Annex Canada and Mexico

So resource depletion and overpopulation will see the end of liberal democracy and a return to fascist/socialist authoritarian regimes conducting wars of aggressive territorial expansionism. We need to get ahead of the curve for the greater good and we have the best advantage now while the element of suprise still exists and resources are plentiful, they don't have nukes and UK, France, Russia and China secretly wouldn't start a nuclear war over this even though they might threaten to. The only problem would be the insurgency after the conquest which is difficult to defeat for 2 reasons.

1: They are supplied by organized criminals or foreign powers.
We can solve this problem with a naval blockade and a wall.

2: We are afraid to kill the civilians they hide among.
Ghengis Khan never had this problem, we should follow in his example.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

|Thoughts? Suggestions?

Yup, grow up and stop trying to be cartman.

>>2
You are obviously very short sighted. The war is inevitable, the only question is whether we fight now when the war would be short or later when it will be a long bloody affair.

>>2
Cartman would never approve of annexing a country that is entirely composed of minorities.

>>1 So you want to annex Canada and Mexico to get Lebensraum? Good idea. Why don't you just shoot yourself in the head right now, then your government won't have to feed such an insane buttfuck like you.
Maybe the US, Canada and Mexico should try something like Schengen? If you know what that is, of course. But you'd have to stop looking at porn all day, and instead get involved in real life.

>>4
Why not?

>>5
Lebensraum
shoot yourself
insane buttfuck
If you know what that is
stop looking at porn all day
get involved in real life
Only fashionable media approved non-conformism is allowed, real non-conformists are to be persecuted.
You'd make Oprah and soccer moms everywhere proud with your ability to stop thinking and instantly hate anyone who asks difficult questions.

Maybe the US, Canada and Mexico should try something like Schengen?
No, that's just a minor border policy that will evaporate once peak oil hits, we enter a depression and Mexico is thrown into poverty and instability. North America must be politically and militarily united, a self-perpetuating monopoly over force over a contiguous geo-political and economic entity from the southern Mexican border (or panama?) to Nunavut and we're better off planning, preparing and executing this within the next 20 years. Resource depletion, global warming and overpopulation should provide the political incentive to do so as we gain closer ties with Canada for economic reasons and Mexico destabilizes, we can step in to restore security then make a surprise grab for their central government.

>>6
He's racist.

>>7 Well why don't you run for president then. See how many votes you can get. Good luck! =)

>>7
You don't ask difficult questions, you ask dumb questions that have allready been historicaly answered. You just don't get the point of history.

The US have failed miserably in prety much every invasion they have tried. Militarily speaking, your army is focused on destroying facilities to weaken your enemies with out actualy fighting. Everytime you've sent soldiers in a foreign country you get fucked in the ass and you usualy hide behind a 'green zone'.

The actual strength the US holds is the economic power. That's how you enslave other countries and that's something you evloved out of your weakness to actualy conquer. War is being carried out in economical terms these days because that's a good way to minimize its effect on public opinion which otherwise could turn the people against the war (a war which is illegal by international law anyway).

The point where your logic goes wrong is that you are thinking in a nationalist way. And that's funny from a non american point of view because americans are hardly a nation. They are rather a 'soup' of people originating from all over the world, a successfull multicultural socienty in most cases. I think this way of thinking is exactly what you need to terminaly fuck up your country. To completely destabilize your economy with another costly war, from which the rich will get richer and the poor will become poorer or eved dead soldiers. It might also be a way to start a new anti-war movement similar to the one at the time of vietnam which, i'm guessing is not exactly what you have in mind.

I live in the other side of the world and honestly, from my perspecive, it would be really nice to see the US shoot itself on the foot like this. But even from the other side of this planet, I can realize that I have nothing against the PEOPLE of the US who are victims of their own corrupt government just like the rest of the world is. There is an anarchist slogan that translates to something like: In the world of the elite, we are all foreigners. Which basically means that no matter where you come from (and whether you think nationalisticaly), you will always be a replacable, expendable pawn. Unless you take that power back that is. Therefore from my perspective, if the american people really want to prosper, they need to take control of their government, beat corruption and take back the money that has been stolen from them by the banks and mega corporations before these institutions deplete all the resources and poison the planet and turn everyone into their minions. Otherwise, by trying to annex neighbouring countries, you actually doing them a mega favour sacrificing american and non-american lives to make richer and more powerfull than they already are.

Hope I've covered your quetstion...

Already in-progress.

