# The US should annex Mexico now! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222 "2005-12-18T23:51:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/41 "2005-12-19T16:57:49Z")
> [@Queuing](#): > > This is probably not overly helpful to the conversation, but as a Canadian let me remind you we burned your white house once, don’t make us do it again. We burned down Toronto. Wanna have a contest to see which country can repeat their feat of destruction faster? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/42 "2005-12-19T18:19:58Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Mexico needs to get its shit together so that it is not pumping impoverished people into our country. Instead of building a wall, I think the more humane option is to enter that country and require it to get its shit together. At the same time, it’s not worth a war, not worth a lot of bloodshed. Oh, well why didn’t you say so? Hey guys, it’s okay, because there won’t be a lot of bloodshed. Only a little bit. Can’t make an omelete without breaking eggs, right? Just out of curiousity, how much is okay before we get to “a lot”? One person? Just a stray bullet, a warning shot really, and we can ignore the guy’s son crying himself to sleep at night. Or maybe a few hundred people? What’s one little skirmish, in the grand scheme of things? Sure, we’ll have to divert some funds to pay for the funerals and memorial services, but that shouldn’t be a problem with your new burgeoning joint economic model. How about a few thousand? I mean, it’s just a tiny battle. A little flareup before the dust settles. No big deal, really, and we can all go home in time to watch the Simpsons. How many people does it take, **Aeschines** , before it becomes wrong? How many mothers will lose their sons, how many sons will lose their fathers, how many husbands will lose their wives? How many people have to die before the people of Earth cry out as one, “_This must not happen again_.”? Look at history. It is brimming over with instances of one culture dominating another. And yes, I know you say this is an integration, not a domination, but Communism looked good on paper too. Consider that reality is always far grittier, and dirtier, and more disgusting than the glowing goals we craft for ourselves. Consider that someone’s going to get power hungry. Consider that someone, a lot of people in fact, will take it personally. “Live free or die” isn’t just for us US’ers, you know. How many times must we delude ourselves? How many more lives will be lost in senseless violence? How many more rivers of blood will drench the earth, how many more people will die on their knees, staring into the barrel of a gun, before we learn to solve our problems instead of blowing them away? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/43 "2005-12-19T19:21:01Z")
> [@](#): > > …there won’t be a France in 100 years > [@](#): > > [the USA] have entered our arc of decline… I dunno, you say **clairobscur** reflects French existentialist fatalism by reminding us that WE won’t be around in 100 years anyway, but it seems to me that YOU are the radical pessimist, who believes the coming change will be for the worst unless we step in and actively steer it in the direction of preserving and expanding the “native” French or Anglo-American culture/society as-we-know-it. For all we know, a couple of steps ahead in the evolution of our national cultures, after maybe a century of transitional pains, dead ends, and bad mistakes, ther appears something that goes on to further greatness and achievement, save that for what we now call USA it goes under the name “Unión Americana”. Or maybe we just move, spent, to the back benches and leave the spotlight to someone else, like the vast majority of empires and hegemonic nations of the last 4,000 years. What, we expected to be “It” for the rest of human history? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/44 "2005-12-19T20:19:44Z")
I should, as an aside, point out that the political culture of Mexico needs reform. The people and the government both cry out for it, to the point where they hired Rudy the G-Man for reform aid. We, the US, should help them help themselves. If it requires police assistance, we _should_ work with them to help them clean up their country. As a brother. But we shouldn’t force them to do it. ---
**Author:** ![someone447](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@someone447](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/someone447)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/45 "2005-12-19T20:55:49Z")
THERE WAS NO CANADA IN 1812. The British burned the White House. That would be like the US saying we beat the French, because the British Empire beat them in the French and Indian War. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/46 "2005-12-19T21:14:47Z")
