Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Annexation of Mexico/Central America, or at least parts
With the raging debate of immigration/illegal immigration going on for more than a decade or so, I ask why not just annex Mexico/Central America or at least parts? I remember when Obama was running, the side favoring amnesty/openborders was saying that the illegal increase our economy. The other than fired back by saying why not just annex Mexico.
I must say I kind of agreeing with the idea that if we want to increase the economy we should just take over more land.
What do you think? Pros to annexing Latin NA, or parts, and the Cons to annexing Latin NA or parts.
Some years ago, a President named Adams asked Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson what would be required to conquer Canada. Jefferson's answer was “Thirty days of marching”. Didn’t happen of course but I suspect the same is true today for both the southern and northern borders. The United States could annex Mexico and Canada, all we lack is the will to do it.
Annexation of Mexico/Central America, or at least parts
With the raging debate of immigration/illegal immigration going on for more than a decade or so, I ask why not just annex Mexico/Central America or at least parts? I remember when Obama was running, the side favoring amnesty/openborders was saying that the illegal increase our economy. The other than fired back by saying why not just annex Mexico.
I must say I kind of agreeing with the idea that if we want to increase the economy we should just take over more land.
What do you think? Pros to annexing Latin NA, or parts, and the Cons to annexing Latin NA or parts.
I must say that that is a very bad idea; I am being polite. Well, maybe I should ask, how would you propose annexation? I truly believe that those countries would not willing say YES if the US asked them if they wanted be part of the US. If they say NO, what is next? Take them by force?
A suggestion: Do something a lot of people do not do much anymore, read history. History is full of examples of annexation. Even in cases where unification happened the results are not as positive, at first at least, such as East and West Germany when they reunited. There was a lot of turbulence and still exists because people from both sides live separated for such a long time and grew up with different political views. History teaches you to learn from the past to, hopefully, avoid the same mistakes.
I am in favor of installing a stable and benevolent government in countries that are failing to provide a reasonably safe society with reasonable avenues to prosperity or sustainability. Unfortunately the US has a spotty record of supporting coups, dictators, and industry. My take is that the US has propped up factions who were in the interest of business and influence and less about peace and regional stability.
I would still support international meddling if it meant greater stability and more humane treatment of people. I don't think any one country should annex pockets of another at this point in our global development; rather a league of nations should be the oversight of such a fragile situation. Unfortunately even with greater accountability, there is still plenty of room for corruption, self-dealing, and oppression. It's a mess, but I hope we can agree that doing nothing isn't good either...Great debate.
This has come up many times and the responses are usually predictable, Mexico will be dismissed as a worrisome pile of corruption and the US postured as the White Knight. Using the term "annexation" is most certainly a disingenuous approach to what most would consider an attack on Mexico's sovereignty, and not some administrative "deal" wherein Mexico gladly comes into the fold of American benevolence.
America's political, financial, educational, and agricultural institutions, could, and should work with Mexico and nations to the south of Mexico, to aid in the creation of better economic conditions for those on the lower rungs of Mexican society, but, we seem to have failed to do that in our own country--so, it may be that we need to experiment here with regard to creating a more economically inclusive society before entertaining ideas of exporting our supposed greatness..
That's half the complaint with conditions in CA-
the effect of our "involvement" going back to the 19th century.
I would offer that our involvement was only one factor and pretty much a reaction to the existing dysfunction of the region. I mean, South America scarcely won independence from Spain before they devolved into a collection of corrupt dictatorships, with Simon Bolivar getting things off to a rousing start by declaring President-Liberator for life. And the United States had next to nothing to do with that series of events.
Back to the original question. I couldn't imagine a more stupid idea than rampaging our way into Central America. First, we already invaded one sovereign state (Iraq) without any pretext and that was a fiasco. Second, we're not supposed to be in the business of conquering other countries. Third, Latin American societies are basket cases that I really don't think we want to take on, given the number of issues we need to resolve at home.
I think the OP has played far too many games of Risk in his day.
