Now there's a great question. My faith is renewed in "answers" community.
You go girl! Bravo. Someone is actually thinking in here!
2006-07-30 05:00:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Baby Bloo 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
That's kind of interesting what you say because the situation in northern Mexico is kind of like southern Lebanon, its not under Government control. Northern Mexico is controlled by drug lords and they might be able to use 7000 Hezbollah fighters to get more drugs through. Once they start firing rockets in San Diego, El Paso, Brownsville I'm sure the US Army would start firing artillery shells back into Mexico to try to destroy rocket positions.
After a few days of air strikes and shelling the 4th Infantry Division would enter Mexico to finish off the Hezbollah fighters and there supporters.
Sure there would be civilian casualties but that's part of war. If terrorists operate around civilians just for the reason to get them killed to turn publican opinion against the good guys.
2006-07-30 05:20:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by NOVA50 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Question for you. 7000 Hezbollah troops hide out with civilians in Texas. They start sending 200 rockets a day into Mexico. Mexico defends itself by air attacks on Texas, killing USA civilians and destroying infrastructure. Does Mexico have a right to defend itself against terrorism? Would you agree with thousands of civilian US citizens casualties because Mexico has a right to defend itself?
2006-07-30 05:01:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rowena D 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know about the rest of the country, but I'd bust a gut laughing. That's just the sort of wake up call many apathetic Americans need.
The U.S. could do almost nothing to prevent such an occurrence. The majority of it's military is stationed overseas. Maybe they could send the Boy Scouts to defend the country. (Unless someone complains about the Boy Scouts excluding homosexuals.)
2006-07-30 04:54:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Doc Holiday 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
With Bush in power? He'd bomb the hell out of the place and any and all civilian deaths would be justified.
It's war on terrorism and then blame the Mexican government for harboring them in the first place.
2006-07-30 05:13:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hezbollah did not start by sending missiles ... Israel started attacking civilian targets first... Israel occupies parts of Lebanon since 1982 until today, so when Hezbollah attacked the Israeli soldiers and captured two of them it is part of an on going war and it is legal - they are enemy soldiers to them, Israel holds about 10,000 (ten thousand) Lebanese prisoners since the 1982 invasion!!!
2006-07-30 04:55:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Eddy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
wed tell the locals to get out of there and then we would bomb the **** out of them.
..and then after we would give massive amounts of aid to the families that were effected by the attacks which the hezbolla troops initiated.
2006-07-30 06:34:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by sean_mchugh6 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You go in and kill the cock suckers, and if there is collateral damage, that's tough sh it.
If Mexico is inept enough to let this slim fire on the US from it's territory, it has no good reason to complain. End of story!
2006-07-30 05:32:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by briang731/ bvincent 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Israel has the right to defend itself. But there are many ways to do it. They are not very good at diplomacy. also nothing justify killing of babies, children and women. One who commit that crime is murderer regardless to the reason why he did it. and finally why Israel created so many enemies around it that it so desperately needs to defend itself?
2006-07-30 05:25:57
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
thats no longer obtainable in my us of a y dont u try texting from cyber web ? and u ought to like try a call in ur cellular settings as variety sending (thats what it says in nokia) and that's a community based characteristic... on condition that ur community(provider provider helps this determination) then basically turn the variety sending decision off. and stale u pass.
2016-11-03 07:39:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