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[/quote]
I know, I know, I was (half) jesting. spook has always struck me as more of a neoliberal.
I’ll have you know, my dear sir, that our currency displays our beloved sovereign, HM QEII ( "Liz " to her loyal subjects), the Queen of CANADA.
I understand she also has some relationship to a small group of islands scattered in the North Sea.
Canada has been proudly independent since… 1982.
If Canada doesn’t classify its water resources as a commodity then we might run into The United States demanding we hand that over. Shit, we give oil away but I would hope to God that we smarten up with our H2O resources. Shit, we all know the USA is capable of just about anything. “All options on the table” so to speak.
Operation: Wet N’ Wild
Some Euros and Yanks have already started to buy up land (lakes) in Canada as a viable investment. It may not happen in the next few years but in a few decades, the USA is fucked for fresh water.
[quote=“Toe Tag”]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.[/quote]
Classic Award 
:bravo: 
Bodo
Bodo:
You do seem to be easily impressed and rather generous with your applause… Ah well, then… enthusiasm, tis a fine thing…
Equatorial Guinea.
Lots of oil; insanely corrupt government; major human rights abuser.
No downside to an invasion - I think the citizens would even welcome one.
It’s starting to look like we’re going to need to invade Iraq next before it has a chance to turn into a linchpin between that duo of dastardliness, Syria and Iran. Apparently Iraq is coalescing with Iran and Syria into a new Axis of Evil now that that megalomaniac Saddam Hussein is out of the way and no longer acts as a Baathist barrier between the two.
Let’s roll!
Mideast ‘axis’ forms against West
Iran is forging closer ties with countries and groups in the Middle East that share its hostility toward the US and Israel. . . .
Centered on Iran, this alignment has hardened in recent months, analysts say, with Tehran shoring up old alliances and strengthening ties with countries (Syria and Iraq) . . .
The alliance, which is ad hoc and tactical rather than a formalized strategic pact, includes Syria and groups such as Lebanon’s Hizbullah, the Iran-backed militant Shiite organization, radical Palestinian organizations such as Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command as well as some Iraqi allies. . . .
Iran is the driving force behind the alliance, its strategic position in the region enhanced by the US-led effort to oust Tehran’s Taliban enemy in Afghanistan to the east and its Baathist foe in Iraq to the west.
. . .
“This is an anti-America alliance,” says Joshua Landis, professor of history at the University of Oklahoma . . . “My guess is that the US will end up in a weaker position than it started. The war on terror has alienated the Muslim countries who now believe that America is the big bad ogre and specter of imperialism.”. . .
A series of Middle East elections also bolstered the emerging alliance. In late December, Shiite factions close to Tehran dominated the Iraqi elections. The following month, Hamas triumphed in the Palestinian elections, granting Iran greater leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. . . .
The alliance includes the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, who in visits to Tehran and Damascus in January and February vowed to come to the defense “by all possible means” of Iran and Syria if attacked by the US.
. . . In February, Iran and Syria inked sweeping economic and trade agreements including one establishing gas, oil, railroad, and electrical links between Syria and Iran via Iraq. Both countries are looking to the emerging economic powerhouses of Asia to build new trade ties as an alternative to Europe and the West."
You wish you mattered enough to be invaded. (dodges flying tomatoes)
Well, then the U.S. will just manufacture some fresh water, then.
[quote=“stan”]Oh, and to answer the OP’s question: The US should not invade any other country next. Maybe they can finish what they’re doing (or trying to do) in Iraq first?
I see another Vietnam. Tail between the legs kinda tactical withdrawal thing.
Apologies for my statement to the Vietnam veterans. It’s hard fighting a war without the support of your people. I see Iraq going the same way.[/quote]
May as well apologize to the Iraq veterans, while you’re at it.
Mexico, I almost forgot…
-
They humbled the USA 2-1 in the inaugaral baseball classic.
-
They have WMDs. Probably hidden under those pyramids. Gonna find 'em any day now…
A friend just emailed this to me.
Why the U.S. Must Invade Canada (Salon, 2003)
[quote]…
Bush’s real concern will be the state of the Canadian economy. It’s currently outpacing the U.S. quite nicely. Canada’s budget deficits are under control while America’s soar; the once-pathetic Canadian dollar is climbing steadily against the U.S. buck. Once Americans realize that even a dope-addled nation enveloped in a giggling fog can do a better job of running its economy than the Republicans are doing, it will be curtains for Bush. America’s next president will be Dr. Dre. An invasion must begin now.
…[/quote]
Nah, now that we’ve got the conservatives in power up there we can just annex them…no invasion necessary. 