Mexico? You’ve got to be kidding. Bush knows a quagmire when he sees one. Besides, he speaks Mexican; some say a lot better than he speaks American.
Why not Venezueala? They’ve got tons of oil and it’s just a hop, skip and a jump from the good old US of A. With the prices of fuel these days you can’t afford to go starting wars on the other side o the world. And they are starting to scream socialism. That word shrieks in a republican’s ears.
[quote=“Shin-Gua”]Why isn’t Mexico a choice??[/quote] Probably becasue they are invading us and ‘reclaiming’ their lands. (awaits with baited breath for the critism 
)
As for Vezauala(sp) the crackpot leader already thinks we are trying to invade them… 
We should invade and conquer Mexico.
There are many advantages:
-
Instead of giving citizenship to Mexicans over a period of years with amnesties and so on, we just get it over with.
-
The Mexican people are not anywhere near as crazy as the Iraqis, and it should be a lot easier to pacify the place.
-
Mexico has a lot more oil than you think. Maybe more than Iraq.
-
The new Mexican government (the Bush administration) will be slightly less corrupt than the current Mexican government.
Okay, Mexico it is then. The Eskimos can wait until later. Where is Mexico on the map, though? I can’t find it.
Finland must be destroyed, and then Iceland. They’re too peaceful, something is most definately going on. Destroy them now and find the proof of guilt in the ashes.
Ahhh…don’t f*ck with Finland.
They never surrendered in WWII and gave quite a good account for them selves.
Also, they make very fine rifles and knives - and know how to use both.
Dem Fin’s ain’t no frenchies…
No, don’t mess with the Finns.
Of course, the Brits surrendered to the French, which makes the French not such good whipping boys either. I forget American History 101, where was that? Charleston? Yorktown?
[quote=“Jaboney”]Of course, the Brits surrendered to the French, which makes the French not such good whipping boys either. I forget American History 101, where was that? Charleston? Yorktown?[/quote]Do try to keep the historical references somewhat timely and relevant.
hee hee…
Keep history timely. Get it?
oi.
:raspberry:
We already invaded Mexico once and took half their land. We should have finished the job and taken over the entire country. Yucatan would now be a prosperous American state full of SUV driving yuppies instead of a third world shithole if we’d incorporated it into the U.S. like the Southwest. Why not?
But seriously, the obvious answer would have to be Saudi Arabia. Nearly all of the 9/11 terrorists were from there, including Bin Laden himself. They have lots of oil. Their schools spread virulent anti-American propaganda. They are an objectively evil nation with virtually no human rights, that still practices slavery in all but official name. And the sweetest part is, the U.S. military wouldn’t even have to invade. Since virtually all Saudi aircraft are piloted by foreigners (as the natives are too uneducated/lazy to do it themselves), we’d just have to pay off the Pakistanis and such who pilot for them. Half of the people living in Saudi Arabia are guest workers, who do all the work. That means that the guest workers have total control over the means of production and nuts & bolts running of Saudi society…all we’d have to do was call for a general strike/takeover by the foreign guestworkers and Saudi Arabians would be on their knees in hours. No need for bullets.
[quote]No, don’t mess with the Finns.
[/quote]
Word. I don’t know jack about Finland, but I’m watching the BBC documentary “When Hitler Fought Stalin”. In going over the events leading up to Germany attacking Russia, they quickly cover the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939. They interview an old Russian soldier who took part in the invasion, and his comments are:
“It was like the forest itself was shooting at us.”
Back on topic, shouldn’t Cuba be on the list? I mean, Castro has been giving the finger to like nine U.S. presidents now. Invade Cuba finally get some good pitchers.
[quote=“Chaon”][quote]No, don’t mess with the Finns.
[/quote]
Word. I don’t know Jack about Finland, but I’m watching the BBC documentary “When Hitler Fought Stalin”. In going over the events leading up to Germany attacking Russia, they quickly cover the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939. They interview an old Russian soldier who took part in the invasion, and his comments are:
“It was like the forest itself was shooting at us.”
Back on topic, shouldn’t Cuba be on the list? I mean, Castro has been giving the finger to like nine U.S. presidents now. Invade Cuba finally get some good pitchers.[/quote]
And an island getaway! On the cheap!
If we’re going to invade Cuba we should probably take out Miami too. Otherwise our supply lines could be disrupted.
Never mind on the Mexico thing. I found it on my map. For some reason it was labeled “South Los Angeles.”
BTW, we neocons don’t like to be called neocons. We consider it a derogatory term, like Mafia.
We prefer to be called “you guys”, “wise guys”, “the people formerly known as conservatives.” Any of those handles are okay. Just don’t call us neocons, thank you.
Neocapos?
Yes. Cuba definitely should be on the list, but I can’t edit it now. But it’s clear that Canada is the plum that begs picking in most Forumosans minds. I blame the backpack appliques.
Maybe Canada should get a move on and develop nuclear weapons just in case. Maybe invasion of Canada is the real operation behind ‘Area-51’.
Canada already has nuclear weapons. Aren’t you Canucks still part of the British Empire? I mean, you’ve got the Queen on your currency and everything.
No. No nukes in Canada. But being one of the main sources of America’s imported oil has got to have us feeling a little nervous these days. Especially with the likes of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld at the helm south of the border. And with the black gold hitting $71 a barrel you get a little extra twitch.
[quote=“spook”]
BTW, we neocons don’t like to be called neocons. We consider it a derogatory term, like Mafia.
We prefer to be called “you guys”, “wise guys”, “the people formerly known as conservatives.” Any of those handles are okay. Just don’t call us neocons, thank you.[/quote]
I’m thinking before this is all over a lotta y’all will be called neoconvicts.
Trust me when I tell you that spook is not a neocon or even a con but a convict? that could be possible though I doubt it would be a neo thing. haha