Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 04/07/2003 2:04:47 PM PDT by tentmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: tentmaker
The author is wrong. Empires do not necessarily wholly incorporate conquered territory into a common administrative structure. The British certainly didn't.
2 posted on 04/07/2003 2:06:59 PM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tentmaker
The last permanent addition to American territory by force of arms was in the Spanish-American War, more than a century ago. Empires don't go home.

Unless I'm mistaken, all we held from then is Puerto Rico, which can vote itself independent or for full statehood at any time it chooses. It regularly chooses to do neither.

4 posted on 04/07/2003 2:14:03 PM PDT by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tentmaker
Invading Canada would be like "The Ransom of Red Chief." We'd have to pay them to take it back.
5 posted on 04/07/2003 2:16:10 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Canadian Outrage
We are not restrained by treaty.
We are perfectly capable of tearing one up if we wish.

We have been restrained for nearly 200 years by good will.
The present Canadian Govt. has just about used that up.

Canukistan Ping

SO9

6 posted on 04/07/2003 2:20:16 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine (We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tentmaker
The author was, on the whole, correct. But what he didn't say was that building an empire requires conquest.

Conquest is messy.

Americans don't mind messy - look closely at our guys in uniform blowin' things up! - but it is not our preferred way of dealing with other nations. We prefer to find common grounds for a relationship.

13 posted on 04/07/2003 2:44:18 PM PDT by goody2shooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tentmaker
Let's see: small population, mostly pacifists, huge land area, vast natural resources including oil, coal, iron, etc..., no military to speak of, no natural barriers to an invasion, unfriendly behaviour lately, and lots more.

Let's Roll!

14 posted on 04/07/2003 2:45:20 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tentmaker
The Independent newspaper wonders whether the war has "a sinister, wider purpose, warning other rogue states, and perhaps other states, too, that this is what they can expect if they trouble the world's only superpower?"

Gee, warning other rogue states not to trouble us - what offensive behavior on our part! I'm so ashamed - NOT.

The Bush Doctrine is clear, simple and just:

1) Don't F with us, and we won't F with you. In fact, we may even trade with you and help you out on occasion - i.e. we'd rather get along.

2) If #1 isn't good enough for you, be assured that we can open up a very large can of whoopass and deliver it to your home via Armed Forces Express ("AFE, when it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight").

(Semi-sincere apologies to the more diplomatic out there, but this is really what it says - diplomacy is, after all, the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a big rock).

17 posted on 04/07/2003 3:10:30 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson