Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:05 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,848

Predict the next war(s)


Sure, another Trumpocalypse thread. Why not?

So, I assume we'll soon be "bombing the shit out of" ISIS. I'm not sure we'll be sending massive numbers of ground troops into the fray. Maybe. Who knows?

The US and Iranian navies have been playing "I'm not touching you! Neener neener!" recently. That's the kind of taunting we just can't tolerate. It makes us look weak, of course. Is Trump going to be satisfied sending a few of their boats to the bottom of the sea? Or are we going to roll out the carpet bombing?

China? If Trump can't get the trade deals he wants, will he wave the US's collective dick at them?

My money is on Iran.

Last edited by Defensive Indifference; 11-09-2016 at 10:05 AM.
  #2  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:17 AM
Twoflower's Avatar
Twoflower is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South Oregon
Posts: 1,400
The next war that we'll stay out of is when Putin invades Ukraine and/or the Baltic.
  #3  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:24 AM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
I expect Trump to make good on his promise to randomly bomb populated areas in the Middle East to look for ISIS. Iraq might be tricky, they are allies. Maybe Syria? Then AFTER the bombing, Putin will tell Trump to quit fucking with his ally and target someone else instead.

I expect him to look the other way when Putin tries to annex another region, maybe just finish the job in Ukraine.

He'll try to cancel the Iran deal, I don't know if that requires an act of Congress or not. I'm sure Iran won't be happy about that. Maybe they're next
  #4  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:29 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,323
I don't suppose there's any hope that NATO-in-Europe will ramp up efforts to make up the shortfall of American support? More % spent on defence?
  #5  
Old 11-09-2016, 10:39 AM
Omg a Black Conservative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,031
I assume you were also concerned with Hillary setting up a NFZ in Syria and instigating a war with Russia, yes?
  #6  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:58 AM
YogSothoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative View Post
I assume you were also concerned with Hillary setting up a NFZ in Syria and instigating a war with Russia, yes?
Russia would not have started a war over the NFZ. I trusted Clinton to be able to put one in place as a deterrent. Likely what would have happened is that Russia would not send a suicide pilot in there to test our resolve. War between the US and Russia benefits neither of us, Putin nor Clinton would have wanted a war. What probably would have happened is that Putin would escalate the chaos through other means. So no, there was no need to worry about a war with Russia had Clinton set up a NFZ
  #7  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:57 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative View Post
I assume you were also concerned with Hillary setting up a NFZ in Syria and instigating a war with Russia, yes?
I admit I must have missed the war with Russia. Was it on the news?
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #8  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:20 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,232
Something to remember is that wars are often a pretext for authoritarianism. American presidents almost always get stronger in war, and they will inevitably attempt to assert power. Iran could quickly turn into a legitimate national security crisis. It's not that I think Trump is playing multi-dimensional chess, but that once the opportunities for a power grab are there, he will take it. It's bad enough that he has politicized the DoJ - that's his first major authoritarian move. But at the end of the day, it's his control of the military that makes the defines the presidency and is easily the most awesome power he possesses.

In his handling of the Russia and Mueller probe aftermath, we have already seen an extremely disturbing trend and we've seen how this president is different from his predecessors. Trump doesn't listen to congress. He doesn't respect subpoenas. He politicizes the highest levels of government and uses these officers to attack officials who try to restrain him. Let there be no question: Trump will use the military in the same way. He will make his moves, including some that are patently unconstitutional and illegal. And he will dare his enemies to stop him. It's not a hypothesis; it's what we've already seen him do.
  #9  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:20 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,848
Was I concerned that a career politician and former Secretary of State would recklessly start a war with Russia? No, I was not.
  #10  
Old 11-09-2016, 11:49 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,686
If he stands by his promise, we'll never know when it happens or if it was even us.
  #11  
Old 11-09-2016, 12:11 PM
Peter Morris's Avatar
Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,430
It shall be known to history as The War of the Mexican Wall.
  #12  
Old 11-09-2016, 12:12 PM
ultimate11 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Cook County, Illinois
Posts: 329
Perhaps no war at all? Yeah, he'll bomb the hell out of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (whoever invented the shortcut for copying and pasting on computers should be president) with the help from a few generals, but there might not be boots on the ground. It's 2016, drones can be made with high supply.

