Why do US invade countries with lesser degrees of human right violations then Mexico?

[nacho daddy]

Yea, I wonder why millions of foreigners go to that ****hole to vacation...lol

You might be the dumbest poster in this place and that's a great accomplishment.

yea millions go there to one tiny dot on the map of messico on vacations and forget about the other 99.9999999999% of the country which is a failed narco state

[squealpiggy]

Isn't it abit weird that USA invaded so many countries for far lesser degrees of human right violations while these things are happening right on front of them?

The US go off half way across the world to 'help those in need' with the excuse that their governments are suppressing their people. However, across the fence in Mexico, this shit happens many times a day - and the US does not have a thing to say, but if it happens in Taiwan, they lose their mind and hint at a war with China.

I guess it's okay to have a hot mess at their own border, but if it happens in other's sphere of influence then that is not okay & they go and bomb them. I wonder what will the US will do when China or Russia offer Mexico help to resolve their issues. I am sure then the US will state "that we all always cared for our neighbours."

1. There needs to be a strategic reason for engaging in warfare. Nobody does it to be nice. Not since the British Empire anyway.

2. Mexico is not only recognised as having a legitimate government, it is a major trading partner of the United States. Furthermore the last thing the US would want is a headless Mexico on its doorstep.

3. Russia Today. Seriously.

I understand what TS is saying, and it's true, there is no beneficial entitiy which would drive them into Mexico, I've never been Mexico and neither have allot you posters been to these Middle eastern "terrorist" states. If I purely based my opinions of Mexico over what I see on the news and social media I'd too say its a shythole however I dont. The US government are puppets to Israel and that is one of the several reasons behind why they invade Islamic lands.

Oil, intimidation, and other hidden agenda which will never be made public because who the fook can justify spending billions on a war when they could stabilise every person in the US.

The 9/11 inside job, the weapons of mass destruction (oil)...Trying to make Putin look a dick..

Eventually the Yanks will open their eyes and realise its their and their kids futures the government they support are ruining pretty openly. They will also fook with the wrong country one of these days and then it's the innocent hard working Yanks I fear for who will suffer for their greedy corrupt leaders wrongdoings.

If they're so worried about terrorism them then isnt the huge amount of beheadings taking place by drug cartels an act of terror. Kids and innocent women, men are being butchered but they dont intervene...

"Oh yeah then Mexicans fook them let em kill each other they don't offer us anything to take advantage of".

The harsh reality ^

Your whole rambling tirade is mind-numbingly stupid, but I did want to address the bit I didn't shrink into teeny tiny letters.

No, beheadings as part of intimidation tactics linked to illegal commercial enterprises are not terrorism. The definition of terrorism requires an underlying ideology.

Invading Iraq was the right choice. Saddam was a radical dictator who got way to powerful having back then the 4th largest army in the world, possession of weapons of mass destruction, and partaking in genocide. If we would have left it alone, the potential threat would have only grown.

Invading Iraq was absolutely the wrong choice, rushed into and executed poorly. It was rushed into for mainly bad reasons and it resulted in a huge power surge for a breed of religious nutters that are organising in a hitherto unprecedented manner.

Not that any of this is an endorsement of Saddam Hussein of course. What a **** he was.

[Sweet Pea 50]

"my country is a coward" - floyd jr

Maybe.

But at least the US wasn't owned by a fucking potato.

[DoubleLeftH00k]

their not cutting peoples head in public yet

or killing them rioters on the street

seriosly dude u cant compare those countries to mexico

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

yea millions go there to one tiny dot on the map of messico on vacations and forget about the other 99.9999999999% of the country which is a failed narco state

Ok I take it back prettyboy isn't the dumbest poster here, you are. Nacho Daddy with 200+ posts....yea you're not an obvious troll.

[Pretty Boy32]

1. There needs to be a strategic reason for engaging in warfare. Nobody does it to be nice. Not since the British Empire anyway.

