Should Mexico Request Annexation?

[Radrook]

Since the Mexican government seems at loss on what to do with its jobless problem and seems content on the immigration situation perhaps it should throw in the towel and humbly ask the USA to annex it. Not that the USA will-of course. Just a thought.

[Beerina]

They could use a lot more journalism exposing corruption at all levels, which is what keeps business from growing. When the "best" path to wealth in a society is getting a government job because you can stand in the way of business so as to demand kickbacks, this is what you get.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Beerina

They could use a lot more journalism exposing corruption at all levels, which is what keeps business from growing. When the "best" path to wealth in a society is getting a government job because you can stand in the way of business so as to demand kickbacks, this is what you get.

But since they have had plenty of time and nothing happens except for people to flee the suffering, and all the government does is try to gain rights for immigrants who arrive here fleeing their country-why not simplify and request annexation? There is no shame in admitting you just can't solve a problem and giving the land to others who would do a far better job. Of course that idea never crosses their minds. But in my opinion it should.
But since the rich are the ones in charge and they aren't suffering, that request will never be made.

BTW

Santo Domingo applied once for USA annexation and was rejected. Then it requested to be annexed by Spain which obliged. But that situation didn't work out too well.

[Zep]

Originally Posted by Radrook

Santo Domingo applied once for USA annexation and was rejected. Then it requested to be annexed by Spain which obliged. But that situation didn't work out too well.

There's your answer, right there.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Radrook

But since they have had plenty of time and nothing happens except for people to flee the suffering, and all the government does is try to gain rights for immigrants who arrive here fleeing their country

Looks like Mexico better think about getting its act together:

Quote:

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of undocumented workers have been fired as a result of Arizona businesses reviewing the work-eligibility forms of their employees as the state's new employer-sanctions law draws near.

The fired workers couldn't provide missing information uncovered during the reviews or confessed to being in the country illegally, say attorneys involved in the reviews.

The number of firings could grow significantly once the law goes into effect Jan. 1 as employers scramble to make sure they are in compliance. Under the law, repeat violators will lose their business licenses.

The law, signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano in July, is aimed at clamping down on illegal immigration in Arizona by pulling the plug on the job magnet that has drawn undocumented immigrants to the state by the tens of thousands over the past decade.

[Zep]

While I sympathise with the workers, I can't help but think the AZ law is on the right track if the situation is to be addressed by both sides of the problem.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Zep

There's your answer, right there.

But Mexico has much more to offer in terms of natural resources than Santo Domingo. In any case, Mexico narrowly escaped being annexed after the Mexican American War. There was lack of support for annexation but the USA did take more than half of what was once Mexico and found it very lucrative and advantageous. Florida once was governed by Spain and was annexed and has contributed to the USA prosperity. Then the USA asked Spain to sell it Cuba-a request that was rejected. In fact, part of the reason for the Remember the Main incident was a planned annexation since the Manifest Destiny idea was in its heyday then. Then the USA annexed Puerto Rico and tried to annex the Philippines which did not cooperate as Cuba did not cooperate. So the annexation idea
isn't as far fetched as it may seem. In any case, Mexicans are too proud to ask for that type of solution. They would prefer to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. However, with an uncooperative small upper class in power, the masses are practically at their mercy.
So if change is to come it has to start there. But since they are sitting comfortably on their fat asses hell will freeze over first.

In fact, that's the reason why Mexico had so many revolutions. The trampling underfoot of the large lower class or poor by the rich smaller upper class. I'm surprised some type of coup hasn't been attempted yet. Not that I recommend it-just simply surprised since suffering and frustration usually results in that kind of thing.

Mexican economy and natural resources

Literacy rate: 92% (2003 est.)

Economic summary: GDP/PPP (2005 est.): $1.068 trillion; per capita $10,100. Real growth rate: 3%. Inflation: 3.3%. Unemployment: 3.6% plus underemployment of perhaps 25%. Arable land: 13%. Agriculture: corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, beans, cotton, coffee, fruit, tomatoes; beef, poultry, dairy products; wood products. Labor force: 43.4 million; agriculture 18%, industry 24%, services 58% (2003).