If he closes trade with China, then China is fucked. India too, if Trump also closes trade deals with them (if any). Internally, the countries would fall into disrepair due to the lack of dollars from US consumers. There might be ounces of desperate threats, but maybe not. See below for more talk about China.

North Korea might be sedated. Kim Jong Un wanted Trump as president...and here we are now.

If we settle policies with Russia, and negotiate with them, we'll stay out of their interests and avoid conflicts with them.

OPEC is probably worried. If we restart oil production and shut out OPEC (and maybe negotiate deals with China/Russia on oil?), their finances will be blown to bits.

The future is looking rosy, in my opinion.
  #13  
Old 11-10-2016, 02:09 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,323
I don't call ruining the whole world's lunch 'rosy' at all. This isn't a zero-sum game; if you hurt China, India, and OPEC, you ruin relations with them and they'll retaliate. If in a few years time America is in a bind and needs a deal, they will remember. In the meantime, making life miserable for their citizens will fuel resentment and instability. Nice job.
  #14  
Old 11-10-2016, 02:34 AM
RobotDevilDog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 74
Civil?

Just kidding! (Mostly)
  #15  
Old 11-10-2016, 04:31 AM
Rigamarole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 12,115
For all Trump's failings, I don't see him being particularly pro-war (aside from continuing efforts against terrorism specifically, which of course have been going on since 9/11 under both Bush and Obama, as they should be). Hillary was the greater warmonger in this particular contest. She wanted Iraq, and she would have gone along with any other war options that were presented to her. Doubly so due to a desire to not appear weak as the first female CIC.
  #16  
Old 03-23-2018, 08:46 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,848
I'm resurrecting my own zombie thread now that Trump has picked level-headed diplomat John Bolton as his National Security Adviser.

So. We have a trade war with China now. I suppose there's some potential for Trump to let that spiral out of control to the point that our navies start bumping into each other. North Korea has long been on Bolton's To Do List, but Trump seems to want to buddy up to Kim these days, so he may not be ready to jump into a war there. And hopefully Mattis can convince everyone that a war in Korea will be insanely bloody.

My money is still on Iran. Bolton has a hard on for them, we can get involved without 100,000 artillery pieces pummeling one of our allies, they can't shoot back with nukes, and Trump hasn't developed a sudden crush on Khamenei the way he has with Kim. When Trump extended the nuclear deal in January, he said that he wanted a new deal in place within 120 days, or he would unilaterally withdraw from it. That puts the deadline around the beginning of May. With Bolton whispering sweet nothings in his ear, Trump will pull out of the agreement and things will go pear shaped in a hurry.

Or maybe not. What the hell do I know?

Last edited by Defensive Indifference; 03-23-2018 at 08:47 AM.
  #17  
Old 03-23-2018, 02:28 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
My money is still on Iran. Bolton has a hard on for them, we can get involved without 100,000 artillery pieces pummeling one of our allies, they can't shoot back with nukes, and Trump hasn't developed a sudden crush on Khamenei the way he has with Kim. When Trump extended the nuclear deal in January, he said that he wanted a new deal in place within 120 days, or he would unilaterally withdraw from it. That puts the deadline around the beginning of May. With Bolton whispering sweet nothings in his ear, Trump will pull out of the agreement and things will go pear shaped in a hurry.
This seems frighteningly logical. I also suspect Russia doesn't have enough of a stake in Iran to try to talk Trump out of this. If Russia allows it to happen, that would be the BEST case scenario, which is still really, really bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky
Another typical Republican chickenhawk who never has served in the military.
Bolton did serve in the National Guard and the Army Reserve, apparently as a calculated maneuver to avoid service in Vietnam. George W. Bush's service was more honorable IMO, he flew fighter-interceptors that were a key component of Strategic Air Command, and that's not an easy job. He could have just done NOTHING, as a scion of an old-money family. He could easily have spent the Vietnam War skiing in Switzerland.
  #18  
Old 03-23-2018, 03:40 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
I'm resurrecting my own zombie thread now that Trump has picked level-headed diplomat John Bolton as his National Security Adviser.

