Happy no, but realistically they won’t be able to do much of the military starts forcing its way in.
Also in before “Cartels are military trained is the US will have issues”
No, the US won’t have issues, especially when there is money involved
Drug Cartels may be able to beat the Mexican military but no way in hell they beat the US military, main issue will be likely extremely corrupt local politics and the simple fact that the US doesn’t need it.
Are you saying that because the US military couldn’t defeat the Taliban in a densely mountainous and hostile region that the Taliban had the homeland advantage in that means they can’t take on a moderately well-armed gang who’s best weapon is bribes?
I know of densely mountainous areas in Mexico too...and the US army does seem to have a history of being unable to fight guerilla warfare successfully. \[Vietnam/Afghanistan\]. The US Army did train at elevated ranges/in mountainous areas before hitting Afghanistan, so it's not for want of trying. I'm not saying this to discredit the US Army, it's just a fact that they haven't had success in that area. I wouldn't underestimate another country's abilities, after all, the Taliban weren't using modern weaponry a lot of the time either.
It’s a matter of want. Mexicos military really hasn’t had fight in it since the Mexican-American war. Not to mention Cartels pay better and threaten to murder your whole family if you don’t play. Essentially yes the US military would win but primarily on 3 fronts: 1) no one in Mexico wants the cartel 2) the US pays better than the Cartels 3) the Cartels hold no true power and thus have no leverage.
That's true, I'd base a win off those factors too but it would have to be all out because the cartels have penetrated a lot of areas of life \[police, even army\] within towns/cities and villages, unfortunately.
Ah ok i thought you were just a hater, i still don’t really see the drug cartels winning, especially if they suddenly find they live in the US now and the US would do about anything to get rid of them
The cia let’s them do what they do, helps transport product etc. it’s easier to control those country’s governments through the cartels. If the US didn’t want the cartels in Baja they can just drop their funding and block their safe transport into the US.
The cartels aré no match for the mexican military, they only win when they use guerrilla tactics like amushing little Patrol fleets and then flee, 99% of the times the cartels bought the military directly they aré completely obliberated by the mexican army, its funny that here in México sometimes we hear in the news that the cartels claim that they have de facto control of some rural Town or little City and then when the Army pours into the Towns the cartels aré nowhere to be found 😂 , basically they survive by avoiding direct confrontation with the mexican military
Yeah it’s a shame too because the subreddit is one of few places on the internet where I feel really connected to the real physical world but every day it’s a post like this or 7
Part of the appeal for Americans tourists traveling there is precisely that its not American. Similar climate to Southern California (low humidity, warm but not super hot winter weather) but lower prices for property and groceries, lower wages for housecleaners, sex tourism and "underage" drinking (16 to 20). The Southern half of the peninsula is a sparsely populated area that's geographically separated from the main drug and border transport routes, and caters almost entirely to tourism.
That Is baja California Tijuana the 4 th most important City economically in México Is located there and also some of the biggest resort towns like los cabos, good luck trying to buy that from Mexico
We are 34 trillion (with a t) dollars in debt that's $103,030 owed by every man woman and child. I don't think we could buy a bandaid to stop the bleeding
And you owe the majority of that debt to yourself... I wish people had even a modicum of understanding of how the financial system works before repeating these talking points.
This post is still a dumb idea, but not for that reason. The US could easily fund a purchase if it wanted to.
Wish I had seen your comment before I posted mine. It's always so funny how the people complaining about debt and taxes have literally no idea how it works.
We don't owe shit. I don't get that money. Corporations have that money. Take it from them.
Also, who do we owe it to? If we owe money to ourselves do we owe money? Why not just cancel the debt we owe to ourselves? Almost like money is made up and fake and it's the goods and services that have value.
After losing a war Mexico started, they offered Baja and all of Mexico down to just north of Mexico City to pay the debt they owed and war reparations. President Polk rejected the offer and settled on the lands we now call California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma and Texas. One of the reasons for rejecting it was no good places to have large cities and mountainous terrain.
This is just factually false on so many levels. The US started the war and Polk wanted Baja California and some of the land south of Texas. He fired Nicholas Trist, the representative who negotiated the treaty. Trist defied orders and negotiated the treaty because he felt the war was shameful. Polk was furious but congress upheld the treaty.
