USA vs Mexico

[Los-Altos]

To all those saying that the US couldn’t hold mexico long term, the US held Afghanistan for 20 years. The only reason we left was due to political pressure. Remove that and the US could have theoretically held Afghanistan for centuries.

Same applies here.

Political pressure and taxpayers money. But Afghanistan is not Mexico. Yes, the US could conquer Mexico. After all, Mexicos military is not that big because they know they could not compete with the US. They also save money knowing that if any invader came the US would quickly get involved since US security would be compromised.

But when it comes to the US annexing Mexico, you need to remember the fact that 20.55% females in the US military and 17.32% of males in the US military are Hispanics, and rising, which means most likely Mexican Americans. When it comes to Afghanistan chances are they would not really think about it but when it comes to Mexico, especially if the war is unwarranted, they might would not be too happy. Chances are there relatives in the US and Mexico would scold them.

[The Huskar Social Union]

There is like no reason at all for the US to invade mexico.

[The H Corporation]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

The USA’s leaders have decided that they want to take over Mexico and either annex it or install a lasting, puppet government. Can it be done?

"Hypothetically" there are not too many reasons why the US would invade Mexico unless they have a terrorist state just right beside them but that is not the case, other reasons might be kind of what Germany did to justify a war on Poland in WW2 or just because Mexico is collapsing and the US would not like the fact that one of their neighbours is on an Anarchy phase/Revolution phase. Realistically speaking there are 0 reasons why the US would like to invade Mexico. Can it be done? Depends on the stance on the cartels who would most likely fight against US forces, we have a paramilitary group on the south called the Zapatistas that might also fight against the US and considering the landscape the US army will encounter it will be really wasteful and not worth the sacrifices of millions of people whatever reason that is. And I haven't even mentioned the history these 2 countries have, despite fighting 2 wars between each other, the US certainly supported Mexican sovereignty in the Second French Intervention War. Let's not even talk about the cultural impact not only within Mexico but in the US.

Would the people buy it?

I don't think they would like it, we have to look over to the cultural impact that this might have, many Latin immigrants or Mexican-Americans will certainly be against it and the Southern states will probably be against it, though Idk what they think

2. (A)How would the fighting go down? (B)Could Mexico hold out? It’s a big country but then they are close to the US juggernaut.

A: I don't know how a war would go because there are many ays it could be done, naval invasions, supporting of separatist groups (Which there are none or at least strong enough to be able to do something), or just a big scale invasion from the North to South and take down Mexico slowly but surely unnopposed. B: No, the military is in no conditions to hold the US, the only thing that may be able to stop the US is the drug cartels in North of Mexico, but I don't think they are that strong.

3. This time the USA is right next to the country but would they again end up with Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan 10-20 plus year quagmire against post war rebels?

To be fair that is certainly possible

[Saiwania]

There is like no reason at all for the US to invade mexico.

A reason could be made up on the spot. I'd seek a punitive expedition to militarily destroy the drug cartels, if manpower/resources are no object. Plus it could cut down on illegal immigration if people are physically prevented from heading towards the border.

[The H Corporation]

1. The USA’s leaders have decided that they want to take over Mexico and either annex it or install a lasting, puppet government. 2. Can it be done?

Also, North Mexico probably wouldn't be too miffed about this, it's more closely connected to the US culturally and infrastructure-wise than it is with Central/Southern Mexico. Some Mexican journalists even joke about Baja California and Chihuahua yeeting themselves to America when the Feds aren't looking.

As a teenager born in Northern Mexico I can agree.

Please get me out of here

[Kannap]

I would also like to add that NATO and the EU would most likely be supporting the US, and CSTO and the rest of the Rio Pact with Mexico. The US and Canada would be kicked out of the Rio Pact but after the war it would dissolve because the three North American nations are kind of holding it together, along with Brazil and Argentina, but the two of them wouldn't be able to hold it together themselves for too long.

Canada has never been a member of the Rio Pact and therefore could not be kicked out. Mexico left the Rio Pact in 2004. Overall, the Rio Pact has been functionally dead since the Falklands War. Most Rio Pact nations supported Argentina, ya know, that mutual defense "a war against one of us is a war against all of us" basis the Rio Pact was founded on. But Colombia, Chile, and the United States supported the UK and the Rio Pact has been meaningless ever since. Mexico cited the Falklands response + the impending Iraq War as its reasons for leaving when it announced its departure in 2002.

[The H Corporation]

I would also like to add that NATO and the EU would most likely be supporting the US, and CSTO and the rest of the Rio Pact with Mexico. The US and Canada would be kicked out of the Rio Pact but after the war it would dissolve because the three North American nations are kind of holding it together, along with Brazil and Argentina, but the two of them wouldn't be able to hold it together themselves for too long.