So. We have a trade war with China now...
No, we don't. The past few presidents have all stuck tariffs on various goods, and that didn't amount to a "trade war". Besides, the Chinese are too smart to engage in a trade war.

As for predicting the next war... I think the latest moves at the Cabinet and other posts increase the chances for war, but those chances are still pretty low. My prediction is no new wars in the next 2 years, at least. Trump is, at heart, a coward.

Last edited by John Mace; 03-23-2018 at 03:43 PM.
  #19  
Old 03-23-2018, 04:07 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,708
The thing about war is that nations do not want to go to war with someone who can successfully fight back. So that takes Iran & North Korea off the table.


'Maybe' Venezuela. Maybe we'll do a mission like we did in Haiti in the 90s where we invade and try to re-establish a sense of order. I could see that happening. Honestly I'd be in favor of it, the government there has taken all tools for the people to remove them from power out of their hands and now it is a dictatorship undergoing a famine. If north & south American nations form an alliance to overthrow the Venezuela government, and the US has a role in that, that'd probably be our next war.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #20  
Old 03-23-2018, 04:49 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The thing about war is that nations do not want to go to war with someone who can successfully fight back. So that takes Iran & North Korea off the table.


'Maybe' Venezuela. Maybe we'll do a mission like we did in Haiti in the 90s where we invade and try to re-establish a sense of order. I could see that happening. Honestly I'd be in favor of it, the government there has taken all tools for the people to remove them from power out of their hands and now it is a dictatorship undergoing a famine. If north & south American nations form an alliance to overthrow the Venezuela government, and the US has a role in that, that'd probably be our next war.
Invade Venezuela. What could possibly go wrong?

It would be violation of international law, too, you know.

Last edited by John Mace; 03-23-2018 at 04:50 PM.
  #21  
Old 03-23-2018, 05:09 PM
Frodo's Avatar
Frodo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 2,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The thing about war is that nations do not want to go to war with someone who can successfully fight back. So that takes Iran & North Korea off the table.


'Maybe' Venezuela. Maybe we'll do a mission like we did in Haiti in the 90s where we invade and try to re-establish a sense of order. I could see that happening. Honestly I'd be in favor of it, the government there has taken all tools for the people to remove them from power out of their hands and now it is a dictatorship undergoing a famine. If north & south American nations form an alliance to overthrow the Venezuela government, and the US has a role in that, that'd probably be our next war.
Speaking as a South American, I would like to request the U.S.A. to please stick it's "help" with Venezuela where the sun don't shine.

Last edited by Frodo; 03-23-2018 at 05:09 PM.
  #22  
Old 03-23-2018, 07:03 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo View Post
Speaking as a South American, I would like to request the U.S.A. to please stick it's "help" with Venezuela where the sun don't shine.
Fair enough. But it may be south American nations that invade and overthrow Venezuela to restore the old government if the issues there keep getting worse. It depends on how bad things get and if the problems keep affecting nearby nations.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 03-23-2018 at 07:05 PM.
  #23  
Old 03-23-2018, 05:09 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The thing about war is that nations do not want to go to war with someone who can successfully fight back. So that takes Iran & North Korea off the table.
My impression is that a fight with Iran would be significantly more one-sided than a fight with North Korea.
  #24  
Old 03-23-2018, 05:15 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My impression is that a fight with Iran would be significantly more one-sided than a fight with North Korea.
What on earth makes you think that?
.
  #25  
Old 03-23-2018, 07:05 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
My impression is that a fight with Iran would be significantly more one-sided than a fight with North Korea.
The official war would be over pretty quick. But Iran would be far harder to occupy than Iraq for multiple reasons.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #26  
Old 03-23-2018, 07:27 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The thing about war is that nations do not want to go to war with someone who can successfully fight back. So that takes Iran & North Korea off the table.
...SNIP...
The problem with this is it really only applies to nations with rational leadership. I see less and less daily to make me believe our political leadership, in particular the executive, are acting the way rational leadership would.

