“If Mexico claimed border town in Texas or Arizona, would we be “idiots” for fighting them?”
Hasn’t that ship already sailed?
: )
I know you were being sarcastic. Still the qeustion is worth asking. Unfortunately Clinton set a new standard that ethnic groups can opt of of their nation on a state by state basis anytime they become the majority. I still don't think most people realize what a massively destabiliizing effect that has.
Russia now says: The break away, ethnic Russian population of this part of Georgia no longer wants to be Georgian. We are "supporting their human rights" preventing "ethnic cleansing" and "humanitarian disaster". The words are so utterly parallel to those Madeline Albright used to justify stripping Serbia of Kosovo that there is little doubt that they are gettting back at us in all this.
So New Mexico becomes 75% Mexican/Latino. (Many counties are already 65% Spanish speaking.) Then they decide they want to be seperate, or part of Mexico. Under the Clinton/Albright rules we have a moral duty to allow them to go their own way, and if we attempt to use force to hold them in a union they do not desire then we are the bad guys. Russia would be justified in bombing our cities, just as we claimed to be justified in bombing the capitol of Serbia to ensure Kosovo's ability to secede.
If this stands (and it probably will) we will now have TWO examples of "nations can not hold recalcitrant minority precincts against their will" as a new defacto international law.
Good for Free State Wyoming, I guess, bad for parts of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.
Jorge and Juan MacCain would go on prime time television to sing "La Cucaracha," tell us all how the aggressors had good family values and to stop being xenophobes. Ya gotta luv' our Jorge: billions to defend someone else's borders but can't seem to find a paltrey million to protect our own. Who says he isn't happy to sell America out for dreams of his new world order?
When the history's in, he'll probably go down as Benedict Bush