Industries: food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism. Natural resources: petroleum, silver, copper, gold, lead, zinc, natural gas, timber. Exports: $213.7 billion f.o.b. (2005 est.): manufactured goods, oil and oil products, silver, fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton. Imports: $223.7 billion f.o.b. (2005 est.):

metalworking machines, steel mill products, agricultural machinery, electrical equipment, car parts for assembly, repair parts for motor vehicles, aircraft, and aircraft parts. Major trading partners: U.S., Canada, Spain, China, Japan (2004).

http://b.casalemedia.com/V2/59157/10.../A0107779.html

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by Radrook

Since the Mexican government seems at loss on what to do with its jobless problem and seems content on the immigration situation perhaps it should throw in the towel and humbly ask the USA to annex it.

You do realize, of course, that people other than Americans are allowed to be patriotic as well, right?

I cannot imagine any country having the majority of its citizens thinking, "It's too bad we're too incompetent to run our own country- let's just give it to these foreigners and have them run it for us." It boggles the mind that you think anyone would.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Radrook

Mexican economy and natural resources

Literacy rate: 92% (2003 est.)

Yeah, but most of them can't read anything but Mexican...

[gtc]

But isn't the NWO about to annexe America to Mexico?

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Madalch

You do realize, of course, that people other than Americans are allowed to be patriotic as well, right?

I cannot imagine any country having the majority of its citizens thinking, "It's too bad we're too incompetent to run our own country- let's just give it to these foreigners and have them run it for us." It boggles the mind that you think anyone would.

Indeed, and there are the practical problems. Annexation means Mexico has to be included as one ore more additional states in the US governmental system, unless you want to run the country as a colony, but that's not very efficient either. The transition period would be extremely painful.

If the main problem is corruption, then a far better solution would be for Mexico to request foreign assistance for combatting corruption. And if the political will exists to make such a request, then it probably isn't necessary anymore.

[gtc]

The problem is that the sources of corruption will still exist at a local and state level unless there is a very extensive 'reconstruction' period.

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Yeah, but most of them can't read anything but Mexican...

The inability to master English hasn't hindered George W.

(Cheap shot, I know, but I couldn't resist.)

[Kopji]

The other Arizona shoe has not dropped yet. A group of large and politically powerful businesses is suing the state. Oh hey cool, that's like... the company we work for suing the government we pay taxes to.

I've always thought that Baja California would make an excellent addition to the US.
It would really torque all the Americans retiring there though.

[Chupacabras]

And what makes you think that mexicans haven't considered this idea?

I have had this this very topic discussed in all seriousness with fellow mexicans, and circa 1999, during Zedillo's term, a group of businessmen asked the president publicly to "dolarize" the mexican economy (to throw the Peso away and use the US Dollar as currency altogether).

OTOH, if the US can go into Iraq, there must be a good reason as to why they choose not to go into MX. Maybe because for anyone to be rich, there has to be somebody else who's poor. That's the part of the good old World Order that never changes.

[autumn1971]

Re: "Should Mexico request annexation?"

Yes, of Texas, and the US should agree, post-haste.

[Kopji]

I think it's something more like we use Mexico to make stuff that is too dangerous or polluting to do here in the US. Then we import it and use it, mucking the place up. And when it gets too bad we head to Canada.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Yeah, but most of them can't read anything but Mexican...

Well. most of us Americans can't read anything but English. Most Russians can't read anything but Russian. Most French people can't read anything but French. So what's so unusual about most Mexicans can't read anything but Spanish?

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Madalch

You do realize, of course, that people other than Americans are allowed to be patriotic as well, right?

I cannot imagine any country having the majority of its citizens thinking, "It's too bad we're too incompetent to run our own country- let's just give it to these foreigners and have them run it for us." It boggles the mind that you think anyone would.

I am aware of that of course. However, the idea has historical antecedants.