So basically, Iran & North Korea are still on the table.
  #27  
Old 03-24-2018, 01:45 AM
NDP's Avatar
NDP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: PNW USA
Posts: 9,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
My money is still on Iran. Bolton has a hard on for them, we can get involved without 100,000 artillery pieces pummeling one of our allies, they can't shoot back with nukes, and Trump hasn't developed a sudden crush on Khamenei the way he has with Kim. When Trump extended the nuclear deal in January, he said that he wanted a new deal in place within 120 days, or he would unilaterally withdraw from it. That puts the deadline around the beginning of May. With Bolton whispering sweet nothings in his ear, Trump will pull out of the agreement and things will go pear shaped in a hurry.

Or maybe not. What the hell do I know?
With Bolton's appointment, I'd also peg Iran as the front-runner but I'd throw in Cuba as a long-shot possibility. Bolton wanted Cuba added to the Axis of Evil back in 2002 and got extremely pissed off when his lackies couldn't scrounge up enough evidence of WMDs to warrant their inclusion. As seen in his continued unwavering support for the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, Bolton does not change his mind easily so I thinks it's highly likely he's the one person outside of an assisted living center in Miami-Dade County who still thinks Cuba is a threat to the US.
__________________
Can also be seen at:

Last FM Library Thing
  #28  
Old 03-24-2018, 02:15 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,531
If Trump/Bolton absolutely MUST go to war against a country - if this is an absolute certainty and the only question is which country - I would really it rather be Venezuela than any of the others mentioned in this thread.
  #29  
Old 03-24-2018, 07:17 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,139
I would have guessed Iran, but the question of Kushner's security clearance has been bugging me. There's simply no reason that Trump wouldn't grant his son-in-law, who is expressly tasked with managing the Middle East, full access to all of the security information he wants over John Kelly's say-so.

Kushner was all set to go, enacting his plan of backing Israel and Saudi Arabia in anything they wanted, so long as it meant forcing Palestine into a deal, and suddenly Trump announced that he was going to accept Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, scuppering everything for many months following.

Then, as noted, just as it was all finally about to boil over, and Kushner was going to be able to put things back into motion, he quietly swallows a request to downgrade Jared, strongly incapacitating his ability to do what he needs to do to win a war against Iran.

There's no reason for Trump to force the women that he has dated PLUS his wives and ex-wives to sign NDAs. As a wealthy guy, sure you'll sign a prenup when you're getting married, but an NDA? If it was just wives, then we would expect that it's about not letting on that his businesses are in the red. But that's not something that Stormy would know. His wife has to know that he has a roster of sexual companions on the side, so there's no reason to have an NDA with them.

While I've always taken the Steele Dossier with a healthy dose of salt; looking back at Trump's actions in the world, I do have to accept that these things are well explained by kinky proclivities and thus Russian blackmail.

So while it seems like the addition of John Bolton would be significant evidence that Trump is serious about going in there and getting Iran and North Korea, I somehow expect that he's going to do mysterious, seemingly irrational things that cleanly scupper everything on both those fronts.

And I mean we heard all about the Bloody Nose strategy. But did anything ever say that it was Trump proposing or supporting the idea? It seems to have been McMasters who was the key agent making the pitch and, we'll note, it was never accepted.

I'm highly doubtful of anything at this stage of things, but if we are to take the assumption that Russia really does have Trump by the orange raisins, then I would expect to see a lot of what we've already seen, which is a lot of doing nothing but talking about how fierce we'll be, and buildup, with no action, allowing Russia to quietly do as they will in the Mideast and continue to supply and work with North Korea on whatever illegal schemes the two of them have together.

The interesting thing will be Bolton. While, at the moment, Bolton seems to trust Trump and believes that the whole Russia thing is nonsense, pretty soon he's going to be looking at all of the internal research and reports that McMasters and everyone else in the Intelligence Agencies and Military have seen that have lead them to make unequivocal statements that Russia had interfered in the election and sought to place Trump on the throne (in the final months). He might see the security clearance reports that are keeping Kushner and everyone from receiving full access. And he's going to see Trump giving a whole bunch of evasive, nonsense reasons to avoid going in there and riling things up.

