NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

I think America would crumble if we had to deal with Mexico's problems as well as our own.

as long as you don't start looking up north at us, sure have fun trying to modernize Mexico

as long as you don't start looking up north at us, sure have fun trying to modernize Mexico

Theoretically isn't it a matter of just scrapping the old system and replacing it with one that puts them on their feet and gives them oppurtunity?

Mexico is not a dictatorship. It's a republican democracy dominated by three main parties, making it a third more politically diverse than the USA. Your racism is peeking out a bit.

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

If Mexico became the 51st state, it would immediately become the largest and most influential state in the Union. If you divide it up into smaller states--say ten or so--then they collectively wield even more power. Be careful what you wish for--their conservatives are left of the Democrats.

Theoretically isn't it a matter of just scrapping the old system and replacing it with one that puts them on their feet and gives them oppurtunity?

If we started on a Monday... I'd say things would be going pretty smoothly Thurdayish.

America should stay out of other countries' business.

Theoretically isn't it a matter of just scrapping the old system and replacing it with one that puts them on their feet and gives them oppurtunity?

Sounds a bit like the rhetoric on Iraq...:rolleyes:

Mexico would probably become nearly depopulated as the residents rush north to land that is already economically strong.

Mexico is not a dictatorship. It's a republican democracy dominated by three main parties, making it a third more politically diverse than the USA. Your racism is peeking out a bit.

If its so democratic there than how come the police get to arrest people without trial and many freedoms are banned?

DISCUSS!

You're an imperialistic asshole!

If its so democratic there than how come the police get to arrest people without trial and many freedoms are banned?

Show me a country where there needs to be a trial before someone gets arrested.

If its so democratic there than how come the police get to arrest people without trial and many freedoms are banned?

If that's the case, then maybe they will fit right in with us.

If its so democratic there than how come the police get to arrest people without trial and many freedoms are banned?In the US? In Mexico?

The way I see it, there are much more important things than the economy. That might get better but other things would probably get worse. They have their own culture and I'm sure the majority of them would prefer to keep it than become even closer to the American culture. Even if you like american culture, there's no need for it to expand everywhere, as it does, not just through the goverment and it's "liberation"s but also the mass media and other things besides.

Show me a country where there needs to be a trial before someone gets arrested.

America used to be and I beleive the UK is.

Mexico is not a dictatorship. It's a republican democracy dominated by three main parties, making it a third more politically diverse than the USA. Your racism is peeking out a bit.
Shouldn't three parties make it 50% more politically diverse? Or do Mexican parties only count for 88% of a US party?
Theoretically isn't it a matter of just scrapping the old system and replacing it with one that puts them on their feet and gives them oppurtunity?
I think that is a question better directed at someone living in western Germany, if you catch my drift.

If its so democratic there than how come the police get to arrest people without trial and many freedoms are banned?
Which freedoms are banned?
Show me a country where there needs to be a trial before someone gets arrested.
Seeing as the trial usually comes afterwards... I doubt he'll find many.

Show me a country where there needs to be a trial before someone gets arrested.

Shh. He's on a roll.

If its so democratic there than how come the police get to arrest people without trial and many freedoms are banned?

don't trials come after the arrest?

...and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

Alo, I don't know if I should say "Bwahahaha!" or "What the hell are you talking about?" to this part...

What to choose, what to choose...

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

As if taking over other countries hasn't been proven to be a bad idea already...

As if taking over other countries hasn't been proven to be a bad idea already...

To me it kinda seems like they want to take US over, especially after reading Zilam's thread on illegals.

You bloody neocons think that America always knows best for the rest of the world.

Look at Iraq, Afghanistan and post-Soviet Russia for christ's sake. Stay well within your borders, the USA stole enough land of Mexico already... unlawfully and for no reason other than they wanted it.

Which freedoms are banned?

Freedom of speech for foreigners and freedom of possesion for foreigners and very little say in government because the gov wants power and money and anyone speaking out against them gets arrested or shot.

America used to be and I beleive the UK is.

Ok, first the cause for the arrest. Then comes the arrest. Then comes the trial. Then comes the verdict. If it's a guilty verdict, then comes the sentencing.

