 11 of them. Later, on May 3rd, Mexican artillery opened fire on Fort Brown. Fighting proper began later on May 8th, when Zachary Taylor arrived with a 2,400 man force to relieve the fort, but was intercepted and attacked by a force of 3,400 Mexicans at Palto Alto.

Not sure its quite fair to be calling the Mexican-American War an American invasion, and an American war of imperialism, when it was the Mexican military that originally initiated combat.

As for the land between the rivers, they were signed over to Texas by de Santa Anna in 1836.

Iran is the greater danger, obviously.
Mexico is a great friend of the US. Viva Mexico. Screw Iran.

Ben, the treaty that Santa Ana signed at San Jacinto (now a suburb of Houston, Texas) treated the southern boundary at the Nueces River, not the Rio Grande.

Texas settlers from the USA violated Mexican law time and again, especially promising to be good Catholics, when they were mostly bad Protestants. Many settlers, unlike Moses Austin, came illegally.

In 1846, General Taylor invaded Mexico when he crossed the Nueces River, and he knew it. The Mexicans in the valley of Rio Bravo del Norte (as they called it) were only defending their homeland, reinforced by national troops.

But even if that point were conceded (which I don't concede), once the American troops under General Z. Taylor crossed the second river, they were INVADING Mexico, all the way to the halls of Moctezuma. Look at any atlas; troops also landed at Veracruz, nearly copying the route of Cortes' Catholic conquest of the indigenous people.

Anyway, Mexico as a nation, with an army and air force and navy (no coast guard) will not invade the USA. They are a third rate military power, on a good day when they're arrogant. I think the point of this thread was that Mexico is a threat to the USA, militarily. No, not even the imagined threat that Grenada was.

It's more likely that Gore_Lost's opening post was racist and bigoted, as if all those unarmed, poor, non-liberal, hard-working, undereducated immigrants to the USA would be a threat to the USA. Nah. Nope. En ningun manera.

Heh! I just saw Thaiquila's post (mis) quoting Dubyah. But, the misquote pretty much sums up my thoughts too.
As far as who governs "the land between the rivers" here in Texas. Most Mexicans really like the way things are. They can nip over here for an honest job, and our cops are nicer to them than their cops.
Ken

No it didn't. Mexico did not even dispute this, they just didn't recognize the treaty.

from Wiki:





Who abused who?

-Mexico placed the capital of Texas in two other provinces, moving them around, but never putting it inside Texas.

-Mexico garrisoned Texas with convicted criminals, who were abusive to the local population (The Texas Revolution was actually sparked by the murder of Texan settler Jesse McCoy by a Mexican soldier.)

-Mexico jailed Stephen Austin for several months without ever charging him (Because he had written an angry letter)

-Texas was at the time hardly alone in its desire to escape from de Santa Anna's boot. Much of the country was in open revolt.



Yes, in response to an invasion of Texas by Mexico (Mexico did not suggest the treaty said what you say it said, it just disputed its validity). You characterized it as American aggression. It was in fact Mexican aggression that sparked the conflict.

But in general response: Iran is the far, far, far,I don't think I can write far enough times to emphasize, bigger threat.

Okay, let's not worry about how many treaties Santa Ana was forced to sign, with different boundaries in each. We agree that modern Mexico, militarily, is no threat to the USA, especially compared to Iran, Iraq, Grenada, or a province of Nicaragua or Belize. Maybe this belongs on a forum for conspiracy theories.

Hmm, the Way=Way=Tenangoreños in Huehuetenango, Guatemala are plotting to invade that tiny little customs shack in Chiapas where I left my baggage, the same shack that only gave a 15 day visa stamp to Jesse, group leader for www.globalexchange.org, the first foreigner I met on my first trip to Acteal. It's the "way way out conspiracy."

I don't think I understand what you're saying in the second paragraph of that post.

I think that the idea behind the thread is which country poses a bigger threat to the US, and that can be in many forms. Militarily, neither country at this time is a threat, except as an exporter of nuclear weapons which Iran could become. On the other hand, culturally, as those who are alive know the American culture, Mexico has the greater potential to change. As far as borders, Mexico has a greater potential of changing borders. Don't think so, look at Canada's bilingual problem. They had a referendum not that long ago on splitting up. Up there the English majority placates the French minority through a form of language affirmative action.

I'm sorry that my punny, puny little joke was so cryptic. You see, we've got so many Latino, Hispanic conspiracy theories going here (thanks, Ben, for starting the one-stop shop for illegal immigration) that we should post them on the "Conspiracies" forum.

There is a department (province) of Guatemala, next to the border of Mexico, called Huehuetenango. Residents might be called Huehuetenangoreños. I invented a fake conspiracy that they are trying to invade Mexico by that little border shanty town (where I did forget my luggage once, and where Jesse was given a 15 day visa). So I coined it the "Way, Way Out" conspiracy to invade the USA, as Ronald Reagan once invented a way-out conspiracy that the ragtag Sandinista Army would walk across four sovereign Latin American countries in order to invade Harlingen, Texas.

Oh, and I got way off topic (meeting Jesse at Acteal, and giving you Global Exchange's website) to illustrate how these conspiracy theories are, in fact, off topic.

And, almost off topic, I once met two Slovakians from Montreal who swore they were getting the *** out of Canada because the French came so close to winning the last separatist vote in Quebec, and they wanted to know what Latin American country they could immigrate to. That was on the beach at Galveston.

Over at Ben's one-stop thread, I think I just posted the latest southern California survey that Hispanic immigrants keep their language slightly longer than earlier immigrants from European countries, but by the third generation, they don't speak Spanish and don't know anybody in Mexico.

The US Department of State. They already think that they run the USA. The step from thinking that to actually taking action isn't very far.
Second would be France. Former allies, now enemies that pretend to be allies are more dangerous then obvious enemies.
Mexico is NO Threat. They send us Mexicans, which we turn into Americans and then send back. If you drive south thru Texas, you will notice that the signs change from 90% english 10% Spanish about 200 Km's north of the border. Withing 20Km's of the border they are 50/50. Going south for about 100Km's you will see the percentages slowly reversing.
The truth is that the US/Mexico Border is not a hard and fast thing. No line in the sand, but a gradual morphing from one to the other. The culture calls itself Tex-Mex north of the border, Mex-Tex south of the border.
America is a greater danger to Mexico then Mexico is to America.
Iran is in the hands of nut-jobs. It has been since '79. Nut jobs die, just like All men. America just keeps rolling along. The Worst Iran can do to the US is set of atomic bombs in the Canary Islands and trigger the Fault there. That will send a wall of water 60 to 100 feet high moving at 600KPH across the Eastern Coast of America. It will destroy lots of property and kill about 100 Million Liberals, but that won't destroy America.
It will make America stronger to have New York wiped off the map, Boston Washed out to sea and Florida turned back into a swamp. Go ahead Ahmadamnutjob, Kill 100 million American Liberals. Make my day.
It will take about 2 hours for the tsunami to get to the East Coast, which will give us guys in Alabama time to throw weapons in our pick-ups, gas up and head west for some serious looting. I am headed for Norfolk, so I can find one of the Aircraft Carriers that has been washed inland a Mile or two and get me my very own nuclear weapon. I'll take it back home and turn it into a coffee table. Make all my VFW drinking buddies jealous as 'ell.