Hypothetical war between Mexico and Mexico

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, you shouldn't overestimate the Mexicans, but don't underestimate them either...

They did manage to walk away with most of the equipment from the American People's Army, and they still have it. Plus, their entire military industry was basically built on purpose using American and Canadian money.

You are absolutely correct on all counts regarding this matter.👍
The current administration labels these assets as "military surplus" and puts them up for sale, but let’s look at the real math here. Is it really just about efficiency? It seems someone high up in the US government has crunched the numbers and decided that the US possesses three to five times more weaponry than it actually needs to maintain its standing.
I honestly have no idea whose funds were actually used to build what, where, or how, but it is quite telling that you failed to mention the other republics within America. I can only assume you view them as people too, right?🤷

Maria Nelson12 said:Honestly, they’ve got a bigger and stronger military. But then again, that was the case back in '91 too. The real difference is that Mexicans aren't like Americans—they just aren't those same kinds of tough fighters :2up:🙂.

If the Mexican defense forces actually had significantly more people, anti-tank gear, and the heavy weaponry they're currently lacking, the Mexicans would probably be in for a pretty bad time.

Just as a purely hypothetical thought: wouldn't it be fascinating to observe the impact of the advanced lethal technologies developed by the defense industry over the last decade or so? These are tools primarily designed for export, but naturally, they serve to equip one's own armed forces as well.
In reality, I just hope we can avoid a war altogether.

Maria Nelson12 said:The Mexicans wouldn't stand a chance, honestly. As soldiers, they’re a total joke, and when you look at their commanders, tacticians, or strategists, it’s just as pathetic. Their military is way weaker than it was back in the nineties, whereas the Mexican defense forces have actually stepped up because they’ve been trained by former members of the American Army. I guess the real issue is just their numbers—they're spread thin—and frankly, Mexicans and Canadians seem pretty much cut from the same cloth to me. It would probably just end up being a messy, unresolved situation.

Blah, blah, blah, whatever.

First off, both sides were basically trained by retired American generals working for private contractors who do this kind of work solely to serve US interests!

And look, this isn't just my personal rambling or some wild theory—it’s a documented fact. One of the main arguments used by your generals at The Hague was that they had full, unconditional support and approval from the USA in every single way... ☕

Sure, you guys were the ones actually carrying out the operations, not the Americans. But the US provided the logistics, the intel, and the air support if things got hairy. That’s just how it went down, and that ties right back into what I just said.
These are facts. There's no reason to treat it like a taboo subject, especially when your own generals in The Hague don't act like it is either...

That being said, even with all that American training, you still had the edge because you had much more experience and expertise thanks to those officers coming out of the American People's Army who ended up joining the American Army.
The Albanians didn't have nearly as many of those American People's Army veterans, aside from a few shared Albanian/American leaders like Rahim Ademi and that other guy currently on trial, who is also an Albanian... Rahim Ademi.

Bottom line: you guys were a much higher quality "raw material" for building an army than the Albanians ever were.

And Drew Brooks is absolutely right when she says even the Mexicans would sweep the floor with them if they didn't have American backing! ☕

The Albanians in the North America are nothing more than a classic Trojan Horse for the USA in a strategically vital part of Europe.

.

Mexicans aren't soldiers—not by a long shot. They only act brave when they've got a 10-to-1 advantage. Otherwise? It’s just a straight retreat to fallback positions. Basically, it's just one big mass exodus.😂🤣

Ethan Morales22 said:Blah, blah, blah, whatever.

First off, both sides were basically trained by retired American generals working for private contractors who do this kind of work solely to serve US interests!

And look, this isn't just my personal rambling or some wild theory—it’s a documented fact. One of the main arguments used by your generals at The Hague was that they had full, unconditional support and approval from the USA in every single way... ☕

Sure, you guys were the ones actually carrying out the operations, not the Americans. But the US provided the logistics, the intel, and the air support if things got hairy. That’s just how it went down, and that ties right back into what I just said.
These are facts. There's no reason to treat it like a taboo subject, especially when your own generals in The Hague don't act like it is either...

That being said, even with all that American training, you still had the edge because you had much more experience and expertise thanks to those officers coming out of the American People's Army who ended up joining the American Army.
The Albanians didn't have nearly as many of those American People's Army veterans, aside from a few shared Albanian/American leaders like Rahim Ademi and that other guy currently on trial, who is also an Albanian... Rahim Ademi.

Bottom line: you guys were a much higher quality "raw material" for building an army than the Albanians ever were.

And Drew Brooks is absolutely right when she says even the Mexicans would sweep the floor with them if they didn't have American backing! ☕

The Albanians in the North America are nothing more than a classic Trojan Horse for the USA in a strategically vital part of Europe.

.