Unless this is Bizarro-world? (http://supermanica.info/wiki/images/c/cc/BizarroP5.jpg)

Mexico is not a dictatorship. It's a republican democracy dominated by three main parties, making it a third more politically diverse than the USA. Your racism is peeking out a bit.

Actually 50% more diverse.
However, the USA is indeed a third less diverse.

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

Mexico needs to deal with the fact we took their land. Hell we didn't even take it, steal, like we took America from the Native Americans, we bought the American Southwest from Mexico just like we bought Louisiana from France.

Next Mexico is just one huge ghetto ... the whole country is one freakin bario. Do we really want to import that?

Next if you make the whole of Mexico ONE state, now the Mexicans could have a majority say in the way things are run, and since Mexicians think they OWN the southwest, giving them that kind of power could only disenfranchise the American people. Of course that is just my opinion.

Mexico needs to deal with the fact we took their land. Hell we didn't even take it, steal, like we took America from the Native Americans, we bought the American Southwest from Mexico just like we bought Louisiana from France.

Next Mexico is just one huge ghetto ... the whole country is one freakin bario. Do we really want to import that?

Next if you make the whole of Mexico ONE state, now the Mexicans could have a majority say in the way things are run, and since Mexicians think they OWN the southwest, giving them that kind of power could only disenfranchise the American people. Of course that is just my opinion.

Khermi wins. Theory disproved.

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

mexico would become the 51st-81st states. it would increase our population by 33%. their percapita income is about 25% of the US percapita income.

the rich of the US would flood mexico with their dollars and buy up every bit of usable land since the prices are a fraction of what we pay.

we would have to deal with the incredible squalor of the slums of mexico city.

we would have to revamp the entire mexican education system so that everyone has a shot at a real education.

they would have to deal with a private health care system.

we would have to deal with the corruption of the mexican political system. we would have to take care of the corruption due to the drug cartels.

i dont think they would like it and i dont think that we can afford it.

Ah yes... make a place less "repressive," by repressing it.

You fail at logic, SL.

Mexico needs to deal with the fact we took their land. Hell we didn't even take it, steal, like we took America from the Native Americans, we bought the American Southwest from Mexico just like we bought Louisiana from France.

Next Mexico is just one huge ghetto ... the whole country is one freakin bario. Do we really want to import that?

Next if you make the whole of Mexico ONE state, now the Mexicans could have a majority say in the way things are run, and since Mexicians think they OWN the southwest, giving them that kind of power could only disenfranchise the American people. Of course that is just my opinion.

did you miss the mexican american war?

Ah yes... make a place less "repressive," by repressing it.

You fail at logic, SL.

no more like, make it less repressive in one way then make it more repressive in ways needed so they become less of a danger to the US and so this squabble over territory ends.

To me it kinda seems like they want to take US over, especially after reading Zilam's thread on illegals.
...

Yeeeeeah...
Freedom of speech for foreigners and freedom of possesion for foreigners and very little say in government because the gov wants power and money and anyone speaking out against them gets arrested or shot.
Proof?

And what place does foreigners have in US politics?

Edit:
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

The government or its agents did not commit any politically motivated killings

b. Disappearance

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances;
a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The law provides for freedom of speech and the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice.

While the federal government usually tolerated criticism, state and local level officials occasionally responded to unfavorable news articles by threatening their authors with libel and defamation lawsuits. There were approximately 300 privately owned newspapers, and most radio stations were privately owned.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78898.htm

did you miss the mexican american war?

At the end of the war we bought the land from them under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for $15million. In 1853, in what became know as The Gadsden Purchase, the United States paid an additional $10 million to Mexico to purchase land in what is now southern Arizona and southern New Mexico for the construction of a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. The purchase was also designed to further compensate Mexico for the lands taken by the U.S. after the Mexican-American War.

At the end of the war we bought the land from them under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for $15million. In 1853, in what became know as The Gadsden Purchase, the United States paid an additional $10 million to Mexico to purchase land in what is now southern Arizona and southern New Mexico for the construction of a southern route for a transcontinental railroad. The purchase was also designed to further compensate Mexico for the lands taken by the U.S. after the Mexican-American War.

and you find that to be equivalent to the lousiana purchase?

