A real man and patriot like George W. Bush would have sent the Marines in and incinerated those bastards.

Where was Barack Hussein Obama? Putting the finishing touches on his socialist fascist health care speech.

If that doesn't prove what this man intends to do to America, nothing will.

For some reason I don't think the Marines would be too welcome in Mexico City. They still haven't forgotten the last time.

I think Lord Basil was implying that the U.S. should pull an Entebbe and go in without even asking the Mexicans. Which, as George senior would say, "wouldn't be prudent" at this juncture.

And what I'm implying is that if they did, Mexico would arrest them (and break off relations with the US). Unlike 1849, they would win too.

The entire Entebbe raid lasted 53 minutes. Do you really not think that the U.S. armed forces could hold the Mexico City airport for 53 minutes?

Lord Basil = Mr. Poe? It's too consistent to NOT be deeply mordant satire.

@7, not a chance. Unlike Entebbe, which was in the shithole that was Idi Amin's Uganda, Mexico is a modern state with a modern military. And Entebbe wasn't carried out by the "US military"; it was carried out by 100 Israeli IDF. The chances that a plane carrying 100 US Marines would get within 100 miles of MEX without being shot down are very low. If they did, what would they do there? Entebbe was meticulously planned, with blueprints and everything. And how would they get out again? The Mexicans would not be paying the slightest bit of attention to any hijackers by then.

US militaristic swagger is so tiresome.

Well, Fnarf, it would appear that we simply have a factual disagreement over the capabiliies of the U.S. military. Given how freely you mix your assertions about this factual question with our distaste for military swagger, I can't help but suspect that your judgement on this fact might just be clouded by that dislike. But neither of us have emperical data to prove our claims, and here's hoping we don't get any anytime soon.

@13, you are confusing the "capabilities of the U.S. military" in general with the capabilities that could be delivered on a moment's notice into one of the largest commercial airports in the world almost a thousand miles deep into one of our neighbors and close allies.

Bragging that our boys could whip their boys is pure jingoism, and just plain stupid. It doesn't matter if that's true or not. We're not at war with Mexico.

Pretending it's a "factual question" in need of "empirical data", without any logistical or diplomatic problems or repercussions likewise. Comparing such an operation with Entebbe is silly, and I can't believe you seriously believe there would be any similarities. Mexico is not Uganda.

What would you say is an acceptable level of civilian casualties, in the busiest airport in Latin America? What is the likelihood that Mexico would give prior approval? I'll say "zero". So you're going to go in without permission; what are the chances that Mexico will stand by and allow 100 Marines to land? It's a sovereign country, and a friendly one, and one with a difficult history regarding the presence of US troops (see not only the Mexican War but WWI). I'm going to say "zero" again.

It really doesn't have fuck-all to do with "military capabilities". If you want to pretend otherwise, you're an idiot. I'm sorry, that's the truth.

They'd be shot down before they got past Tamaulipas.