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.
1) The "problem countries" are problematic because of past US interventions, engineered coups, etc. US hegemony is the problem, not the solution.
...........................
Oh, and ... what about the little matter of sovereignty, self-determination, and all that good stuff? Do you really want to imitate Putin's approach to eastern Ukraine? Not a popular move internationally...
Do people ever think through some of the questions that pop into their heads, before they post? WTH?!
I shortened your response, but do appreciate what you say...
Sovereignty?...What about ours?...That's part of this current problem isn't it?
No, it would not be a popular move...The idea even seems ridiculous to me. But, I threw the question(s) out just to get people thinking and to hear some responses/ideas...(we're a democracy).
As to your question if people think through some of their questions (?)...Certainly not always. ...But this is not a courtroom or the UN...it's a freaking forum to throw things around and get people thinking and talking...not name calling or labeling or demeaning others.
Sovereignty?...What about ours?...That's part of this current problem isn't it?
The U.S. was always a country of immigrants. It was founded by immigrants. Immigrants are more American than apple pie and baseball. The problem, if you like, is unfettered and unchecked immigration. And it's a much smaller problem than invading and annexing foreign lands.
Quote:
No, it would not be a popular move...The idea even seems ridiculous to me. But, I threw the question(s) out just to get people thinking and to hear some responses/ideas...(we're a democracy).
And others are also taking advantage of our democracy (leaving alone for a minute that C-D isn't a government organization, so "freedom of speech" isn't really a thing here) in telling you that your "idea" is asinine. If you thought yourself that it was ridiculous, but threw it out anyways, exactly what response did you expect?
Quote:
it's a freaking forum to throw things around and get people thinking and talking...not name calling or labeling or demeaning others.
We could just buy it. Give everyone $2,000 each to take the countries over. About 80 billion dollars. A drop in the bucket compares to all the money we have been handing out here. Then we go in and build factories and ween ourselves slowly off of China.
I recently drove out west, and back; there's plenty of land on the western front of the Rockies.
Water is a different story, so I have another idea; that will solve the drought problem as well.
We have too much water in the Great Lakes, and 40 million laborers to build the pipeline everyone has been discussing for years. Many Latin American immigrants already have construction skills by necessity. And there's the crumbling infrastructure(roads/bridges)they can repair when the pipeline is complete.
And then we'll have 40 million more taxpayers, hopefully; plus more land not dependent on the Colorado river basin people can live on.
I've already advocated sneaking contraceptives into covid shots to reduce populations in certain countries like Bangladesh, so left I am definitely not.
As for underbidding current working Americans, it's our tax dollars doing municipal construction projects; so paying union guys $35/hr is only going to increase our tax rates.
/S, I hope. Otherwise foolish and naive.
All that land is either federal, as in National Park and BLM/USFS or open range ranches. As far as water, ranchers in the Western Front range area have priority over water rights going back at least a century.
I believe those people living near the Great Lakes would challenge the siphoning of their water. And, don't even try that with the Columbia River; it is protected by treaties with Canada where it originates.
Should the U.S.A. simply take over part of Central America?
No. It's not USA's place to determine which other countries must meet with USA's standards and be taken over by USA. Besides which, the suggestion of importing all those people reeks of intended slavery.
If USA did that to Central America then what other countries would be next on USA's hit list after that? Where would it end? The whole world?
If the idea was given serious consideration the first thing the majority of other countries would think is that it's a threat to the world, that USA is striving for eventual world domination as its ultimate goal. Then they'd have a conversation between themselves about forming a coalition and joining forces to permanently nip USA in the bud and take over all of the USA instead.
It would be an effective way to get another world war started though, if that is what the real unvoiced motivation behind the suggestion is.
I have every confidence that USA wouldn't actually try to do something like that which flies in the face of history.
I feel that the U.S. needs to focus more on upgrading the infrastructure of Mexico and Central America. Look at China's Belt and Road Initiative, China is investing a significant amount of money in improving the infrastructure of those countries part of the initiative. However, there is the risk of debt traps as well. China is already making significant inroads in Latin America in countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, and El Salvador. The U.S. needs to be able to get ahead of China when it comes to infrastructure improvements.
I'd support the above provided that 100% of the funding comes from reductions in the compensation of public sector employees and their pensions.
Since we seem to have inherited the problems, why not simply take the whole situation in hand and resolve it all once and for all? We should simply take over the problem countries.
Worth noting that US foreign policy in the region actually has caused a fair number of the problems. Thus, it is not necessarily a fair assumption that even more meddling would solve anything. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...foreign-policy
I'd support the above provided that 100% of the funding comes from reductions in the compensation of public sector employees and their pensions.
Their pensions are money they themselves paid in and invested - not yours or anyone else's to mess with.
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.