Actually, if we had the nads to make Iraq the 51st state, I think we'd have fewer problems than we do now. Republicans could have jumped at the chance to create a religiously conservative counter to the power of California.

Well, except Iraqis worship the wrong god or something, so we wouldn't want to do that, would we?

Sounds a bit like the rhetoric on Iraq...:rolleyes:

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

You are being exactly that. Imperialistic. I'll let someone else call you an asshole.

Freedom of speech for foreigners and freedom of possesion for foreigners and very little say in government because the gov wants power and money and anyone speaking out against them gets arrested or shot.

Are we still speaking about the US? I'm not sure.

You are talking of a country you haven't lived in. Hell, I'm pretty sure you haven't even visited it.

Do us the favor of learning some stuff first before blatantly assuming shit, you imperialist asshole.

did you miss the mexican american war?

I did. I think my invitation got lost in the mail. :(

I am not opposed to this idea... and I'm pretty much the opposite of a neocon.

It would have to be done VERY CAREFULLY. Our current minimum wage laws, while inadequate for pretty much everywhere in the US, could destroy the mexican economy. I don't think there is danger of rich people moving to mexico because it's cheaper. Who wants to live in 'one big ghetto'? The bigger danger is people buying land for industry in Mexico... but hey, doesn't that already happen?

Here's the thing... Mexicans are people too. They are just as much people as US citizens are. IF the US has better civil and political freedoms than Mexico, I don't see why we shouldn't share that.

The country would have to start becoming bilingual, and a lot of government backed economic growth programs would have to be effected in Mexico. It might even benefit from a planned economy, rather than free market, for an intensive period of about 5 years after the annexation.

and you find that to be equivalent to the lousiana purchase?

Strawman arguement ... I never said that. Try again please.

I mearly compaired that we didn't steal the land from them, that it was bought from them like Lousiana was from France.

mexico would become the 51st-81st states. it would increase our population by 33%. their percapita income is about 25% of the US percapita income.

the rich of the US would flood mexico with their dollars and buy up every bit of usable land since the prices are a fraction of what we pay.

we would have to deal with the incredible squalor of the slums of mexico city.

we would have to revamp the entire mexican education system so that everyone has a shot at a real education.

they would have to deal with a private health care system.

we would have to deal with the corruption of the mexican political system. we would have to take care of the corruption due to the drug cartels.

i dont think they would like it and i dont think that we can afford it.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that South Lizasauria has no clue how large Mexico is or how many people live there?

I did. I think my invitation got lost in the mail. :(

You should have been there. They were giving out free burritos and zapatos.

Strawman arguement ... I never said that. Try again please.

I mearly compaired that we didn't steal the land from them, that it was bought from them like Lousiana was from France.

no no it wasnt.

it was stolen then we threw them a bit of money as a sop to our consciences. it is in no way bought like the louisiana purchase was.

the mexican american war was an all out land grab. there was nothing voluntary about the taking of the american southwest and california.

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that South Lizasauria has no clue how large Mexico is or how many people live there?

100 million non english speaking people is a lot to absorb into the system.

we should take care of our own problems first. and cut the chaff we are already paying for like puerto rico, let them be their own country so they can stop coming over her and living off of welfare. its giving bad names to those that want to come here to succeed. mexico is a dive, it a place where you go for cheap drugs, cheap vacations and watch some stripper get it on with a horse. granted the open lands there and rich history are beautiful but besides cheap labor and pot. what else does it have to offer?

100 million non english speaking people is a lot to absorb into the system.

Oh, I know that and you know that, but does our intrepid thread starter?

we should take care of our own problems first. and cut the chaff we are already paying for like puerto rico, let them be their own country so they can stop coming over her and living off of welfare. its giving bad names to those that want to come here to succeed. mexico is a dive, it a place where you go for cheap drugs, cheap vacations and watch some stripper get it on with a horse. granted the open lands there and rich history are beautiful but besides cheap labor and pot. what else does it have to offer?

Burritos and zapatos. Pay attention.

well then throw in some tacos and cervesas and i'm game

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!That is probably the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. That's like saying that a rapist should marry his victim. The very fact that you'd characterize Mexico as a potential '51st state' also belies your ignorance. It would have to be the 51st-81st :rolleyes:. Now if Canada were to anax BOTH the US AND Mexico...;)

What Mexico (and the U.S. of north Amerika) really needs is a social revolution.

