Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Nova Cyberia]

Resources, people, land, and they're also highly culturally similar.

Annexing a country for its resources isn't very non-interventionist.

Non-interventionism isn't really an absolute. I favor intervention if it benefits America, and annexing Canada and all of it's people and resources certainly would.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's unethical though.

Sometimes unethical things are required in international politics.
But unlike the PRC would would do it for their long term good.

Sometimes they're not. Annexing Canada is not required.

[Novus America]

So here is my annexation plan:
1) Offer large amounts of humanitarian aid.
2) Truthfully point out that we cannot simply give the aid to the governments because of corruption, we have to distribute it ourselves.
3) Use this to set up community police, welfare, health and education programs and military units that ultimately answer to us, are DIRECTLY funded by us, and not funded or controlled by the official government.
The official government will like it at first because it will keep the people happy without costing them anything or them having to do any work.
4) Once we control the local police, welfare, health and education systems we point out the US can provide what the government cannot. If the government tries to stop us then, we rightfully point out the government is trying to harm the people by taking their welfare, healthcare, education and community police.
5) Fund annexationist political parties an candidates, and use various propaganda techniques.
6) Use our local military connections, point out if the were to become members of the US military or a new national guard their pay would be MUCH higher.
7) Now that we are more liked and more powerful than the government we can launch a Ukraine type color revolution to take control of the government completely, with an annexationist government which will then declare it wishes to become a US free associated state or commonwealth. Then we can move in with US troops, Federal courts and law enforcement, and officially take control.

Unfortunately this only works on poor corrupt countries with completely dysfunctional healthcare, law enforcement, education and welfare systems.

Canada is a tougher nut to crack.

Why do you even want to annex Canada? What's wrong with the USA's current borders?

The current US borders are too difficult to secure, and we need the extra land and resources to strengthen our position in the new world, otherwise we cannot keep up with the PRC as well.

[Novus America]

Sometimes unethical things are required in international politics.
But unlike the PRC would would do it for their long term good.

Sometimes they're not. Annexing Canada is not required.

The debt thing would not work as well on Canada. That is more for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. And we do need to become larger and better defended to avoid PRC domination.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Annexing a country for its resources isn't very non-interventionist.

Non-interventionism isn't really an absolute. I favor intervention if it benefits America, and annexing Canada and all of it's people and resources certainly would.

Sure it's not an absolute. But saying non-interventionism isn't absolute and then annexing Canada is like saying economic freedom isn't absolute and then banning private property.

[Novus America]

Non-interventionism isn't really an absolute. I favor intervention if it benefits America, and annexing Canada and all of it's people and resources certainly would.

Sure it's not an absolute. But saying non-interventionism isn't absolute and then annexing Canada is like saying economic freedom isn't absolute and then banning private property.

Not really, especially if it is done without violence.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I would worry about who those newly annexed peoples would vote for.

[Bienenhalde]

Besides Canada, few people in those countries are SJW loons.
They are mostly moderately socially conservative in Mexico and Central America, and not interested in fighting over pronouns or whatever.

I am not talking about SJW loons. I am talking about dozens of different regions with different histories, cultures, and demographics.

[Proctopeo]

I would worry about who those newly annexed people's would vote for.

And that's why we indirectly administer Canada instead.

[Salus Maior]

I would worry about who those newly annexed people's would vote for.

And that's why we indirectly administer Canada instead.

That didn't work for Britain as far as America is concerned.

[Bienenhalde]

I agree that we absolutely need to defeat the PRC, but this is not entirely up the US. What we need is a coalition of free democratic nations to stand up to the PRC.

[New haven america]

I agree that we absolutely need to defeat the PRC, but this is not entirely up the US. What we need is a coalition of free democratic nations to stand up to the PRC.

Sorry, what? Couldn't hear you. All I could hear was the sound of CEO bank accounts being funneled into the governments of the free world to not do that.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I would worry about who those newly annexed people's would vote for.

And that's why we indirectly administer Canada instead.

