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.
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.
Personally a coward, which means he’ll never fire you face to face. But outwardly he has to be a Big Man ™. We’ll be in trouble alright, but it’ll be because the background radiation has tripled and it’s winter in July.
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?
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.
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.
Not a shot was fired, the blockade maintained, no diplomatic fallout and a couple of gongs were awarded to participants.
Brings nationalistic tears of pride to my eyes.
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:
Loser of the bet pays $50 to the charity of the winner’s choice.
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.
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.
Despite the dire threat of Kim and his North Korean military might, I’ll pick the Middle East. Virtually every war we’ve fought over the last 45 years has been there, so the odds seem to be in my favor.
There are millions of Latinos in this country that still have ties and a love for Mexico. Invading Mexico would create a horde of domestic terrorists and basically tear this society apart.
It would virtually destroy the Organization of American States and open a door for Putin to get a foothold in the western hemisphere.
I like the word “delusional.” The US has greatly benefited over the last century from not having a war on our borders. Also, unlike countries with wars on the homefront, civilians aren’t as much affected by wars as in places where wars are close. Sure, we lose soldiers (loved ones), but we don’t have bombs on our cities, evacuations, etc. And Mexicans in our city to attack from within, as otherwise mentioned. That sort of war would hurt a lot more. And be more likely to turn the population against the contemporaneous government (if US started it, which we’d have to, because Mexico isn’t going to). For many, other people suffering for your country is one thing, you and yours suffering from it is quite another.