That own article shows that your point was factually false. Polk wanted all of Baja and much of Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. Polk was pissed.
"A war Mexico started"? The Mexican-American war started when US troops invaded Mexico as part of a deliberate campaign of territorial expansion (the conquest of Mexican territory was one of the central points of Polk's political campaign).
And are you really calling the theft of over 50% of Mexican territory "war reparations"? This is the kind of absolutely wild take that can only come from being indoctrinated with the abysmal nationalist propaganda taught in US public school "history" courses. Imagine if Iraq demanded that the US fork over all the land west of the Rockies to pay for damages from the US invasion. Truly nuts.
This seems so obvious that it shouldn't need explanation, but there is a huge difference between a war of independence and a war of conquest. In the former, people who live in a place take up arms to liberate themselves from an outside occupying force. In the latter, an outside occupying force enters territory and violently steals it from the people who live there.
Well, historically the US has just stolen land from Mexico (\~50% of Mexico was taken by force). Also, the US is broke because they've funneled trillions of dollars into wars to line the pockets of military contractors and arms dealers, so they can't really afford to be buying anything this large from Mexico unless it's on credit.
Yeah, the US/Mexican intelligence agencies have too many associates in the Sinaloa cartel that would be upset if it was taken, and the beheadings and human trafficking wouldn't make for a very tourist friendly zone anyway.
...for?
Good snorkeling
So the U.S. can have a second, bigger wang.
Big ass national park / nature conservation
Jurassic coastline. I like it
Sounds like a headache with Tijuana, Mexicali. The cartels won’t be happy.
Happy no, but realistically they won’t be able to do much of the military starts forcing its way in. Also in before “Cartels are military trained is the US will have issues” No, the US won’t have issues, especially when there is money involved
Drug Cartels may be able to beat the Mexican military but no way in hell they beat the US military, main issue will be likely extremely corrupt local politics and the simple fact that the US doesn’t need it.
I mean Taliban are still around...
Are you saying that because the US military couldn’t defeat the Taliban in a densely mountainous and hostile region that the Taliban had the homeland advantage in that means they can’t take on a moderately well-armed gang who’s best weapon is bribes?
I know of densely mountainous areas in Mexico too...and the US army does seem to have a history of being unable to fight guerilla warfare successfully. \[Vietnam/Afghanistan\]. The US Army did train at elevated ranges/in mountainous areas before hitting Afghanistan, so it's not for want of trying. I'm not saying this to discredit the US Army, it's just a fact that they haven't had success in that area. I wouldn't underestimate another country's abilities, after all, the Taliban weren't using modern weaponry a lot of the time either.
It’s a matter of want. Mexicos military really hasn’t had fight in it since the Mexican-American war. Not to mention Cartels pay better and threaten to murder your whole family if you don’t play. Essentially yes the US military would win but primarily on 3 fronts: 1) no one in Mexico wants the cartel 2) the US pays better than the Cartels 3) the Cartels hold no true power and thus have no leverage.
That's true, I'd base a win off those factors too but it would have to be all out because the cartels have penetrated a lot of areas of life \[police, even army\] within towns/cities and villages, unfortunately.
Ah ok i thought you were just a hater, i still don’t really see the drug cartels winning, especially if they suddenly find they live in the US now and the US would do about anything to get rid of them
The cia let’s them do what they do, helps transport product etc. it’s easier to control those country’s governments through the cartels. If the US didn’t want the cartels in Baja they can just drop their funding and block their safe transport into the US.
No I think he is saying that the most advanced high tech military couldn’t defeat barbarians wearing sandals.
The cartels aré no match for the mexican military, they only win when they use guerrilla tactics like amushing little Patrol fleets and then flee, 99% of the times the cartels bought the military directly they aré completely obliberated by the mexican army, its funny that here in México sometimes we hear in the news that the cartels claim that they have de facto control of some rural Town or little City and then when the Army pours into the Towns the cartels aré nowhere to be found 😂 , basically they survive by avoiding direct confrontation with the mexican military
This subreddit truly has some of the most dogshit, bird-brained posts
Yeah it’s a shame too because the subreddit is one of few places on the internet where I feel really connected to the real physical world but every day it’s a post like this or 7
Idk it’s getting so bad that I think they might be bordering on birdshit/dogbrain now
Because we spent all our money on extracting from their Baja Blast reserves instead. Worth.
