Should we invade Mexico?

[tp4tissue]

Thougths?

Sounded kinda crazy, but is like, they kept saying they go'n do it.

[Leslieann]

Should we? No.
Will we.. maybe. He likes to threaten and loves distractions but he also really wants a "war".

[Findecanor]

Because after ditching Ukraine and wrecking the economy, that would really earn some respect from the world.

/s

[fohat.digs]

AYFKM

[tp4tissue]

But if we're going to on shore all that "labor",  Americans won't do it, so we need to take over Mexico no?

[Leslieann]

But if we're going to on shore all that "labor",  Americans won't do it, so we need to take over Mexico no?

The Confederate plan was beat the north, then take Mexico, then South America, then circle back for Canada.

[tp4tissue]

But if we're going to on shore all that "labor",  Americans won't do it, so we need to take over Mexico no?

The Confederate plan was beat the north, then take Mexico, then South America, then circle back for Canada.

Well there's no way we could take Canada now. But South America is theoretically doable. Althoughhhhhh.... again, they have nvke.

[noisyturtle]

If Trump decides to invade Mexico, it will only be a testbed for invading Greenland and Canada.

BTW - prior to all this disgusting corruption, Canada and Mexico were the two largest trade partners with the US. Or own neighbors, who we had been on good terms with for a very long time. Two countries who depended on the US, and we depended on them. Trump is a disgusting snake.

[Findecanor]

The GWB administration had planned to use Iraq and Afghanistan as staging grounds for invading Iran.
Did not work out so well. Got bogged down by mismanagement and resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And then they did not have the rest of the world rallying against them. They even had Britain and ... Denmark fighting on their side.

[tp4tissue]

We don't have to invade greenland, there is no resistance.  We could just take it.

Mexico is not as easy as the military-illiterate elites think it is.   It would be so trivial for them to launch an a55a55ina7n campaign that would cripple us, they're literally right there, and they already got their members in key places.

[noisyturtle]

Not to mention Mexico's largest gangs are heavily militarized. They make US gangs look like amateur hour.

[tp4tissue]

What we can't crush are the Stealth Knives.

They sell drugs in every major city/ town, the richer the area, the more drugs.  How would we stop these embedded violent cells.  Our society, couldn't survive, if they just went out and started kill'n all our rich / middle class.

Society "as we know it" would come to a stand still or unravel.

This is different from Ukraine vs Russia,  Ukraine, isn't some illegal, violent entity.  They kissed the wrong ring, and that's on them, but they're not inherently Toxic like the Cartel.


It's objectively stupid to try something like this, who knows, doubtful though.

[tp4tissue]

Latest Research by Tp4 on the subject.

Vkra1ne is nearing 1 Million + deaths+permanently disabled.

Rv55ia around 50-100K.


Massive asymmetry.

Source, De3p we6 Satellite imaging. Counting acreage of new mass grave sites.

You can confirm the information via news-cycling.   Look at BBC English vs BBC Rv55ia. They report radically different numbers. BBC Eng reports 100s of thousands, up to millions of rv55 1ns dead, BBC Rvs5 only reports 10s of thousands.

WHY would they do that, because 1 of them is not true, and it's not the higher number.  English speakers would read/see BBC english, this is the fake cover,   if they took the fake numbers and presented it on BBC Rvs5 (which only rvss1ns watch),   NO ONE would believe it, it's blatantly false.


Strategists had already called the war, nearly 6 months ago, Vkra1n, we the USA more/less, thoroughly lost our proxy war.


Tp4 isn't glad about our country's economy, but he's somewhat relieved that Drump won, because it was about to blow up to full scale WW3 if B1dn had more time.




You're g2g in the US,  but if neone is talking about this subject in vkra1n, keep it on the DL, their (3-letter) equivalent agency responsible for keeping morale of the "people", will hunt you down for talking about it.

[chyros]

What is the breakdown of civilian and military deaths according to this source?

[tp4tissue]

It's counting everything together because most of those troops Are civilians.

