Let's Annex Countries Across the Globe.

If, in fact, we conquered the damn country and immediately annexed them, made them a state of the USA, then I do believe events would turn out differently.

It is, at least, something different to ponder!

Aye, and there is a successful historical precedent.

Senatus Populusque Americanus

Hmmm. You know, I have always considered the mismanagement of Mexico to be kind of an embarrassment to the U.S., considering its proximity. Maybe a Mexican state is the answer.

Yes, this is the kind of imperialism America has long been capable of, but regrettably uninterested in. We are going to need to drum up some nationalists, however, and they seem to be in short supply these days. I am afraid we are going to have to make some rather radical compromises with the left to pull this off. To this end, I now offer the left my full support on the matters of free health care and marijuana decriminalization. I am aware that this may not be enough, but keep in mind that this is only an introductory offer.

I am also willing to consider Bush's impeachment provided the left guarantee its support for Condi as his replacement. She seems to be exactly the sort for an undertaking of this magnitude.

Oh, and naturally the troops will be withdrawn from Iraq and redeployed to Canada.

Wmolaw, be careful the Canucks don't steal a march on us.

http://cwd.ptbcanadian.com/

Mexico - definitely. Immigrants in the U.S. illegally are transformed into citizens. Poof, one major law enforcement headache solved!

A tough sell, to say the least. Won't happen though just for financial reasons. First of all it would be all but impossible to integrate North Vietnam into the US so you would have to start with something much closer. Mexico was suggested, and it's not a bad one, but the cost would be enormous. The infrastructure we would have to put in, the resources in police, and fire,...the list goes on and on, would essentially lower everyone's standard of living by a significant percentage.

Do you really think that US citizens would take say a 10-20% decrease in the living standard here and that's just talking about Mexico.

I personally am a firm believer in a world government. How are we to protect our fisheries, our forests, and wetlands, jungles etc, when every country on the planet has nationalistic tendencies and believe they have the right to exploit them for their own good? Not for ours, the belief worldwide is that we have already exploited ours so why shouldn't they get theirs?

As to putting a US face on the plan by terming it the united states of earth, you couldn't sell that if it were water to the Arabs, or heating pads to Eskimos.

Still like I said before some type of world government will be required at some point in the future. Our goals as a civilization have got to change, so that we can become self sufficient as a species and civilization. We need to spend our resources on figuring out how to get off of this rock and propagating the species to other plants and solar systems.

Forest

Sorry pal....but I'm absolutely right on what it would cost us. Let's remember how poor Mexico is to begin with. They wouldn't be coming here if there were jobs there. There just aren't, they're police and fire are totally underfunded along with their welfare programs, which by the way would be overwhelming from an economic standpoint. Let's just forget about the epidemic corruption, talk about a work in progress it would take 50 years to incorporate them at a cost of trillions of dollars.

Forest

"Here we are the cops of the world, but we ain't getting paid for it!"

Since when exactly? Did anybody appoint you of this? Was there ever a vote? You have the most advanced military force in the world, does mean you have to polic the world? If yes, does that mean I too should become a police officer if I have more advanced equiptment than my local police force?

I do think that sometimes it is needed, but not in the form of one country. There is a pupose to the UN. Its effectiveness may be up for discussion at the moment but the reason this organization exists is that they try to solve problems through diplomacy, and if all fails and they see the need to go in, pass a resolution.

That's what our Congress is currently saying....

Do you really want to live in a Country where we, our government, say we just don't care what happens to others?

I don't.
Does this mean you may go a.w.o.l. abroad cause everyone else just wants to stay here. Come-on! We're not such bad company are we? Well, if you insist -maybe you'll pick a country on our list of "needs work"an we'll use you [hostage] as an excuse to exorcise it.

How could we hope to do better than they did

The Germans? They had two opportunities to win a major war and blew them both. Not an apt comparison to the U.S.

Yes, because our last two major wars we've done so much better.. Iraq.. Vietnam..

Great track record..

