Jon Spencer wrote:
> Actually, I think that there is a realistic way for Mexico to invade Canada,
> to see if Canada's entire 55,000 member armed forces could beat the Mexican
> army. Since the US already lets the Mexican army come onto Indian lands in
> Arizona to protect the drug smugglers,
Scott McGee wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Sorry, I misread your post. You said a list of countries who could, and I
> read it as a list of countries who would like to. My apologies. I was
> repeatedly interupted yesterday while trying to read my mail (ok, I was
> trying to read my mail while working on so
Actually, I think that there is a realistic way for Mexico to invade Canada,
to see if Canada's entire 55,000 member armed forces could beat the Mexican
army. Since the US already lets the Mexican army come onto Indian lands in
Arizona to protect the drug smugglers, the US could just extend a lit
Mark,
Sorry, I misread your post. You said a list of countries who could, and I
read it as a list of countries who would like to. My apologies. I was
repeatedly interupted yesterday while trying to read my mail (ok, I was
trying to read my mail while working on something that had repeated "wait
a
At 18:33 10/3/2002 -0600, M Marc wrote:
>There's a real-life precedent for your scenario: Napoleon's invasion of
>Russia, and that was just the Priepsky Marshes that he had to navigate.
>Territory and weather were major causes of the Nazi failure in their
>attempt at invading Russia,
>too.
There's a real-life precedent for your scenario: Napoleon's invasion of Russia, and
that was just the Priepsky Marshes that he had to navigate. Territory and weather were
major causes of the Nazi failure in their attempt at invading Russia,
too.
Mark Gregson wrote:
>
> > So, in conclusion, I t
Mark:
But that's just what I refuse to do: concede that any country can do an
overseas invasion of Canada.
You have heard of wargaming. I mean the real stuff done by the military,
not the Saturday afternoon fantasies of teenage boys. Do a wargame of an
overseas invasion of Canada. You will
> So, in conclusion, I think the list you stated would be empty is,
> instead, rather lengthy. I won't bother to try to fill in the list,
> but if you were to concede my arguements, you would see that it is
> indeed a long one.
But that's just what I refuse to do: concede that any country
