We know that the United States acquired land from France (Louisiana Purchase), Spain (Adams-Onís Treaty), Great Britain (Oregon) Russia (Alaska Purchase), Mexico (Mexican-American War) and Republic of Texas and Hawaii. There were attempts to take the Philippines as well. Though I have already knew about these information of US History, it rang my memory about my thoughts of the United States acquiring more land. For now, my thoughts is that the United States in the future might buy part or the whole of Mexico. This will most likely end the immigration crossing the border, along having billions of dollars spent in remaking Mexico a richer place with more profit involved benefiting both the United States and Mexico under US control. Many will approve this, but having many will be against it. After all, Mexico is a country of manufacturing in marketing for the US. Any other Central American countries may also be bought, if it could include north of South America. Since the state of Hawaii is part of the United States, more islands in the Pacific can also be acquired. Of course the United States will never acquire any land from Europe, Australia, Canada or Europe. Africa can be promising to be under US or any European country since a game like Halo 2 have maps that represented Africa that looked like industrial Buildings. If the United States expanded, or if any other country have or even a Korea merge. This will surely affect the world a lot. As far as the US can acquire, I actually approve it if there is no casualties involved. What would be your opinion?

We know that the United States acquired land from France (Louisiana Purchase), Spain (Adams-Onís Treaty), Great Britain (Oregon) Russia (Alaska Purchase), Mexico (Mexican-American War) and Republic of Texas and Hawaii. There were attempts to take the Philippines as well. Though I have already knew about these information of US History, it rang my memory about my thoughts of the United States acquiring more land.

For now, my thoughts is that the United States in the future might buy part or the whole of Mexico. This will most likely end the immigration crossing the border, along having billions of dollars spent in remaking Mexico a richer place with more profit involved benefiting both the United States and Mexico under US control. Many will approve this, but having many will be against it. After all, Mexico is a country of manufacturing in marketing for the US. Any other Central American countries may also be bought, if it could include north of South America. Since the state of Hawaii is part of the United States, more islands in the Pacific can also be acquired.

Of course the United States will never acquire any land from Europe, Australia, Canada or Europe. Africa can be promising to be under US or any European country since a game like Halo 2 have maps that represented Africa that looked like industrial Buildings.

If the United States expanded, or if any other country have or even a Korea merge. This will surely affect the world a lot. As far as the US can acquire, I actually approve it if there is no casualties involved.

What would be your opinion?

The US acquiring Mexico, or any place else, isn't going to change corruption of local authorities. The status quo will remain, and the only way the border crossing issue will be solved is if the legal immigration criteria are made tenable, otherwise we are just pushing the problem further south. Then there is the issue of the naturalization of people that actually live in the place the US annexes, what sort of solution to you suggest there?

The US acquiring Mexico, or any place else, isn't going to change corruption of local authorities. The status quo will remain, and the only way the border crossing issue will be solved is if the legal immigration criteria are made tenable, otherwise we are just pushing the problem further south. Then there is the issue of the naturalization of people that actually live in the place the US annexes, what sort of solution to you suggest there?

I like the idea I think that the American government would be able to raise the standards of living wherever they decide to expand to. There would still be a level of corruption in these countries but when the USA has the ability to police those villains without having to invade a country (because it would be their own). The level of crime and violence would surely drop. Also I think that America would do a great job of using the resources that country has to offer and to create new jobs to bring down the unemployment rating.

I like the idea I think that the American government would be able to raise the standards of living wherever they decide to expand to. There would still be a level of corruption in these countries but when the USA has the ability to police those villains without having to invade a country (because it would be their own). The level of crime and violence would surely drop. Also I think that America would do a great job of using the resources that country has to offer and to create new jobs to bring down the unemployment rating.

We would be at war with other countries over our new territories.

We would be at war with other countries over our new territories.

I see no reason why the U.S would need more land, whether it be through war or through diplomacy. It is a huge mass of land, and growing populations would be the problem behind needing more land. As for economic benefits, good trading agreements could also benefit both groups. I also kind of think that Americans as a hole are so simple minded and patriotic, and may not re-act nicely to foreigners now being equals to themselves.

I see no reason why the U.S would need more land, whether it be through war or through diplomacy. It is a huge mass of land, and growing populations would be the problem behind needing more land. As for economic benefits, good trading agreements could also benefit both groups. I also kind of think that Americans as a hole are so simple minded and patriotic, and may not re-act nicely to foreigners now being equals to themselves.

The only possible way for a country to gain more land is a war. And most countries wouldn't let the US to get more territories.

The only possible way for a country to gain more land is a war. And most countries wouldn't let the US to get more territories.

Well Alaska was a purchase because the Russians needed funding for a war... Technically the country that gained land didn't go to war over it.

Well Alaska was a purchase because the Russians needed funding for a war...
Technically the country that gained land didn't go to war over it.

[quote=name:Rantent]Well Alaska was a purchase because the Russians needed funding for a war... Technically the country that gained land didn't go to war over it.[/quote] Heh, didn't know that. Anyway there was a war going on and the population of Alaska is not really big.

Quote from Rantent

Well Alaska was a purchase because the Russians needed funding for a war...
Technically the country that gained land didn't go to war over it.

Heh, didn't know that. Anyway there was a war going on and the population of Alaska is not really big.

As soon as our current war is done, a new one will start. Doubtful it'll be for land. It's not like all of America is settled...

