mexican militay chopper crosses into the united states and shoots @ border agent

[bottomfeederareus]

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/report-mexican-military-chopper-crosses-into-us-shoots-at-border-agents/
This is an act of war by the mexico.

[albrecht]

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/report-mexican-military-chopper-crosses-into-us-shoots-at-border-agents/
This is an act of war by the mexico.

I've heard that the choppers have crossed before but not that they fired on us. Mexican troops and police cross all the time. Even have gotten into stand-off, a Mexican stand-off, with our officials. Of course this is a war but the problem is we have a President who is on their side. He cares more about illegals and foreigners than he does about most of the people in this country and certainly harbors a deep seeded resentment for the country in general.

[Kelt]

Doesn't the US violate national borders and shoot people too?

Don't be so precious.

[The General]

Doesn't the US violate national borders and shoot people too?

Don't be so precious.

Interesting point of view.  Do you realize that the United States of America has liberated millions of people through wars?  Care to name a country that has spent more blood and fortune liberating others?

[b_dubb]

Interesting point of view.  Do you realize that the United States of America has liberated millions of people through wars?  Care to name a country that has spent more blood and fortune liberating others?

The US wasn't as interested in liberating as it was oil. And we've liberated the Middle East into what will soon become a regional and then semi-global conflict.  We can thank Dubbya and his Cabinet of the Apocalypse for that.

[The General]

The US wasn't as interested in liberating as it was oil. And we've liberated the Middle East into what will soon become a regional and then semi-global conflict.  We can thank Dubbya and his Cabinet of the Apocalypse for that.

Interesting.  So, where's all that oil we stole? 

[albrecht]

Interesting.  So, where's all that oil we stole?

Yeah, I could use some considering the price spike after Obama armed the radical Sunni groups and their subsequent attacks.

But, since we didn't get any oil you will get the theory from the various leftists that the war was about oil in terms of causing price rises and volatility. Although, actually, only the bankers and speculators enjoy volatility. The major players (the Exxons, Aramco, BP, etc) like stability so they can plan, reinvest, etc.

But that has nothing to do with why Mexico is invading the USA.

[b_dubb]

war + middle east = high gas prices.  Ask any Exxon shareholder.

[Yorkshire pud]

Interesting point of view.  Do you realize that the United States of America has liberated millions of people through wars?  Care to name a country that has spent more blood and fortune liberating others?

Well if you want took at lost in war. Soviet Union WW2. Somewhere between 20 and 28 million. Military somewhere between 8.7 and over 13 million. Or don't we include the damn Ruskies?

As for the OP incident. The UAV attacks in Pakistan is cross border and frequently the wrong target...blue on blue I think it's called. The Mexicans were after drug runners, how many US Feds have hit the wrong target in recent years and no thread started? 

[b_dubb]

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/report-mexican-military-chopper-crosses-into-us-shoots-at-border-agents/
This is an act of war by the mexico.

An act of war ... HAH!  A big fucking mistake.  Not an act of war.  But can you imagine how happy Mexican peasants would be to see us invade?  I think we could handle the Mexicon military.  Not so sure about the drug cartels.

[The General]

war + middle east = high gas prices.  Ask any Exxon shareholder.

Funny how we left them a sovereign nation and didn't confiscate their oil fields.  Also funny how they sell over half their oil to China.  You'd think a greedy country like the USA would just keep that oil for ourselves.  Ya know, since we're not into liberating people or anything.

[The General]

An act of war ... HAH!  A big fucking mistake.  Not an act of war.  But can you imagine how happy Mexican peasants would be to see us invade?  I think we could handle the Mexicon military.  Not so sure about the drug cartels.

Funny you should bring that up.  If it were all about oil, I think Mexico would have been a much easier target.  They are swimming in oil, you know. 

[MV/Liberace!]

The US wasn't as interested in liberating as it was oil.

so what.  i want oil to flow freely and as inexpensively as possible.  to feel otherwise is suicidal.  literally.

[PB the Deplorable]

Well if you want took at lost in war. Soviet Union WW2. Somewhere between 20 and 28 million. Military somewhere between 8.7 and over 13 million. Or don't we include the damn Ruskies?...

The question was about liberating others.  The Soviet Union had a non-aggression agreement with Nazi Germany until Hitler invaded them. 