[chyros]

It's counting everything together because most of those troops Are civilians.

That's not really a credible, let alone a useful answer.

[tp4tissue]

That's not really a credible, let alone a useful answer.

It's done by analysis of satellite imaging of mass graves. 100% reliable. You wouldn't go through the trouble of digging mass graves for any other reason.

[chyros]

That's not really a credible, let alone a useful answer.

It's done by analysis of satellite imaging of mass graves. 100% reliable. You wouldn't go through the trouble of digging mass graves for any other reason.

I meant your breakdown of casualties isn't a very credible answer. Knowing which percentages on each side are civilians and which are military is a pretty important thing to know to assess the credibility of these statistics.

Also, 100% reliable? Who says all the dead are buried? How about the dead that are blown to bits, killed in collapsed buildings, died in vehicles, etc.? Honestly I can see quite a few holes in this theory.

[tp4tissue]

I meant your breakdown of casualties isn't a very credible answer. Knowing which percentages on each side are civilians and which are military is a pretty important thing to know to assess the credibility of these statistics.

Also, 100% reliable? Who says all the dead are buried? How about the dead that are blown to bits, killed in collapsed buildings, died in vehicles, etc.? Honestly I can see quite a few holes in this theory.

Chyros you're a scientist, are you not? Nothing is 1:1, no perfect dataset.

There's a floating component to the count, but the fact that it's "as Large" as it is, already accounting for the typical discount rate for inaccuracies, tells you something.

Further confirmed by the large disparity in reported numbers between BBC Rv5 and BBC English.

Then you look at the political situation.  Why are we American godfathers suddenly not sending them more money and weapons.  Because they already lost the war, what would more weapons even do?

[chyros]

I meant your breakdown of casualties isn't a very credible answer. Knowing which percentages on each side are civilians and which are military is a pretty important thing to know to assess the credibility of these statistics.

Also, 100% reliable? Who says all the dead are buried? How about the dead that are blown to bits, killed in collapsed buildings, died in vehicles, etc.? Honestly I can see quite a few holes in this theory.

Chyros you're a scientist, are you not? Nothing is 1:1, no perfect dataset.

There's a floating component to the count, but the fact that it's "as Large" as it is, already accounting for the typical discount rate for inaccuracies, tells you something.

Further confirmed by the large disparity in reported numbers between BBC Rv5 and BBC English.

Then you look at the political situation.  Why are we American godfathers suddenly not sending them more money and weapons.  Because they already lost the war, what would more weapons even do?

I don't doubt for a second that the official numbers of both the Ukrainian and Russian governments are total BS.

I'm just struck that you take for granted, and "100% reliable", a data set which seems at best highly lacking to me. Furthermore, the numbers you quote don't add up to the outcome.

If the casualties are mostly military, then the state of the situation makes no sense whatsoever. If Russians can out-kill Ukrainian soldiers 20-to-1, why haven't they easily won the war by now? Why are they, in fact, losing ground? And how, considering the Ukrainians have quite sophisticated equipment by now, most of which is more or less specifically designed to counter Russian equipment, whereas the Russians are well-documented to have been using old and badly maintained, often cobbled-together stuff?

If the casualty numbers on the Ukrainian side are mostly civilian, why even bother showing them? They'd be completely useless for the argument you're trying to make.

Basically it just baffles me that you take Russian state-censored statistics and deep web "sources" for true while completely disclaiming other ones. The wikipedia article on the war (which cites actual, concrete sources, a good start) is a pretty interesting read here.

[tp4tissue]

If the casualties are mostly military, then the state of the situation makes no sense whatsoever. If Russians can out-kill Ukrainian soldiers 20-to-1, why haven't they easily won the war by now? Why are they, in fact, losing ground? And how, considering the Ukrainians have quite sophisticated equipment by now, most of which is more or less specifically designed to counter Russian equipment, whereas the Russians are well-documented to have been using old and badly maintained, often cobbled-together stuff?