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Smarter and younger, huh? This mix of naivety and arrogance sure is disturbing.

wmo, you're being sarcastic, right? I have a suggestion.. skip the next homeschooling lesson and go buy some good books on political science and history. Preferrably written by non-Americans. You'd be amazed about the possibilities that open up once one dares to look beyond their own little front yard and realizes there's a whole different truth out there.

As the saying goes, Wmo, "tell it to the Marines," especially the ones in Iraq. Tell it to Petraeus while you're at it. It will definitely be news to him.

However, what IS true is that "ever individual across the world wants the freedoms enjoyed by Americans."

Actually, that's demonstrably false. First off, consider Free Speech. In many countries, there is a popular consensus that some ideas should not be permitted by law. Germany, for example, has legislation outlawing the display of Nazi symbols and paraphernalia. Further, most countries in the developed world find America's Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms alarming. I could go down the bill of rights: there are cultures that oppose each and every one. The idea that "every human wants America's freedoms" is the sort of idea most commonly held by people who have never left the country.

As to the second point, we do, we really do. Or so close as to not make a difference.

No, we don't. America has the military muscle to throw any country in the world into chaos, but doesn't have the power to bring any large nation under its control. Granted, political will is a factor, but even when America commits the full force of its military might to a problem, it cannot bring security to a country even 1/10th it's size (I refer, of course, to Vietnam). Muscle is not stamina, and conquest means a lot more than simply dethroning the existing government. Being stronger than everyone does not make us invincible. When the way we wage war is so much more expensive than how resistance would defend against it, even our massive economy can't handle the load.

America has engaged in successful military interventions in the last few decades, but only when their actions are compatible with the desires of the native populations. We're powerful enough to knock out despots, but we aren't so powerful that we can overthrow cultures. Our military successes have come when we have stood by the popular voice in other countries, not against it.

merely because there is a law in a country, does not mean that it is accepted by all of the people, or even a majority of the people.

You're right. I'm citing cases where there is sizable majority support. If you left the country and actually talked to the natives, you'd see for yourself.

As to the military, we can just disagree on this.

We can also disagree on whether America has the power to annex Pluto. It doesn't make both assessments realistic. Further, your suggest that we should annex Tibet suggests that you think America can handily win a war against China.

Who knows what would happen if we were truly imperialistic. As we haven't been in the past 100 years or so, we can't tell. When we have in the past, it has been successful.

I challenge you to present a comprehensive description of America's imperialist period of yester-century. The annexation of Mexican and Indian territory? The Spanish-American war? What you're talking about is what Britain was trying for, and that sort of colonial policy isn't logistically possible anymore.

Historically, America has been isolationist. It didn't start acting on the world stage until the 20th century, especially at the end of WWII. Even during the Cold War, America was mostly supplying resources to other nations for proxy wars (Vietnam and Korea being the major exceptions, in that we actually participated in combat).

The idea that we can handily annex multiple dictatorships half a world away simultaneously isn't just absurd. It's so disconnected from reality that it qualifies as surreal.

Let me assure you as a non-American, that Belarius is absolutely right. Other countries including my own (Canada) prefer the freedoms they have fought for - yours don't look so appealing to outsiders. Sorry - no sale.

PS - you forgot the satire tag - people could think you are serious

Why don't we allow the Arab people to help the refugees?

PS - you forgot the satire tag - people could think you are serious

you beat me to it chill... i'm still desperately looking for the satire tag... I'm really hoping a satire tag pops up... i'm almost praying for a satire tag...

Why don't we allow the Arab people to help the refugees?

Read the news...

Syria has taken in some 1.2 million Iraqis, and Jordan is hosting between 500,000 and 750,000, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Egypt has 120,000 and Lebanon is home to at least 20,000 Iraqi refugees.

It's gotten to the point where Syria and Jordan are overwhelmed with refugees and are considering closing their borders to any further influx of Iraqis. Meanwhile, in sharp contrast, the US in 2006 only allowed 202 Iraqis to take refuge in the US (and less than 500 total since the invasion began), and yet Sweden welcomed 9,700 Iraqi refugees last year.