While I feel like McMasters would simply write off Trump as an idiot and accept that as a plausible explanation, from what I've read of Bolton, I think that he's significantly more likely to jump on the "Trump is a Traitor" train and take that message out into the world if he even smells the wiff of favoritism towards Russian interests. He's not the sort to take "no" for an answer and a "no" without an explainable reason is going to make every fiber of John Bolton's being want to discover the real reason, and so he will go in and request intelligence documents about Trump, and he will read through the security clearance research.

If Trump just brought on Bolton in the hopes of bluffing North Korea and Iran into backing down, I feel that he may have made a horrible mistake, and that it's going to cost him dearly.

And if he does take on Bolton and we don't see him start to mobilize troops against Iran, within the next two months, then I think it's safe to say that Russia does have something on him.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 03-24-2018 at 07:20 AM.
  #30  
Old 03-24-2018, 08:29 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,531
They revoked Kushner's security clearance for the purposes of giving him a new, double-secret clearance...he is going to personally lead SEAL Team 6 into North Korea to kill Kim Jong-un.
  #31  
Old 03-23-2018, 09:19 AM
Tzigone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,270
Well, there was just an announcement about Iranian hackers. Just individual sanctions, though.
  #32  
Old 03-23-2018, 10:09 AM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,359
We should probably be talking about WW3 now because we might not be able to after it starts.

Bolton certainly wants wars with Iran and North Korea. Another typical Republican chickenhawk who never has served in the military.
  #33  
Old 03-23-2018, 11:29 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
We should probably be talking about WW3 now because we might not be able to after it starts.

Bolton certainly wants wars with Iran and North Korea. Another typical Republican chickenhawk who never has served in the military.
Either of those are possible but I would say the smart money is on war with Iran. Bolton has been pushing for that since 2002 or so.

Quote:
...at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he had no doubt the United States would attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.
He has continued to push that idea on several occasions as a FOX news commentator.
  #34  
Old 03-23-2018, 12:57 PM
Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
One thing is for sure. It won't be against our really good friends the Russians.
  #35  
Old 03-23-2018, 01:59 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,666
Well Russia and Iran are pretty close these days. I'm not sure that's gonna work for Putin.
  #36  
Old 03-25-2018, 08:48 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,139
It seems likely the Trump-Bolton team will take strong action against Iran; however bombings are unlikely unless the domestic political pressures against Trump get very severe. But I don't know if Trump cares enough about the 2018 elections to bomb Iran; perhaps a 2020 surprise is more likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by not what you'd expect View Post
Well Russia and Iran are pretty close these days. I'm not sure that's gonna work for Putin.
While the U.S. and Russia have largely aligned on opposite sides of the Sunni-Shia split, Putin (as well as other Middle East players who hope for instability in the region) might welcome a U.S. attack against Iran!

Note that U.S. "victory" against Iran is about impossible; for anything more than a brief and pointless bombing campaign, a "best case" scenario would be a long-term quagmire like the U.S. achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would strongly serve Russian interests: for one thing it would distract from Russia's own aggressions elsewhere.

TL;DR: If U.S. does attack Iran it might be to comply with, rather than defy, the wishes of Trump's alleged puppetmaster.
  #37  
Old 03-24-2018, 03:32 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,013

Mexico


When Trump's wall fails it's likely he'll make a move fifty miles in to Mexico and declare it a neutral defense zone. It is an area that has been used before so lawyers can find a precedent.

Crane
  #38  
Old 03-24-2018, 05:06 PM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
When Trump's wall fails it's likely he'll make a move fifty miles in to Mexico and declare it a neutral defense zone. It is an area that has been used before so lawyers can find a precedent.

Crane
Yeah, no. That is not even slightly likely.
  #39  
Old 03-25-2018, 08:20 AM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,013
Agreed that it would not result in a war, but extending our border fifty miles into Mexico is very likely.

Crane
  #40  
Old 03-25-2018, 12:38 PM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Agreed that it would not result in a war, but extending our border fifty miles into Mexico is very likely.

Crane
Disagree that it would not result in war based on the fact that it would, in and of itself, be an act of war. Is this the hottest urban legend making the rounds in New Mexico, or what? Any chance you can respond with something besides repeating the same bald assertion?
  #41  
Old 03-25-2018, 09:25 PM
CBEscapee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: México
Posts: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Agreed that it would not result in a war, but extending our border fifty miles into Mexico is very likely.

