Why we (America) should just conquer the Lands of Canada

[Ajidica]

How is the USA unique in applying military force? How is that relevant? Next explain how the USA is an empire.

So the approximately 800 or so foreign US military bases are just there for sightseeing?

Did the USA conquer Japan? Hmmm. I guess Japan pays for its fealty as a vassal.

Egypt and Iraq were never conquered by the United Kingdom, but I somehow think saying they weren't part of the British Empire is missing the point.

How about Germany? Italy? Pick a country and show how they lie within US borders.

West Germany only became sovereign in 1990.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Notice he answered none of my questions.

 

[Ajidica]

It isn't my fault you ask bad questions.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Does the CIA's activities in south and central america during the cold war count? (although if they didn't the soviets would have...) Or overthrowing the elected government of Iran and installing the Shah? But again, cold war, US just got their first. Vietnam(although that was partly if not mostly France's fault, thanks a bunch de Gaulle!) Most US imperialism was more along the lines of covert cloak-and-dagger stuff.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

How can there be imperialism if there is no American empire? How is that any different than any other country like Russia, China, France, the UK, etc? How does that pertain to Free Trade?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Not-Quite-Imperialism-But-close? Kinda hard to pin down american foreign policy with one term, kinda like trying to classify a paranoid bi-polar schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder using one term. Lost Cause? Lunaticarianism? Narcissism? Potato? Banana? Peanut Butter Jelly Time?
And the underlying goal of free trade is for the rich to get richer, but now our economies are kinda dependent on it. Kinda like how many farms in the states are dependent on illegal immigrants to do all the grunt work.(and yet their owners still voted trump)
My point is a bowling ball. People are stupid.

 

[Cutlass]

How can there be imperialism if there is no American empire? How is that any different than any other country like Russia, China, France, the UK, etc? How does that pertain to Free Trade?

Explain to me how America is not an empire?

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Nope. The burden of proof is on those who claim America is an empire by definition. Well provide evidence and then show how there is an impetus to invade and conquer Canada and specifically due to arguments over Free Trade.

The only tiny bit of land claimed through war is a Guantanemo in Cuba. Puerto Rico long ago could have been a state but refuses to follow through and is certainly welcome to seek self-determination.

America has a history of ceding back gained territory unlike every other nation. You can't be an empire if you fail to enlarge your borders. How silly it is to criticize the very American military which thus results in low taxes for allied nations so they themselves have unrealistic defense budgets.

Meanwhile Free Trade has seriously harmed the world's citizens by imposing unrealistically abysmal worker pay and benefits. It encourages sweatshops and is not enlightened nor allows workers to own private property which is the sound basis for autonomy through economic power.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nope. The burden of proof is on those who claim America is an empire by definition. Well provide evidence and then show how there is an impetus to invade and conquer Canada and specifically due to arguments over Free Trade.

There was no discussion of "conquering Canada specifically due to arguments over free trade." The thread was started as a JOKE, until you came along and we had a heterodyne situation where two jokes combine to make a dying thread.

By the way, when we need to appoint an arbiter to determine where burdens of proof lie we'll give you a call. Hold your breath.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

In other words it's an America bashing thread since Trump is the president and is nothing more than a new attack on the Right.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Not an attack on the Right, An attack on Trump and the Alt-right. Besides, i've already made it clear that any invasion of Canada is doomed to fail because we Canadians possess the Nickelbieber. The ultimate doomsday weapon.

 

[Ajidica]

How can there be imperialism if there is no American empire? How is that any different than any other country like Russia, China, France, the UK, etc? How does that pertain to Free Trade?

Have you really not heard of francafrique?
Unless, of course, you are saying that France had near-constant military actions in its former colonies throughout the Cold War because for reasons other than the fact it viewed those countries as part of France.

America has a history of ceding back gained territory unlike every other nation. You can't be an empire if you fail to enlarge your borders.

So, that's a no on calling the Soviet Union an empire then. The SSRs were sovereign nations with representation at the United Nations and countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia were independent states freely aligning themselves with the Warsaw Pact and COMECON.
Wouldn't have you down for a Soviet apologist, but, hey, I'm not judging.

In other words it's an America bashing thread since Trump is the president and is nothing more than a new attack on the Right.

I've been critical of the "American Empire" and continued sordid attempts at an Imperial foreign policy by other countries since I've become aware of the concept about eight years ago.
You can blame His Trumpiness for many things, but my opposition to this predates him. Not everything is about him.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In other words it's an America bashing thread since Trump is the president and is nothing more than a new attack on the Right.