The Dominican Republic, for example, once requested USA annextion it due to its inability to bring order and prosper. Then it asked Spain. Puerto Rico was invaded and annexed with the consent of its people. Then there is American Samoa and the American Virgin Islands.

Actually, half of Mexico along with its Mexican citizens has been already annexed as represented by Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, California, Nevada and Arizona. All which were Mexico proper once. Florida which belonged to Spain was also annexed. Not to mention Hawaii and Alaska. But of course the population of these latter two was not as significant as in the others.

BTW
Most of the citizens of the provinces of the Roman Empire were proud to be citizens of Rome and were quite content to have Rome manage their affairs. These provinces included Egypt, Spain, Libya, the Balkans, Gaul, Greece, Macedonia now called France, In short all southern and Eastern Europe or all the land surrounding the Mediterranean Sea. Why were they content? Because under Rome they thrived. This period of prosperity was known as the Pax Romana.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Radrook

I am aware of that of course. However, the idea has historical antecedants.

Hardly. The annexation of part of Mexico was forced, not voluntary, and all the other examples were either tiny or underdeveloped areas.

Reforming the Mexican governmental system to the US model would be very painful as familiar institutions are lost and unknown ones are gained.

Extreme economic inequality always leads to political inequality. And the US has a lousy trackrecord for reducing economic inequality. So if it is true that Mexico is governed by a small, extremely wealthy elite then the US is unlikely to solve that issue.

The US political system is relatively poor: "Winner takes all" encourages people to vote for the least of two evils, instead of the best. And Congressional districts are the prime source of pork. Head of government and head of state are united in the same position, even though they require entirely different capabilities - people who posess both are very rare. With modern communication technology better options are available, so Mexico would be foolish to copy the US system.

I believe free trade between Mexico and the US already exists, so the only advantage annexation would bring to Mexico would be the FBI to reduce corruption. That does not require annexation.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by egslim

Hardly. The annexation of part of Mexico was forced, not voluntary, and all the other examples were either tiny or underdeveloped areas.

Reforming the Mexican governmental system to the US model would be very painful as familiar institutions are lost and unknown ones are gained.

Extreme economic inequality always leads to political inequality. And the US has a lousy trackrecord for reducing economic inequality. So if it is true that Mexico is governed by a small, extremely wealthy elite then the US is unlikely to solve that issue.

The US political system is relatively poor: "Winner takes all" encourages people to vote for the least of two evils, instead of the best. And Congressional districts are the prime source of pork. Head of government and head of state are united in the same position, even though they require entirely different capabilities - people who posess both are very rare. With modern communication technology better options are available, so Mexico would be foolish to copy the US system.

I believe free trade between Mexico and the US already exists, so the only advantage annexation would bring to Mexico would be the FBI to reduce corruption. That does not require annexation.

My comment was in response to the statement that it is inconceivable for a people to give up self determination and prefer a foreign government to make its decisions. I don't see it as inconceivable because many of the nations which became Roman provinces became quite content and took pride eventually in their provincial status. Since this is so, I don't see how this is inconceivable since there are historical antecedents.

The Mexican area which the USA annexed wasn't merely a part, it was literally more than half of what was once Mexico, its being underdeveloped didn't seem to be an obstacle. Cuba, one of the Caribbean major island was also targeted for annexation despite its underdevelopment. So were the Philippines. So underdevelopment was irrelevant to annexation from the USA standpoint.

The reality concerning poverty is that the poorest people in the USA would be considered wealthy by the poor of Mexico. So being annexed would definitely be an economic step upwards. Neither is the USA government comparable with Mexico's in caring about its citizens. So I guess we disagree on that.



BTW
Don't you think that annexation of more than half of Mexico based on the Manifest Destiny belief diminished that nation's economic potential by depriving it of a substantial part of its natural resources?

Manifest Destiny
http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar...ification.html

[Charlie Monoxide]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Yeah, but most of them can't read anything but Mexican...

Not unlike a lot of US citizens lack of ability to speak proper "American" ...

Charlie (me speak English) Monoxide

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Radrook

Well. most of us Americans can't read anything but English. Most Russians can't read anything but Russian. Most French people can't read anything but French. So what's so unusual about most Mexicans can't read anything but Spanish?