When Stalin did join the fight against the Nazis, it wasn't to liberate anyone, although they did end up enslaving Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, part of Germany, and Bulgaria.

... The Mexicans were after drug runners...

These incursions occur when the Federales are working FOR the drug runners - either escorting them or creating a diversion.  Hello?

[Yorkshire pud]

The question was about liberating others.  The Soviet Union had a non-aggression agreement with Nazi Germany until Hitler invaded them. 

When Stalin did join the fight against the Nazis, it wasn't to liberate anyone, although they did end up enslaving Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, part of Germany, and Bulgaria.

Oh okay.. scrap that then. You think the Soviet troops held off the Germans because they were bored and wanted something to do then? Don't mix up the troops with Stalin BTW.


But if we don't include those the British Empire lost 908 000 in WW1. USA 204 000. WW2 UK 383 800 (population nearly 48 million) USA 402 000 (pop 131 million.) USA lost 58000 in Vietnam but as that is a war many would sooner forget because it had mixed reviews, add that if you want.
That particular liberation caused birth defects with Agent Orange and shit.

These incursions occur when the Federales are working FOR the drug runners - either escorting them or creating a diversion.  Hello?

I'm battling to understand why stories reach the news when they can come to you with the answer. Is that the case on this occasion then? Diversionary tactics?

[PB the Deplorable]

... I'm battling to understand why stories reach the news when they can come to you with the answer. Is that the case on this occasion then? Diversionary tactics?

This happens far too often for them to be mistakes or accidents.  Mexican school children are taught that the lower half of the US is stolen Mexican territory.  Groups like La Raza reinforce that. 

Whoever it is ordering these incursions (when they aren't rogue operations in support of the narco-terrorists) know our response will be tepid at best, so they probe and test us. 

You know they have radios, and can contact us during an operation, right?  Did they?  No.  Did the border patrol see any evidence of drug smugglers?  No.  You read that part at the very end of the article about this being 'under investigation', right?  If it's as cut and dried as you think it is, why would it be under investigation?

[bateman]

So when do we call this entire border debacle what it is: invasion?

[eddie dean]

Funny how we left them a sovereign nation and didn't confiscate their oil fields.  Also funny how they sell over half their oil to China.  You'd think a greedy country like the USA would just keep that oil for ourselves.  Ya know, since we're not into liberating people or anything.

ok so we invaded for revenge then.  Somehow that doesn't make it better.
OF COURSE it was for oil right/Resource rights/some other reason for people to make huge $. They always tack on the noble intentions to play them up to get support from the public.

[Yorkshire pud]

This happens far too often for them to be mistakes or accidents.  Mexican school children are taught that the lower half of the US is stolen Mexican territory.  Groups like La Raza reinforce that. 

Whoever it is ordering these incursions (when they aren't rogue operations in support of the narco-terrorists) know our response will be tepid at best, so they probe and test us. 

You know they have radios, and can contact us during an operation, right?  Did they?  No.  Did the border patrol see any evidence of drug smugglers?  No.  You read that part at the very end of the article about this being 'under investigation', right?  If it's as cut and dried as you think it is, why would it be under investigation?

Presumably evidence gathering. It probably isn't cut and dried..he said she said, he did she did...etc.

No such fuss is made about attacks on civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan who aren't given warnings, that's simply passed off as 'regrettable'.

[The General]

So when do we call this entire border debacle what it is: invasion?

Well, I've thought that for years.  Unfortunately the Democrats see it as a voter drive.

[Kelt]

Interesting point of view.  Do you realize that the United States of America has liberated millions of people through wars?  Care to name a country that has spent more blood and fortune liberating others?

Yeah, probably the British, per capita.

In fact didn't the British even go as far as to interdict American ships that were carrying slaves when the United States was the only major power that still enslaved people? Rhetorical question, yes they did.

The British also entered both world wars in defence of other nations, many years before the US did.

In terms of material destruction, the British suffered personally in defence of other nations more than Americans, having to endure direct attack by German forces.

You can go back a couple of thousand years, up to the present day in Afghanistan and Iraq, to find examples of Britons fighting for the cause of freedom.

So the answer to your question is The British.

Was there a prize for a correct answer?