If I need a translator I'll give you a call. Hold your breath for that too.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

How would I ever be Soviet apologist merely because I didn't include them? They are arguably the worst of the empire building nations.

It's remarkable that those pro-Labor supported Trump yet their own party accelerated the job loss of union members through Free Trade like NAFTA. He's hardly a conservative Republican but historically a Reagan Democrat and a populist. And that is why so many Republicans do not support him, although they are just neocons and not Republicans themselves.

Go back and read American political history where labor members voted for Reagan. This actually came up during the election as pro-labor congress members stated they understood the ethos of Trump and could work with him.

 

[Broken_Erika]

We expect the complete unconditional surrender of the US, or you will feel the wrath of the Nickelbieber! And the whole world shall tremble in fear! No one will be spared! NO ONE!!!!!!!!

 

[Ajidica]

How would I ever be Soviet apologist merely because I didn't include them? They are arguably the worst of the empire building nations.

Why? By your logic they stopped being an empire since 1940. The RSFSR gave up territory to the UkSSR, removed trade barriers between member states in COMECON, and willingly ceded power to national governments permitting them to embark on national cultural identity policies.

It's remarkable that those pro-Labor supported Trump yet their own party accelerated the job loss of union members through Free Trade like NAFTA. He's hardly a conservative Republican but historically a Reagan Democrat and a populist.

If Trump is so pro-labor*, why is the DoJ siding against AFSCME in Janus?

I'm also not sure where you get the idea Reagan -or Reagan Democrats- were against free trade. Indeed, Reagan was very much the champion of free trade and Mondale was the preferred candidate of the labor unions.

Clinton lobbied hard for NAFTA largely to show he was indeed a new kind of Democrat—neither hostile to business nor a captive of labor unions. Reagan had most of the hard-core free traders on his side from the start, and they weren't about to defect to Walter Mondale just because Reagan proved impure.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2002/03/trading_places.html

Even if the Democratic nominee opposes the Nafta, he might not go to the mat to defeat it. The candidates remember that former Vice President Walter Mondale was hurt by waving a protectionist flag in the 1984 primaries, and that economic nationalism did no good for Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt in 1988.

https://www.joc.com/nafta-and-1992-elections_19911212.html

So yeah, when your "Reagan Democrats" -who you think are so concerned about protectionism and pro-labor policies- voted in a landslide against a candidate with one of the strongest protectionist and pro-labor policies seen in American politics since the 1930's and the Farmer-Labor parties, forgive me for being skeptical of your claims.

*I clearly read too much stuff from the UK. I keep wanting to type Labour.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We expect the complete unconditional surrender of the US, or you will feel the wrath of the Nickelbieber! And the whole world shall tremble in fear! No one will be spared! NO ONE!!!!!!!!

Demonstrate that this Nicklebieber actually exists. The burden of proof is on you. And no one is taking you anything less than seriously because obviously this thread was opened for the sole purpose of planning the pending all out war between the US and Canada.

 

[Patine]

Oh, oh, I have a reason. It would more than double the number of sensible, rational, thoughtful, non-easily-impressionable, and educated on non-parochial matters citizens of the U.S.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, oh, I have a reason. It would more than double the number of sensible, rational, thoughtful, easily-impressionable, and educated on non-parochial matters citizens of the U.S.

I think you are fudging the math with the "doubling," but I have no doubt that such people would handily outnumber the deplorables once and for all.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Demonstrate that this Nicklebieber actually exists. The burden of proof is on you. And no one is taking you anything less than seriously because obviously this thread was opened for the sole purpose of planning the pending all out war between the US and Canada.

It hasn't been created . Yet. because once created. There can be no controlling or stopping it. A combination of Nickelback and Justin Bieber.

Now Imagine them performing a duo with Justin Bieber. Playing a Fusion of the most annoying songs from both of them. (And having all the members of Nickelback + Justin Bieber fused into one grotesque chimera-like monstrocity.) That. Is Nickelbieber.

Their first move would be a remix of "It's too bad" fused with Justin Bieber's "Baby" which will assault americans through their radios and itunes playlists.
Unfortunately; definitive proof would require releasing an image of the Nickelbieber Chimera or a sample of its music. Both of which are considered crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva convention.*
*not to mention i don't have photoshop