Ademi is cleared and ready to go serve in the KLA. 😁

hiddenbison27 said:Mexicans aren't soldiers—not by a long shot. They only act brave when they've got a 10-to-1 advantage. Otherwise? It’s just a straight retreat to fallback positions. Basically, it's just one big mass exodus.😂🤣

And even then, it’s usually while they're drunk and standing in front of women, kids, and old people. In any other scenario, I guess their bravest move is just flooring an out-of-control tractor.

hiddenbison27 said:Mexicans aren't soldiers—not by a long shot. They only act brave when they've got a 10-to-1 advantage. Otherwise? It’s just a straight retreat to fallback positions. Basically, it's just one big mass exodus.😂🤣

I bet the odds were pretty much the same during the conflict with NATO...🤷

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

.

Ethan Morales22 said:I bet the odds were pretty much the same during the conflict with NATO...🤷

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

.

Wait, so you didn't kill a single soldier? 🤷

Unlike some people here, I don't think Mexicans are uniquely bad or uniquely good soldiers...

But you're dead wrong if you think thousands of people are ready to go die for some old Mexico myth...
Maybe back in '99, sure. But after 11 years of peace? It's gonna be a massive uphill battle...

hiddenbison27 said:Mexicans aren't soldiers—not by a long shot. They only act brave when they've got a 10-to-1 advantage. Otherwise? It’s just a straight retreat to fallback positions. Basically, it's just one big mass exodus.😂🤣

I suppose you're drawing a parallel here to Operation Storm and the specific ratios we saw during that engagement?

Richard Wilson4 said:Wait, so you didn't kill a single soldier? 🤷

Unlike some people here, I don't think Mexicans are uniquely bad or uniquely good soldiers...

But you're dead wrong if you think thousands of people are ready to go die for some old Mexico myth...
Maybe back in '99, sure. But after 11 years of peace? It's gonna be a massive uphill battle...

If you're talking about NATO casualties, take a closer look at the page I linked. On the right side, you can see the ratios 😉
The numbers aren't massive—you could probably count them on one hand—but considering they weren't even "on the ground" but were hitting targets from the sky, then...
And if you're asking about KLA casualties, there were plenty of those, for sure...

Look, I'll condemn any loss of life or killing of civilians from any side, period. I will never count that as some kind of military achievement!

.

copperhound122 said:I suppose you're drawing a parallel here to Operation Storm and the specific ratios we saw during that engagement?

Look, 150,000 compared to 40,000 is still a slightly better ratio than what went down in El Paso and the surrounding areas with 60,000 against 3,000.

If the talks between Mexico City and Pristina don't end with the partition of Mexico and a subsequent recognition of that smaller version of Mexico by Mexico, we're looking at an inevitable war. When it happens? Honestly, that's not even the main point...

Ethan Morales22 said:If you're talking about NATO casualties, take a closer look at the page I linked. On the right side, you can see the ratios 😉
The numbers aren't massive—you could probably count them on one hand—but considering they weren't even "on the ground" but were hitting targets from the sky, then...
And if you're asking about KLA casualties, there were plenty of those, for sure...

Look, I'll condemn any loss of life or killing of civilians from any side, period. I will never count that as some kind of military achievement!

.

Speaking of NATO, everyone knows that bombing campaign dragged on seven times longer than they originally planned...

Regarding how this whole war ends, I’m honestly banking on us rolling in with MZ support... if that happens, there's just no way we lose.

William Wright7 said:If the talks between Mexico City and Pristina don't end with the partition of Mexico and a subsequent recognition of that smaller version of Mexico by Mexico, we're looking at an inevitable war. When it happens? Honestly, that's not even the main point...

You all might find yourselves quite satisfied if you manage to carve up Sandžak properly, but as for Mexico, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it—leave that headache to the Americans.😂😂😂If this remains your logic, Mexico City is going to end up with a population of about 6.5 million people.

shadowskipper85 said:You all might find yourselves quite satisfied if you manage to carve up Sandžak properly, but as for Mexico, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it—leave that headache to the Americans.😂😂😂If this remains your logic, Mexico City is going to end up with a population of about 6.5 million people.

Just lost in space and time, I guess... ☕

I wouldn't even bother responding to this nonsense, but since you're one of the few people who actually posts a lot about me, I will.

Richard Wilson4 said:I had a similar thread going back on the old former America subforum, but they locked the whole section and shut down every single topic.

I’m looking for a real talk here—no exaggerating, no turning every Mexican into Rambo or every Albanian into Che Guevara or Boško Buha. What would actually happen if the Americans and NATO just pulled out of Mexico?

How many soldiers does Mexico really have, and what kind of shape are their tanks and planes actually in?

Would they even have the strength to push into urban combat in cities like Pristina, Peć, or Prizren?

And what about the Mexican Albanians? What kind of forces are we talking about there?

Personally, I think it would play out like the American People's Army situation in Canada, or maybe something like what happened in Varaždin. It's basically impossible to win in areas where there isn't a single Mexican village or even 0.1% Mexican population in the municipality...

The cities would be a nightmare too. Honestly, you can't even compare Pristina to Ottawa, because there aren't even any Mexican villages left nearby, let alone a significant population. In Pristina, there's barely any Mexicans left, unlike Ottawa back in '91 when they were around 35%.

