The US should invade Mexico

Order can be maintained,. .. " You make the blanket statement order can be maintained but you fail to say how. You try to go on by saying that the drug lords can be removed, but the United States empirically has done a bad job in removing drugs from a country. Take for example the current state of drugs in Afghanistan. This shows that the comparison to Iraq is completely warranted, because it would become extremely hard to maintain order. "oh yes how silly of me, I did fail to mention that they not only carry shot guns but handguns, semis and autos. No not all of the drug fields can be Identified, but allot can. Just like in the California mountains, not all the gold can be removed, but allot can. But I believe you re forgetting that we are not debating that we can get rid of all the drugs but oppress the drug lord situation. " Yes, we will not be able to oppress the drug lord situation because the United States is bad at doing this. Cross-apply my Afghanistan example, showing the United States has done a poor job in maintaining control over drugs in a country. Also, you are stereotyping what a drug lord does, and carries around. "Why do we care about damaging the property and land? it is just dirt, and they aren't growing weed in downtown Mazatlan, so there is little chance of collateral. " Because, the more property and land the United States destroys, the more money this will cost. Also, you cannot guarantee that there will not be nearby property where innocent families could be living. They could possibly get badly injured or killed while bombing these drug fields. "How about instead of sending the national guard, send the people on well fair we got plenty of those, and they can slowly invade and setup command posts and than we can finish off the job with national guard. If the president he can bypass you state approval thing an take a percentage amount of the guard from each state, thus making a army," Now this is an awfully offensive statement and argument about the people on welfare. Next, you fail to understand that the National Guard troops are needed to stay in the United States, as basically a last defense, and a warning response team. However, even if we do invade with the National Guard it would garner no benefits. "We can oppress if not get rid of the drug lords, expand the population, become a larger greater country. " I already addressed the drugs and drug lord situation. With the expanding of the population comes more people the United States has to support when they clearly do not want to. This has been seen through British imperialism where they ran out of resources because they had to support too many people. "Make it easier, create jobs in Mexico as school teachers, doctors, nurses, national guard and army, police, administration and government. " There is a huge problem with your job creating plan. In order for the US government to create jobs, they would have to spend a lot of money trying to create these jobs, in an unsafe part of the world as I have explained. As well, companies have been outsourcing because they do not want to pay the money they do on US owned lands. Therefore, the jobs benefit won't occur. This addresses your history argument as well, because the supposed benefits will be outweighed by the costs. Plus, geologists and historians already do this in Mexico. "Also with more citizens the government gets more funding,. .. " From who? "And just like in America there are many brilliant minds to be discovered in Mexico. " We can do this without invading, such as a workers visa. Now onto my contention One My contention one should be one of the main voting issues, because that shows invading Mexico is impractical. I have successfully refuted all attacks on this contention. From this I have shown there are no benefits from invading Mexico, just huge costs.