Well, DUH….But let’s not let Ann Coulter suggest who we would attack.

Disclaimer: I know this is an absolute preposterous suggestion, and it would never happen, let alone the myriad of differences between this blatantly outrageous scenario and current events (or facts like Venezuela having all of that sweet, sweet oil and not needing to invade another country over, or the fact that Syria and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Pakistan all have a very different history and interest or the fact that those interests don’t generally coincide with those of the US and yes, Saddam and Ahmadinejad and Hezbullah and Bandar and Musharraf are all different from our relationship with Mexico, or even Venezuela).

But it is in the same ballpark.

We certainly have economic and political interests in Mexico – right wrong or other. Cheap labor after NAFTA led to better corporate profits for those who have too much influence in how our government works. Illegal immigration here in the US from Mexico and a bit of a tiff going on now as to how best address this “matter”. And there was that brief “dust up” back in the mid 1800’s – just to throw in a bit of drama and history.

Chavez, of course, with his “new bestest friend, Iran”, is one of the leaders in the race for the new Public Enemy No. 1. And with Iran THISCLOSE to getting nukes (just ask Condi, she was right on the ball as National Security Advisor about Iraq and “smoking guns”), we can’t have an alliance where someone who invaded our neighbor (even if it wasn’t based on lies and deception) is buddies with someone who doesn’t have, may have an outside chance at having, could have, probably has, definitely, DEFINITELY has nukes.

And you just KNOW that Bush would never act like that wussy, skirt chasing Democrat (no, not Clinton) did when it came to WMDs being so close to the homeland. Of course, back then, the entire US military and National Guard weren’t off occupying another country and smuggling in nukes or other WMDs via the ports, air cargo holds or railways wasn’t so easy due to the lack of the ability, means, motive or complete lack of real Homeland Security. But that little factor is a story for a different day.

Jeez, the talking meatsticks would be way, um, “happier” than some of you were yesterday. “Leftist Chavez censors own media” (regardless of whether it is right or wrong) is shouted from the rooftops already. The Washington Post has already used the words “The Next Castro?” and “anti-Americanism” in an article just last year.

How far off would we be from “Anti-american communist Chavez in Nuke Deal with Iran”? Oh wait, we are already there too….

Would the US stand by and let this “Freedom hating, oil hoarding, Communist, Socialist, America hater” try and take over Mexico and ruin all of that cheap labor opportunity for Corporate ‘Murka™, and have even more of those terrible people who (GASP!!) don’t speak English flood our borders, steal more of the jobs that “Americans won’t do” and drain our economy further? And I bet they would support of gay marriage too.

Would Bush fund anti-Chavez Venezuelan factions and try to overthrow Chavez to install our own “preferred regime” and have access to more and more of that sweet sweet oil – all in the name of “freeing the Venezuelans? After all, it isn’t like we haven’t already heard that possibility being talked about.

Or would he stand firmly to make sure that his buddy Fox kept power, no matter what? Since, Mexico could always learn a thing or two about elections from this administration.

A third option could be to listen to the religious fundies and recognize the opportunity to have a “preferred religion” impact Mexico.

We could also train those who want to overthrow Chavez or even arm them against Chavez – or just not do it and say we did. Better yet, why not help Chavez with his own nuclear program.

**********************

And to think, we haven’t been at war with Mexico for the past, oh, say, forever and have an issue with a foreign hated occupier who has blown off calls of assistance three times since 2001. Or doesn’t have thousands of refugees flooding their border (well, we do already have people who are more than willing to shoot ‘em all, one by one, as they cross the border. But we can debate whether Iran should have nukes, whether Syria is too involved in Lebanon, or that Mexico only has cheap labor and no sweet, sweet oil.

What country wouldn’t try to do something if they just were coming out of a multi-decades old religious war and saw the chance to influence it? What country would turn a blind eye to a complete disaster, civil war and genocide right over their border? Who wouldn’t be concerned if other neighboring countries were funding the opposition and it was being overlooked by the occupying country?

What country would sit on their hands when the occupying force blew off talks and then lied about it?

And none of this describes Chavez, Venezuela or Mexico. How stupid or evil are these people who dictate our foreign policy?