The extended united states

[Dr. Zaus]

What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

Why not just stop using our "military wealth" to benefit other countries? We could "right-size" our military so that it is used for DEFENSIVE purposes only, and only for the defense of our nation (including embassies and any remaining military bases), and save a shit-ton of money.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

Why not just stop using our "military wealth" to benefit other countries? We could "right-size" our military so that it is used for DEFENSIVE purposes only, and only for the defense of our nation (including embassies and any remaining military bases), and save a shit-ton of money.

How much would we save?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

How would you enforce this? Also this sounds like what Rome was doing to its neighboring countries.

Cough, cough, empire, cough, cough.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Ever heard of Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands?

I guess one more organized territory wouldn't hurt...

Read up: Territories of the U.S.

 

[Painman]

Personally, I've been mulling over the viability of annexing Mexico. Oh, it'll never happen, because their labor is cheap, whether said labor takes place in Mexico itself, California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. Or Massachusetts. Or Minnesota.

Americans are "too expensive" to employ; why turn Mexicans into us? Slave labor just across the border... Hell, now it's just across town. Party like it's 1899, people.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

I think you could probably contact a local mafia groups to discuss the logistics of that... how do you say... "protection fee".

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

Why not just stop using our "military wealth" to benefit other countries? We could "right-size" our military so that it is used for DEFENSIVE purposes only, and only for the defense of our nation (including embassies and any remaining military bases), and save a shit-ton of money.

You realize US companies operate abroad and participates in global trade?

 

[OCGuy]

We will annex Canada when the time is right. Now is not the time.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

Why not just stop using our "military wealth" to benefit other countries? We could "right-size" our military so that it is used for DEFENSIVE purposes only, and only for the defense of our nation (including embassies and any remaining military bases), and save a shit-ton of money.

It's a noble idea in thought, but in practice it doesn't work so well. America stands for freedom ect, and that's why we project our military power. To protect our freedom and our allies freedom. Think about it. China fucking hates Japan. If it weren't for the US presence in Japan, China would and could take over the islands very easily. Zerg rush???
Same for the Korea's. The US is keeping N. Korea at bay from wiping out S. Korea, but if We poulled out, N.Korea would advance on S. Korea, and then we are royally fucked as S. Korea provides a lot for the world. (same with Japan). But the list goes on. We kept the Russains out of western Europe so communism and oppression didn't spread. Now the military machine is so ingrained in many places that scaling back would have severe economic repercussions. Sure we would save some money at 1st, but then when all these countries have to turn to upping their military strength to be as effective, they will not be providing as much to the global economy as the money will be being spent internally. (though we could become weapons brokers, but we'd have to beat the Chinese at that game as well)

 

[Lizardman]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski


It's a noble idea in thought, but in practice it doesn't work so well. America stands for freedom ect, and that's why we project our military power. To protect our freedom and our allies freedom. Think about it. China fucking hates Japan. If it weren't for the US presence in Japan, China would and could take over the islands very easily. Zerg rush???
Same for the Korea's. The US is keeping N. Korea at bay from wiping out S. Korea, but if We poulled out, N.Korea would advance on S. Korea, and then we are royally fucked as S. Korea provides a lot for the world. (same with Japan). But the list goes on. We kept the Russains out of western Europe so communism and oppression didn't spread. Now the military machine is so ingrained in many places that scaling back would have severe economic repercussions. Sure we would save some money at 1st, but then when all these countries have to turn to upping their military strength to be as effective, they will not be providing as much to the global economy as the money will be being spent internally. (though we could become weapons brokers, but we'd have to beat the Chinese at that game as well)

First off let me say that we would save Trillions of Dollars over the long run if we did what ebaycj suggested.

Second China wants Taiwan not Japan. Sure China hates Japan but they are not so foolish as to mess with a nation they have no stake in. Taiwan is part of China historically, but currently not as much politically.

North Korea and South Korea should be left up to their own devises. We have equipped the South we enough firepower to blow up all of the North and a good section of China. We should remove all of our troops immediate from there. Same goes with Germany and Japan. Shut down all of these overseas bases that sap billions from our military budget.

America stands for freedom, no one can argue with that. The best way to persuade countries to pursue freedom is through political and economic means. What we did in Germany during WWII does not apply today because we not trying to occupy another country just so Russia can?t have it. We are trying to promote freedom, but we always fail when we do so by force (think of Iraq/Vietnam). Where we are succeeding in promoting freedom is China, and this is because of our economic and political ties, not because we have a huge army in nearby Japan and Korea.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What's the difference between Washington state and British Columbia?

When it comes to the power of our currency, tax base and military strength having separate nations is hurtful to everyone involved. We need a system whereby those countries that are interested in being part of the US protected allies share in our monetary and, in some part, tax system.

I would not suppose some other country pay for or receive entitlements, nor that we offer other political or legal benefits/restrictions to an extended partner. Only that, on a purchasing power parity basis, those nations that benefit from our military wealth pay for the protection we all get and we have open and free trade, as though they are states, between the nations that move to using the extended US dollar.

Why not just stop using our "military wealth" to benefit other countries? We could "right-size" our military so that it is used for DEFENSIVE purposes only, and only for the defense of our nation (including embassies and any remaining military bases), and save a shit-ton of money.

It's a noble idea in thought, but in practice it doesn't work so well. America stands for freedom ect, and that's why we project our military power. To protect our freedom and our allies freedom. Think about it. China fucking hates Japan. If it weren't for the US presence in Japan, China would and could take over the islands very easily. Zerg rush???
Same for the Korea's. The US is keeping N. Korea at bay from wiping out S. Korea, but if We poulled out, N.Korea would advance on S. Korea, and then we are royally fucked as S. Korea provides a lot for the world. (same with Japan). But the list goes on. We kept the Russains out of western Europe so communism and oppression didn't spread. Now the military machine is so ingrained in many places that scaling back would have severe economic repercussions. Sure we would save some money at 1st, but then when all these countries have to turn to upping their military strength to be as effective, they will not be providing as much to the global economy as the money will be being spent internally. (though we could become weapons brokers, but we'd have to beat the Chinese at that game as well)

I don't think Japan and Korea (or even Taiwan) would be as screwed as you think.
South Korea could easily defeat North Korea (as long as nukes weren't used) but with severe damages and loss of life. They have way more advanced military equipment.

Japan could at least hold off China from making beachhead. It's been predicted that even Taiwan could hold off the Chinese navy enough to prevent it from gaining any significant ground force. But Japan has one of the largest and most advanced militaries in the world, despite being defense only. In another 20 years, maybe the Chinese navy will be more capable of invasion.
Of course, that's assuming they wanted to conquer and hold rather than just destroy.