Whoosh...

Went right over your head, didn't it?

[Solus]

I don't think many Americans would be in favor of annexing Mexico so it's a moot point. The map would look better though if Canada were part of the U.S...

[Charlie Monoxide]

Originally Posted by Solus

I don't think many Americans would be in favor of annexing Mexico so it's a moot point. The map would look better though if Canada were part of the U.S...

Besides the aesthetics of a prettier map, Americans would acquire all those Canadian natural resources as well ...

Charlie (might even help the US $) Monoxide

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by Solus

I don't think many Americans would be in favor of annexing Mexico so it's a moot point. The map would look better though if Canada were part of the U.S...

I'd be happy with just BC and Alberta. That way I wouldn't have to lug around my passport to the biggest (in BC) and most beautiful (in Alberta) skiing in North America.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Whoosh...

Went right over your head, didn't it?

Not really, it's the connotations of the comment which I am addressing.

[Rcintron]

Originally Posted by Madalch

You do realize, of course, that people other than Americans are allowed to be patriotic as well, right?

I cannot imagine any country having the majority of its citizens thinking, "It's too bad we're too incompetent to run our own country- let's just give it to these foreigners and have them run it for us." It boggles the mind that you think anyone would.

I can. Puerto Rico

Quote:

BTW

Santo Domingo applied once for USA annexation and was rejected. Then it requested to be annexed by Spain which obliged. But that situation didn't work out too well.

That was over 150 years ago. And it wasn't all of "Santo Domingo". It was a decision made unilaterally by our first president, Pedro Santana. He is now considered a traitor by most of our historians. It all ended with the "restoration war" of 1863, when we actually kicked the spaniards out.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Kopji

And when it gets too bad we head to Canada.

Don't forget to bring your passport. Blame that on the U.S. government though. The Canadian government made its objections known that such a requirement wouldn't be good for cross-border trade but couldn't make much headway with Congress.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Radrook

I don't see it as inconceivable because many of the nations which became Roman provinces became quite content and took pride eventually in their provincial status.

The difference is that Rome was unquestionably superior compared to the rest of the known world, and the US just isn't. Access to education and medical care is relatively poor compared to the rest of the western world, and access to techology is comparable.

Quote:

The Mexican area which the USA annexed wasn't merely a part, it was literally more than half of what was once Mexico, its being underdeveloped didn't seem to be an obstacle.

It was annexed by force, though.

Quote:

Cuba, one of the Caribbean major island was also targeted for annexation despite its underdevelopment. So were the Philippines.

Both chose independence.

Quote:

So being annexed would definitely be an economic step upwards.

Why? There is already a free trade agreement between the US and Mexico. Annexation might succeed in rooting out corruption, and result in the introduction of a minimum wage. Beyond that, I don't see how poor Mexicans would benefit. And to root out corruption does not require annexation, which is my point.

Quote:

Neither is the USA government comparable with Mexico's in caring about its citizens.

I know little about the Mexican government, but I find the US government not very caring.

Quote:

Don't you think that annexation of more than half of Mexico based on the Manifest Destiny belief diminished that nation's economic potential by depriving it of a substantial part of its natural resources?

Not necessarily, because what matters is a nation's natural resources per capita. And even nations poor in resources can become very wealthy. Examples include Japan, and to a lesser extent the Netherlands.

[Bikewer]

Hehe- I've maintained (jokingly...) for years that the solution to the immigration problem is to make Mexico the 51st state....

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Hehe- I've maintained (jokingly...) for years that the solution to the immigration problem is to make Mexico the 51st state....

Far from being a joke, the total annexation of Mexico was a serious issue during the Mexican American War:

Excerpt:

"All Mexico"
After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas which was also claimed by Mexico, paving the way for the outbreak of the Mexican-American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico", particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.

http://www.search.com/reference/Manifest_Destiny

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by egslim

The difference is that Rome was unquestionably superior compared to the rest of the known world, and the US just isn't. Access to education and medical care is relatively poor compared to the rest of the western world, and access to technology is comparable.

