catfish admits:
"20 years ago, I would have shuddered at the thought of militarizing our southern border. But Mexico is no ally. We need to start treating the cartels like we do Islamic terrorist. Kill 'em all."
Catfish, you're 20 years too late.
20 years ago, I was openly advocating for an invasion of Mexico on that other forum.
Here is the exact text of a post I put up there 4/1/06. I didn't save a direct link to the reply (I began doing that a little later):
================================
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.
================================