!Zapata vive!
!La lucha sigue!

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

Mexico should "an-axe" your face.

*As justification, insert here an incredibly facile reading of the relations between two countries and the glorification of the brilliant system of government by which village idiots can find their way to the highest office purely through money and by utilising family contacts*

DISCUSS!

...oh I am feeling ever so sarcastic tonight :p

http://www.mn12.org/images/misc/comicbookguy-worst-thread-ever.jpg

http://www.mn12.org/images/misc/comicbookguy-worst-thread-ever.jpg

"You've said that soo many times it's lost all meaning"-Homer J. Simpson

In the US? In Mexico?

I was wondering the same thing :p .




I definitely wouldn't want Mexico as part of the U.S. That's a hell of a lot more taxes for us, plus there's a chance that a lot of the corruption with police forces and what not might seep up to here where I live in Texas. And I don't like Mexico's politicians at all...they complain about the U.S and immigration even though Mexico abuses many of the immigrants that come there from Central America. (disclaimer: I'm not going after Mexicans, I'm going after their corrupt leaders)

I have no problems with giving aid to Mexico, but total amalgation of the country is something that simply would not work.

We would do this why?

They don't have many resources, we'd only be pulling their weight. We'd have different views, racial conflicts... you name it and it would be a problem.

I wonder if the USA would have the same problems in Mexico as Canada has with Quebec...sovereignty, different religion, language and culture etc...

if so...the US would be headed for a big headache

If Mexico became the 51st state, it would immediately become the largest and most influential state in the Union. If you divide it up into smaller states--say ten or so--then they collectively wield even more power. Be careful what you wish for--their conservatives are left of the Democrats.

Yes and no. I imagine that there is much in the way of social conservatism that democrats would find incompatible with mexico's left and right.

As I get older I think that left and right are more a consequence of social context rather than any sort of non-abstract measure.

I'm not for Mexico joining the union either. Quite the opposite, I'd like more devolution in the US. (Something between the EU and the US now).

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!


HA, Like mexico would ever want to be part of america!...who would?

Maybe the world should attack America, divide its resources among the poorer countries and give the American government to Canada and Mexico. It would make the world a better place, get the world rid of an oppressive regime and allow freedom to flourish in that land.

Or only Americans can advocate wanton, absurd murder?

Word to the wise: If someone like you, SL, ever gets elected and dares attack Brazil, Bin Laden will be a fond memory!

Maybe the world should attack America, divide its resources among the poorer countries and give the American government to Canada and Mexico. It would make the world a better place, get the world rid of an oppressive regime and allow freedom to flourish in that land.

Or only Americans can advocate wanton, absurd murder?

amen to that!...well maybe its a little extreme...

Before you call me an imperialistic asshole you must consider the fact that Mexico wants American land and is still bitter after they lost half of their territory to the US. If Mexico became the 51st state the land would technically be theirs and America's solving some disputes. Also they would benefit economically, and they're dictatorship would be replaced by a less oppressive democracy which would give the next generation of Mexicans a brighter future.

DISCUSS!

I feel bukakked by stupid.

Maybe the world should attack America, divide its resources among the poorer countries and give the American government to Canada and Mexico. It would make the world a better place, get the world rid of an oppressive regime and allow freedom to flourish in that land.

Or only Americans can advocate wanton, absurd murder?

Word to the wise: If someone like you, SL, ever gets elected and dares attack Brazil, Bin Laden will be a fond memory!

Oh stop. Countries can attack other countries whenever they want. History has shown that unless there is some type of direct interest, no-one really gives a fuck.

But email the UN all you want.

Oh stop. Countries can attack other countries whenever they want. History has shown that unless there is some type of direct interest, no-one really gives a fuck.

But email the UN all you want.

Which is why I pointed out that the world can also attack America whenever it wants. It's not about the idea of attacking Mexico, it's about the fact that, if I made a flamebaitish thread about attacking America seriously, people would be asking for my head, not merely calling me a moron (albeit rightfully, as anyone that advocates aggressive war IS a moron). And who said anything about the UN?

Which is why I pointed out that the world can also attack America whenever it wants. And who said anything about the UN?

