- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should Trump send troops into Mexico?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why didn't Delta win the War on Terror for us?
Geez, you are literally too stupid to argue with. How many downvotes you got today bud? Break your record from yesterday?
1
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:26 pm to TheBeezer
quote:
Geez, you are literally too stupid to argue with.
Nice deflection to avoid looking silly. The ad hom was a cherry on top.
Answer the question.
Delta took out plenty of terrorists in the WOT. Why didn't that win the war?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:28 pm to Geekboy
Most certainly. However, Trump will struggle to receive the support of 50% of the feckless Republicans to do so.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:31 pm to Geekboy
I say that we should just start shooting people attempting to cross the border illegally. Think they’d get the message quickly.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Mexico is our #3 trade partner behind only China and Canada (and it's basically even with Canada)
Expand...why would it be costly?? We're offering our #3 trade partner assistance in snuffing out their country's largest issues, something they themselves have been fighting. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but what are you suggesting Mexico would do that would cost us??
quote:
We've been fighting the War on Drugs (including Mexican cartels, Colombian cartels, and drug runners/producers all throughout Central and South America) for 50 years. You tell me how that's going.
We manufactured cars that were barely reliable into the 70s. Then, after 50 years, we found better ways of doing it. That's happened with plenty besides cars, and it's happened through all of human history. What's stopping that from happening here? I agree the current approach hasn't been effective.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:36 pm to Bigdawgb
quote:
We're offering our #3 trade partner assistance in snuffing out their country's largest issues,
The OP seems to propose an invasion
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
No we were not the same then. My grandparents and my great-grandparents generation would not have accepted 100,000 deaths in their communities caused by dope imported by foreign enemy nations. They had higher societal standards than that back then, not to mention a greater concept of national sovereignty and its preservation.
It's a clear-cut decline. I don't care if a Chicago racketeer gunned down a storekeeper in 1927, or a drunk-driver ran over a couple of kids in 1936. I'm not going to be some hairbrained moral relativist, and try to equate it to 100,000 deaths deliberately being orchestrated by foreign actors intent on destroying us, and a country that is now so morally decrepit as to sit back and take it.
It's a clear-cut decline. I don't care if a Chicago racketeer gunned down a storekeeper in 1927, or a drunk-driver ran over a couple of kids in 1936. I'm not going to be some hairbrained moral relativist, and try to equate it to 100,000 deaths deliberately being orchestrated by foreign actors intent on destroying us, and a country that is now so morally decrepit as to sit back and take it.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:40 pm to Aeolian Vocalion
quote:
No we were not the same then.
As I told you, our culture was much more pathological in the 80s compared to today.
quote:
. They had higher societal standards than that back then
then why the higher rates of...murder, single mothers, abortions, violent crime, etc?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:40 pm to troyt37
quote:
You've made it a point to note that Mexico is one of our largest trading partners, which means that we have been doing exactly this for many years now. US manufacturers from the auto industry, all the way down to rubber dogshit have built plants in Mexico over the last 20 years. But it hasn't improved the standard of living in Mexico to the point that they don't ship millions of criminal illegals to the US, has it?
Exactly. That's the creed from from the liberation theologists, blame the gringo, screw over the gringo.
In his book, ''Christians and Marxists'', Jose Bonino, the Methodist theologian, quotes Fidel Castro as exclaiming in wonder, ''The theologians are becoming Communists and the Communists are becoming theologians!''
Dependency theory ill explains why Latin America is poor; poverty existed long before capitalism was a gleam in Adam Smith's eye. Even more inadequately does it explain why Latin America has done so much worse with its own vast resources than stellar performers like Singapore, Hong Kong and others with infinitely less. THERE ARE, then, both theological and practical reasons for rejecting the main claims of liberation theology. Its single greatest flaw lies in combining two quite different methods of analysis in an effort to overcome ''dualism,'' rejecting European and North American distinctions between religion and politics, church and state, theological principles and partisan practice.
This post was edited on 1/8/25 at 1:44 pm
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:41 pm to Geekboy
We just need to send in special forces
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:41 pm to QboveTopSecret
quote:
Exactly.
You say "Exactly" to a point that concluded with an incorrect statement.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It wouldn't need to be trillions. Nothing close.
Give us a number, fricko. How many US taxpayer dollars should be spent in order to raise the standard of living for Mexico and Central America?
quote:
We just need to incentivize production of lower-level manufacturing coming from these countries as opposed to random Asian and African countries. We have done this with Mexico since NAFTA and it's been a huge success. That's why the number of Mexicans crossing the border illegally is so low these days (my plan would solve that issue too, mind you).