> [@Queuing](#): > > This is probably not overly helpful to the conversation, but as a Canadian let me remind you we burned your white house once, don’t make us do it again. Yeeaggh I hate when someone brings up that “we burned the whitehouse” crap Unless the person saying this is British and over 200 years old it is A) Wrong and B) Pointless. British Marines Burned the Whitehouse. If I recall they weren’t even Marines stationed in Canada but ones on loan from the end of the Napoleonic wars, which the War of 1812 was an extension of. It has nothing to do with anything… sheesh. There are much more exciting and better examples of Canadian Military achievements without drudging up this “fact” ---
**Author:** ![Queuing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/90ced4/32.png) [@Queuing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queuing)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/47 "2005-12-19T21:33:51Z")
Well I am sure glad at least **Neurotik** has a sense of humour. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/48 "2005-12-19T23:50:55Z")
> [@Queuing](#): > > This is probably not overly helpful to the conversation, but as a Canadian let me remind you we burned your white house once, don’t make us do it again. I just hate, hate, hate it when Canadians say this. Hate it. The White House was burned down in the War of 1812 by British troops. You taking credit for Canada doing it is exactly the same as an American saying that the United States won the Battle of Stalingrad. Here we are trying to dispel the ignorance of someone who thinks we sponge off U.S. defence spending - and you’re claiming a military victory for us that was won by another country. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/49 "2005-12-20T00:00:50Z")
Yeah but he’s being humourously wrong. That’s ok. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/50 "2005-12-20T00:29:59Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > I dunno, you say **clairobscur** reflects French existentialist fatalism by reminding us that WE won’t be around in 100 years anyway, Yeah. He was blowing off my point by saying, “Well, we’ll be dead.” That’s just a cruddy attitude in my book. > [@](#): > > but it seems to me that YOU are the radical pessimist, who believes the coming change will be for the worst unless we step in and actively steer it in the direction of preserving and expanding the “native” French or Anglo-American culture/society as-we-know-it. I didn’t call **clairobscur** a “pessimist”; I called him a fatalist. Those are two entirely different things. A fatalist is someone who gives up; a pessimist is someone who assesses a situation negatively. I’m not even a pessimist. I think the current US foreign policy, among other things, has put our country into an arc of decline. I think a [better foreign policy](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=346692), along with some other things, could put us back on the right track. > [@](#): > > Or maybe we just move, spent, to the back benches and leave the spotlight to someone else, like the vast majority of empires and hegemonic nations of the last 4,000 years. What, we expected to be “It” for the rest of human history? You are right. I am talking about adapting so that we continue to create the future–a moral, peaceful, just and prosperous future. I am not interested in power for power’s sake. People in this thread are focusing on the “naughty” side of my idea. I’m going to take away those poor Mexicans’ sovereignty! But look at what else I’m saying: We will take a much poorer country under our wing with a commitment to helping them achieve our level of prosperity. We will give them the rule of law. We will reduce the exploitation of the poor. We will exchange their pesos for dollars. We will let Spanish and their culture become and even bigger part of our own culture. And I think doing so is, in the long term, the best way to preserve our own culture and prosperity. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/51 "2005-12-20T00:36:23Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > Oh, well why didn’t you say so? Hey guys, it’s okay, because there won’t be a lot of bloodshed. Only a little bit. Can’t make an omelete without breaking eggs, right? > > Just out of curiousity, how much is okay before we get to “a lot”? One person? Just a stray bullet, a warning shot really, and we can ignore the guy’s son crying himself to sleep at night. I applaud your humanitarian stance and largely agree with you. But hear me out. Suppose through a perfectly legal (in terms of both US and Mexican law) process, the annexation was effected. You are OK with that thus far, right? But suppose at the same time people rebelled and started fighting over the thing. Mexico already has the Zapatista rebels in the south, anyway, so the US would inherit some kind of war or another. So yes, some level of bloodshed would be necessary, no doubt about it. A lot of the wars going on in Latin America are not really about politics, anyway. War is simply the _job_ of the thugs waging it: The drug lords, kidnappers, eternal guerillas. Sure, if the US annexed a Latin American country, those types and other sincere and semi-sincere types would make a career out of bitching about it and fighting against it. That’s just human nature. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/52 "2005-12-20T00:45:32Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > So yes, some level of bloodshed would be necessary, no doubt about it. Would any be yours? Or are you a graduate of the chickenhawk school of foreign policy? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/53 "2005-12-20T01:06:07Z")
