
Whereas Columbia requested U.S. troop involvement, Mexico has been opposed to American troops on its soil at least since the Mexican-American War in 1846. Actually, Mexico has never favored U.S. troops on Mexican soil although they apparently have no problem with Mexican troops on U.S. soil.
Perry said Saturday, "The way that we were able to stop the drug cartels in Colombia was with a coordinated effort. ...It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off of our border and to destroy their networks. ...I don’t know all the scenarios that are out there but I think it is very important that we work with them, to keep that country from failing."
As per political tradition, a spokesman clarified that Perry simply meant he is open to all options to cooperate with Mexico.
Much like Obamacare requires the coersive legal force, Perry's suggestion to use American coercive military force in Mexico is about as smart as sack of severed heads.
The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.
3 comments:
I'd rather send in U.S. troops than just let assault weapons walk across the border into the hands of Mexican drug gangs which seems to be the Obama strategy.
I don't see it as an either/or question, Mike; neither strategy is acceptable.
"...I think it is very important that we work with them, to keep that country from failing."
when will politicians learn that they need to start working for and defending THIS country - USA
and don't give me some bs about a safe Mexico means a safer US - defend the border, defend Americans, defend America or lose it
Post a Comment