Why would ANY nation support that conflict? If anything, NATO is more of a defensive pact and considering the US as the aggressor is not applicable here neither the CSTO is on the equation as well and lets forget about the Rio pact since it is not applicable as well

Another Mexican-American war won't cause a WW3, it never did and it will stay like that unless both countries are in different alliances that will defend either of them and that are willing to fight for them

[Ethel mermania]

what do you mean by this?

That you don't understand European Imperialism, how it operates, or the forces that drove it. It's a fairly straight-forward sentence.

You also don't seem to understand that the United States has set up puppet governments in basically every Latin American country, including Mexico, multiple times. This isn't a hypothetical.

We did help get rid of Maximilian. So once or twice we were right.

[Ethel mermania]

1. I'm thinking they would probably do something like a mix of your ideas and the whole "blame the Maine on Spain" thing
2. I'm thinking the US would surge over the border, setting up bases across Baja California. They would march forward and take cities, wiping out any person in their way. Basically, we would be blitzing Mexico. Knowing the US's militant power and global influence, Mexico would probably surrender after a couple of years. I say this because Mexico would stand their ground as long as they could, meaning they wouldn't pull a France and surrender in two days. I say THAT because Mexico has a history of standing their ground.
3. Probably that would happen because Mexico isn't going to stand puppeting or annexation very long.

I would also like to add that NATO and the EU would most likely be supporting the US, and CSTO and the rest of the Rio Pact with Mexico. The US and Canada would be kicked out of the Rio Pact but after the war it would dissolve because the three North American nations are kind of holding it together, along with Brazil and Argentina, but the two of them wouldn't be able to hold it together themselves for too long.

Nato nations supporting?

I think they would be wondering when the hell did IM become king of the United states?

[Hammer Britannia]

An invasion of Mexico would highlight the ideals of the modern era precisely.

A people who do not want their overlords will eventually bog down their overlords until they win - usually. Sure there are smaller cases like the Kurds who have (so far) not managed to gain any form of meaningful independence - though certainly autonomy. However, for the most part, no nation can hold another nation for long. It doesn't matter how many bombs the US can produce, so long as Mexicans do not want Americans within their land, there will be long-term civil unrest in Mexico. Especially given the population of the US vs Mexico. And also how many Mexicans are in the US. While they mostly consider themselves American (in a legal sense), I am sure they would not like the US committing Abu Ghraib in the Yucatan or Mỹ Lai in Baja because the natives there didn't like the US government.

We'd win the battle, but not the war.

[Saralonia]

1st of, the US already basically owns us, if their economy one day goes caput, so does ours, if the US collapses someday, so will we, also, there's no point in the US invading because it already gets all the benefits of Mexico without the downsides, if they decided to declare war on Mexico then they will stomp us militarily, but guerrilla warfare is bound to prop up, also, good luck with the Sierra Madre, and the jungles of the South of Mexico.

[The H Corporation]

1st of, the US already basically owns us, if their economy one day goes caput, so does ours, if the US collapses someday, so will we, also, there's no point in the US invading because it already gets all the benefits of Mexico without the downsides, if they decided to declare war on Mexico then they will stomp us militarily, but guerrilla warfare is bound to prop up, also, good luck with the Sierra Madre, and the jungles of the South of Mexico.

Not even the ejercito can handle the Zapatistas...

[Biwolfia]

I would also like to add that NATO and the EU would most likely be supporting the US, and CSTO and the rest of the Rio Pact with Mexico. The US and Canada would be kicked out of the Rio Pact but after the war it would dissolve because the three North American nations are kind of holding it together, along with Brazil and Argentina, but the two of them wouldn't be able to hold it together themselves for too long.

Canada has never been a member of the Rio Pact and therefore could not be kicked out. Mexico left the Rio Pact in 2004. Overall, the Rio Pact has been functionally dead since the Falklands War. Most Rio Pact nations supported Argentina, ya know, that mutual defense "a war against one of us is a war against all of us" basis the Rio Pact was founded on. But Colombia, Chile, and the United States supported the UK and the Rio Pact has been meaningless ever since. Mexico cited the Falklands response + the impending Iraq War as its reasons for leaving when it announced its departure in 2002.

Oh I didn't know

[Biwolfia]

1. I'm thinking they would probably do something like a mix of your ideas and the whole "blame the Maine on Spain" thing
2. I'm thinking the US would surge over the border, setting up bases across Baja California. They would march forward and take cities, wiping out any person in their way. Basically, we would be blitzing Mexico. Knowing the US's militant power and global influence, Mexico would probably surrender after a couple of years. I say this because Mexico would stand their ground as long as they could, meaning they wouldn't pull a France and surrender in two days. I say THAT because Mexico has a history of standing their ground.
3. Probably that would happen because Mexico isn't going to stand puppeting or annexation very long.