> [@Agnostic Pagan](#): > > I don’t agree with this. To me, America represents only the current USA. America is a subset, not equivalent to North America. Which is why the distinction already exists. Sorry, I think you’re wrong in a basic factual way. Both North America and South America (as the names indicate) were always recognized as “America.” The _United States_ of America was meant to distinguish that political entity from others in the hemisphere. > [@](#): > > I think a name change would be necessary for political reasons also. If the new union was still called the USA, a division would exist between the ‘first comers’ and the ‘latecomers’. Equality could only be achieved by making all previous citizenship void, and everyone beginning on the same, new, page. I don’t agree. We’ve continued to admit new states from the very beginning, including those that were once part of Mexico. Is California somehow not treated as the the equal of New York? > [@](#): > > And, trust me, a new flag would definitely be needed. And I don’t think the Stars and Stripes will be forever. I like our flag. I guess we really disagree. I think the US has not just a great constitution and legal system, it’s also a great _brand_ and has a great story and history behind it. And it’s flaws as well, past and future, but I certainly don’t think we need to toss out what we’ve got and create a generic “Friendly Empire.” > [@](#): > > I thinks the constitution would serve as an excellent starting point. But I think major changes would need to spelled out regarding the executive branch. The all or nothing nature of our electoral system is breaking down already, increasing the population of the country by over a third also increases the number of sore losers. Fine-tuning is indeed necessary, but… > [@](#): > > (I would prefer a parliamentary system myself, but thats another debate.) No, please no. > [@](#): > > Again, I think the economic policies will harder to implement than the political ones. Mexicans are already being fully exploited by US firms in the maquiladoras. Unification needs to find a way to end it, not ramp it up. No doubt. I decry exploitation in the US as well, but being given Wal-Mart-level wages and benefits (slight as these may be) would be a tremendous step up for most Mexicans. That’s why they’re running over here to begin with, and most illegals do not get even as good treatment as Wal-Mart offers. > [@](#): > > I personally believe Canada is the greatest nation on this hemisphere. Another reason I prefer ‘unification’ over ‘annexation’. We should seek to implement the best practices we know. And Canada performs better in those that matter - quality of life and social welfare. I think it is slightly an apples and oranges thing. If Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire were their own little country, they would beat the US average too. You can talk about the dynamite Singaporean economy, when it’s really just one small city. I feel, and most Americans I think feel, that the border between Canada and the US is an artifact of history and completely arbitrary at this point. We are essentially the same culture, the same people. I think it’s absurd to say that Canada is the “greatest nation” in the hemisphere. It has not risen to the same challenges as the US, has been coddled by two empires throughout its short history, and has not the same number or level of accomplishments under its belt. > [@](#): > > Granted they have been able to do so since they do not spend as much as we do on defense. > > But that is a positive in my book. We could have done the same. We decided not to under Reagan, well, the generation before me did, I did not get to vote until '88 - still haven’t had one of my candidates win an election yet either. :mad: Sure, US defense policy since WWII has been a grabbag of smart and stupid, effective and ineffective. But there was at least some _base level_ that was necessary to preserve order in the world. Beyond that, we can argue about what the West should have done about the commies. Viet-Nam? Big failure. But a strong defense to counter Soviet Bloc aggression? I think Reagan was basically on the right track. I’m not saying Canada was doing anything wrong. But praise for its nice social programs and orderly society must be combined with an understanding of its geographical, political, and historical peculiarities. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/54 "2005-12-20T01:25:06Z")