Rome was militarily superior to the countries it conquered, but culturally was not superior to the rest of the world. Even militarily it cannot be said that it was militarily superior since it was challenged by the Parthian Empire which administered a series of military defeats. Like the one suffered by Crassus-and the other by Pompey.

Excerpt:

Battle of Carrhae

The Battle of Carrhae was a decisive battle fought in 53 BC near the town of Carrhae (now the present-day ruins of Harran, Turkey) between the Roman Republic under the Roman general Crassus and the Parthian Empire under the Parthian Spahbod Surena. The result of the battle was an overwhelming victory for the Parthian Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

These two empires fought themselves to a draw repeatedly and found it much more expedient to negotiate diplomatically. The rest of the world of course, would include China which was a very powerful. I see no basis to assume it would have lost a war against Rome. China was
also culturally very developed and superior to Rome.

The only area which Rome conquered and were comparatively culturally inferior were the areas of Northern Europe such as Gaul, and Germania.


In relation to the other provinces it conquered, it felt itself to be culturally inferior. Those areas had been extensively Hellenized and Rome's admiration for Hellenic culture knew no bounds as evidenced by their imitation of Hellenic architecture, religions, and philosophical studies. That's why it is said that Rome militarily conquered the Hellenic World but was in turn conquered culturally by it.

Excerpt:
Romans and Hellenism
Educated Romans were impressed by the range of the arts and literature and scientific advancement of the Greeks. The Romans' own intellectual achievements suddenly appeared rather scanty, and it became a point of Roman pride to match Greek cultural achievements whenever possible.

http://eefy.editme.com/L09b


The USA is considered the most powerful economic power in the world. So how is it not superior? Just curious.

Quote:

It was annexed by force, though.
Both chose independence.

Cuba and the Philippines chose freedom. Puerto Rico accepted to become a territory. The point is that annexation was part of the modus operandi of the USA invasions. The Philippines did not accede and war broke out in which 200,000 Philinos combatants were killed by the USA in order to pacify the area.

Phillipine American War
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyKp...ns/Crete/9782/



But eventually they obtained their independence. But they had to fight for it as they had fought against Spain. The point is the annexation is not as foreign to USA policy as you would make it seem.

Quote:

Why? There is already a free trade agreement between the US and Mexico. Annexation might succeed in rooting out corruption, and result in the introduction of a minimum wage. Beyond that, I don't see how poor Mexicans would benefit. And to root out corruption does not require annexation, which is my point.

I am aware of the efforts that are being made but which seem to have no effect.
Poor Mexicans would benefit in the same way that poor Canadians would benefit or poor
any other poor person of any nation would benefit when it's government is richer. I really don't see a way to nullify the USA prosperity from having positive effect on its poor citizens.
What mechanism are you envisioning in that scenario that would prevent that natural result?

Quote:

I know little about the Mexican government, but I find the US government not very caring.

The difference between the United states and Mexico is that here we have a large middle class, a small lower class, and a small upper class. This large middle class is what stabilizes the nation. Mexico in contrast has a large lower class, a small middle class, and a small upper class. So this large lower class, destabilizes the nation. The discontent that leads to immigration is based on this disproportion. If the United States annexed Mexico and a large Middle class emerged as a consequence, then the problem would disappear. Can Mexico do this itself. Actually, it's not a matter of can it do it, it is a matter of whether the small upper class will put forth the effort to bring this about. But it seems, unfortunately, that the motivation of the upper class to help its lower class majority is lacking. Is there this lack of interest in the USA for its lower classes as you say. Perhaps there is-but the degeree isn't as severe as it is in Mexico. On the other hand, it's easier to help a small lower class than it is to help a large lower class. So Mexico's inability has to be seen from that perspective as well.

Quote:

Not necessarily, because what matters is a nation's natural resources per capita. And even nations poor in resources can become very wealthy. Examples include Japan, and to a lesser extent the Netherlands.

Texas along with California became a tremendous source of profit via their petroleum production.

