- #1
- 558
- 0
Intelligence reports tell us Mexico are secretly developing WMD's to be used against US.
Should US invade Mexico to prevent an attack in advance?
Should US invade Mexico to prevent an attack in advance?
Last edited:
Should the US Invade Mexico Due to Suspected WMD Development?
- News
- Thread starter EL
- Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses a post about intelligence reports claiming that Mexico is developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the question of whether the US should invade Mexico to prevent an attack. The conversation veers off into discussions about irony, the US invasion of Mexico in the past, and political ideologies. The original poster's point is revealed to be satire, criticizing the inconsistency of US foreign policy and suggesting that the real reason for invading Mexico would be its oil. However, the thread gets locked because the poster couldn't prove their claim about WMDs and refused to clarify their point.
- #2
rachmaninoff2
- 13
- 0
You call this a thread?
- #3
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
I wonder what "intelligence" brought this thread up.
- #4
motai
- 365
- 2
The US already invaded Mexico in the past: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
That and Manifest Destiny isn't the most popular political philosophy to begin with, but that thought faded away later in the 19th century. Highly unlikely that such a war would develop over WMDs.
That and Manifest Destiny isn't the most popular political philosophy to begin with, but that thought faded away later in the 19th century. Highly unlikely that such a war would develop over WMDs.
- #5
- 558
- 0
Irony people, irony.
- #6
cronxeh
Gold Member
- 1,007
- 11
Heck yea, the logistics on this one is great 
*smacks Canada* you guys are next! Make crappy tires will ya, why you little!
*smacks Canada* you guys are next! Make crappy tires will ya, why you little!
- #7
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,159
- 10,364
How is irony a legitimate discussion topic? I don't see the point of this.
- #8
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 21,907
- 6,328
How about comic relief then? Perhaps this thread belongs in GD.russ_watters said:
Anyway, I thought WMD stood for Washington's Major Disaster, namely Bush. :rofl: Self-inflicted on the US.
- #9
- 558
- 0
So, I see about 100% of you havn't got my point. I'll be back soon to continue this discussion, meanwhile please read between the lines. Why did I choose Mexico? And isn't it funny this thread got locked because I couldn't prove my claim about WMD's! Since when do we need that?
- #10
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 21,907
- 6,328
Please refer to the Politics and World Affairs Guidelines - https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .
2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).
I certainly get the point - that being WMD has been used to justify the invasion of Iraq and the potential invasion of Iran. So, being fair, any country which has WMD's should be invaded by the US.
However, I do not believe that the US should invade any country simply because of a suspicion that the country has WMD.
IMO, clearly the US, and in particular, the Bush administration has been inconsistent in its foreign policy.
2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).
I certainly get the point - that being WMD has been used to justify the invasion of Iraq and the potential invasion of Iran. So, being fair, any country which has WMD's should be invaded by the US.
However, I do not believe that the US should invade any country simply because of a suspicion that the country has WMD.
IMO, clearly the US, and in particular, the Bush administration has been inconsistent in its foreign policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #11
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 21,907
- 6,328
The same intelligence that brought us Bush? :rofl:Pengwuino said:
Sorry, but I couldn't resist the temptation.
:uhh: 
- #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Astronuc said:
But there was little effort to actually make it funny :rofl: Is it just me or do liberal ideologs have really bad senses of humors when it comes to politics. Maybe if it included some story about a mexican guy farting, that'd be funny
- #13
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 21,907
- 6,328
I think rather than ironic, the tone of the OP is satirical, or perhaps more accurately, sarcastic.
I don't know about liberal ideologs or their senses of humor. I don't know any personally.
I don't know about liberal ideologs or their senses of humor. I don't know any personally.
- #14
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Astronuc said:
I thought you've been introduced to the PW&A forum? :rofl:
- #15
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,337
EL, the deal was I would re-open the thread IF you posted what your point was, which is Mexico has oil, so why haven't we invaded Mexico. We don't create threads here with no content and tell people to "read between the lines". You blew it.EL said:
1. What would be the purpose of the US invading Mexico?
The purpose of the US invading Mexico would depend on the specific reasons and motivations behind such an action. Historically, countries have invaded other countries for reasons such as expanding their territory, gaining resources or strategic advantages, or responding to threats or attacks. It is important to carefully consider the potential consequences and justifications before making the decision to invade another country.
2. Is the US legally allowed to invade Mexico?
The legality of a US invasion of Mexico would depend on a variety of factors, including international laws and treaties, as well as the justification and reasoning behind the invasion. In general, the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against another country except in cases of self-defense or with authorization from the UN Security Council. Without a clear legal justification, a US invasion of Mexico could be seen as a violation of international law.
3. How would an invasion affect the relationship between the US and Mexico?
An invasion of Mexico by the US would likely have a significant impact on the relationship between the two countries. It could potentially strain diplomatic relations, lead to economic consequences, and cause long-term resentment and mistrust between the two nations. Additionally, the US would likely face backlash and condemnation from the international community for such an action.
4. What are the potential consequences of a US invasion of Mexico?
The consequences of a US invasion of Mexico could be far-reaching and unpredictable. It could result in significant loss of life and destruction of infrastructure in both countries, as well as lead to political instability and humanitarian crises. The US could also face retaliation and backlash from other countries, and potentially damage its reputation as a global leader and defender of human rights.
5. Are there any alternatives to invading Mexico that could address the issues at hand?
Before considering an invasion, it is important to exhaust all other possible alternatives and solutions to address the issues between the US and Mexico. This could include diplomatic negotiations, economic sanctions, or working with international organizations to find a peaceful resolution. In most cases, there are more effective and less destructive ways to address conflicts between countries without resorting to military intervention.
Similar threads
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
Computing and Technology
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion
-
General Discussion