2. Mexico is not only recognised as having a legitimate government, it is a major trading partner of the United States. Furthermore the last thing the US would want is a headless Mexico on its doorstep.

3. Russia Today. Seriously.



Your whole rambling tirade is mind-numbingly stupid, but I did want to address the bit I didn't shrink into teeny tiny letters.

No, beheadings as part of intimidation tactics linked to illegal commercial enterprises are not terrorism. The definition of terrorism requires an underlying ideology.



Invading Iraq was absolutely the wrong choice, rushed into and executed poorly. It was rushed into for mainly bad reasons and it resulted in a huge power surge for a breed of religious nutters that are organising in a hitherto unprecedented manner.

Not that any of this is an endorsement of Saddam Hussein of course. What a **** he was.

Says it all. ******.

[squealpiggy]

Says it all. ******.

What did the British Empire have to gain from interdiction of the transatlantic slave trade?

What, didn't the Irish school system tell you about the interdiction and dismantling of the slave trade?

[Aztekkas]

bullsheet they will not revolt because sending tens of millions of young guys here who should be revolting are like a safety valve to keep dissent down.

Wtf are you talking about? First off, wash your mouth before speaking to me, you overused cum dump. Secondly, tens of millions of young guys? How ******ed are you?

How can you say they won't revolt when he people themselves have created "Grupos Autodefensas" to combat Narcos. These are your common folk, farmers, sons, fathers, vendors, etc... Whom got fed up with the intimidation, lost all fear and rose up in arms to defend their families, land and country. "Tens of millions" lmao. What a waste of skin you are.

These folks are beyond oppressed. Now add to the fire he disappearance of 43 young adults whom were on their way to becoming teachers and you have a serious cause to further fuel a revolt. 6 people were shot and killed, a few of them bled to death before the cops showed up... Hours after the incident. 43 students were taken away in police vehicles and have yet to be heard from again. These weren't you average students, they attended Escuelas Normales. They were people whom came from the bottom, whom had fought their way through life to equip themselves with knowledge and education. In fact, the school they came from had requirements in order to join them. Your parents had to either be farm workers or you had to be poor. The government whom was supposed to protect them turned heir back on them and disappeared them.

With all that said and the constant marches flooding he country, you really think they won't rise up in arms? For all those saying Mexico is some *****hole, read up. After he 1994 NAFTA, Mexico's economy boomed. The US grew closer to Mexico and extremely reliant on them for Importing electronics and automotive goods. A drastic change/ revolution in Mexico would most definitely affect the US. Think before you spew ***** out of your ass next time, ****.

[Accountoffline]

1. There needs to be a strategic reason for engaging in warfare. Nobody does it to be nice. Not since the British Empire anyway.

2. Mexico is not only recognised as having a legitimate government, it is a major trading partner of the United States. Furthermore the last thing the US would want is a headless Mexico on its doorstep.

3. Russia Today. Seriously.



Your whole rambling tirade is mind-numbingly stupid, but I did want to address the bit I didn't shrink into teeny tiny letters.

No, beheadings as part of intimidation tactics linked to illegal commercial enterprises are not terrorism. The definition of terrorism requires an underlying ideology.



Invading Iraq was absolutely the wrong choice, rushed into and executed poorly. It was rushed into for mainly bad reasons and it resulted in a huge power surge for a breed of religious nutters that are organising in a hitherto unprecedented manner.

Not that any of this is an endorsement of Saddam Hussein of course. What a **** he was.

Then surely the US are terrorists, bombing the fook out of the Middle east for political gains, or does that not match your numb headed criteria. Israel are terrorists, the country you try and defend is like Israels pet guard dog, attack on demand.

It's a shame really because the people of the US are like 90% of the worlds population. They want peace and a easy life, its the patriotic wankstains who try and justify their countries distasteful actions.

And btw an act of terror is not only the unauthorised definition relating to political influence, to put innocent people in fear of their lives is an act of terrorism you pillock.

[Rostov Papa]

This thread is so 2003.