Whatever, dude.
What’s this “we” shit? I asked if YOU are willing to spill your blood in support of your “cause”. I mean you ARE the advocate here for this annexation. You refuse to answer so I’m left to assume you support the chickenhawk style of foreign policy.
Yeah dude, you got me. Rock on.
After four generations, California is treated as any other state. As CBEscapee noted, the original residents of those states that became ‘equal citizens’ after the Mexican War were not treated equally. And I so no reason why history would not repeat itself. We have come far since then, but not that far. Maybe in a few more generations.
So we will have to agree to disagree regarding the new polity. In the past I have sometimes rallied for ‘reunificacion’, and the return of the Southwest to Mexico. They never had a chance to develop it after their independence from Spain. Perhaps Mexico would not in its current mess if it had had that territory. “Va norte, hombre joven.”
I think this is the center of our disagreement. I want to see a unification of the North American polities, but not outright annexation by any one polity of the others. And I seem to see more flaws in our current system than you do. You believe in reform; I believe in a Reformation. Which of us is correct? (Where is the shrug smiley?)
At the same time, (and I admit I can be very contradictory at times), I think the US should take its show on the road - offering Statehood to Puerto Rico, Haiti, the rest of the Carribbean, and any and all others that wish too. I see no reason why the US is of only America, and cannot be the United States of Earth.
This is one of my greater concerns, for while what you say would be true if accurate, i.e. Wal-Mart wages and benefits would be a step up, I think that as soon as any expansion did occur, Wal-Mart would drive down their already pitiful wages to the lowest point possible. Unless this issue is addressed clearly, and before any political expansion, such expansion will be doomed to fail since it will make the average Joe and Jose worse off then better.
LOL. Singapore is my favorite city, precisely because it is a city-state. And it is where I want to live eventually. (Either there or one of the larger cities of India. Hong Kong used to be on the list, but now… )
But you are correct, it is an apples and oranges comparison.
The same is true of the USA also. We would not even be close to being who we are today if not for our geographical isolaton, and for our historical treatment of the First Peoples. (They should be offered full statehood also. And please disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs already - eh, I’ll save that for the Pit.)
But again I do agree your basic premise. Finding a way to raise Mexico up without bringing the USA down will be our greatest challenge of this century. Indeed this is the challenge for the global society. And I would say political reform is far more necessary than economic reform.
To provide food for thought, what would you say to granting full US citizenship to all Mexicans now, regardless of any geographical union. Allow all citizens of Mexico the full rights and responsibilities of the Constitution and access to US courts. Any Mexicans still living in Mexico would be treated as normal expatriates. Tax collection would be a serious bitch for awhile, but, boom, no more illegal immigration. And allowing Mexicans to sue in federal courts could help eliminate alot of the corruption down there.
Not that Aeschines needs defending, but this type of arguement is bullshit. What is this “we” shit? The shit is do not accuse someone of being a chickenhawk if you are one yourself. If you are not willing to fight and die for your causes, don’t try to detract from another’s cause if they are not willing also. If the point has bearing on the arguement, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And one can ‘live’ for a cause, though not wish to die for it. It does not make them a chickenhawk. Stating that others must make a sacrifice that one would not make themselves is being a chickenhawk, (also called a Congressman. 
)
I have seen no evidence in this thread that Aeschines is asking for that. Instead he hopes to find a way to avoid violence. I honestly believe that he would not support ‘annexation’ if major bloodshed seemed likely. But he also sees no reason why a few rotten apples should spoil the whole barrel. I concur on this also. You will never make all the people happy any of the time. If 99% agree and 1% disagrees, and will use violence if their view does not prevail - fuck 'em.
And I apologize for the language. I am not clear on the rules outside of the Pit.
What are you talking about? Where did I say anything about whether I would or wouldn’t fight for a cause?
But for clarification, I would never propose sending others to die for something I believe in unless I am willing to share the same risk.
FYI, it so happens there is a (very small) political party dedictated to territorial expansion of the United States, and Mexico is definitely on the agenda. The Expansionist Party of the United States – http://members.aol.com/XPUS/
Resistance is futile. Prepare to be USsimilated.
The Canschluss is coming.
Gee, membership would make a great Christmas gift for aeschines.
We may both be democracies but our system is still a Parlimentary one. You yourself have already stated you wouldn’t want that, so what makes you think that we would want your system.