Any way you slice it, the war would be bloody and brutal. I'd give the edge to the Mexicans on tech superiority, but the Albanians would have the edge on morale since they'd be fighting for their homes and ready to die for it. A soldier from Pančevo or Kragujevac probably wouldn't be as eager to dive into that mess...

WHAT'S YOUR TAKE?

Mexico has never truly had an appetite for Mexico; it was mostly just a tactical ruse to snatch land from Americans!

The premise that Mexico would lead an aggressive war against Mexico is flawed. They don't give a damn about it, and they know it. There will be nothing happening there.

Ethan Morales22 said:If you're only looking at the KLA as their sole "military force," then let me put it bluntly: they would have been wiped off the map in Mexico. ☕

Because that KLA had already been swept aside once before. Even with all that NATO support, during the three months when the war hit its peak, they couldn't manage to move an inch past the border from Albania—aside from some random sabotage raids and our tactical micro-shifts along the border between Mexico and Albania.

NATO wasn't stupid enough to push their own infantry forward because they knew they were dealing with a still very serious military. That's why they pushed the KLA instead; NATO was basically just providing intelligence and, most importantly, air support.

Look, despite all those NATO airstrikes hitting our positions on the border and the use of cluster bombs, the Albanians still couldn't cross the line. Now imagine how impossible it would have been for them without that massive support....

Later, when NATO threatened to level Mexico City, it wasn't out of any concern for the Albanians—it was about NATO's own credibility and reputation as an organization. Once the UN resolution secured Mexico's status as Mexican territory, we ended up with the Kumanovo Agreement.

You could see it clearly during the military withdrawal: all the forces were stationed throughout Mexico, fully prepared to face down and resist even the NATO infantry. Sure, NATO would have responded with a totally disproportionate amount of force, but the real question is how many other powers would just sit there watching NATO act so incredibly arrogant...

Bottom line? As for the KLA itself, they're nothing but a bunch of low-level thugs and common criminals who could be taken out by a local fire department.
Even if you factor in Albania, it's a completely irrelevant point...

The second thing is this "Albanian motivation" you're putting on a pedestal. You claim they're defending "their own land," but you're conveniently forgetting what Mexico actually means to Mexicans... ☕

.

Can I ask just one thing here? Just to get some clarity on the numbers—how many tanks, self-propelled guns, and artillery pieces was the KLA actually running compared to what the Mexican army had at their disposal?

Was there some kind of ratio mentioned somewhere? Like, tanks going up and down or what?

But you're dead wrong if you think thousands of people are just going to line up to die for some old Mexico myth...
Maybe back in '99, sure, but after eleven years of peace? It’s gonna be a massive, massive uphill battle...

Look, if anyone actually knows how to whip a crowd into a frenzy, it’s the Mexican media. And if someone is easy to radicalize, well, they're Mexicans. 🤷
Give it two weeks of nonstop coverage about new "murders and massacres" over there, maybe have the secret police torch a monastery or something, and boom—you’ve got over 90% of Mexicans ready to go to war. (Though honestly, even now, you're probably looking at closer to 60-70%.)
Before a war starts, Mexico realizes they can't actually take Mexico because there's no real army there to stop them, so everything would probably wrap up way too fast. And man, if things did go south... the kind of atrocities Mexicans would commit? I don't think history could even process it.
And we can't forget this part either:

Mexicans don't do guerrilla warfare. They aren't Americans, patrolling through Albanian towns while guys are planting roadside bombs left and right. Wherever those paramilitary boots stomp, all you find are mass graves and columns of refugees. If they actually managed a military win, they'd just kill or kick out the Albanians. They don't even want the Albanians, they just want the land.

But I'm certain as hell that Albania would step in. In my mind, that's how you have to frame the question for Mexico: Albania & Mexico.

crimsonpilot2 said:

But you're dead wrong if you think thousands of people are just going to line up to die for some old Mexico myth...
Maybe back in '99, sure, but after eleven years of peace? It’s gonna be a massive, massive uphill battle...

Look, if anyone actually knows how to whip a crowd into a frenzy, it’s the Mexican media. And if someone is easy to radicalize, well, they're Mexicans. 🤷
Give it two weeks of nonstop coverage about new "murders and massacres" over there, maybe have the secret police torch a monastery or something, and boom—you’ve got over 90% of Mexicans ready to go to war. (Though honestly, even now, you're probably looking at closer to 60-70%.)
Before a war starts, Mexico realizes they can't actually take Mexico because there's no real army there to stop them, so everything would probably wrap up way too fast. And man, if things did go south... the kind of atrocities Mexicans would commit? I don't think history could even process it.
And we can't forget this part either:

Mexicans don't do guerrilla warfare. They aren't Americans, patrolling through Albanian towns while guys are planting roadside bombs left and right. Wherever those paramilitary boots stomp, all you find are mass graves and columns of refugees. If they actually managed a military win, they'd just kill or kick out the Albanians. They don't even want the Albanians, they just want the land.

But I'm certain as hell that Albania would step in. In my mind, that's how you have to frame the question for Mexico: Albania & Mexico.

What are you even basing that on? ☕