Skip to comments.Rick Perry: Modern day conquistador
Posted on 10/07/2011 7:01:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Last week Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry announced to an audience in New Hampshire that he would be willing to use American troops to battle Mexican drug cartels. In Mexico. Yes, really.
Im sure the comment has already faded from public memory. Or if it hasnt, it will soon, given the length of our collective attention span. But this kind of foreign policy suggestion should concern any sane individual. Lets think about some of the details of such a plan.
Some of its prominent features would include: a tropical climate, guerilla warfare, a civilian population that is, at best, indifferent to the U.S. military. And at worst, actively hostile to it, and best of all, loosely defined objectives for victory that could never really be achieved because they are so nebulous.
Maybe Im wrong, but that sounds vaguely similar to another situation we found ourselves in. It starts with a V ... oh yeah, Vietnam. One of the jewels of American history.
It seems like a lovely idea to send American men and women to fight in unfamiliar territory against a well-funded and well-armed guerilla army again. After all, it worked so splendidly before.
Ive also heard drug lords are the kind to give up easy, so it shouldnt take long. As much as I enjoy needless interventionism in foreign policy, I do have another question for Governor Perry: How exactly would we pay for such a delightful excursion? I can tell you, for certain, the answer isnt tax cuts.
As we consider cutting funding for education, health care for the poor and the elderly, and social security to fix the deficit we already have, I can definitely see how going into Mexico to kill marijuana growers seems like an awesome idea. Whats more glamorous? Shootouts in the Mexican jungle or grandma having money to pay for her medication?
Maybe we could get Mexico to pay for it. Theyve got a thriving economy and no major political issues, right?
The cowboy attitude is fun in movies. We all enjoy a good straight-talker with a six-shooter on his hip, always ready to pull the trigger if the situation calls for it. I have to say, though, I really dont think that attitude makes for solid leadership in the real world with real consequences.
If this is a sign of what we can expect from President Rick Perry, I want absolutely no part of it. Ill be honest with you; I wasnt going to vote Republican in this presidential election anyway.
But if the best the Republicans can do is a hot-headed, shoot-first- and-ask questions-later kind of candidate, they are in deep, deep trouble.
Maybe Im wrong about the Republican chances with Perry as a candidate, but if we choose to elect him, we are all in deep trouble.
Hey Butthead, where,s Bevis? I say take the war to the enemy
Maybe if Holder wasn’t arming the other side, we’d have a better chance on the border.....
We would not need to go all the way to central Mexico. Clear a three mile deep buffer strip at the border and let the rest
of Mexico rot.
I wonder what "Jon" thinks of Obama-Holder's "Fast and Furious" gun give-away program for drug cartels in Mexico.
First, thanks CW for explaining who this moron was in the author section or I’d have skipped over this.
It’s remarkable how ignorant and intellectually lazy a so called “student” can be of history and current events. He seems to think that everyone shares his vague understanding of the Vietnam war, his total misunderstanding of the Ryan Plan, and the troop surge in Trashcanistan.
But when you get your views from catchy slogans and your news from Jon Stewart, I suppose that’s how you end up.
I wonder if this writer has kept up on the Fast and Furious story. He should spend his time on that, since he want Obama's reign to continue.
He writes, "If this is what we can expect, I want no part of it." In reality, he wants nothing but Barack Obama. Ironically, he sides with some posters here.
Much better solution:
Use our military to finally WIN the war on drugs.
No money heading south, no drug cartels.
It’s as simple as that.
Not a boot needs to touch Mexican soil.
Not if I have anything to say about it.
Perry is not who or what we need.
The Conquistadors were the good guys.
Didn’t the conquistadors speak Spanish? Maybe this butthead has it backward. The Mexicans are the conquistadors.
It will come down to Perry or Romney. I know how I will vote on that. How about you?
“The Conquistadors were the good guys.”
They were? Cortez, Pizarro? They were evil men from an evil culture, confronting evil cultures. Not every confrontation is between good and evil, more often, it’s two evils struggling for supremacy, as in Hitler vs Stalin.
The Pilgrims were the good guys. The founding fathers were the good guys. The conquistadors were willing to smash anyone and anything that stood beteen them and the gold they were seeking. And they spoke Spanish. Remember that the next time you have to press 1 for English.
On the doctrinal level it points to Perry's meeting with that group of NeoCons early in august to yesterday's Romney release of his foreign policy advice team which is being called Romney's Shadow National Security Council.
The reality is that whoever wins the GOP nomination, if he wins the whitehouse, the NeoCons are going to be very influential and the US will be doing a lot of nation building and democracy spreading with our highly developed counterinsurgency techniques.
Nahhh.....take the Baja -- all of it -- and the eastern shore of the Gulf of California down to El Desemboque, too. For starting that demographic invasion, and screwing with us.
And kick all the illegal Mexicans out of California, Arizona, and empty the Baja. Then seal the border and wait 130 years before restarting diplomatic relations. (Didn't work out too well last time.)