You demonstrate a superficial understanding of Canada and Canadians. We are a different people. Our Geography and history have made us that way. While American’s can look to the Frontier theory as a basis for their culture and the ideal of rugged individualism, we did not go that way. For most of its history Canada grew as communities where the group was important to the individual’s survival. The culture is based on that. There is a stronger tie to some British tradition in English Canada and the Addition of French influence to the culture has added to uniquely Canadian experiences. Whether you choose to believe it or not there is a Canadian culture. Certainly over the last century American pop cuture has flowed over the boarder more freely allowing for some similarity, but it is only another component to our whole.
While I don’t want to speak for him, I’ll wager that Sam would consider himself an exception rather than a rule. His brand of Conservatism is to the right of our own Conservative movement. Not that he is wrong or right, just not exactly an example of your typical Canadian in regards to political views.
I made no value judgement. I didn’t say we were better or smarter. I pointed out that we don’t like religion in our politics. It’s rare when a Canadian politician invokes God’s name, and rarer that they don’t get called on it.
Now I ask you why would I want to become an American? What do you offer me that my country does not? Truth is Canadians want to be Canadians.
By benifits I’m guessing you mean the higher oil prices. In that case, thanks. You see The United States imports 17% of it’s Oil from Canada. That is more than Saudi Arabia, who, by the way, you actually spend a good deal of your military funds on. You want to bitch about using your money to defend a foriegn country and prop up its governement, then bitch about them.
Once again what conflict were you preventing from reaching us? The Cold war is over and we did contribute to that. So Who are you defending us from?
The Terrorists? Last I checked the only real defense is domestic law enforcement and intellegence.
Afghanistan? Well we’re there too, because that was a correct move. In fact, we had to boost the number of our troops there to free up some American troops to go to Iraq.
Iraq? Forget it. That was not a threat, they were contained.
So please give up this BS that somehow we are cowering under your protection and would suddenly cease to exist without it. The United States does what it does for itself. You want to exert Might go ahead, just stop asking to be thanked for it. (By the way, what is this hard on that some Amercans have with being a Mighty military power?)
That all being said, you must realize that if people from a nation that you view as very similar aren’t falling over themselves to join you, then a country that is much more divergent would be a hell of a feat to “annex” They will not give up their language or culture just because you feel you are superior.
Give up your dreams of conquest, believe it or not some people on this planet aren’t scambling to be Americans.
If only we had an historical example of this, so we could measure how good your idea is.
Some kind of Native American culture being ‘taken under the wing’ of white English-speaking Europeans, for example…
Ok, so you don’t consider it part of Canadian history? Are the pilgrims part of American history? Or should all that happened in the US prior to 1778 be ignored because it was prior to the US being a country? Is Riel part of Canadian history? Is Sir John A? All that happened prior to when Canada was even allowed to make its own foriegn policy decisions. Hell we didn’t have a Charter until, what 1984? No flag until the late 60’s? When did Canada exist begin to exist for you?
Regardless, it was a joke. The OP is a little silly, so I answered with silliness. Hence the “this is probably not overly helpful to the conversation” line preceding the comment.
Being part of a country’s historical development and being a historical act by a country are not nessesarily the same thing. Burning down the capital of your opposition strikes me as an “act”, YMMV of course.
The one reason that they are here is the tunnel-visioned concept of cheap labor. The money that is saved there is wasted ten-fold in paying for medical care and educating them for free in our schools. We don’t want or need them here.
Absolutely correct. They are doing it now.
Your assumption that elimination of the border would somehow magically stop this from happening is seriously flawed. We need to go exactly the opposite direction: we need to slam the border shut, round up and run out the illegals that are here, and keep them out. That includes putting armed guards on the border and shooting folks until they get the message. It’s a hard line, but it needs to be done.
That won’t happen. Why in the world do you think someone would gladly pack up and leave a developed country for an undeveloped one? I live about 15 miles west of downtown Houston; what would the change in my standard of living be if I packed up and moved to a point about 15 miles west of downtown Mexico City?
Sorry, your ideas are totally unworkable.
That is exactly my point. You never did say. I feel that the ‘chickenhawk’ argument is only a valid criticism if one applies it to themselves as well. It is either ‘we’, or it is just so much hot air. You may feel that your position is not important. I think that it is for it to carry any weight.
But after all that, I agree that then it is a valid remark. And I agree with your point of view. Far too many policies are made that require the sacrifice of parties that the policymakers would never do themselves.
[/end hijack]
There are some very beautiful places west of downtown Mexico City. You might not be able to afford them.
Considering I intend to do pretty much that, except that I wish to go to Asia, not Mexico. I want to precisely because of the issues addressed in this thread.