I appreciate your chart. It shows 600,000 Mexican "encounters" in 2021. If 600,000 Americans tried to illegally cross the Mexican or Canadian border, it would be called an invasion, and rightly so. Classifying that as "so low" is part of your problem.
quote:
Mexico is a shining success in this area. We can go further, though.
Yes, we really should just shutter all manufacturing in this country and ship it all to Mexico. Then in a few years, we can start the invasion going the other way. No doubt the Mexicans will welcome us with open arms, give us money for housing, food, medicine, education, and start hiring teachers who can teach to English speakers.
quote:
I said a war with Mexico would severely damage our economy and be fruitless, ultimately (like the WOT)
Depends on the kind of war you wage. Certainly it would be fruitless if waged like the WOT. We could certainly blow up shite and kill people until Mexico decided to do something about their own frickery.
quote:
I didn't say this, either.
Private companies would make and sell the drugs.
Like the private companies now, who sell drugs to Americans at 100X the price of drugs sold to third world countries like Mexico?
Hmmm... that sounds like it would create a market for bringing those cheap drugs into the US. Across the border even! What a concept!
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:44 pm to Geekboy
Trying to take out cartels with drone strikes and even limited special operations would be like
[/img]
[/img]
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:48 pm to Geekboy
What effect did it have on the drug trade when we captured El Chapo? None.
If Trump sent troops to Mexico they would have to stay, because as soon as they left the drug trade would start again.
If Trump sent troops to Mexico they would have to stay, because as soon as they left the drug trade would start again.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:49 pm to troyt37
quote:
How many US taxpayer dollars should be spent in order to raise the standard of living for Mexico and Central America?
You do realize this would save us billions too, right?
The combination of lower prices and not dealing with the flood of illegal immigrants would be in the billions, possibly into the hundreds of billions in any given year.
quote:
I appreciate your chart. It shows 600,000 Mexican "encounters" in 2021
There was clearly an outlier increase, but even then, that's the lowest pre-NAFTA level (ignoring the actual lows that you clearly avoided) since 1976.
quote:
. If 600,000 Americans tried to illegally cross the Mexican or Canadian border, it would be called an invasion, and rightly so. Classifying that as "so low" is part of your problem.
Now you're devolving into irrelevance again.
The point is the trend. Improving Mexico's SOL (via trade deals like NAFTA) did the exact opposite of what you claim and has led to an extreme DECREASE in Mexican border crossings.
The plan works and solves both the cartel and immigration issues you're concerned with .
quote:
Yes, we really should just shutter all manufacturing in this country and ship it all to Mexico.
Not what I said. Why lie?
This is about shuttering manufacturing in China and shipping it to Mexico (and other countries below it on the map).
The third benefit: weaker China.
What's your issue with a weaker China?
quote:
Then in a few years, we can start the invasion going the other way. No doubt the Mexicans will welcome us with open arms, give us money for housing, food, medicine, education, and start hiring teachers who can teach to English speakers.
There is that emotional response again.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
I just used the statistics of the 1980s in contrast to the current explosion of overdose deaths, nothing else. Don't conflate things.
When I was talking about an America that wouldn't put up with the insanity we do now, I was referencing my grandparents and great-grandparents' heydays, which would have been more like the 1910s-1940s. THAT America wouldn't be putting up with any of the deranged crap that modern America wallows in, from massive dope deaths, to guys in girls locker-rooms, to psychos walking the streets and accosting people. You use the word pathological, and nothing sums up the word more than today's sicko America. Damn. Even drag-queen storytime. Just put a bullet in the head of such a country, and salt the earth where it stood.
When I was talking about an America that wouldn't put up with the insanity we do now, I was referencing my grandparents and great-grandparents' heydays, which would have been more like the 1910s-1940s. THAT America wouldn't be putting up with any of the deranged crap that modern America wallows in, from massive dope deaths, to guys in girls locker-rooms, to psychos walking the streets and accosting people. You use the word pathological, and nothing sums up the word more than today's sicko America. Damn. Even drag-queen storytime. Just put a bullet in the head of such a country, and salt the earth where it stood.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 1:55 pm to Aeolian Vocalion
quote:
I just used the statistics of the 1980s in contrast to the current explosion of overdose deaths, nothing else. Don't conflate things.
When I was talking about an America that wouldn't put up with the insanity we do now, I was referencing my grandparents and great-grandparents' heydays, which would have been more like the 1910s-1940s.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You do realize this would save us billions too, right?