Name me a better one.

He just did.

book a trip to Holland

Hell, Canada would be a start.

Switzerland

I hear good things about New Zealand, too.

If he was referring to the Netherlands, are you telling me a constitutional monarchy is better than a representative democracy?

Depends on the constitution and on the democracy.

Name me a better one.

shall I start with the A's

MOST PEOPLE from non third world countries come here for money now--not freedoms- Time for an update on that idea. [they sure don't come for the free healthcare]

LOL, ya'll have this idea of Europe as some sort of Garden of Eden when, in fact, it is beset with many more problems and has far fewer freedoms than the USA.

Have you ever been there? Or are you taking someone's word for it?

France, Germany, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Romania, & Canada. Time spent abroad: the better part of two years. Since I speak more than on language, I was able to actually speak to the people in many of those countries rather than play tourist.

Here's the basic problem with your position: even in your own country, there are people who prefer how things are done in other countries. Stop to consider how much more common that position is going to be in other countries. Your whole argument is based on the premise that the world wants to be America, and that premise is demonstrably untrue.

While you are certainly entitled to your preference in systems of governance (and you do have arguments in your favor), so is everyone else. And many people do not want America's structures or its values. Even the countries where terrible violence is happening. They might want to emulate certain aspects of America, but do not want Congress legislating for them.

None of which addresses the other reasons why your modest proposal is an impossibility (politics, military power, the law, economic considerations).

okay- and cabo!

Chinese citizens are freer now than they have ever been in their entire history -- largely thanks to the Internet. While you're right that the government there reveals it's tyrannical colors by attempting to firewall citizens' access, from the number of Chinese blogs and websites (Mandarin is estimated to surpass English as the most common language on the Internet by 2010) this is an exercise in futility, especially against someone who has even a basic understanding of computer networks.

-"and by the way, let's once and for all stop pretending that "freedom" is an American invention."
I think what we have here is a lack of communication-
The" freedom"we invented is the freedom to roam the globe an kick a-s out of those that are not free enough to meet OUR standards for the new word.
Same word-we just adjusted the meaning--
"So, you were used to a nanny state and you don't like the rought and tumble American freedoms."
"Rough an Tumble Freedom!"
gee ,What a guy!--
sounds like Teddy Roosevelt kind o guy-
kool.

How does one eliminate nationalism? Even sports fans will riot. It's simply human nature. People are social creatures, and people are creatures who can become angry. Social institutions take many forms, nationalism being one. Anger on a massive scale creates wars. Politicians harness that force for their own ends. People are also loving. Love conducting through a social network does amazing things as well. Nationalism and religion provided a decent social frameworks for this love to operate for beneficial ends in America after 9/11.

How is it inevitable? I would like to hear your explanation of how society has gradually mitigated itself towards one world government.

I would love to see the unification of the world, don't get me wrong. But be real. Submerse yourself in the tribal/gang rivalry/and warfare that plagues the entire continent of Africa, or the bitter opposition between religions and religious institutions and it wont be long before you understand just how complicated such a task would be.

Diversity drives humanity. Why? It generates competition. Outside influence. It prevents one person or group from gaining to much power (for prolonged periods of time).

It may be possible to rule the world through indirect influence, but definitely not by direct government.

Globalization. Inevitable? It's already here! And I am glad for it.

You are concerned for Africa. Well so am I; but not right now.

Give me Jerusalem and you can have whatever else you want.

Diversity drives humanity. Why?

For the simple reason that it makes life INTERESTING. Learning and growing are part of being human.

Great post. Just a tip - if you use paragraphs it will make your stuff much easier to read and digest.

Yeah, leave those other, wiser nations to their genocides and holy wars - good call.

There actually may be wiser nations without holy wars.

There are, but that doesn't help the citizens of nations that are engaged in holy war, does it?

Well, Henry VII, with malice toward none, my good call is for peace among humankind. I would drop bread, not bombs and certainly not bibles.

How does bread stop the massacre in Darfur?

Somewhat better than bullets and bombs, perhaps.