Yeah, but the world isn't going to do that, is it?

The G7 doesn't care what the US does. And as long as the US keeps Russia sweet everything is cool.

no no it wasnt.

it was stolen then we threw them a bit of money as a sop to our consciences. it is in no way bought like the louisiana purchase was.

the mexican american war was an all out land grab. there was nothing voluntary about the taking of the american southwest and california.

I forget ... what's it called if I take something from you, and then compensate you for it in the form of monitary gain? Damn I just can't remember :rolleyes:

HA, Like mexico would ever want to be part of america!...who would?

Your logic and debating prowess is second to none. You, sir, win at the interwebs. Was the final boss hard?

Which is why I pointed out that the world can also attack America whenever it wants. It's not about the idea of attacking Mexico, it's about the fact that, if I made a flamebaitish thread about attacking America seriously, people would be asking for my head, not merely calling me a moron (albeit rightfully, as anyone that advocates aggressive war IS a moron). And who said anything about the UN?

There has been invade america threads in the past.

It's hard to tell who is serious and not around here.

No, annexing Mexico would violate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Yeah, but the world isn't going to do that, is it?

The G7 doesn't care what the US does. And as long as the US keeps Russia sweet everything is cool.

Keep Russia sweet? Did someone go back in time and give someone in 1982 a computer with internet connection to 25 years later? What year is it where you are?

Which is why I pointed out that the world can also attack America whenever it wants. It's not about the idea of attacking Mexico, it's about the fact that, if I made a flamebaitish thread about attacking America seriously, people would be asking for my head, not merely calling me a moron (albeit rightfully, as anyone that advocates aggressive war IS a moron)

Do you care to prove that absurd statement?

The original poster was mocked rightfully, and so would anyone else who supported a ludicrous attempt at imperialism. In fact, I'm fairly sure that people who make these threads are joking, since they rarely make any attempt to justify their position.

No, annexing Mexico would violate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Is that the ONLY problem? What about the slaughtering of innocent civilians?

Keep Russia sweet? Did someone go back in time and give someone in 1982 a computer with internet connection to 25 years later? What year is it where you are?

Russia is the only non G7 nation with a credible military that could threaten the US.

Unless bangladesh gets all feisty I suppose.

Do you care to prove that absurd statement?

The original poster was mocked rightfully, and so would anyone else who supported a ludicrous attempt at imperialism. In fact, I'm fairly sure that people who make these threads are joking, since they rarely make any attempt to justify their position.

Yes, he was mocked. I do think that, if someone advocated that America should be attacked, there WOULD be people asking for the person to be banned, rather than merely mocking him.

Russia is the only non G7 nation with a credible military that could threaten the US.

Unless bangladesh gets all feisty I suppose.

The idea of the US attacking Mexico is just as absurd as the idea of the world (the WHOLE world) attacking the US.

Yes, he was mocked. I do think that, if someone advocated that America should be attacked, there WOULD be people asking for the person to be banned, rather than merely mocking him.

No, there wouldn't, because everyone would realize that the person was trying to get a rise out of the boarders and not bother with it. As you said, the idea of the entire planet attacking America is as absurd as the idea suggested in the original post, so why exactly would the reaction be that much more severe in the former?

No, there wouldn't, because everyone would realize that the person was trying to get a rise out of the boarders and not bother with it. As you said, the idea of the entire planet attacking America is as absurd as the idea suggested in the original post, so why exactly would the reaction be that much more severe in the former?

Well, maybe not the "general" reaction, but some neocons...

The OP has is it completely backwards. It's Mexico that's going to take over the US. Might as well relent now and let Canada take the northern half of the United States as I've always claimed we will do.

Come on, you'll like Confederation. You'll get a free toque upon entry. 1st Tim Horton's coffee is free!

The idea of the US attacking Mexico is just as absurd as the idea of the world (the WHOLE world) attacking the US.

The idea of the US attacking mexico is not absurd. In fact, it has a great deal of historical precedent.

America, (and Canada if they care.) Should use economic pressure to bring the Mexican rulers around to the idea of reforming their system. I work in a mainly Hispanic workplace. The overwhelming majority of my co-workers are here on expired visas. Their main complaint about their homeland is a lack of help from their government in the simplest things. Healthcare/wellfare, retirement, disaster assistance ect.