If the casualty numbers on the Ukrainian side are mostly civilian, why even bother showing them? They'd be completely useless for the argument you're trying to make.

Basically it just baffles me that you take Russian state-censored statistics and deep web "sources" for true while completely disclaiming other ones. The wikipedia article on the war (which cites actual, concrete sources, a good start) is a pretty interesting read here.

Rv5 did win, it's already over.  They're not losing ground, the war is over. Everything you read indicating otherwise is just window dressing to hide the Embarrassment of the US involving our Prestige in this conflict.

Thats why our military gave a nod to Drump as America's "Off ramp". The narrative is, Drump is a dummy and he is a Rv5 asset, but the reality is,  this is the Pent4' gr0m surrendering.   Even our own "Rand" corporation has officially published that Vkra1n is NOT-a-strategic asset for the US.

Russia, bad equipment, etc, that's fake news. The propaganda runs on both sides.  The point is, they didn't need very good equipment to win this.  They just need competent Artillery and Logistics. And that is all quite low tech.

Eric Schmidt, google's former CEO already admitted Vkra1n's defeat months ago at a class at Stanford.

[chyros]

If the casualties are mostly military, then the state of the situation makes no sense whatsoever. If Russians can out-kill Ukrainian soldiers 20-to-1, why haven't they easily won the war by now? Why are they, in fact, losing ground? And how, considering the Ukrainians have quite sophisticated equipment by now, most of which is more or less specifically designed to counter Russian equipment, whereas the Russians are well-documented to have been using old and badly maintained, often cobbled-together stuff?

If the casualty numbers on the Ukrainian side are mostly civilian, why even bother showing them? They'd be completely useless for the argument you're trying to make.

Basically it just baffles me that you take Russian state-censored statistics and deep web "sources" for true while completely disclaiming other ones. The wikipedia article on the war (which cites actual, concrete sources, a good start) is a pretty interesting read here.

Rv5 did win, it's already over.  They're not losing ground, the war is over. Everything you read indicating otherwise is just window dressing to hide the Embarrassment of the US involving our Prestige in this conflict.

Thats why our military gave a nod to Drump as America's "Off ramp". The narrative is, Drump is a dummy and he is a Rv5 asset, but the reality is,  this is the Pent4' gr0m surrendering.   Even our own "Rand" corporation has officially published that Vkra1n is NOT-a-strategic asset for the US.

Russia, bad equipment, etc, that's fake news. The propaganda runs on both sides.  The point is, they didn't need very good equipment to win this.  They just need competent Artillery and Logistics. And that is all quite low tech.

Eric Schmidt, google's former CEO already admitted Vkra1n's defeat months ago at a class at Stanford.

1) Even if they are losing the war, none of that proves any part of your numbers.
2) If the Ukrainians are losing but the US is covering it up to hide their shame, why are other sources not reporting this?
3) What the hell does Google's ex-CEO know that intelligence sources all over the world and independent news sources don't? I mean, a classroom quip, deep web sat photos and BBC Russia really aren't the best sources of evidence I can think of off the top of my head.
4) The war is plainly not "over", there is still intense fighting going on every day, and Zelensky is still alive and free. So Ukraine obviously hasn't lost - maybe the fight is unsustainable for them, whether short-term or long-term, but by the time we're talking long-term possible scenarios, this isn't the picture you're trying to paint anymore, let's be honest.
5) If Russia is apparently so powerful that it can 20-to-1 Ukraine, yet so useless that it can't even win a fight like this against a vastly outnumbered foe after 2.5 years, what is your point? Is Russia too strong? Too weak? If it's so strong, shouldn't be INTENSIFY our efforts to help Ukraine while the conflict is still on a relatively small scale, and while we are in a position to do so? If it's so weak, shouldn't we be doing the same to make sure NATO's biggest enemy is crushed as much as possible?

