Is war with Mexico inevitable?

The wall will have a profound effect on Mexico. Will we have to invade them to restore stability? How long will their military last against us?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RGjQgLaHyF4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

we can see you libtard shills from miles away

sage this thread people

Better not shake the tree burger.

Not likely, since a war isn't necessary. Why Americans aren't more pissed about what's been going on along there southern border is beyond me. They basically have a country next to them that fought a major war against immensely rich crime syndicates, funded by American money, the Mexican government lost the war and now they have a refugee crisis pouring right over there border for decades.

I wish it were. It would solve a bunch of problems.

youtube.com/watch?v=RGjQgLaHyF4
Get rid of the traitors

It's best to let sleeping dogs lie

Didn't the last they invaded end so badly you actually took land from them?

I doubt it.

The easier solution is to negotiate American law enforcement agencies and special forces the ability to help out the Mexican government wrecking the cartels in exchange for them paying for the wall.

All that has to be done at that point is to revise NAFTA so it doesn't gut Mexico's agricultural sector again and somehow convince them to actually invest in education and anti-corruption measures.

They're gonna be a shitshow for at least another 20 years, but they have a slim chance.

It is the logical conclusion to the war on drugs. Also it solves all of our trade problems with them.

Would they even be able to put up a fight? I imagine it wouldn't take 2-3 months for us to wipe them out.

>china steps in and supports mexico
>typical us foreign policy of putting their troops in nations next to Russia or China flips around
on them
KEKED

sage

So in other words, we're going to be making the next ghost recon a reality?

Fuck video games I'm getting my gat

Imagine ISIS but on your doorstep, except with actual significant support among your doorstep.

A.k.a. you really don´t want to actually do that.

I mean i get that you´ve a profound love for breaking your teeth and bones on sandniggers due to your being American, but this would be a lot worse than your sm sessions with those.

>Sup Forums is a board of peace
Kek, no war is going to happen. With or without wall.

You can't kill sand niggers with aka47s, I doubt you can fight against the cartels.

How do you create rules of engagement for engaging criminal syndicates?

You retards are already at war with Mexico.

It's called: The War on Drugs

And you're losing it.

This is retarded, taking out mexico could be accomplished in i'd call: 14 days.

Mexicans are nothing like Isis. Holy shit you are fucking stupid. God damned Mexico has a government. Also the idea that China or Russia would help is preposterous. We have enough naval power to literally surround mexico without a single gap. If we ever went to war, which we wont, Mexico as you know it would be destroyed immediatly. One week to disable all formal military power.

I don't think even this will cause war with Mexico exactly.

America's problems is with Mexico's poor and criminal rich.

If it did come to war though, I predict America could defeat Mexico's military a dozen times over before its manpower even takes a dent.

And the ground war would take days.

Just like Vietnam and Iraq, right?

Lol this meme. "You Americans can't even kill some goat fuckers!" "You Americans are genociding Middle Easterners!" Which is it? God damn.

ITT: Burgers that have an 'idea' on how Mexico works.

Why would we even want war with Mexico?

Wtf is this shit SAGE

alqaida is dead now, we won.

Usa wasn't at war with Vietnam.

It was at war with half of Vietnam.

Makes it seem even dumber until you look at what happened in another war that America technically didn't "win"

When the UN forces kicked Norkies out of the South Korea, it pushed it luck and invaded the North. And China poured over the border like crazy.

Guess who's north of Vietnam?

Vietnam and Iraq were never the problem.
Its the fuckers that surround that were.

No one is going to help Mexico. None of its neighbors have any kind of religious or idealogical connection to it.

Do you see the shit happening in Mexico happening in the US? Fucking no. Don't blame the US because Mexico is unable to wipe their own ass.

>war
>literally why

and how exactly would the chinks get to mexico?

Removes government, destroys military, left with an insurgency that we should have just left alone in the first place. End up destroying multiple terrorist networks before we head home. Somehow still didn't win. Please explain your criteria for victory in Iraq?

Cartels are the same thing, except they are even more traitorous

For what purpose? They're not worth annexing. Taking that territory would give us nothing good and make us responsible for a whole lot of bad.

what's wrong with her face? She's all caked up, but looks like she has down syndrome?