I would also like to add that NATO and the EU would most likely be supporting the US, and CSTO and the rest of the Rio Pact with Mexico. The US and Canada would be kicked out of the Rio Pact but after the war it would dissolve because the three North American nations are kind of holding it together, along with Brazil and Argentina, but the two of them wouldn't be able to hold it together themselves for too long.

Nato nations supporting?

I think they would be wondering when the hell did IM become king of the United states?

NATO is literally the US's alliance. Mexico isn't a member, so they wouldn't support them. Because of this, the EU would support the US, because many EU members are members of NATO. CSTO is basically the alliance created between a bunch of post-Soviet countries that hates the US.

[Infected Mushroom]

An invasion of Mexico would highlight the ideals of the modern era precisely.

A people who do not want their overlords will eventually bog down their overlords until they win - usually. Sure there are smaller cases like the Kurds who have (so far) not managed to gain any form of meaningful independence - though certainly autonomy. However, for the most part, no nation can hold another nation for long. It doesn't matter how many bombs the US can produce, so long as Mexicans do not want Americans within their land, there will be long-term civil unrest in Mexico. Especially given the population of the US vs Mexico. And also how many Mexicans are in the US. While they mostly consider themselves American (in a legal sense), I am sure they would not like the US committing Abu Ghraib in the Yucatan or Mỹ Lai in Baja because the natives there didn't like the US government.

We'd win the battle, but not the war.

what changed between this era and the long era of European colonialism?

Europe was able to hold on to Africa and India for a century etc

[Infected Mushroom]

would any countries side with Mexico in this war? what do you think?

[Sungoldy-China]

If you can plunder the wealth of a country without paying the cost of governing the country,
why should you forcibly increase your own governance costs?

How much money does Mexican drug dealers provide to the CIA?
How much profit do American companies earn through Mexico’s cheap labor?
How much profit did American farmers make by dumping agricultural products to Mexico?

Can all this be maintained after the United States starts to govern Mexico?

[Infected Mushroom]

If you can plunder the wealth of a country without paying the cost of governing the country,
why should you forcibly increase your own governance costs?

How much money does Mexican drug dealers provide to the CIA?
How much profit do American companies earn through Mexico’s cheap labor?
How much profit did American farmers make by dumping agricultural products to Mexico?

Can all this be maintained after the United States starts to govern Mexico?

Wait. So you can collect free income from Mexico without having to conquer it militarily?

Then why would Mexico give this free stuff?

[Sungoldy-China]

An invasion of Mexico would highlight the ideals of the modern era precisely.

A people who do not want their overlords will eventually bog down their overlords until they win - usually. Sure there are smaller cases like the Kurds who have (so far) not managed to gain any form of meaningful independence - though certainly autonomy. However, for the most part, no nation can hold another nation for long. It doesn't matter how many bombs the US can produce, so long as Mexicans do not want Americans within their land, there will be long-term civil unrest in Mexico. Especially given the population of the US vs Mexico. And also how many Mexicans are in the US. While they mostly consider themselves American (in a legal sense), I am sure they would not like the US committing Abu Ghraib in the Yucatan or Mỹ Lai in Baja because the natives there didn't like the US government.

We'd win the battle, but not the war.

what changed between this era and the long era of European colonialism?

Europe was able to hold on to Africa and India for a century etc

Because Europe was the first to eat crabs and enjoyed the first mover advantage for a long time.
In fact, it was Germany’s dissatisfaction with the British and French monopoly colonies that triggered the two world wars,
and after World War II, The United States and the Soviet Union joined forces to dismantle the European colonial system.


Therefore, the problem of modern society to revive the colonial system is that under global trade, your enemies can easily make the cost of your colonial system unaffordable,
through modern financial means, you can make a profit without paying the cost of governance


Just look at Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars worth of minerals are still there after decades and trillions of dollars spent in the United States.

[Sungoldy-China]

If you can plunder the wealth of a country without paying the cost of governing the country,
why should you forcibly increase your own governance costs?

How much money does Mexican drug dealers provide to the CIA?
How much profit do American companies earn through Mexico’s cheap labor?
How much profit did American farmers make by dumping agricultural products to Mexico?

Can all this be maintained after the United States starts to govern Mexico?

Wait. So you can collect free income from Mexico without having to conquer it militarily?

Then why would Mexico give this free stuff?