[Foodlion]

Good point made by MV. To anyone who thought the war on Iraq was all about oil, I just don't see that daggum oil all these years later. I also don't see why we aren't invading Canada at any given moment for their easy access oil if our politicians are that oil hungry.
Personally, I'd like to invade Mexico for all of their hot latina bonitas and authentic Mexican style food.

I'm also lazy posting. Please forgive my ignorance 

[Yorkshire pud]

Yeah, probably the British, per capita.

In fact didn't the British even go as far as to interdict American ships that were carrying slaves when the United States was the only major power that still enslaved people? Rhetorical question, yes they did.

The British also entered both world wars in defence of other nations, many years before the US did.

In terms of material destruction, the British suffered personally in defence of other nations more than Americans, having to endure direct attack by German forces.

You can go back a couple of thousand years, up to the present day in Afghanistan and Iraq, to find examples of Britons fighting for the cause of freedom.

So the answer to your question is The British.

Was there a prize for a correct answer?

You know don't you, you'll be dismissed as not knowing what you're talking about? I posted the figures above but there was no reply.

However...all that said, it's irrelevant to the OP. The imminent nuclear attack by Mexico on the US. Or something.

[Kelt]

So when do we call this entire border debacle what it is: invasion?

Those powerful Mexicanos will be in Washington before we know it...

...I think there's a few people on this board would be conflicted between their uber-patriotism and their hate of Obama.

They'd be like a computer caught in an infinite loop, right up until their heads exploded.

[Yorkshire pud]

Good point made by MV. To anyone who thought the war on Iraq was all about oil, I just don't see that daggum oil all these years later. I also don't see why we aren't invading Canada at any given moment for their easy access oil if our politicians are that oil hungry.
Personally, I'd like to invade Mexico for all of their hot latina bonitas and authentic Mexican style food.

Why would you see the oil? It isn't for US consumption. It's proceeds however are for US corporate consumption. Are you a big corporate player? I'm guessing not. Don't feel left out, you're in the same crowd as the other 99.999999999% of your fellow citizens. 

[Marc.Knight]

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/report-mexican-military-chopper-crosses-into-us-shoots-at-border-agents/
This is an act of war by the mexico.

Mexico is more of an "area" outlined on a map than a true country.  Government influence might provide a loose circle around Mexico City with rival drug cartels owning huge swathes of territory. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Those powerful Mexicanos will be in Washington before we know it...

...I think there's a few people on this board would be conflicted between their uber-patriotism and their hate of Obama.

They'd be like a computer caught in an infinite loop, right up until their heads exploded.

It will certainly throw up a dilemma for the Patriots. They won't know whether to march on DC or the border with Mexico.

[Kelt]

You know don't you, you'll be dismissed as not knowing what you're talking about? I posted the figures above but there was no reply.

However...all that said, it's irrelevant to the OP. The imminent nuclear attack by Mexico on the US. Or something.

Indeed.

You can go back to the Boudican Rebellion (and earlier, obviously) to find examples of Britons fighting against an oppressive invader.

In terms of deaths, I doubt there's many nations that have lost a greater percentage of its sons on foreign battlefields.

That's not in any way intended as a slight on Americans who have fought to liberate the oppressed, but when someone starts in with ignorant chest-thumping and dick measuring...

[The General]

Yeah, probably the British, per capita.

In fact didn't the British even go as far as to interdict American ships that were carrying slaves when the United States was the only major power that still enslaved people? Rhetorical question, yes they did.

The British also entered both world wars in defence of other nations, many years before the US did.

In terms of material destruction, the British suffered personally in defence of other nations more than Americans, having to endure direct attack by German forces.

You can go back a couple of thousand years, up to the present day in Afghanistan and Iraq, to find examples of Britons fighting for the cause of freedom.

So the answer to your question is The British.

Was there a prize for a correct answer?

The Brits come in second, for sure.  However, it's interesting to note that, historically, when the Brits invaded, you became part of the British Empire.  When America invades your county, you get elections. 

[Yorkshire pud]

The Brits come in second, for sure.  However, it's interesting to note that, historically, when the Brits invaded, you became part of the British Empire.  When America invades your county, you get elections.

Blind ignorance won't support your point...try again.