NO. We have troubles enough. Those countries have proven to be corrupt and ungovernable.
What we should have done when HW kicked Saddam out of Kuwait was instead have marched into Mexico about 20 miles and set up a barrier like the East Germans were so good at.
Even W for Warrior could have done that. Or should have. Problem is the Bush Boys are globalists.
I must say that that is a very bad idea; I am being polite. Well, maybe I should ask, how would you propose annexation? I truly believe that those countries would not willing say YES if the US asked them if they wanted be part of the US. If they say NO, what is next? Take them by force?
A suggestion: Do something a lot of people do not do much anymore, read history. History is full of examples of annexation. Even in cases where unification happened the results are not as positive, at first at least, such as East and West Germany when they reunited. There was a lot of turbulence and still exists because people from both sides live separated for such a long time and grew up with different political views. History teaches you to learn from the past to, hopefully, avoid the same mistakes.
You have a great day.
elamigo
Well, we have invaded Mexico twice, or three times if you count the Tampico Affair/Veracruz takeover as separate from Pancho Villa Expedition. If so many of the people on the other side want to come over here, then how can they object to us going over there? If they do object, they are hypocritical, and that is cause for us to use force I think.
And this thread is open to the idea of just partial land grabs. I always think Baja California be ripe for takeover. Its not densely populated, and has similar weather to California.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwong7
I am in favor of installing a stable and benevolent government in countries that are failing to provide a reasonably safe society with reasonable avenues to prosperity or sustainability. Unfortunately the US has a spotty record of supporting coups, dictators, and industry. My take is that the US has propped up factions who were in the interest of business and influence and less about peace and regional stability.
I would still support international meddling if it meant greater stability and more humane treatment of people. I don't think any one country should annex pockets of another at this point in our global development; rather a league of nations should be the oversight of such a fragile situation. Unfortunately even with greater accountability, there is still plenty of room for corruption, self-dealing, and oppression. It's a mess, but I hope we can agree that doing nothing isn't good either...Great debate.
If we do go in why not just take over and make our own? No need to deal with shady Mexican politicians. Just install our own people. Anyone who wants to live under us can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber
This has come up many times and the responses are usually predictable, Mexico will be dismissed as a worrisome pile of corruption and the US postured as the White Knight. Using the term "annexation" is most certainly a disingenuous approach to what most would consider an attack on Mexico's sovereignty, and not some administrative "deal" wherein Mexico gladly comes into the fold of American benevolence.
America's political, financial, educational, and agricultural institutions, could, and should work with Mexico and nations to the south of Mexico, to aid in the creation of better economic conditions for those on the lower rungs of Mexican society, but, we seem to have failed to do that in our own country--so, it may be that we need to experiment here with regard to creating a more economically inclusive society before entertaining ideas of exporting our supposed greatness..
If we just make the land we annex out own, no need to deal with Mexicans unless they agree to live under us. We will appoint anyone we want from states to positions of power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
In short... we already have.
That's half the complaint with conditions in CA-
the effect of our "involvement" going back to the 19th century.
Can you explain that? What do you mean we already have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
I would offer that our involvement was only one factor and pretty much a reaction to the existing dysfunction of the region. I mean, South America scarcely won independence from Spain before they devolved into a collection of corrupt dictatorships, with Simon Bolivar getting things off to a rousing start by declaring President-Liberator for life. And the United States had next to nothing to do with that series of events.
Back to the original question. I couldn't imagine a more stupid idea than rampaging our way into Central America. First, we already invaded one sovereign state (Iraq) without any pretext and that was a fiasco. Second, we're not supposed to be in the business of conquering other countries. Third, Latin American societies are basket cases that I really don't think we want to take on, given the number of issues we need to resolve at home.
I think the OP has played far too many games of Risk in his day.
Are you talking about the Banana Wars? I thought that affair mostly for economic exploitation, and not any kind of humanitarian endeavour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae
Because colonization is an economically inefficient method of exploiting countries for their resources.
That is how US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil are built.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
