Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → collapse of Mexico possible
http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11444354
sweet
the point of the plan is to keep them from doing that illegally. ofcourse we would prolly accept refugees but that isn't necissarily a bad thing
Dude, you haven't seen impoverished locations of Minneapolis have you? Those mofos are all outside with large families, watching tv in the front yard and living off welfare. They ofc all come here because MN has one of the best welfare policies in the US. Our stupid state is so Swedish we had to model our welfare system off the Swedes, ughr.
of course iv seen the bad areas of minneapolis and i have seen how welfare makes lazy people. However, if Mexico where to collapse we would be doing a human service to the hard working people of mexico who want to save their families from the drug rings and crime in mexico.
Leave Iraq and enter Mexico...LOL.
It's because of crappy negotitaions through bullshit deals like NAFTA, which has only helped the US
Is that before or after California goes bankrupt?
You think California would split from the US?
Excuse for the US to invade Mexico much? I mean, the Soviet Union is long gone, Iraq was put into a closest, 9/11 is rapidly becoming less of an excuse to invade other nations, and Iraq 2.0 has been beaten to the dirt. Why look to the Middle East for a new excuse to keep the military industrial complex humming along when you have one right next door?
Yes, but Alberta is practically giving away it's oil to the US. Interesting how Alberta is producing so much oil, but most of Canada is still importing roughly the same % before oil sands development.
Also: "The U.S. military report, which also analyzed economic situations in other countries, also noted that China has increased its influence in places where oil fields are present."
It takes a military report to conclude this? 
Well you know it would still be cool to conquer Alberta. They'd love that too, hating the harmful policies imposed on it by the federal government.
As for China, I have been advocating US intervention from their bs. Buying land around the Panama canal and upsetting the balance of power can not be tolerated.
the only solution is open conflict with china 
lol...
Yes Soth, lets nuke China. Because that clearly wouldn't start WWIII.
Also, with the American economic collapse of your car industry, it wont be the U.S. invading China .
> CanadianTire wrote:
> Yes Soth, lets nuke China. Because that clearly wouldn't start WWIII.
Depends on how well of a nuclear first strike we can organize. 
World war 3 wont just be fought with nukes . Something you Americans don't understand...
> 
sKoE )= wrote:
> World war 3 wont just be fought with nukes . Something you Americans don't understand...
most of it will
> sKoE )= wrote:
> World war 3 wont just be fought with nukes . Something you Americans don't understand...
Okay, let me try and explain this.
Let's assume the US and... hmm... Vatican City went to war. The Vatican wouldn't be able to fire a shot at the US, because, assuming the US wasn't going to hold back, one nuke would flatten the country. No capability for the Vatican to get a second shot in.
Same issue with China, only it requires more (lots more) nukes. At some point, such an overwhelming first strike can be launched that the counterstrike is either stopped dead or made so weak that the remaining US forces can repel the offensive.
zarf:
"Same issue with China, only it requires more (lots more) nukes. At some point, such an overwhelming first strike can be launched that the counterstrike is either stopped dead or made so weak that the remaining US forces can repel the offensive. smile"
the funny thing is that we have enough nukes to do that.
I don't understand why there is sooo much opposition to the development of missile shield technology. if we could perfect a weapon system that could neutralize nuclear weapons in flight then wouldnt that make the proliferation advocates happy? it would esentially eliminate the possibility of a nuclear holocaust. all it would take would be weapons research.
"Let's assume the US and... hmm... Vatican City went to war. The Vatican wouldn't be able to fire a shot at the US, because, assuming the US wasn't going to hold back, one nuke would flatten the country. No capability for the Vatican to get a second shot in."
Your still not seeing the point. What do you think the people of the world would do if the U.S. were to nuke the vatican? Say bye bye to all exports, relations, and not to mention the internal chaos that would surely follow.
"Same issue with China, only it requires more (lots more) nukes. At some point, such an overwhelming first strike can be launched that the counterstrike is either stopped dead or made so weak that the remaining US forces can repel the offensive."
Whats to say that China wouldn't see the first strike coming? And then launch a counter operation.
Whats to say that ANY of the chinese missiles would even reach the U.S?
In either outcome, you fail to see:
- Future retribution
- A sharp increase in anti-americanism
- An internal "problem".
- Counties less declined, or simply refusing, to do business with the U.S.
Anyway, i think we got off topic .
soth, if america feels like sharing their missle shield technology and let other countries setting up missle shield close to america then feel free to research it and i could even donate 1 dollar to the research 
.
and its always about america striking and never anything about other striking back. america is not god, it can be taken down just like any other countries.
also feel free to bomb china, they will be more than just happy to immigrant to US and turn US into china instead .
"also feel free to bomb china, they will be more than just happy to immigrant to US and turn US into china instead"
true lol
Imperial Forum → Politics → collapse of Mexico possible
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.