The best way to raise undeveloped countries to modern living standards is to move there and assist those that are already trying to do so. And by living standards, I do not mean mere materialist goods, but education, health care, an unbiased professional legal system, free and fair elections, etc. All those things the United States is recognized as being the model for. :dubious: :rolleyes:
Not bitch and moan about the affects their underdevelopment has on others. And certainly not propose shooting those who wish to better themselves. The Israeli solution is definitely not the friggin’ answer.
If the US ever decides to close the border, I hope Mexico closes their side also and nationalizes every American owned factory and shop located there.
I don’t see what’s better about a parliamentary system. Their governments always seem ephemeral, prone to dissolve for superficial reasons. I like a well-defined executive branch. Your reason for liking our system is that it is superior. But I would like to hear your reasons for liking your own.
If you were absorbed into the US polity, Quebec would be the greatest cultural outlier in the country to be sure because of the language difference, but Ontario or Manitoba would be no different than Utah (high Mormon population) or Florida (subtropical climate) or Louisiana (has French-speaking regions). I don’t buy that you really form a different culture than the US–not for a second. The difference between Quebec and Alberta is greater than that between Alberta and any current US State.
You’re right, I don’t. By the same token, we don’t have any special “Americanness” that you are lacking.
I wasn’t saying he was typical; but the fact that he can argue just like an American conservative implies that there are other like him who are speaking the same political language.
I have no problem calling you better and smarter, just as I don’t have a problem saying that the people of Maine are on average smarter (i.e., more educated and culturally sophisticated) than the people of Georgia or even my own state of Indiana. But I see this more a product of statistics than cultural superiority. You have as big a population as one of our larger states, so that makes it more statistically likely that there will not be a regression to the mean.
Sure, and if Maine were, through some historical fluke, its own country, then Mainians would be quite proud of their Maineness and wouldn’t want to be annexed either. That’s just human nature. Again, my argument is not so much that the US offers anything you haven’t got, but that the division of our countries is completely arbitrary in the first place.
Here’s the deal. Why shouldn’t you be free to come live in any state of the Union and do as you please? Because of an arbitrary border. You could, in fact, go live in California with no accent, no cultural difficulties, no problems whatsoever. But you can’t. Why? Just can’t. By the same token, I can’t go enjoy long-term living in the great city of Toronto. Why? Just can’t.
Why shouldn’t the two countries share the same currency? Why shouldn’t we make the total system more efficient and of greater benefit to all? That’s the argument I’m making.
No argument here. Our foreign policy sucks.
Even if you did contribute in proportion to your population (which I am not doubting), you would still just be like any other state in the United States so contributing.
The point is that US represents a critical mass of military that frees you from even having to think about many things. You don’t need nukes. You don’t need a big navy. You don’t need to worry about pirates off your coast.
No, we’re not defending you from anyone. No one is a threat in the first place because the US preserves order on the continent.
No you are not cowering. But if the US were unfriendly, then you’d have to beef up that military and worry about us.
It’s not really far-fetched. India, China, Russia, and Japan are four countries that worry quite a bit about each other’s aims and goals and maintain quite large militaries for that reason. Historic enmities. Canada gets a free pass on all that because the US is nice.
Oh, really? If we just walked in and took your land (“exerted might”), then that would be OK?
I would not ask Mexico to give up its language or culture.
Liliputians.
Oh some others: British, French, Germans (!), Russians, Italians, Belgians, Dutch…
Also Japanese, Chinese (to a limited extent).
Thank you for pointing this out!
However, I have a better suggestion. Mexico can have Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama. With the exception of Florida, we’re not really using them all that much. I figure we owe Mexico for taking Arizona, New Mexico, and California. I wouldn’t mind if you wanted New Mexico or Arizona, either. I myself would never take Arizona, thank you; the people there are nuts! I figure New Mexico wouldn’t be hurt either way.
Don’t blame us completely for Texas. I know we encouraged them, but that was mostly Andrew Jackson, who also deported the Cherokees from Georgia.
I live in California. If you want to have it, fine. I don’t think most Californians would notice the difference. We don’t consider ourselves part of the US, either.
Now, I know you don’t want Florida. G-d knows we don’t want them either. But we have lots of your citizens here. Don’t get me wrong, I (if nobody else) certainly appreciate having them here. Lots of people are out of work all over the US; funny that only the Mexican workers stand on the corners every day looking for someone to offer them a job. By G-d, not even my grandfather did that!
Still, having Mexican workers here causes some issues (as you can see from this thread). So it’s only fair that you take Florida from us. Do with it what you want.
… you mean from Mexico to the USA, I assume?