Would the US go to war over this?

[Darth Wong]

Purely hypothetical scenario: suppose Mexico developed a technological "long-range horizontal drilling" method which allowed it to drain oil from the reserves located under Texas.

Let us further suppose that the US discovers that Texan oil is being stolen by Mexico, and demands that the Mexicans cease and desist immediately, and that the Mexicans ignore this demand repeatedly.

How long would it take for tanks to roll over the border? And would they stop at destroying the horizontal drilling equipment, or would they annex portions of Mexico?

[Joe]

There is nothing hypothetical about this at all, Mike, and you know it.

[Darth Wong]

There is nothing hypothetical about this at all, Mike, and you know it.

So what? Does that mean you refuse to answer the question?

[SirNitram]

So the Mexicans are draining reserves from under Texas? Or what?

Meh, they probably would.. Countries go to war over things alot more stupid than actively stealing resources..

[Joe]

So the Mexicans are draining reserves from under Texas? Or what?

Meh, they probably would.. Countries go to war over things alot more stupid than actively stealing resources..

Nope, Kuwait was doing exactly this to Iraq before the Gulf War.

[SirNitram]

So the Mexicans are draining reserves from under Texas? Or what?

Meh, they probably would.. Countries go to war over things alot more stupid than actively stealing resources..

Nope, Kuwait was doing exactly this to Iraq before the Gulf War.

Explains the 'not hypothetical' comment. So, how do you weigh in? Would they or not?

[Iceberg]

How long would it take for tanks to roll over the border?

Before the day is out.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Why bother with tanks? Just launch airstrikes.

[Lord Poe]

So now Mr. Burns lives in Mexico???

When does he deploy the sun-blocking machine and charge the U.S. for sunlight?

[Joe]

So the Mexicans are draining reserves from under Texas? Or what?

Meh, they probably would.. Countries go to war over things alot more stupid than actively stealing resources..

Nope, Kuwait was doing exactly this to Iraq before the Gulf War.

Explains the 'not hypothetical' comment. So, how do you weigh in? Would they or not?

Probably airstrikes to start out with, after urging them to cease and desist for a fairly extended period of time.

[Darth Wong]

So now Mr. Burns lives in Mexico???

When does he deploy the sun-blocking machine and charge the U.S. for sunlight?

I believe that comes after the neighbourhood bar is flooded with toxic fumes.

[The Cleric]

Yes, the US would go to war. A short, fairly nasty war. Although I belive it would be justified after a fair number of warnings, it still wouldn't be pretty.

[Frank Hipper]

Mexico would crumble and cease operations upon discovery, and I'd hope a diplomatic solution would be found.

As to annexing Mexican territory, I live in annexed Mexican territory. But a repeat of of that situation is difficult for me to imagine. Too little to gain by it.

[Hamel]

I'd like to supplement the original hypothetical with another:

Suppose the US sends a telex to, I dunno, the UN, asking for clarification of their position on a possible invasion. The reply from the UN is as follows: "The United Nations has no intention of interfering in American affairs."

Also suppose the invasion of Mexico began, and the UN threw a hissy fit and threatened to send troops to push Bush out. Consider that Bush shows CNN the telex saying, effectively, "Do what you want, we don't care." When asked if the telex was real, UN politicians hide behind the "international security" curtain.

The question is: would it not be true that the UN was a two-faced piece of shit in light of these cirumstances?

[Joe]

I'd like to supplement the original hypothetical with another:

Suppose the US sends a telex to, I dunno, the UN, asking for clarification of their position on a possible invasion. The reply from the UN is as follows: "The United Nations has no intention of interfering in American affairs."

Also suppose the invasion of Mexico began, and the UN threw a hissy fit and threatened to send troops to push Bush out. Consider that Bush shows CNN the telex saying, effectively, "Do what you want, we don't care." When asked if the telex was real, UN politicians hide behind the "international security" curtain.

The question is: would it not be true that the UN was a two-faced piece of shit in light of these cirumstances?

It isn't clear whether or not the position relayed to Saddam Hussein by April Glaspie is the position that the U.S. in fact had on Middle Eastern affairs. She essentially said that the U.S. had no position whatsoever on Arab-Arab conflicts, which as anyone familiar with the conduct of U.S. during the Iran-Iraq war can tell you, simply wasn't true.

[Hamel]

What makes you so sure that the message did not originate from the White House?

[Joe]

What makes you so sure that the message did not originate from the White House?

Just seems unlikely; "the U.S. has no position on Arab-Arab conflicts"? Come on, any rational observer could see that that simply was no longer the case.

In any case, here is an article from Wikipedia that sheds some light on the issue.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

[Vympel]

It isn't clear whether or not the position relayed to Saddam Hussein by April Glaspie is the position that the U.S. in fact had on Middle Eastern affairs. She essentially said that the U.S. had no position whatsoever on Arab-Arab conflicts, which as anyone familiar with the conduct of U.S. during the Iran-Iraq war can tell you, simply wasn't true.

" We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "

Regardless, the Iraqi PM (Aziz) said in an interview after the war that they knew the Americans would respond and set up defenses to that purpose. Of course, while we're taking Aziz at his word, there's lots of other stuff he said in that interview ...

[Hamel]

" We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "

Regardless, the Iraqi PM (Aziz) said in an interview after the war that they knew the Americans would respond and set up defenses to that purpose. Of course, while we're taking Aziz at his word, there's lots of other stuff he said in that interview ...

I am hoping no one will try a "but Baker doesn't speak for the WH" defense.

Just seems unlikely; "the U.S. has no position on Arab-Arab conflicts"? Come on, any rational observer could see that that simply was no longer the case.

Either way it makes the Elder Bush administration liars.

[Joe]

" We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "

Another transcript released in the NYT has her saying this:

"But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi [Chadli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

She also expressed concern over Iraqi troops massed at the Kuwaiti border earlier. I think she was operating under the assumption that Iraq would stick to diplomacy to resolve the issue.

[Master of Ossus]

No. They could impose economic sanctions, however, that would encourage Mexico to desist.

[theski]

Just seal the borders and the Mexican economy based on US visitors and tourists ,would dry up. They would be dragging Prez Foxx behind a pickup in about a week....

[Defiant]

With Bush in the White House, there's no way that Mexico would be allowed to steal anything from Texas.

Bush: Stop stealing our oil

Fox: No.

Bush: Fine. Prepare to enter the House of Pain

(Bush addresses the nation)

Bush: My fellow Americans, I have just discovered that the Mexico has weapons of mass destruction. Also, Mexican citizens are kidnapping Americans and eating their children, and they've engaged in a heinous plot to steal the sun and colonize the moon. Do your patriotic duty and attack every person you know who speaks Spanish, because they're most likely a Mexican spy. Oh, and the bombs begin dropping on Mexico City in 5 minutes. Thank you for your attention, and God Bless America!

[Andrew J.]

So the Mexicans are draining reserves from under Texas? Or what?

Meh, they probably would.. Countries go to war over things alot more stupid than actively stealing resources..

Nope, Kuwait was doing exactly this to Iraq before the Gulf War.

Didn't Iraq owe a shitload of money to Kuwait, too? I remember reading that Saddam borrowed money from them to help finance the Iran-Iraq war.

As for the question in the OP, we probably would try to destory the oil-stealing facilities in question, but I don't thing we'd occupy any territory for a large amount of time. (And seriously, would Mexico really ignore the US like that? Maybe if they had some rabid nationalists running the government..)

[Wicked Pilot]

I don't see an attack necessary to stop this. The U.S. could probably put more than enough political and economic pressure on Mexico to make them cut it out.