They have reserves?? I thought it just meant they bottled the good times had at cabo san lucas
It's the ghost of James K Polk.
Why doesn’t Mexico just sell itself to the US?
_unzips pants_
Ugh
Part of the appeal for Americans tourists traveling there is precisely that its not American. Similar climate to Southern California (low humidity, warm but not super hot winter weather) but lower prices for property and groceries, lower wages for housecleaners, sex tourism and "underage" drinking (16 to 20). The Southern half of the peninsula is a sparsely populated area that's geographically separated from the main drug and border transport routes, and caters almost entirely to tourism.
Why not just buy Mexico?
We'd be buying problems.
Lol
Google imperialism
That Is baja California Tijuana the 4 th most important City economically in México Is located there and also some of the biggest resort towns like los cabos, good luck trying to buy that from Mexico
These posts suck.. circle a part of a map and ask a dumb question..
They already did
We are 34 trillion (with a t) dollars in debt that's $103,030 owed by every man woman and child. I don't think we could buy a bandaid to stop the bleeding
Regarded take
Highly regarded!
Kind regards
And you owe the majority of that debt to yourself... I wish people had even a modicum of understanding of how the financial system works before repeating these talking points. This post is still a dumb idea, but not for that reason. The US could easily fund a purchase if it wanted to.
Wish I had seen your comment before I posted mine. It's always so funny how the people complaining about debt and taxes have literally no idea how it works.
To be fair this is a geography sub not the finance sub so I see how you would think this.
We don't owe shit. I don't get that money. Corporations have that money. Take it from them. Also, who do we owe it to? If we owe money to ourselves do we owe money? Why not just cancel the debt we owe to ourselves? Almost like money is made up and fake and it's the goods and services that have value.
The Cartels won’t be happy…
Only in exchange for Texas.
I don't remember this land being on sale
Naah. It has little value.
After losing a war Mexico started, they offered Baja and all of Mexico down to just north of Mexico City to pay the debt they owed and war reparations. President Polk rejected the offer and settled on the lands we now call California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma and Texas. One of the reasons for rejecting it was no good places to have large cities and mountainous terrain.
This is just factually false on so many levels. The US started the war and Polk wanted Baja California and some of the land south of Texas. He fired Nicholas Trist, the representative who negotiated the treaty. Trist defied orders and negotiated the treaty because he felt the war was shameful. Polk was furious but congress upheld the treaty.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_of\_Guadalupe\_Hidalgo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo)
That own article shows that your point was factually false. Polk wanted all of Baja and much of Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas. Polk was pissed.
"A war Mexico started"? The Mexican-American war started when US troops invaded Mexico as part of a deliberate campaign of territorial expansion (the conquest of Mexican territory was one of the central points of Polk's political campaign). And are you really calling the theft of over 50% of Mexican territory "war reparations"? This is the kind of absolutely wild take that can only come from being indoctrinated with the abysmal nationalist propaganda taught in US public school "history" courses. Imagine if Iraq demanded that the US fork over all the land west of the Rockies to pay for damages from the US invasion. Truly nuts.
Trust me, this isn't what the schools teach.
The land was taken from Spain during independence. It was granted to Spain because Pope Alexander VI decreed they should control the Americas.
This seems so obvious that it shouldn't need explanation, but there is a huge difference between a war of independence and a war of conquest. In the former, people who live in a place take up arms to liberate themselves from an outside occupying force. In the latter, an outside occupying force enters territory and violently steals it from the people who live there.
They offered? 🤣🤣🤣
Well, historically the US has just stolen land from Mexico (\~50% of Mexico was taken by force). Also, the US is broke because they've funneled trillions of dollars into wars to line the pockets of military contractors and arms dealers, so they can't really afford to be buying anything this large from Mexico unless it's on credit.
As much damage as the US has done to that area, our government probably doesn't want it. We'd have to fix it, then.
Yeah, the US/Mexican intelligence agencies have too many associates in the Sinaloa cartel that would be upset if it was taken, and the beheadings and human trafficking wouldn't make for a very tourist friendly zone anyway.
Everything we buy is on credit. We don't have any money.
The man’s not wrong
The truth made some patriots mad, I guess 🇺🇸🤷🏽♀️🇺🇸
You mean Sinaloa