Mexican Gangs.. have permanent bases in Arizona: Merged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowsbane

Just because there are members of the mexican military conducting such opperations doesn't mean that it is at the request, orders or even knowledge of the Mexican Government. Cash will buy you a lot of loyalty in most places around the world. So will threats against your loved ones.

---

If you can't keep control of your dog and it bites somebody, you are held accountable. If it bites repeatedly, you have an even bigger issue to deal with.

If the Mexican government feels it must pay to arm an army, then it is equally responsible for controlling it. If there is corruption in the army as you suggest, then that must be rooted out by the Mexican government.

Just like your failure to control your dog leaves you responsible for the results, the failure of a government to control it's armed forces leaves it open to the results of its inattention to the situation. In other words, the Mexican government is responsible for the actions of those it commissions to lead its military. It is not up to the victim to figure out if the army representing a country is acting on orders from the chain of command, the victim can assume that the chain of command is being followed and respond accordingly.

So, for discussion, suppose many of the claims and allegations are true.

What are the options? What are consequences for the various options?

Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?

---

It looks like Mexico is at war with us,when it can make a buck or two.We can fight back or would you want to give up.
:tumbleweed:

I'm encouraged by the high percentage of you that take this seriously. As you have seen even a superficial search has found Military incursions of our border dating back for a decade. All this as we REDUCE our patrols:
Reduced overtime stymies Border Patrol - Washington Times
I'm afraid we have politicians that are working at looking the other way.
Put your energy into changing ALL of our representatives.
Our guys risking their lives every day deserve better!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

So, for discussion, suppose many of the claims and allegations are true.

What are the options? What are consequences for the various options?

Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?

---

Am I itching for another shooting war - absolutely not. Let's examine the options.

1. More diplomatic conversations with Mexico. This has not produced any tangible results in the last decade. Why do we think it would be productive now?

2. Ignore the situation. This will result in one of a couple results. First we could have American towns overrun and our citizens killed in significant numbers second, after the border towns are overrun, we would basically cede the invaded and captured territory to Mexico by default. We then start the whole process over, just a bit further north. Where does this appeasement philosophy end? Neville Chamberlain took this approach with Hitler. It did not work out so well for him. Thank God for Churchill.

3. Defend our territory. While this would require the deployment of military assets and would entail some degree of loss to personnel, it is probably the least costly approach. That having been said, I doubt we will see our elected officials go this route. They still think we can talk with Iran despite the fact that doing so will not likely produce a palatible solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksholder

Am I itching for another shooting war - absolutely not. Let's examine the options.

1. More diplomatic conversations with Mexico. This has not produced any tangible results in the last decade. Why do we think it would be productive now?

2. Ignore the situation. This will result in one of a couple results. First we could have American towns overrun and our citizens killed in significant numbers second, after the border towns are overrun, we would basically cede the invaded and captured territory to Mexico by default. We then start the whole process over, just a bit further north. Where does this appeasement philosophy end? Neville Chaimberlain took this approach with Hitler. It did not work out so well for him. Thank God for Churchill.

3. Defend our territory. While this would require the deployment of military assets and would entail some degree of loss to personnel, it is probably the least costly approach. That having been said, I doubt we will see our elected officials go this route. They still think we can talk with Iran despite the fact that doing so will not likely produce a palatible solution.

---

You have it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

So, for discussion, suppose many of the claims and allegations are true.

What are the options? What are consequences for the various options?

Is there anyone here who actually thinks some sort of hot war with Mexico would be a good thing?

---

Well, technically if we just shoot them dead while they are here on our soil illegally, we aren't really having a war with Mexico!

We're just killing cartel drug smugglers and their counter-intelligence/security forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksholder

Am I itching for another shooting war - absolutely not. Let's examine the options.


3. Defend our territory. While this would require the deployment of military assets and would entail some degree of loss to personnel, it is probably the least costly approach.

---

Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?

What do you think their response would be?

What kind of damage would a true military conflict on the border do to
border communities?

Would we lose more in the long run than we are perhaps now presently losing?

Would a city such as Del Rio get destroyed in such a conflict? How about smaller communities? Can we bank on ineptitude on the other side?

It seems to me we might now be having sometimes relatively minor scrapes. Not something we want, but do we have reasonable ways to stop these?

I'm uninterested in our taking steps which would create a hot war, at least not under the present set of circumstances.

Remember, we have put almost all of our resources into preparations for intercontinental conflict on opposite sides of the world. We might well be better able to deal with a North Korea or an Iran than with our own neighbor, along 2000 miles. Let's not be naive. A flood of American refugees from the border area precipitated by a military conflict would have an horrific affect on this nation.

I think where I am trying to go with these comments is that we should not hype the nature of the problem for political reasons, or for drama, and in the process talk ourselves into a hot-war with all of the unknowns that would follow.

For the moment, Mexico is still our second or third largest trading partner. They don't want a hot war, we should not want a hot war, and
somehow this present concern is going to need to be worked out in peaceful ways. There is a time for everything. Let's not talk ourselves into a fight which is avoidable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?

What do you think their response would be?

What kind of damage would a true military conflict on the border do to
border communities?

Would we lose more in the long run than we are perhaps now presently losing?

Would a city such as Del Rio get destroyed in such a conflict? How about smaller communities? Can we bank on ineptitude on the other side?