Or we shouldn't annex them. I'm not convinced we need to annex them to defeat the PRC.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I would worry about who those newly annexed people's would vote for.

And that's why we indirectly administer Canada instead.

That's even worse. That spits on the American ideal itself. No taxation without representation.

[Bienenhalde]

I agree that we absolutely need to defeat the PRC, but this is not entirely up the US. What we need is a coalition of free democratic nations to stand up to the PRC.

Sorry, what? Could hear you. All I could hear was the sound of CEO bank accounts being funneled into the governments of the free world to not do that.

So you think Communist oppression is good because corrupt CEOs are in favor of it?

[Proctopeo]

And that's why we indirectly administer Canada instead.

That's even worse. That spits on the American ideal itself. No taxation without representation.

We don't tax them, obviously. We just prevent them from doing stupid shit, after reforming their government to not be stupid.
I call it "nation building".

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's even worse. That spits on the American ideal itself. No taxation without representation.

We don't tax them, obviously. We just prevent them from doing stupid shit, after reforming their government to not be stupid.
I call it "nation building".

No nation building without representation.

[Bear Stearns]

America should have kept the Betsy Ross flag. It looks cooler, it's simpler, and would give us a stronger connection with our past. America wasn't founded in 1960 after all.

Also representing every single state with a star is kind of dumb. Most states don't change their flag when they consolidate internal territories.

[Cappuccina]

America should have kept the Betsy Ross flag. It looks cooler, it's simpler, and would give us a stronger connection with our past. America wasn't founded in 1960 after all.

Also representing every single state with a star is kind of dumb. Most states don't change their flag when they consolidate internal territories.

In the case of the US a star for each state is continuing the traditional representation of the original 13 on the first flag. No one gives a shit what other countries do with their flags, we do it, it's our thing.

[Nova Cyberia]

America should have kept the Betsy Ross flag. It looks cooler, it's simpler, and would give us a stronger connection with our past. America wasn't founded in 1960 after all.

Also representing every single state with a star is kind of dumb. Most states don't change their flag when they consolidate internal territories.

In the case of the US a star for each state is continuing the traditional representation of the original 13 on the first flag. No one gives a shit what other countries do with their flags, we do it, it's our thing.

This. We're a federation so it makes sense that we'd have all of our states represented on the flag.

[Totally Not OEP]

Annex Mexico, yay or nay?

There is no easier way of getting my attention here...

[Kowani]

Sorry, what? Could hear you. All I could hear was the sound of CEO bank accounts being funneled into the governments of the free world to not do that.

So you think Communist oppression is good because corrupt CEOs are in favor of it?

That…wasn’t really what he said.

[Hanafuridake]

Well, yes. After all, one of the biggest gripes the Revolutionaries had was that they felt their fundamental rights as Englishmen were being denied.

The true character of an Englishmen is indeed a Republican.

Old Tyrannia might have something to say about that.

[Totally Not OEP]

I just find it dumb from a national standpoint. Invading say, Iran, because "tHeY hAtE oUr FrEeDoM!!3431!!" is just the definition of naive stupidity at best. Then staying to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop unpopular Democratic regimes is likewise stupid.

Invade Canada for its resources and land? Okay, that makes sense. Invade Turkmenistan because they don't have Gay parades or because some tribe is disfavored by the ruling party? What the fuck are you smoking Cheney and where can I acquire a plug with it?

So in other words you are okay with starting a war for the sake of greed, but you think fighting for the cause of justice is stupid?

I generally don't see bombing the shit out of a country because "For Freedom" as a good form of actual Justice. Did they attack us, present an actual threat or hold a value for us to obtain? Sure, let's do it. Because some tin pot dictator exists and won't let the people vote? I'm not sure Joe Public wants his house flattened by a fucking J-DAM just so he can vote for local Dog Catcher...

[Yuyencia]

I agree that we absolutely need to defeat the PRC, but this is not entirely up the US. What we need is a coalition of free democratic nations to stand up to the PRC.

Thank you my friend are insight