> [@kingpengvin](#): > > Canada’s Parlimentary system is more similar to the UK’s than the US system. Would you say the UK system is like the US system? Yes. We share the same common law. The US came from the UK. And Canada has provinces; we have states. And so on. It’s not as though Canada has dictators, caliphs, etc. Basically similar, polically and culturally. > [@](#): > > As for our “Identical” cultures I think you are only looking on a very superficial level. There are a good deal of differences in attitudes between American’s and Canadian’s. Yes, and between Quebequois and British Columbians, between New Yorkers and Los Angeleans, etc. etc. > [@](#): > > Our social spending is part of that, there is not as much a distrust of Big Government. Our generakl attitudes about issues of Gun control, Religion and politics are also different on the whole. But similar to certain large segments of the US, and vice versa. **Sam Stone** is from Canada but seems like a regular ole (well-spoken) US conservative. > [@](#): > > We don’t cotten to our leaders talking church. That is a private issue and is almost seen as distatful for a candidate to do so. Oh yeah. Canada is more liberal and intelligent than the US average. Good for you. I can understand your not wanting to deal with our [SCs](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=347326), but please be annexed by us and help us raise our mean, OK? > [@](#): > > Now, as for Military spending this country has done the traditional correct thing. In times of War you build and army and you fight. In times of Peace you cut back and spend your money on Domestic things. Now if you are a Great power wanting to keep your influence up around the world then you spend big on your military and keep them in key posistions around the Globe. Don’t complain that we don’t want to try to excersise that kind of spending. The US does it for the USA not for the rest of us. And I for one do not feel beholden to you for your choices. Right, because you get the best of both worlds. You get the benefits of the US fighting for oil and whatnot, but also get to deride the US for being a bully. > [@](#): > > But perhaps you are correct, and we should be thankful for the United States selflessly spending its money protecting us. So I do want to thank the US for defending us from The Iraqis, Panamanians, and of course, The island of Grenada in the last few decades. Funny, but it’s the _preventing_ of conflict by US might that is of real benefit to you. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/55 "2005-12-20T01:30:16Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > Would any be yours? Or are you a graduate of the chickenhawk school of foreign policy? Riiight, and if I think the US should prevent genocide in Darfur (I think it should), then I have to enlist tomorrow, right? I’m not even advocating a military action. I’m simply saying that there will inevitably be someone pissed enough _about a 100% legal and non-violent annexation_ to kill over it. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/56 "2005-12-20T01:36:43Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Riiight, and if I think the US should prevent genocide in Darfur (I think it should), then I have to enlist tomorrow, right? > > I’m not even advocating a military action. I’m simply saying that there will inevitably be someone pissed enough _about a 100% legal and non-violent annexation_ to kill over it. Genocide in Darfur = illegal immigration in the USA? _“… shall we go on conferring our democratic civilization on the peoples that sit in darkness, or shall we give those poor things a rest?”_ Mark Twain ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/57 "2005-12-20T01:46:20Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > Genocide in Darfur = illegal immigration in the USA? You dodged the point. If I support _any_ military action, am I required to enlist in the military? As for Twain’s comment, I think there are some nations that can profit from a helping hand, and others that can’t. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/58 "2005-12-20T01:49:23Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > You dodged the point. If I support _any_ military action, am I required to enlist in the military? > > As for Twain’s comment, I think there are some nations that can profit from a helping hand, and others that can’t. Actually YOU dodged the point by using a ridiculous comparison. ---
**Author:** ![CBEscapee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b19c9b/32.png) [@CBEscapee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CBEscapee)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/59 "2005-12-20T01:55:28Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > As for Twain’s comment, I think there are some nations that can profit from a helping hand, and others that can’t. So its first Mexico, then Guatemala, then Honduras and before you know it you’re at Tierra del Fuego? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222/60 "2005-12-20T01:59:21Z")
> [@CBEscapee](#): > > Actually YOU dodged the point by using a ridiculous comparison. It’s not a comparison at all, actually. You threw out some words, implying that if one advocated a military action (or in this case, a political initiative that could result in bloodsheed), then one should be willing to die for that cause. I say that’s bullshit. And I doubted whether you thought we all had to be willing to die for the noble military causes we support. Answer the above if you will, or no. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-us-should-annex-mexico-now/336222.md?page=4)