Stay tuned for .....
The Amero: The Dollar of the new North American Trade Union
The InterAmerican HighSpeed Rail Network, Quebec to Guadalajara, Anchorage to Panama. Anywhere in the Continent in under a day.

>>8
run for president
Good luck! =)
Your knee-jerk reaction to facts and logic isn't exactly a shock to me, I'm already aware the majority of the population do not like thinking.
>>9
I have a respect for the impartial marxist/socialist/anarchist way of looking at things, my perspective differs because simply taking a pace back to look at things objectively is not enough as you must also analyze the situation logically. History has proven that war is difficult but it has also proven that wars have started over less and will be inevitable once resource depletion hits, it has proven that revolutions accomplish nothing because ideology is limited in it's ability to alter socio-economic conditions beyond their natural state, democracy is 1000s of years old but has only been possible in it's recent form due to industrialization and the rise of an educated middle class, the soviet union indoctrinated the entire population into Karl Marx's philosophy of workers uniting and overthrowing their oppressors yet they never united and overthrew the politburo whom lived in opulent splendor in palaces and manors overlooking their collective farms just as the Tsarist aristocracy did.

So the war is inevitable and the right thing to do is to speed up the process, at the same time democracy will end or at least become extremely corrupt, nationalism and culture are as malleable and fluid as ideology and religion so there is no reason why we can't use something similar to Stalin's famines and purges or Mao's cultural revolution to eradicate Mexican and Canadian nationalism, the fact that US is a nation of immigrants helps to erode the ridiculous superstition that cultures are sacred inviolable entities.

As for the practicality of the war, you are right, the military would have to make some fundamental changes, though many of the existing institutions will still be needed to secure air and naval superiority.

>>11
You don't seem to grasp some very simple concepts:

Wars are destructive for the poeples of both the victor and the looser.

Resource depletion is a matter of choice. It doesm't have to happen. So is the destruction of our natural habitat.

In both cases above, one thing in common that is cristal clear: that the ultra rich and powerfull will become richer and everyone else, regardless of nationality, religion etc., will lose out of this.

Therefore, unless you are a rackafeller or a rothschild, you would have to face terrible concequences from the policy you are suggesting. As I told you before, it would be realy nice to see the US shoot itself on the foot like this because you come out as so self centered andidiotic really, but honestly, I would feel bad for the average american(and mexican and canadian) that would have to die or starve. Face it, your theory is missing the big picture.

PS I used idioic in the ancient athenian sence, not as a swear word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot_(Athenian_democracy)

>>11
Your vomiting of words sure has some flaws, indeed.
You can scream as loud as you want, you can preach your shit to your fellow insanees, you can even take out full-page ads in the paper. In the end, none of your shit's gonna happen, you'll die lonely and the feds will have you on their radar.

>>12
I'm the one not grasping concepts? I can very easily refute your statements.

There are things more destructive than wars and fighting a war to prevent a more destructive war in the future is ultimately less destructive. If we had gone to war with Germany over the sudetenland or gone to war with Japan over their invasion of China ww2 would have been a lot shorter, if we never went to war at all the world would be a far worse place.

Resource depletion isn't a choice because political capital is limited, governments are corrupt, other countries won't listen, people living in poverty aren't going to give up a source of income to protect wildlife, there is no benevolent dictator that can force everyone to make the best use of resources. The only way to stop resource depletion is to use less resources, which means we will experience an economic depression and the instability I've predicted, of course we must put as much effort into developing technology and infrastructure suited to the lack of crude oil and other industrial materials but there is no feasible way that this can be enough and I have doubts that the government will put this project into place soon enough.

The situation is far more complex than you think, you seem to be wishing that everyone instantly become the epitome of moral righteousness but this isn't a real solution, it is an irresponsible perspective, you can't change the world by ignoring the reality that people are corrupt and the ends justify the means.
>>14
I expect to be hated for telling the truth, you're going to have to use a rational argument next time.

Annexing Canada and Mexico is counterproductive. There should be incentives for people to have less children until we're able to colonize other planets.

>>15
<"If we had gone to war with Germany over the sudetenland or gone to war with Japan over their invasion of China ww2 would have been a lot shorter, if we never went to war at all the world would be a far worse place."

I think you're just using an example that suits your needs. You're using examples where the US had international support or where the US is taking a support role. The international community would never back a US expansion war. Also, the US cannot economicaly support another war. Communications-wise, the US has lost its world image as a country that supports democracy and is fighting just wars and it is now thought of as an imperialistic country that wants to get it's hands on every single resource on the planet(not unjustifiably). Therefore, in the case of an american agressive imperialistic war, europe and other alied countries would have interest to oppose american expansionism. After all, if europe and asia embargoed the US, they wouldn't even have to fight it. It would just collapse in the absence of a market to sell their products.