[tp4tissue]

1) Even if they are losing the war, none of that proves any part of your numbers.
2) If the Ukrainians are losing but the US is covering it up to hide their shame, why are other sources not reporting this?
3) What the hell does Google's ex-CEO know that intelligence sources all over the world and independent news sources don't? I mean, a classroom quip, deep web sat photos and BBC Russia really aren't the best sources of evidence I can think of off the top of my head.
4) The war is plainly not "over", there is still intense fighting going on every day, and Zelensky is still alive and free. So Ukraine obviously hasn't lost - maybe the fight is unsustainable for them, whether short-term or long-term, but by the time we're talking long-term possible scenarios, this isn't the picture you're trying to paint anymore, let's be honest.
5) If Russia is apparently so powerful that it can 20-to-1 Ukraine, yet so useless that it can't even win a fight like this against a vastly outnumbered foe after 2.5 years, what is your point? Is Russia too strong? Too weak? If it's so strong, shouldn't be INTENSIFY our efforts to help Ukraine while the conflict is still on a relatively small scale, and while we are in a position to do so? If it's so weak, shouldn't we be doing the same to make sure NATO's biggest enemy is crushed as much as possible?

1, The numbers are as official as it's going to get. And it's to illustrate scale.

2, Other sources don't report this -to hide shame- of the US. EUROPE is dependent on the USA for defense, again, they're talking about Poland/ France sending ground troops now. What is the likely outcome of that, as mentioned, France would get rolled in 3 days. Europe's real strategy is to rope United States in as much as possible, and to get us to fight their war for them. WHICH we're WILLING to do, IF THEY PAY, but they want if for free. The unofficial price Washington can accept is 5% of European GDP.

3, Eric Schmidt is highly involved in the Military Industrial Complex. For the last decade he's been integrated and in the fold everywhere from Logistics to Intelligence, his primary focus was cost structuring, but again that's in everything.

4, The war is over, as in there is Zero chance Zelensky can win. It's been called.

5, Rv5 has been remarkably metered and humane thus far. The way they've conducted the Vkra1n theater is NOT the tactics used in previous wars, and far more humane than US's Iraq/Afghanistan. Look no further than our Shock and Awe operation after 9ii against largely all civilians.

In historical engagements. First thing, they would flatten everything, remove all energy and transport infrastructure. Everything/ Everyone dies, no time for civilians to flee.   This is not what they did this time around.  They ran combat in the most inefficient way possible. This is why we've seen it drag out for as long as it did.

As for whether they're too strong/ too weak. That's too broad a question to answer, but the outcome of Current was already predicted in the last 2 decades. They are also under the Nv(ler umbrella,  They can not fundamentally be defeated given the combination of weapons AND natural resources.

This is not Russia's war. This is Europe's war in combination with an Internal Civil War within Vkra1n, as historically Vkra1n is not all 1 culture, it's broadly 3 small countries smooshed together after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We the US/UK mostly see it as a combat exercise to HURT the Rv5sians, it didn't pay off, but we already knew this was going to happen..

[Leslieann]

The Russian numbers are false as can be.
They wouldn't be needing Chinese weapons and North Korean soldiers if they had only lost 50k soldiers. I'm not saying it's a small number but they wouldn't have been pulling out Vietnam era weapons from museums if things were going fine. They wouldn't have had a major private army nearly start a revolution if thing were well. And how do you lose that many war ships to a country without much of a navy and still claim to be winning?  The war would already be over if things were going their way and they wouldn't be giving away toasters to the widows.

At the moment it's a standoff. Russia is clearly losing more soldiers and Ukraine is losing more civilians and if they just keep holding out Russia is going to need more backers or pull back, they're running out of people and weapons to send to the slaughter and their supply lines are showing the strain.

