http://time.com/4657474/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-bad-hombres/
Well, kind of speechless on this one.
Let’s see debate…
Umm… well, let’s start with the obvious. Is he right? Is Mexico incapable of solving their internal problems? Does the US needs to intervene with unilateral military force … the reason is a little unclear here… for:
1 - the safety of the USA?
2 - the benefit of the Mexican people?
So I think this is extremely dangerous. Mexico may not be the most stable of countries but unilateral invasions are a real international no-no. I could maybe understand is Mexico was asking for help but this is really repulsive. It if were to happen, the result will be condemnation from the UN. Trump doesn’t care about the UN so that won’t matter. At some point, would a coalition form to stop an aggressive US? Just typing that sounds crazy but this isn’t invading some middle east country ruled by a dictator that nobody likes. This is Mexico he’s talking about. Sounds like utter madness to me.
From the article:
I’d like to see some corroboration of the evidence the anonymous ‘person with access to the official transcript’ claims to have, before I get too worked up about Trump invading an ally.
There wasn’t a ton of complaint over the helicopters we sent into Pakistan to grab Osama Bin Laden.
Granted, that’s a special case, but danger really depends on what actually occurs if you do it. If you’re in jail and a guy tells you that he’s going to rape you, you might try and shiv him or you might just accept your place in the pecking order. Trump is plausibly the sort of guy to look at Mexico and decide that they’re probably the sort of place that, at the end of the day, is going to give in and bend over. It will be humiliating for the country and the locals will go nuts, but unless Mexico actually thinks it can do something about the issue…well there’s just not much they can do.
I’d say that if you’ve got stock in any Mexican businesses, the smart money would be on selling.
I will admit I read the article (and in fact I’m typing this) while helping my mom setup her new computer (I hate being tech support). So if this ends up being false I apologize in advance for being so hasty.
Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t see nabbing Bin Laden and sending troops into Mexico as being quite the same. I don’t think a helicopter raid is going to cut it for attacking the cartels unless he’s just looking to score some political points. To take on the cartels would need a sustained fighting force. Plus the near universal hatred for Bin Laden in the USA is not the same as the feelings Americans have for Mexico.
I agree though there’s nothing Mexico can do about it by themselves.
Pretty sure I don’t own any stock in Mexico but good point I should go check.
A unilateral invasion is …is…just :smack: if that’s really true.
Mexico has been fighting for control of the border regions for about a decade. It’s involved both law enforcement and their Army. They aren’t really any closer to reestablishing rule of law in some of those key smuggling areas along the border.
The cartels field paramilitaries that are well equipped (rifles, rifle mounted grenade launchers,machine guns, RPGs,directional anti-personnel mines, etc) They are well trained as light infantry by various former Central American military personnel, including former special operations troops. The cartels can and do ambush Mexican Army patrols successfully. This is not street crime. It’s not even what we think of as the capability of organized crime in the US. It’s more like the capability of the insurgents in Afghanistan.
Close to a decade ago as this fight really started to spin up I saw a detailed analysis of one fight. It was cartel on cartel but it illustrates capability. One of the cartels became aware of a large movement by their competitors (ISTR they set up conditions to try and make the large move necessary.) They laid a well planned linear ambush in near Company strength and destroyed most of a convoy that contained 100+ vehicles.
Mexico has been fighting but they aren’t really any closer to winning that fight. That’s with the US already assisting them with money, training, and equipment under the Merida Initiative. There’s certainly room for improving the support we offer. There’s room for reducing drug demand that funds the cartels through decriminalization. If we wanted to increase direct support, there’s certainly roles where the US military could be of value. That works better and costs less if it’s in cooperation with Mexico instead of turning it into a three way fight.
Geez. I’ve been away from the board most of the day. These days, step out for a bit and you never know what you’re gonna find when you check back in. .
I can’t wait to read Trump’s book ‘The Art of Diplomacy’. Ch 3, how to threaten heinous invasions while maintaining an image of being unstable enough to actually go through with it.
I remember something like this being brought up years ago… someone asked why after the us/Mexican war we just didn’t keep mexico
and the big reason was it would of brought about the civil war 5 years earlier because the natives wouldn’t tolerate any type of slavery and would of been a huge free state …
For someone who goes on about the Iraq War being a mistake to much, he doesn’t seem to have internalised the lesson.
Me too. I step away for a few hours to play some poker and Dear Leader is threatening to invade Mexico?
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
From OP’s cite:
Mexico’s denying it, for the record. It’s possible that it was said jokingly or not at all, or it’s possible that it was said and Nieto, already taking heat for looking like a weakling, is just trying to deny it was ever said, jokingly or otherwise.
Both sides are denying it, and I worry that the AP got trolled on this one, and shame on them if they did. It’s all over the news, but from what I can tell they all refer back to AP’s report. Odds of bullshit high, IMO.
You assume that Donald Trump is capable of humor.
“`You have a bunch of bad hombres down there,” Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. “You aren’t doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn’t, so I just might send them down to take care of it.’”
This sound very much like something that was made up. Not that Trump isn’t stupid enough to say somethin g like this, but it’s just too pat, too phony sounding. It reads precisely like someone writing something that they want to sound like Trump’s words, but aren’t actually talented enough to make it sound like Trump - note the prominent use of the term “bad hombres,” but the fact that the passage otherwise doesn’t really follow his typical structure or cadence - there is no repetition, no use of superlatives, no adjectives except for “bad.” That’s not how he speaks.
You think he is beyond invading Mexico? It’s America’s Ireland.
Well, John Candy already taught us how a war with our neighbor to the north would go.
I predict a war with our southern neighbor won’t be as funny.
This.
He’s not.
Not intentionally, anyway.