So >>16 is absolutely right: "Annexing Canada and Mexico is counterproductive."

<"Resource depletion isn't a choice because political capital is limited, governments are corrupt, other countries won't listen, people living in poverty aren't going to give up a source of income to protect wildlife, there is no benevolent dictator that can force everyone to make the best use of resources. The only way to stop resource depletion is to use less resources, which means we will experience an economic depression and the instability I've predicted, of course we must put as much effort into developing technology and infrastructure suited to the lack of crude oil and other industrial materials but there is no feasible way that this can be enough and I have doubts that the government will put this project into place soon enough."

Probably unknowingly you are using a 'one way street' arguement. You make is sound as if there is only one way: the one you are suggesting. I do believe in people no matter how corrupt or stupid they get. I do agree that the propblems you stated need to be faced but for example, efiicient recycling technology can vastly reduce the need for new resources and allow for profit during the process as well. Energy wise, if you follow the example of computing where initialy computers where initialy only owned by very large institutions (governments, banks, universities etc), where usualy tremendously large and inefficient and needed special education to be operated. What we see is that when computers started becoming decentralized, they became cheaper, smaller, much more efficient and much easier to program and operate. Now every one had one or two PCs and can more than cover his/her computational need, plus we can do things with computer that we would never have imagined 20 years ago. The computer market became massive and the capitals that where thown into this made tecnological leaps that where never thought possible. The same can happen to energy production if it is decentralised. In plain words, if everyone produces their own energy, in 20 years time we can have much more energy than we can right now imagine, by creating a renewable energy market. The money behind this is trillions.

I think the main problem with this crisis is the pessimistic attitude many people have. The trick is to not get scared. Think clear. Humans got where we're standing because of our brains. We are being pushed into stupidity by people who earn in a day more that we make in a lifetime. It's about time we revolutionize our way of life and take the power back. Before the interests of a small elite make us kill or starve each other. And you know what? we in this together. Americans, mexicans, canadians, europeans, asians, you name it. It's not a matter of nationality. We are all faced by the same issues (some of which you mentioned). We have common problems. If you want to act selfishly, suit yourselves.

You wrong OP but not because of these hippy scrotes and their acres of text, when global warming floods everything and turns the world into a desert we'll all be poor and poor people will stop trying to flood across the border, then we can just form the North American union to try and salvage as much of the economy as we can without politics getting in the way.

Why the fuck would we want to annex Canada and Mexico?

Canada is full of faggoty communist hippie trash who hate Western Civilization.  80% would vote the straight Democrat ticket, 20% would vote Green/Communist/various other fringe groups that aren't even a joke in the US.  We have enough college towns full of nuts, flakes, and fruits in the US.  We certainly don't need any more of them.  It would be one thing to talk about specific provinces.  Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland do contain a preponderance of hard-working White Christian folk who would probably be happier as American citizens, what with lower taxes and more relaxed gun control legislation, and there are considerable reserves of coal, petroleum, and uranium ore in rural Western Canada, as well as lots of good farmland that's productive enough to export grain even in a subarctic climate.  But the bulk of the population is in Ontario and Quebec, which are full of poxy queers and dirty Frenchmen.  We don't want them.

Mexico is full of lazy inbred IQ-55 spics.  Even the most energetic of their race, the two million a year who swim the Rio Grande to sign up for El Guëlfare and register illegally as Democrats, are a net drain on the economy.  "Doing the jobs Americans don't want" (Americans don't want those jobs because they pay almost nothing, and those jobs pay almost nothing as a direct result of the presence of thirty million illiterate wetback peasants willing to work under the table for pennies a day), even if they paid taxes on their incomes, wouldn't pay for even a tenth of the expenses they impose on society by signing up for food stamps, by the genetically encoded proclivity for random insane pointless violence that appears to be the single fundamental of their makeup, by their rush to fill our jails and our welfare rolls, by their refusal to learn our language and our ways and assimilate to our culture, it still would not come close to balancing the books, much less justifying their presence.  Not only do we not wish to take Mexico, we must also send the Mexicans we have back where they came from.  We certainly don't want nor need any more of them.

The chokehold that cultural Marxism holds on academia and government institutions is terrifying. Any kind of dissenting opinion in a university nowadays would be grounds for expulsion. Try to write a report on The Bell Curve or any other scientific work on genetic group and intelligence and you'd probably be called for "hate speech".