Crane
Oh really? I thought Americans wanted a wall to keep us out of your country? Why would you want to move the border 50 miles into Mexico when that means you would then have all of our border cities within your country? Cities such as Tijuana, Mexicali, Nogales, Ciudad Juárez, Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa and Matamoros plus dozens of other smaller cities and towns. All of your racist compatriots would rise up in revolt. What would be done with all of these new residents? Would they be allowed to stay? Or would they be forcebly removed? Would their property rights be respected? Or would the US steal their property like they did after the theft in the 19th century? (Check out the "Greaser Laws")

Remember when the US illegally stole nearly one half of our territory the thinking of your leaders was "the most territory, with the least Mexicans*". That is why they didn't keep México City and other populated areas.

*Actually we we referred to as heathens, dogs and other terms of endearment.
  #42  
Old 03-25-2018, 09:42 AM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 31,012
I'm betting--none.
Trump is all cowboy, no hat.
A loudmouth braggart, but essentially a coward.

But if we're attacked, we might be in trouble, because he will run & hide.
__________________
"To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong should not harm the weak."
- Hammurabi's Code; Prologue
  #43  
Old 03-25-2018, 09:55 AM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
I'm betting--none.
Trump is all cowboy, no hat.
A loudmouth braggart, but essentially a coward.

But if we're attacked, we might be in trouble, because he will run & hide.
Personally a coward, which means he'll never fire you face to face. But outwardly he has to be a Big Man (tm). We'll be in trouble alright, but it'll be because the background radiation has tripled and it's winter in July.
  #44  
Old 03-25-2018, 11:23 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
We'll be in trouble alright, but it'll be because the background radiation has tripled and it's winter in July.
Trump may solve global warming after all!
  #45  
Old 03-25-2018, 10:58 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
I'm betting--none.
Trump is all cowboy, no hat.
A loudmouth braggart, but essentially a coward.
I think you mean "all hat, no cattle". Never heard "all cowboy, no hat". That's sort of the opposite of what the metaphor is about.

Last edited by John Mace; 03-25-2018 at 10:59 AM.
  #46  
Old 03-25-2018, 03:25 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,013
No, it's just that the 50 mile band has been jointly policed by the US and Mexico. So there is a precedent.

Crane
  #47  
Old 03-25-2018, 05:07 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
No, it's just that the 50 mile band has been jointly policed by the US and Mexico. So there is a precedent.

Crane
I find that hard to believe (emphasis added). But even if it were true (which I doubt), that would not be "precedent" for extending the US border. If someone invites you into their home, that's not a precedent to kick them out.
  #48  
Old 03-25-2018, 09:52 PM
voltaire's Avatar
voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 6,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
No, it's just that the 50 mile band has been jointly policed by the US and Mexico. So there is a precedent.

Crane
Let's put it this way, your whole scenario is exactly as likely as me renouncing my citizenship and seeking asylum in Mexico. And I have absolutely no ties of any type to Mexico or even currently have any Mexican friends, so it's that much less likely.
  #49  
Old 03-25-2018, 05:52 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,013
Then you need to read up on your border history. Long after the US invaded and stole half of Mexico the US southern border remained undefined. There was a period of time when the area was jointly policed. The US has sent armed forces into that area of Mexico to break strikes at American owned companies.

Colonial Spain attempted to seal the border with a string of Presidios. The scheme failed. Spain had to send troops into the area to clean out militant tribes. Trump's wall will fail and he will have to do the same. The way to stop drugs, immigration and human trafficking across the border is to establish a 50 mile wide buffer that is controlled by the US. Mexico could not do anything about it.

Crane
  #50  
Old 03-25-2018, 08:01 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Then you need to read up on your border history. Long after the US invaded and stole half of Mexico the US southern border remained undefined.
No, you need to provide a cite for you claim instead of simply repeating it. Especially when you add a logical impossibility into the mix: one cannot patrol 50 miles outside of an undefined border.

At any rate, hows about we place a little bet on your original claim, which you say is very likely:

Quote:
...extending our border fifty miles into Mexico is very likely.
Loser of the bet pays $50 to the charity of the winner's choice.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017