[chyros]

1) Even if they are losing the war, none of that proves any part of your numbers.
2) If the Ukrainians are losing but the US is covering it up to hide their shame, why are other sources not reporting this?
3) What the hell does Google's ex-CEO know that intelligence sources all over the world and independent news sources don't? I mean, a classroom quip, deep web sat photos and BBC Russia really aren't the best sources of evidence I can think of off the top of my head.
4) The war is plainly not "over", there is still intense fighting going on every day, and Zelensky is still alive and free. So Ukraine obviously hasn't lost - maybe the fight is unsustainable for them, whether short-term or long-term, but by the time we're talking long-term possible scenarios, this isn't the picture you're trying to paint anymore, let's be honest.
5) If Russia is apparently so powerful that it can 20-to-1 Ukraine, yet so useless that it can't even win a fight like this against a vastly outnumbered foe after 2.5 years, what is your point? Is Russia too strong? Too weak? If it's so strong, shouldn't be INTENSIFY our efforts to help Ukraine while the conflict is still on a relatively small scale, and while we are in a position to do so? If it's so weak, shouldn't we be doing the same to make sure NATO's biggest enemy is crushed as much as possible?

1, The numbers are as official as it's going to get. And it's to illustrate scale.

2, Other sources don't report this -to hide shame- of the US. EUROPE is dependent on the USA for defense, again, they're talking about Poland/ France sending ground troops now. What is the likely outcome of that, as mentioned, France would get rolled in 3 days. Europe's real strategy is to rope United States in as much as possible, and to get us to fight their war for them. WHICH we're WILLING to do, IF THEY PAY, but they want if for free. The unofficial price Washington can accept is 5% of European GDP.

3, Eric Schmidt is highly involved in the Military Industrial Complex. For the last decade he's been integrated and in the fold everywhere from Logistics to Intelligence, his primary focus was cost structuring, but again that's in everything.

4, The war is over, as in there is Zero chance Zelensky can win. It's been called.

5, Rv5 has been remarkably metered and humane thus far. The way they've conducted the Vkra1n theater is NOT the tactics used in previous wars, and far more humane than US's Iraq/Afghanistan. Look no further than our Shock and Awe operation after 9ii against largely all civilians.

In historical engagements. First thing, they would flatten everything, remove all energy and transport infrastructure. Everything/ Everyone dies, no time for civilians to flee.   This is not what they did this time around.  They ran combat in the most inefficient way possible. This is why we've seen it drag out for as long as it did.

As for whether they're too strong/ too weak. That's too broad a question to answer, but the outcome of Current was already predicted in the last 2 decades. They are also under the Nv(ler umbrella,  They can not fundamentally be defeated given the combination of weapons AND natural resources.

This is not Russia's war. This is Europe's war in combination with an Internal Civil War within Vkra1n, as historically Vkra1n is not all 1 culture, it's broadly 3 small countries smooshed together after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We the US/UK mostly see it as a combat exercise to HURT the Rv5sians, it didn't pay off, but we already knew this was going to happen..

I think you're buying WAY too much into what Trump is trying to sell you. Frankly you sound like a MAGA sockpuppet.

Zelensky doesn't have to win, he just has to not lose, big difference. And calling this war "metered" or "humane" and saying "this is not Russia's war" makes you sound like a Russian stooge, google "war crimes in the ukraine war" and that should show you enough. Next thing you're gonna say Zelensky is the aggressor here like Trump keeps doing.

And point 2 is just ridiculous, the NATO agreement is that countries INVEST in defence, not pay the US to do so. That's another massive Trumpist lie right there. Nor was the agreement ever for 5% or even half that. In fact, Trump obviously made it so that European nations are trying to prevent buying any of their military stuff from American contractors now.

The truth is, NATO completely betrayed Ukraine. They promised it protection from Russia in exchange for them handing off their nuclear weapons, and now NATO is defaulting on that. By all rights Ukraine shouldn't have to ask, let alone beg, for aid, that was guaranteed them years ago.

[noisyturtle]

I think you're buying WAY too much into what Trump is trying to sell you. Frankly you sound like a MAGA sockpuppet.

Discussing politics with tp lately is like discussing financial advice with a homeless man.

[tp4tissue]

I think you're buying WAY too much into what Trump is trying to sell you. Frankly you sound like a MAGA sockpuppet.