As soon as our current war is done, a new one will start. Doubtful it'll be for land. It's not like all of America is settled...

[color=#b5b5ff]I highly doubt the US will ever again see strategic value in land for land's sake; whenever we conquered new land, it was empty land that we could move our people onto (giving free land catalyzed the standard of living in the US between 1750 and 1870). In the same way that even some expansionists opposed US retention of the Philippines in 1901, it would not be at all advantageous for the US to annex a place like Mexico, mired in poverty that would only bring down our economy. Furthermore, such a merger would speed up the havoc being wreaked by NAFTA. If the US is ever motivated to try to annex more territory, it will come, like Iraq, with the contempt of the civilized world, and it would only be in a place tha is rich in natural resources.[/color]

I highly doubt the US will ever again see strategic value in land for land's sake; whenever we conquered new land, it was empty land that we could move our people onto (giving free land catalyzed the standard of living in the US between 1750 and 1870). In the same way that even some expansionists opposed US retention of the Philippines in 1901, it would not be at all advantageous for the US to annex a place like Mexico, mired in poverty that would only bring down our economy. Furthermore, such a merger would speed up the havoc being wreaked by NAFTA.

If the US is ever motivated to try to annex more territory, it will come, like Iraq, with the contempt of the civilized world, and it would only be in a place tha is rich in natural resources.

If only Mexico had tons and tons of gold.

If only Mexico had tons and tons of gold.

Mexico may not have bountyful ammounts of mineral deposits, but they have many suitable "Plantation Areas"

Mexico may not have bountyful ammounts of mineral deposits, but they have many suitable "Plantation Areas"

The Iraq and Afghan wars could be wars for more U.S. Territory.

The Iraq and Afghan wars could be wars for more U.S. Territory.

[i]Why[/i] would US need more land? Is it not bloated enough as it is?

Why would US need more land? Is it not bloated enough as it is?

Oh, yes, that it is. More land would probably be more of an economic detriment then something to help - any nearby land is not up to U.S. standards (except, maybe, for Canada... but who cares about Canada, eh?), so improving living standards would waste gold, and the natural resources probably won't make up for it.. the only great achievement I see this doing is perhaps allowing the US to buy out the world, but we know that's not happening.

Oh, yes, that it is. More land would probably be more of an economic detriment then something to help - any nearby land is not up to U.S. standards (except, maybe, for Canada... but who cares about Canada, eh?), so improving living standards would waste gold, and the natural resources probably won't make up for it.. the only great achievement I see this doing is perhaps allowing the US to buy out the world, but we know that's not happening.

The US probably won't annex more land, they'd put puppet dictators in countries of interest to control natural resources without having to actually invest a lot in the country. Or corporations will implant themselves there and take all the resources with cheap labor. Oh wait, but that's already happening. [quote]but who cares about Canada, eh?[/quote] I care a lot actually, considering I live there.

The US probably won't annex more land, they'd put puppet dictators in countries of interest to control natural resources without having to actually invest a lot in the country. Or corporations will implant themselves there and take all the resources with cheap labor. Oh wait, but that's already happening.

Quote

but who cares about Canada, eh?

I care a lot actually, considering I live there.

How does Halo relate to the US wanting to acquire land from Africa, lulz. (I think Centreri was being sarcastic about Canada..)

How does Halo relate to the US wanting to acquire land from Africa, lulz.

(I think Centreri was being sarcastic about Canada..)

[quote](I think Centreri was being sarcastic about Canada..)[/quote] At last unofficial count, every 3rd SENner is Canadian, so.. yeah, sarcastic. Bad Fatimid. All that's not to mention that we can abuse countries via trade all we want while they're separate. We can't do that if we annex them.

Quote

(I think Centreri was being sarcastic about Canada..)

At last unofficial count, every 3rd SENner is Canadian, so.. yeah, sarcastic. Bad Fatimid.

All that's not to mention that we can abuse countries via trade all we want while they're separate. We can't do that if we annex them.

[quote] All that's not to mention that we can abuse countries via trade all we want while they're separate. We can't do that if we annex them.[/quote] If you annex them, theres a better way of abusing the area by a method called 'laws'.

Quote

All that's not to mention that we can abuse countries via trade all we want while they're separate. We can't do that if we annex them.

If you annex them, theres a better way of abusing the area by a method called 'laws'.

[quote]yeah, sarcastic. Bad Fatimid.[/quote] Sorry, my sarcasm detector has been somewhat turned off for the past few days. Maybe it's because I'm overrun with schoolwork, if so, it'll be back on tomorrow evening. [quote]If you annex them, theres a better way of abusing the area by a method called 'laws'.[/quote] But then you'd have to pay labour more, give them all the advantages of American residents, give access to education, decent health care, better housing, etc. All together, that costs a LOT, plus that chunk of population won't be a decent taxpayer for many years.

Quote

yeah, sarcastic. Bad Fatimid.

Sorry, my sarcasm detector has been somewhat turned off for the past few days. Maybe it's because I'm overrun with schoolwork, if so, it'll be back on tomorrow evening.

Quote

If you annex them, theres a better way of abusing the area by a method called 'laws'.

But then you'd have to pay labour more, give them all the advantages of American residents, give access to education, decent health care, better housing, etc. All together, that costs a LOT, plus that chunk of population won't be a decent taxpayer for many years.