This is exactly what doublethink is. Think about it. What is diversity?

Where is diversity of opinion in our universities? Where is the protection for the discussion of unpopular, but possibly true, opinions?

NOWHERE. Universities have a party line and another who defects from it is crushed. They are no longer institutions of learning: they are vehicles of propaganda and social experiments.

Diversity eh? What good is it to have a bunch of different skin colors if we all think the same?

Equality? Giving blacks an unfair advantage compared to whites or Asians purely because of his race? That is equality? Hiring or enrolling black students over a more competent white student?

Tolerance? Expelling anyone who disagrees with you? That is tolerance?

Ahem. SO, bitches....
DON'T LOSE HOPE DON'T LOSE HOPE - YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO THIS IF THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE AT.

YOU ARE PEOPLE WITH POTENTIAL OR WHY WOULD WE BE HERE? WE ARE THE LISBETH SALANDAR'S AND GANDHI'S OF OUR TIME! WE ALL WANT TO SAVE THE WORLD DEEP DOWN, AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND MESS WITH THE WORLD. SO READ ON IF YOU WANT TO. your choice. Red pill vs. blue pill.


I'm not crazy, I'm not a troll. But, I love the Matrix, Stephen King's Dreamcatcher and Food Incorporated.

If any of you hate the corporations like Cargill, Perdue (if you speak french, this name is ironic) and the destruction that others like them are wreaking upon the earth and humanity in the name of profit, then I invite 4chan to expose them. Take the red pill, and the most rocking trip since time began.

If I have inadvertantly posted in the wrong board, please forgive me and direct me to another. This same message will appear again and again until Anonymous finds it and chooses to act. or not. I mean, it's up to them. But, if they've successfully targeted Scientology then American corporations and special interests ought to be a piece of cake.

Ready for the revolution?

>>20
Muahahaaaa!

They don't take your racist shit seriously there either eh? Maybe it's because you reach the conclusion first and then you try to find the theory to substantiate it. This is not science my friend.

PS. I take it you are the usual racist troll that resides in /newpol/. Xecuse me if you're not and ignore the above.

>>21 Ready for revolution?

Ready to stfu?

Most universities are research facilities trying to study shit that can win the grants from the government and coorporations. This is their primary objective.  If hard working honest Christians can just be a little more creative and have the desire to produce a new idea that can make America an economically dominant leader of the world..  I'm sure that Universities will cater more toward conservative minded citizens.

Heisann Montebello - I speak your language, you speak mine.

GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO

Don't hesitate

Don't think, just do

Be unattached, but loving to all humankind.

fuck some shit up, honeybun

Just remember what the jedi said. If you haven't watched star wars, you should.

>>24
There's a saying that goes: "It's either the shore that's wrong, or we're sailing the wrong way"

If you get it, you get it...

>>25
You go sister!

mmmh hmm

The sad truth is imperialism is a good thing in the longer scheme of things because it unites people, removes borders and passes on the technology to the conquered groups, this invites economic growth, economic growth means socio-economic conditions favorable to political reform which helps the common man, not the elite trying to hold onto power in the inferior state.

Imperialism is only wrong when the imperialist can't win. In the future a shock attack on Mexico in support of a puppet regime will be feasible in the face of a global panic and depression, as we watch that country collapse it will be a crime not to.

>>24
No, most universities are bastions of leftist politics, and the more leftist or non-white they get, the more money they make. The idea that universities do "research" is a fantasy, universities are marxist indoctrination camps.

Yes, it's true. Don't let the clusterfuck of retarded conspiracy theories and undiagnosed schizos who have developed obsessions over them fool you into thinking such a bleak outlook on the future is incorrect.

It is actually pretty rational to be anxious about the consequences of resource depletion and overpopulation, we can expect a resurgence in nationalist authoritarianism as we watch charitable societies get dragged into the raw sewage and I very much doubt Mexico and much of south and central American to get off very easily, though conditions there will be far better than conditions in the already overpopulated old world.

The war is inevitable.

>>30
You are clueless, the jews run our society, if trends keep goiung as they are, whites will be an decreasing minority and slaves, living in gated communities constantly oppressed and victimized. Even more so then today.

um mm you annex Canada and i will personally kill every one who drinks water from Washington to Cali....

ps you stupid fucks can handle Arab terrorists...
we have a hell of a lot more power to fuck with you than they do...

i have an American passport..
in fact im an American citizen... good luck profiling me faggots.

o yeah and remember 1812?

Nobody will annex Mexico.  You are supposed to annex land that is an asset, not a liability.