>>All true in the sense that there is a history between Mexico and the U.S., but not to my knowledge between Mexico and Iran. I think countries that border the U.S. have learned to rely on the military might of the U.S. and don't have the military strength (nor wherewithal) to do what he is suggesting (not to start another war on the UT).
>
>No. The way I read his message was as an allegory. He was just comparing what would happen if Mexico was in a war situation like Iraq, attacked by a power from far away (Iran), and how would we feel and react.

I think that Thomas has proposed an interesting allegory. It is another what if scenario. Over time such scenarios are either justified or discarded for many reasons. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, except if the Administrations sees things differently. We have the world, the Administration and history.

Mexico was defeated during the Mexican American war. Having concurred Mexico the United States thought it best to allow Mexico to retain its sovereign rights as a nation and not remain as a conquering or occupying force.

We can add the complexity concerning the French occupation of Mexico and the war between the French and Mexico. The United States was embroiled in a Civil War and did not want French presence in North America. We were unable to send military assistance but we did arm the Mexican army.

At any rate the Commander in Chief sets the path and we go along for the ride. For the last seven years we have had three branches of government – the Executive, the Executive, and the Executive.

We could take the attitude we embraced before World War II and hide our heads in the sand. I think that there is no good answer to all this.