Zelensky doesn't have to win, he just has to not lose, big difference. And calling this war "metered" or "humane" and saying "this is not Russia's war" makes you sound like a Russian stooge, google "war crimes in the ukraine war" and that should show you enough. Next thing you're gonna say Zelensky is the aggressor here like Trump keeps doing.

And point 2 is just ridiculous, the NATO agreement is that countries INVEST in defence, not pay the US to do so. That's another massive Trumpist lie right there. Nor was the agreement ever for 5% or even half that. In fact, Trump obviously made it so that European nations are trying to prevent buying any of their military stuff from American contractors now.

The truth is, NATO completely betrayed Ukraine. They promised it protection from Russia in exchange for them handing off their nuclear weapons, and now NATO is defaulting on that. By all rights Ukraine shouldn't have to ask, let alone beg, for aid, that was guaranteed them years ago.

-None of Tp4's information comes from Trump.  Tp4 is critically against the general Maga movement.

It is clearly the case that the average Liberal/Democrat is completely unaware of the history of the region, and the legacy of consistent Colonialist action of our own nations.


-Zelensky already lost. There is absolutely no way to circle out of that point. It's over. Go watch Eric Schmidt's Stanford address, it's pretty plain.


-Invest in defense is the SAME as PAY TO PLAY. There's absolutely no difference. Again, unofficial number is 5% of European GDP. As for who buys weapons from whom.  That's a logistics problem, and America makes the best, and we already have the factories. They don't call us the God Father for nothing.


-HUMANE is a perspective, relative to how theaters of war are TYPICALLY conducted, what's occurred in Vkra1ne is extremely metered.  No Russian war has ever been orchestrated this way.  The entirety of their historical tactics was first scorched earth, kill everything, then roll in.  In this case, they rolled in, let everyone who's going to run, run, and then opened fire. As far as Violence goes, "That" is humane.

No one is saying it's a good thing , but clearly, in "relative terms", this was a special 1 off case.


-Zelensky is not the aggressor, the United States/Britain are. Ukraine after the soviet Union is a 3 corner piece of various cultures, Polish, Hungarian, Russian. These 3 corners were circled off and we call that Ukraine. Internally, there's always been a civil war tension, and at most it would've become a kinetic Civil War resolved to themselves. The US and UK saw this and said, hey we can make them fight each other and we can hurt Russia, let's do it. We've been doing this in the middle east in the exact same way post WW2.

The primary goal for the US/UK is to isolate Russia, and largely we've achieved that goal. and So we've got ours.


-Nato did not betray Ukraine,  NATO, isn't even that strong an agreement.  People say oh, well, NATO promises Defense, all for 1.

NO, it does NOT say that.  Go read the language, NATO only really guarantees that we "Discuss this" when someone gets attacked, DISCUSS this.  No where does it say we're 100% committed to take action, OTHER than to "Discuss".

Excerpt article 5.
....
if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.....


Notice it says, Deems as necessary,   ..up to.. and INCLUDING use of armed force. 

It doesn't say, we're Absolutely going to engage,  this is only legalese to indicate, we'll discuss what we're willing to commit.

[fohat.digs]

The primary goal for the US/UK is to isolate Russia

This a ludicrous proposition even for TP4.

UK, probably, but Trump is Putin's *****. Even the Muskrat's AI says so. And we in the US are in the ironclad grasp of the (so-called "Republican Party") cult of Trump.

[tp4tissue]

The primary goal for the US/UK is to isolate Russia

This a ludicrous proposition even for TP4.

UK, probably, but Trump is Putin's *****. Even the Muskrat's AI says so. And we in the US are in the ironclad grasp of the (so-called "Republican Party") cult of Trump.

You guys see it as Trump vs Biden, Democrats vs Republicans.

When really, that is not how America is organized.

You have The farm Farm, Gas Town (new gas, old gas), Bullet farm, Tech Bro, and the Iron Bank.

THAT is the real-America.  Each corporations and loyalty all enclosed.


The political strife on the surface that you see is just a show, a distraction from reality.