If your a kid in Mexico, lets say 15yrs old. Your father dies, (sole breadwinner.) Your options are this...

1). Beg from your relalitives too survive
2). Send the kids too work, dropping out of whatever constitutes an education there.
3). Attempt too escape to America. Where at least you won't starve to death if you are capable of working.

If the Mexican people had even the slighest relief. The desire to flee their homeland would deminish too a very large extent.

America can use the almighty dollar more effectively here than the M-16.

The idea of the US attacking mexico is not absurd. In fact, it has a great deal of historical precedent.

The idea of Britain dominating America is not absurd. In fact, it has a great deal of historical precedent.

The idea of Britain dominating America is not absurd. In fact, it has a great deal of historical precedent.

I have this sudden image of Tony Blair in bondage gear standing over Dubya...

Yeah, it's totally absurd.

I have this sudden image of Tony Blair in bondage gear standing over Dubya...

Yeah, it's totally absurd.

Are you trying to make me laugh or to make me puke? o_o

The idea of Britain dominating America is not absurd. In fact, it has a great deal of historical precedent.

That's an inapposite anology, and you know that.

Britian never invaded the US, never repeatedly attacked it, and never conducted punitive expeditions against it.

Moreover, it is less than a hundred years ago that the US attacked Mexico. For the majority of the US's existence its relationship with its southern neighbor has not been good.

That's an inapposite anology, and you know that.

Britian never invaded the US, never repeatedly attacked it, and never conducted punitive expeditions against it.

Moreover, it is less than a hundred years ago that the US attacked Mexico. For the majority of the US's existence its relationship with its southern neighbor has not been good.

So, because the US were murderers in the past it makes sense that they become so now?

Are you trying to make me laugh or to make me puke? o_o

I often attempt to do both.

So, because the US were murderers in the past it makes sense that they become so now?

Is that your original point? No it is not. You were saying that the US would never attack mexico, and I simply pointed out that it has repeatedly done so in the past, so there is no reasonable basis to assume it will not do so in the future. It has nothing to do with being "murderers".

Will it attack tomorrow? No. I really doubt it. Fifty years from now? I don't know. And it's not like the US doesn't like attacking other countries when it can get away with it. (Or even when it can't).

Judge it by its actions, not its marketing department.

Britian never invaded the US,
War of 1812.

never repeatedly attacked it,
War of 1812.

and never conducted punitive expeditions against it.
I forgot what punitive means, but I bet "War of 1812" would be an appropriate counter.

War of 1812.


War of 1812.


I forgot what punitive means, but I bet "War of 1812" would be an appropriate counter.

The US declared war on Britain in the war of 1812 and attacked British Canada.

The US declared war on Britain in the war of 1812 and attacked British Canada.

And got invaded for that.

and you find that to be equivalent to the lousiana purchase?

More like the purchase of Alaska from the Russians

Will it attack tomorrow? No. I really doubt it. Fifty years from now? I don't know. And it's not like the US doesn't like attacking other countries when it can get away with it. (Or even when it can't).

Judge it by its actions, not its marketing department.

I don't think we're in disagreement, my point isn't that it won't, it's that it shouldn't. Ever.

Emperor Norton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_A._Norton) beat you to it. He declared himself Norton the First, Emperor of America and Protector of Mexico. Gotta love amusing nutbars.

no more like, make it less repressive in one way then make it more repressive in ways needed so they become less of a danger to the US and so this squabble over territory ends.

Right.... it's OK to be repressive, as long as South Lizasauria thinks it's a "needed" repression. Otherwise, being repressive is so bad, that you should be invaded and annexed by a foreign nation.

And you talking about Mexico as a "danger to the US" while you're sitting here advocating INVADING AND ANNEXING Mexico is just laughable.

You are a hypocrite who can't even think straight. People like you are the greatest threat to world peace. You sit around with your thumbs up your arse, advocating war and conquest and bloodshed just so you have something new to watch on TV. It's OK if innocent people get bombed and shot, as long as you feel safe from an unknown and fictional threat and to end an equally fictional "squabble over territory." You advocate murder just because you're insecure and because you hate Mexicans.

Now GTFO before I am forced to thrash you a third time.