Signing a trade agreement is nominally mutually beneficial between the two parties, but when one party’s industry is uncompetitive, it is unilateral dumping.
If you are unwilling to sign a trade agreement, sanctions will be imposed. Since most countries need external materials to support their own industries, sanctions can easily collapse a country’s economic operations and force it to undergo political turmoil.
At the same time fund the opposition and relax sanctions on the opposition faction in exchange for popular support for the opposition.
Finally, when everything collapses, the destruction will not affect you

As long as you are strong enough, there are as many methods as you need，

[Infected Mushroom]

Wait. So you can collect free income from Mexico without having to conquer it militarily?

Then why would Mexico give this free stuff?

Signing a trade agreement is nominally mutually beneficial between the two parties, but when one party’s industry is uncompetitive, it is unilateral dumping.
If you are unwilling to sign a trade agreement, sanctions will be imposed. Since most countries need external materials to support their own industries, sanctions can easily collapse a country’s economic operations and force it to undergo political turmoil.
At the same time fund the opposition and relax sanctions on the opposition faction in exchange for popular support for the opposition.
Finally, when everything collapses, the destruction will not affect you

As long as you are strong enough, there are as many methods as you need，

Then Mexico shouldn't have signed?

[The Blaatschapen]

No, the USA couldn't hold Mexico long term.

Mostly because the public wouldn't support such a long term occupation.

It will be the internal divisions in the US that will stop a long term occupation.

[Sungoldy-China]

Signing a trade agreement is nominally mutually beneficial between the two parties, but when one party’s industry is uncompetitive, it is unilateral dumping.
If you are unwilling to sign a trade agreement, sanctions will be imposed. Since most countries need external materials to support their own industries, sanctions can easily collapse a country’s economic operations and force it to undergo political turmoil.
At the same time fund the opposition and relax sanctions on the opposition faction in exchange for popular support for the opposition.
Finally, when everything collapses, the destruction will not affect you

As long as you are strong enough, there are as many methods as you need，

Then Mexico shouldn't have signed?

That's the job of the CIA，
Take a look at how Salvador Allende of Chile was killed will you know what would happen if Mexico didn’t sign

[Saralonia]

If you can plunder the wealth of a country without paying the cost of governing the country,
why should you forcibly increase your own governance costs?

How much money does Mexican drug dealers provide to the CIA?
How much profit do American companies earn through Mexico’s cheap labor?
How much profit did American farmers make by dumping agricultural products to Mexico?

Can all this be maintained after the United States starts to govern Mexico?

Wait. So you can collect free income from Mexico without having to conquer it militarily?

Then why would Mexico give this free stuff?

That's the neat part, Mexico is inherently tied to the US, to quote a phrase commonly said in Mexico
"Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the USA"

Mexico is a country that is basically a failed state, distrust of the government is always there, but many are apathetic to it because all the parties in the political system offer no change, and revolution like the revolution of 1910 simply isn't possible in the contemporary era, furthermore, its easier to intimidate with a big arsenal than to govern with it, also, we sell our oil to the US for cheap, and then the US converts it into fuel in their refineries, and Mexico buys back that fuel, Mexico's economy has been broken since the 90s with Neoliberalism, Mexican Neoliberalism destroyed the Mexican economy while companies from abroad reap all the benefits as it has always been, Mexico makes it easy for foreigners to set up shop, but puts a bazillion regulations on someone who tries to create a local business on the national scale, the whole state apparatus of Mexico is deep rotten with corruption which is long overdue being replaced.
(Note: The Mexican economy has always been broken, just that in the 90s that was exacerbated with Neoliberal policies)

[Infected Mushroom]

Wait. So you can collect free income from Mexico without having to conquer it militarily?

Then why would Mexico give this free stuff?

That's the neat part, Mexico is inherently tied to the US, to quote a phrase commonly said in Mexico
"Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the USA"

Mexico is a country that is basically a failed state, distrust of the government is always there, but many are apathetic to it because all the parties in the political system offer no change, and revolution like the revolution of 1910 simply isn't possible in the contemporary era, furthermore, its easier to intimidate with a big arsenal than to govern with it, also, we sell our oil to the US for cheap, and then the US converts it into fuel in their refineries, and Mexico buys back that fuel, Mexico's economy has been broken since the 90s with Neoliberalism, Mexican Neoliberalism destroyed the Mexican economy while companies from abroad reap all the benefits as it has always been, Mexico makes it easy for foreigners to set up shop, but puts a bazillion regulations on someone who tries to create a local business on the national scale, the whole state apparatus of Mexico is deep rotten with corruption which is long overdue being replaced.
(Note: The Mexican economy has always been broken, just that in the 90s that was exacerbated with Neoliberal policies)

Which is really sad in my opinion.

With better leadership early on (especially when Mexico was bigger on the map than the USA and presumably with comparable resources), could Mexico have ended up a great power in the Americas?