stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,877 
Likes: 13,264
|
Post by stevep on May 6, 2020 9:42:37 GMT
The whole thing seems highly unlikely especially given the posited PoD in the OP (late 80s Mexican civil war). For one, I can't see much support in the US for it - the far left would cry bloody murder and call it neocolonialism, the far right would cry bloody murder at the idea of literally bringing the entire Mexican population into US borders, and everyone from each side would wonder how much US blood and treasure would be needed to sort out a civil war (and likely a subsequent insurgency) that would now be happening within US borders. As for Mexican support, reading the fine text reveals that those 59% stated they would support annexation by the US only if it would lead to a measurable increase in their quality of life, something I really doubt the US would be able to deliver on for years (recall the US economy wasn't in great shape in the early 1990s, now give it a major war and refugee crisis on its southern border) It's also worth noting that for years the US had supported the PRI and it's Dirty War on communism that led to incidents such as the 1968 Tlatelolco Massacre; if rebellions against PRI rule take on a leftist character - which seems likely as the election was rigged by more conservative elements of the PRI against a more leftist opposition candidate - the US may simply choose to support the PRI against the nightmare scenario of a Red Mexico, especially if the USSR and Cuba remain major US foreign policy concerns in the late 80s - early 90s. As others have noted a more likely scenario would be forcible annexation in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War in 1848. 25% outside of the 59% supported annexation with no provisions, so that's a sizeable bloc if nothing else. The general course of the 1990s was definitely one of widespread prosperity within the United States, non-withstanding a short recession that lasted eight months due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and its resulting hit on oil prices. Indeed, thereafter the economic boomed:The massive political disconnect we see in today also did not exist, so that the Far Left and Far Right, as we understand them in contemporary times, did not exist. Indeed, even then I'm not sure it would be an issue; there isn't any real opposition to Puerto Rico, for example, becoming a State.
It didn't exist to anything like the same degree but it started in this period with the so called Tea Party and other groups seeking to attack Clinton and the Democrats under any excuse. They would have a field day with complaints about the US absorbing tens of millions of Mexicans and having to deal with the ongoing violence in Mexico. Which would be a huge task even if the US government agreed to such a proposal. As recent decades have shown while the US military and government can fight and win a war they have serious problems trying to build a stable peace. Given the feeling of confidence at the time there could well be an attempt to help 'restore/maintain' order in Mexico, both for humanitarian terms and because a violently unstable Mexico on its southern border would be a serious problem for the US.
Puerto Rico isn't really a good example as its been a US possession for a century and is much smaller than a strife riven Mexico.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on May 6, 2020 21:12:00 GMT
25% outside of the 59% supported annexation with no provisions, so that's a sizeable bloc if nothing else. The general course of the 1990s was definitely one of widespread prosperity within the United States, non-withstanding a short recession that lasted eight months due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and its resulting hit on oil prices. Indeed, thereafter the economic boomed:The massive political disconnect we see in today also did not exist, so that the Far Left and Far Right, as we understand them in contemporary times, did not exist. Indeed, even then I'm not sure it would be an issue; there isn't any real opposition to Puerto Rico, for example, becoming a State.
It didn't exist to anything like the same degree but it started in this period with the so called Tea Party and other groups seeking to attack Clinton and the Democrats under any excuse. They would have a field day with complaints about the US absorbing tens of millions of Mexicans and having to deal with the ongoing violence in Mexico. Which would be a huge task even if the US government agreed to such a proposal. As recent decades have shown while the US military and government can fight and win a war they have serious problems trying to build a stable peace. Given the feeling of confidence at the time there could well be an attempt to help 'restore/maintain' order in Mexico, both for humanitarian terms and because a violently unstable Mexico on its southern border would be a serious problem for the US.
Puerto Rico isn't really a good example as its been a US possession for a century and is much smaller than a strife riven Mexico.
The Tea Party didn't exist until 2008/2009, we're talking about the 1980s/1990s. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,877
Likes: 13,264
|
Post by stevep on May 7, 2020 9:36:17 GMT
It didn't exist to anything like the same degree but it started in this period with the so called Tea Party and other groups seeking to attack Clinton and the Democrats under any excuse. They would have a field day with complaints about the US absorbing tens of millions of Mexicans and having to deal with the ongoing violence in Mexico. Which would be a huge task even if the US government agreed to such a proposal. As recent decades have shown while the US military and government can fight and win a war they have serious problems trying to build a stable peace. Given the feeling of confidence at the time there could well be an attempt to help 'restore/maintain' order in Mexico, both for humanitarian terms and because a violently unstable Mexico on its southern border would be a serious problem for the US.
Puerto Rico isn't really a good example as its been a US possession for a century and is much smaller than a strife riven Mexico.
The Tea Party didn't exist until 2008/2009, we're talking about the 1980s/1990s.
Your correct. I thought they were the ones gunning for Clinton in the 90's but it was an earlier set of fanatics. [He did have problems, especially with his serial adultery but the driver for the attempts tp attack his government were largely political and ideological.
I stand by the rest of what I said. Even if you could get a lot of Mexicans to support annexation it takes two to tango and I'm very doubtful that the US would be willing to take on such a burden.
Steve
|
|