Mean while in the real world, perry keeps heading for the bottom, cain keeps heading for the stars, http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/07/poll-cain-surges-opens-up-20-point-lead-on-romney/
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Guess they forget that Blackjack Pershing chased Pancho Villa across northern Me-hee-co. Didn’t catch him, but sufficiently scared the Mexican government that eventually they contained him and he was killed.
She did. She was posting up fresh threads at 3 a.m., no kidding.
If it comes down to those two, I’ll not vote for either. They are both RINOs and not worthy of my support.
That said, I will vote for whoever is running against Ubama. I’m not stupid.
In the meantime, I am committed to seeing Herman Cain get the nomination because he is the best man of the bunch that is running.
Their pretty good at swimming the Rio Grande. Do you think they could swim the Sea of Cortez?
And back in the mid 1800’s the Texas Rangers spent a whole lot of time across the border killing bandits who’d committed crimes in Texas. Those bandits thought once across the border they’d be safe. Texas Rangers didn’t see it that way.
Exactly. These “potheads”, are helping Islamic TERRORIST enter this country.
It is just a matter of time before the picture posted is in an American neighborhood.
Cain will find a reason to leave the campaign, I’m still waiting for his Fundrasing total for this quarter. Then you will see that these msm push polls mean NOTHING.
How exactly does Rick Perry fit in this category? There is a proven record that Mitt Romney fits this. Whereas the record on Perry does not in any way fit that category. Even Ronald Reagan fit the same category as Mitt Romney with the exception of gay rights.
Have you taken the time to look at the history, character and ideas of Mr. Cain?
If you have and then done a apples to apples comparison to Romney and Perry, you wouldn’t have to ask this question.
At least that is my opinion.
I have seen Perry up close and personal as my Governor and I can only say that he talks a good game when running for office, but once the confetti is swept up, he’s just another empty suit. All show and no go.
Romney is the choice of the same people that gave us John McCain, Bob Dole, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. If that doesn’t bother you, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Cain’s IOWA campaign staff even quit because they said Cain was not taking his campaign seriously.
A while back, we stopped and had lunch in Hondo on the way to Utopia, Texas (I believe it was the Dairy Queen) and it literally was a museum of photographs of early Texas Rangers in the area.
Would you mind putting it in your own words. You seem bent on characterizing Gov. Perry when I asked you to tell me your reasons for supporting Herman Cain. Please.
The Conquistadors destroyed empires that engaged in child sacrifice. It was a great day for South America when they made land
BULL! Now you crossed the line. No good reason to post crap like that. Leave Reagan out of this equation. Perry is going to rise or fall on his own. He's running against Romney, NOT Reagan. You devalue your argument with this BS.
I've been calling Perry a Reagan conservative and he is. That is the argument you should be making. Not looking to take pot shots at Reagan to make Perry look better.
Sorry, to offend you. Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents ever. And I do not believe anyone can stand in his shoes. However, the Brady bill was under Reagan along with tax increases. Reagan was a pro life President. However, on June 14, 1967, Ronald Reagan signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only six months as California governor. He did this knowing it was veto proof. Those happen to be the facts of his record.
First off, the Brady Bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. There were no increases in federal income tax under Reagan. He lowered the top rates from 70% to 28%, the lowest rates in 50 years! The Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 was a bill meant to deal with difficult abortion cases. It was the California liberal medical community who let the genie out of the bottle, abusing the bills original intent and turning it into a 100% abortion on demand legislation.
Perry is on the ropes and you do not help his effort lying about Reagan's record and comparing him to Romney. Do you understand that?
LOL! At least Perry's IN the race. Don't worry though...he'll be on top soon enough.
The thought of which, I'm sure, keeps Perry up worrying late into the night. LOL.
One more time.
Perry is on the ropes and you do not help his effort lying about Reagan’s record and comparing him to Romney. Do you understand that?
That doesn’t matter to me.
Brilliant...that makes a lot of sense.
Perry is not on the ropes. But I understand your point and it is well taken. [My taxes did go up under Reagan. The changes made in the tax code hurt me badly as a self employed person.]
17.1 million dollars raised in 49 days even after the 3 debate his daily fund raising increased. That and that alone says PERRY IS NOT ON THE ROPES.
Perry is on the ropes, however. That is a boxing term for a fighter who is getting hit by some shots and blocking some shots coming at him from all directions, but he's hanging on with guts and determination. If Perry can show the last debate was a fluke and he can perform well on his feet at the Oct 11th Dartmouth forum, he will recover some of his lost support and be seen once again as someone who can be a viable alternative to Romney. Perry still offers by far, the best executive governing experience out of the entire field of candidates.
I'd like to put your disappointing remarks calling Reagan a rino and comparing Reagan to Romney aside. But the damage has been done. I see no upside to such drivel. In reality, it doesn't help Perry, it hurts him.
Being a woman...I didn't understand the meaning of 'on the ropes' with your explanation, I have to agree with you.
Sorry. I am afraid today here at FR Reagan would be considered exactly how Perry is being considered. It is a sad fact when a person does not line up with you perfectly they are called that. NO one seems to measure up to that perfection.