Originally posted by Serb
View Post
Let's assume the "coup" is just like the ukrainian "coup". Russia pays mexican snipers to kill 100 people on both sides of a protest and the Mexican congress then deposes the president with less than a quorum to do so via the usual process by exploiting a constitutional ambiguity to do so through unconventional legislation. Let's assume uncle Sam funds a separatist uprising in border provinces complete with US military advisors and a constant flow of US arms and US born CIA citizens in control of these "Separatists". Let's also assume that only about 3-4k max civilians were killed in Mexico and the rest were thousands of casualties among the soldiers of both sides.
The US would have no legal basis in this scenario to annex any portion of Mexico. The US also would bear responsibility for the casualties of the pseudo separatist war run by their CIA agent. If the US then launched a massive invasion to denazify Mexico because it was not a legitimate state and should have remained part of the US I would certainly oppose that. If the US just invaded to "restore peace" and end the war while annexing parts of Mexico due to the results of "elections" administered by soldiers I would oppose that. If the US invaded to "restore peace" without any international mandate even if they weren't going to annex parts of Mexico, I would oppose that.
Perhaps, if the US had ironclad evidence of direct attacks against civilians I might accept US stand off weapon attacks against the forces in the act of attacking civilians so they have an incentive to make better use of their military resources. I would *not* accept a vast campaign of conquest 2003 Iraq style against the entirety of Mexico.
So what would you Serb, and you Berz, advocate in the hypothetical scenario Serb sets for the US here?
Comment