The combination of lower prices and not dealing with the flood of illegal immigrants would be in the billions, possibly into the hundreds of billions in any given year.
Oh, so you do want to build a physical barrier between the two countries, put the military on the border, and only accept those people, products and transportation invited in? shite, what are we arguing about?
quote:
There was clearly an outlier increase, but even then, that's the lowest pre-NAFTA level (ignoring the actual lows that you clearly avoided) since 1976.
The lows aren't low, fricko. The lows represent hundreds of thousands of people trying to illegally enter this country. Criminals.
quote:
The point is the trend. Improving Mexico's SOL (via trade deals like NAFTA) did the exact opposite of what you claim and has led to an extreme DECREASE in Mexican border crossings.
The point is there is no trend, where you insist that there is. As long as the border is open, and the US taxpayer is on the hook to feed, house, educate, and medicate those who illegally cross, they will continue to do just that. Mexico will not do that for their own citizens, regardless of their standard of living. frick, how dense are you?
quote:
This is about shuttering manufacturing in China and shipping it to Mexico (and other countries below it on the map).
The third benefit: weaker China.
What's your issue with a weaker China?
I'm all for shuttrering manufacturing in China. We shouldn't have US companies investing in the Chinese people in the first place. But if that is going to happen, it will have to be more profitable to have a plant in Mexico than China. Where will those profits come from? The US taxpayer? Because even if you could make Mexican manufacturing compete with ChiCom manufacturing's slave labor, you sure as hell aren't going to raise the standard of living in Mexico by doing so.
quote:
There is that emotional response again.
Actually sarcasm, illustrating the point that if we did to Mexico what Mexico is doing to us (with the help of both political parties and the Catholic Church) Mexico would declare war on us in one fricking second, and have the UN on it's side.
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why didn't that win the war?
Okay, im your huckleberry, ill play along and answer your question, not that you're humble or magnaminous enough to actually listen and accept anyone else's opinion on here.
The reason Delta didnt win the war on Terror or any other division is because the purpose of that war or any war in the last 80 years for tjat matter, was never to be won but to be perpetuated. Just like Viet Nam was an advertised lie to be a war to "subvert the spread of communism in SE Asia" the WoT was a ruse created deliberately by the warmongering neocon establishment namely Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld to settle old scores and serve themselves and their corporate MIC to plunder from future generations in order to pay for their never-ending wars. This crippled our nation with trillions in debt while 1000s of our service members (those who actually made it back) suffer from life altering PTSD from witnessing the horrors of their buddies losing their lives and limbs from IEDs while others die later on from chemical exposures which to this day our military and gov't still deny occur. Last but not least the causing of the death of millions of innocent civilians in these countries further plunging the region into chaos for years and ultimately damaging our country's image around as a so-called peace keeper and "to make the world safe for Democracy."
The cartels in Mexico is an enemy that traffics in drugs, women and little children and makes billions doing so and our own government has been facilitating it for years. HHS alone has facilities all over Texas to process these kids and handing them over to "sponsers" with little to no contact info.
Delta Force or whoeverthe frick Trump chooses to use could, would and should wipe these frickers off the face of the earth forever. And anyone in our gov't or NGOs that helped them, should be investigated, charged, prosecuted and imprisoned.
Did that answer your very condescending question?
Posted on 1/8/25 at 2:22 pm to troyt37
quote:\
Oh, so you do want to build a physical barrier between the two countries, put the military on the border, and only accept those people, products and transportation invited in?
No
Raising their SOL would solve that problem.
Do we have that sort of border with Canada? No. Why? No reason/need. We can do the same with Mexico's border.
quote:
The lows aren't low, fricko.
Why I said we could still go further raising their SOL further. That's the whole point in this.
quote:
The point is there is no trend
There is a trend. Look at the graph.
quote:
As long as the border is open, and the US taxpayer is on the hook to feed, house, educate, and medicate those who illegally cross, they will continue to do just that.
As their SOL increases, this will continue to decrease.
quote:
But if that is going to happen, it will have to be more profitable to have a plant in Mexico than China. Where will those profits come from? The US taxpayer? Because even if you could make Mexican manufacturing compete with ChiCom manufacturing's slave labor, you sure as hell aren't going to raise the standard of living in Mexico by doing so.
You're wrong. Mexico can compete with China (China is actually pricing itself out of hte market for places like Vietnam and Bangledesh currently) and this would raise the SOL, as NAFTA has shown to do (no matter how many times you ignore the data).
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News