It seems to me we might now be having sometimes relatively minor scrapes. Not something we want, but do we have reasonable ways to stop these?

I'm uninterested in our taking steps which would create a hot war, at least not under the present set of circumstances.

Remember, we have put almost all of our resources into preparations for intercontinental conflict on opposite sides of the world. We might well be better able to deal with a North Korea or an Iran than with our own neighbor, along 2000 miles. Let's not be naive. A flood of American refugees from the border area precipitated by a military conflict would have an horrific affect on this nation.

I think where I am trying to go with these comments is that we should not hype the nature of the problem for political reasons, or for drama, and in the process talk ourselves into a hot-war with all of the unknowns that would follow.

For the moment, Mexico is still our second or third largest trading partner. They don't want a hot war, we should not want a hot war, and
somehow this present concern is going to need to be worked out in peaceful ways. There is a time for everything. Let's not talk ourselves into a fight which is avoidable.

---

Lets just give them the stern tongue lashing they deserve. I know you'll agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?

What do you think their response would be?

What kind of damage would a true military conflict on the border do to
border communities?

Would we lose more in the long run than we are perhaps now presently losing?

Would a city such as Del Rio get destroyed in such a conflict? How about smaller communities? Can we bank on ineptitude on the other side?

It seems to me we might now be having sometimes relatively minor scrapes. Not something we want, but do we have reasonable ways to stop these?

I'm uninterested in our taking steps which would create a hot war, at least not under the present set of circumstances.

Remember, we have put almost all of our resources into preparations for intercontinental conflict on opposite sides of the world. We might well be better able to deal with a North Korea or an Iran than with our own neighbor, along 2000 miles. Let's not be naive. A flood of American refugees from the border area precipitated by a military conflict would have an horrific affect on this nation.

I think where I am trying to go with these comments is that we should not hype the nature of the problem for political reasons, or for drama, and in the process talk ourselves into a hot-war with all of the unknowns that would follow.

For the moment, Mexico is still our second or third largest trading partner. They don't want a hot war, we should not want a hot war, and
somehow this present concern is going to need to be worked out in peaceful ways. There is a time for everything. Let's not talk ourselves into a fight which is avoidable.

---

Hopyard - Like you, I don't want a shooting war. That having been said, appeasement politics simply don't work. They have not worked in the past and they won't work here. We can either stand and defend our borders or keep pulling back as the Mexican hordes (cartels or government sponsored attacks) move north and capture our land.

If we don't do something, and the conflict escalates, the border towns are toast anyway. If we do something will there be collateral damage? There possibly could be. Given that we can maintain air superiority over Mexico in short order, this gives us the upper hand in the conflict, almost from the get go. Assuming we prosecute the conflict like we mean to win it and do so as quickly as possible – the only justifiable way to prosecute a conflict – we should be able to restore order on the border fairly quickly.

I am not a military planner, so my plan that follows may be overly simplistic – probably is, but here goes. We use the Airforce to gain and maintain air superiority and we put Warthogs and other air to mud assets up along the border with a constant CAP (air to air fighter assets) to protect them. Ground forces would patrol the border once we have air superiority and they would call in the air to mud guys, that are already airborne, when they have identified hostiles. Assuming we put sufficient ground forces along the border, say 1 .50 cal every 200 yards, with a ROE that makes crossing the border highly unpalatable, we will control the border pretty quickly with minimal loss of life to Americans or Mexicans.

Once we have secured the border, we then erect the fence we should have put up years ago. This should be 2 fences with a mine field in the middle that is clearly marked in English and Spanish. Violators will be duly prosecuted and it won’t take many to deter border crossing attempts. The word will get around.

I know that you will not like this approach, but in the end, I believe that this is the most humane way to control the border, will result in the least number of lives lost and will restore order.

Quote:

---

Assuming we prosecute the conflict like we mean to win it and do so as quickly as possible – the only justifiable way to prosecute a conflict – we should be able to restore order on the border fairly quickly.

Assuming we put sufficient ground forces along the border, say 1 .50 cal every 200 yards, with a ROE that makes crossing the border highly unpalatable, we will control the border pretty quickly with minimal loss of life to Americans or Mexicans.

---

this is the problem.

Your suggestions certainly have merit, but the people that make the ROE, have been getting our people killed for a long time.

We talk all of the time about how mindset and tactics win fights. Our soldiers on the ground, in the trenches, know this. But, the people that make the executive decisions, do not.

We've been fighting armies all over the planet, for the last 50 yrs. All the while without the proper mindset to win. That is, the people who call the shots.

For the people that think no one is getting shot, little over 30 to 40 + days ago a LEO got ambush and hit, in a crossfire south of me. Quote, Would you envision including hot pursuit into Mexico?
It's been done before, look at history.:tumbleweed:

We're already getting collateral damage - in Phoenix, Tucson, Deming, Las Cruces, El Paso, Brownsville and places farther north. Perhaps one day before I die we will have leaders with fortitude.

Our "leaders" are being bought and are a major part of the problem.

The Mexican druggies have staked out territories far north of the US-Mexican border. Mexican gangs grow lots of pot in the national forests of VA and WV. The wheels who run the US Forest Service do not like it when you find a pot farm on their domain.