Except Cartels are fucking easy to destroy, because everyone knows who is a part of one. The only reason Mexico can't do it is because the politicians are all corrupt by greed or threats of death. No such trouble for a new force entering the region.

the rules of engagement from the Geneva convention only protect those of an established army, with ways to identify combatants

The mexican militia and the fucking sand niggers don't follow the Geneva convention, so technically they are not protected by it.

I remember China constructing a shitload of aircraft carriers awhile back. And by that I mean two.

Still nothing compared to America's naval capabilities. I don't see China getting to Mexico.

when the drug dealers get pissed that they can't sell drugs, kill them.

MMMA = Make Mexico Magnificent Again
>recreate Lake Texcoco with the blood of the cartels!

Don't be fucking stupid. You're making burgers look bad

>which is it?
"You americans are genociding unarmed middle easterners instead of killing isis goatfuckers"
FTFY

>so technically they are not protected by it.

Neat!

They still are protected by it.

Only difference is, if they don't follow it and fall on the losing side, no one gives a shit if they all get executed. Be court sanctioned or not.

>War with Mexico
Didn't we already do that?

Technically twice.

Once as a proxy war.

One as a true conventional one.


To its credit, the largest battle in California was mostly against Mexican militia, and they did a LOOOOT better than the actual army did.

And they were just horsemen with lances... going against an army of men with guns.

But that was back then. Mexican and American military were on slightly more level playing fields.

Lol genocide. Not happening. We defeated Al Qaeda and other networks as well as everyone reasonably in reach of the regions we occupied. Isis is all over the middle east, effectively out of reach. So fuck off with that. Everywhere we go we deliver a royal ass kicking to everyone but the most trivial of opposition.

Economic sanctions are easer, not everything can be fixed with nukes

We wouldnt lose much nuking you and would save a lot of time and heart ache. Got plenty of authentic taco resturaunts already.

Japan would beg to differ

THIS RIGHT HERE.

Mexico's biggest problem is that they refuse American aid because "We are a sovereign nation that needs no help" while simultaneously being dependent on NAFTA in order to fucking stay afloat.

But that would kill all axolotes...

They live in South Texas, too!

They wake up and stuff when coastal brushland experiences flooding.

>End up destroying multiple terrorist networks

The conflict created more terrorist networks than it has got rid of, see ISIS.

This is what I don't get about americans, whenever their losses are brought up they always bring up the amount of people they've killed as if it was a "win".
This isn't Modern Warfare 2 where your K/D at the end of the game indicates your score.

>Please explain your criteria for victory in Iraq?

Well first it was "finding weapons of mass destruction", which backfired, I don't remember the most recent "criteria for victory" was, it was either "kill the terrorists" or "liberation" for sure.

>Didn't the last they invaded end so badly you actually took land from them?

Yes. Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildaglo, I believe, though the land wasn't really 'settled', so most of it was more akin to transferring colonial rights.

>which backfired

Because the stupid Infamy system wouldn't let us add another War Goal against Syria to finish the WMD event chain.

They really need to rework that.

Japan was done for long before the nukes.

The bombing of Tokyo after the atomic bombs has more impact on Japan's surrender than the nukes did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

>How long will their military last against us?

About half as long as Iraqs.

Neocon detected. We don't have to kill everything.

It's almost like you don't want to see your enemies driven before you.

You would call it a loss no matter what, because you buy into a ridiculous narrative that we somehow lost Iraq. We didnt accomplish every single goal, but did fairly well. Leadership eliminated, regime removed, origional terrorists removed, all that remained was a minor insurgency. The only way to have prevented the next big terrorist group was through annexation, apparently, which we only know through the benefit of hindsight.

I'm guessing your real criteria for winning are something along the lines of "Make the dictator stop dictating without a drop of bloodshed, make everyone suck your dick willingly until the end of time and end world hunger within two months." So fuck you, bitch, your country is a joke and you wouldn't know a big win if it smacked you in the face, which it never fucking will.

Don't be deluded m8.

Though, to be honest, it'll be pretty different because the possible terrorists will not be half world away but in their backyard (pun intended)

See that dog or cat?

It is a potential ally. Be sure not to hit it Jim.