Excerpt:
Texas Petroleum
Within a half-century of the industry's birth in Texas, the state's vast petroleum reserves dwarfed those of most other producing states. In 1932, the giant East Texas field alone yielded more than the total annual production of most of the other states. Fettered by regulation, in 1940 Texas still produced twice as much oil as California, the next largest producing state and one where production was unlimited. Producing over one-third of the nation's oil in 1940, Texas dominated the price of crude oil in national and international markets.
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exolioil.html

In any case, perhaps you are right that nations which are poor in resources have proven able to struggle to their feet. The real point, however, is that a nation that was not resource deficient could have used the resources at its disposal to make such progress easier. Do you really believe that Mexico would be the same nation today if it had been allowed to keep its land? That to me seems impossible.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Solus

I don't think many Americans would be in favor of annexing Mexico so it's a moot point. The map would look better though if Canada were part of the U.S...

Of course not! They would much prefer an English speaking nation of North European heritage. Also, a more prosperous nation. That's understandable. As for looking or not looking better on the map, has never taken into consideration by any land-grabbing people in history I am aware of. At least it wasn't a factor for the Manifest Destiny believers who were calling for total Mexican Annexation during the Mexican American War.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Solus

The map would look better though if Canada were part of the U.S...

Originally Posted by Charlie Monoxide

Besides the aesthetics of a prettier map, Americans would acquire all those Canadian natural resources as well...

The Republican Party would never allow Canada to become a member of the United States for the simple reason such an act would add millions of Democratic voters to the electorate. Canada, overall, skews to the left in political terms compared to the U.S.

[Chupacabras]

Originally Posted by egslim

... and result in the introduction of a minimum wage.

There is a minimum wage system in effect since I have memory. Currently, it is about $4.50 USD a day. What is good for a country, I perceive, is cultural, not financial.

Today I talked to two people about this. One is a guy in Mazatlán, who told me about a community of older americans that don't want to go back because they don't agree with their government. They reaped the benefits of the system, and now spend their money on themselves, elsewere - just like any "mojado".

The other is a man that went to the US illegally several times when he was young. He was offered a few times to stay, but he declined because he didn't like the way of life. He lives in Guaymas, and he is just plain happy.

And the US didn't annex part/half of Mexico - Antonio López de Santa Ana *sold* the land (misspelled in Wikipedia as Antonio López de Santa Anna^WP).

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by Chupacabras

And the US didn't annex part/half of Mexico - Antonio López de Santa Ana *sold* the land (misspelled in Wikipedia as Antonio López de Santa Anna^WP).

According to the wiki, the US forced Mexico to surrender the land for a token payment at the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after Santa Ana reneged on his promise subvert the Mexican government and sell them the land straight off.

[Father Dagon]

Originally Posted by egslim

Extreme economic inequality always leads to political inequality. And the US has a lousy trackrecord for reducing economic inequality. So if it is true that Mexico is governed by a small, extremely wealthy elite then the US is unlikely to solve that issue.

Not really. The new rulers can secure their leverage by appointing a new elite that has all reason to despise the old elite. In Mexico's case, it would be those who could get rich if it wasn't for the system.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by egslim

Extreme economic inequality always leads to political inequality. And the US has a lousy trackrecord for reducing economic inequality.

What do you mean by this? That the U.S. isn't good at helping its neighbors get as rich as it is? If so, 1) I submit that's not the job of the U.S., and 2) if it's the fault of the U.S. that Mexico is relatively poor, is it to our credit that Canada is wealthy? Try to sell that to Corsair 115, see if she's buying.

If you mean that the U.S. isn't good at getting everyone in the U.S. equally rich, why should that be a goal? Would the U.S. be a better place if everyone here were as wealthy as the typical Somali, or the typical North Korean? Those countries have much better "economic equality" than the U.S. Should we aspire to their standard of living?

Just let us have British Columbia and Alberta, and I will have no further territorial claims on the continent.

[Beerina]

Solutions where masses follow charismatic leaders who take from the rich under the lie they'll make the masses' lives better also don't work out too well.