kevindavis wrote:
"So basically we can see a second war with Mexico within our lifetimes. Maybe this time we do it right."
I posted the following to TOS on April 1, 2006. I did not save the URL to that specific post, but I did save the content to my archives. Here it is, as it was posted then:
===================
The writer of this article is behind the curve. I proposed war upon and annexation of Mexico a few years back. I may have been the first person to do so (since the _last_ war with Mexico in the nineteenth century).
There is a choice to be made here. That choice is:
1. Conquer, or,
2. BE conquered.
If you do not believe answer #2 could happen, go to parts of California RIGHT NOW. Are they still the United States? Or do they more resemble another country, another culture?
A real "shooting war" with Mexico would last about 30 minutes once our troops began advancing - about as long as it would take the Mexican soldiers to decide which end of their guns they should throw down first. They would make the French look lethargic by comparison.
I wonder what percentage of the Mexican population despises their government, and [regardless of what they might say for public consumption] would welcome the possibility of U.S. statehood.
it is becoming obvious now that NEITHER party - not the Democrats, and certainly not the Republicans - is going to do much of anything to try to stop the ongoing invasion of our country. There is going to be amnesty, mark my words. It may not be _called_ "amnesty", but that's what it's going to be.
And once it happens, not only will you see the continuing flood of Mexicans across the border, but an ever-increasing flood of Central and South Americans, as well.
An American "Camp of the Saints".
As I stated above, we have two choices.
I know which one I prefer.
===================
Me speaking today:
Twelve years haven't changed anything.
Again -- conquer, or be conquered.
