World Conquest via the US Military
I thought you might click this. You need to know that I am in favor of world domination, or more specifically, subduing war,
violence, and crime on a global scale. My method? By using the US Military. This is my plan for taking over the world:
At the request of the United Nations, or, at the request of a nation (by whatever ruling authority is predominantly in power), the US Military would invade and occupy that country for 5 years. The goal of the occupation is to set up a fully functioning government. This means infrastructure building (roads, telecommunications, water supplies, power distribution, and so on), commerce and government stabilization, build or modernize hospitals and schools, set up a democracy and have elections.
After 5 years the country would vote on whether the US should stay another 5 years or leave. If the US is requested to stay 10 times in a row, that country is eligible to become one of the United States. (How’s that for democratic colonialism?)
How to pay for all this? It gets even better. I have often heard half-baked intellectuals and silly, cold-hearted uber liberals demand a redistribution of the world’s wealth. Well, this is just that. At the beginning of each 5 year period, 10% of EVERYBODY’S property, rich and poor, becomes the possession of the US government. Some will be leased to resource developers for exploitation (environmentally friendly exploitation of course), some will be sold back to the rich land owners, some will be given back (or better, sold) to the poor. Whatever seems right.
The goal is to raise money and create opportunity for those who wish to get ahead. I have a problem with arbitrary redistribution. I think if you want something bad enough, you should be willing to work for it. Other sources of income will be good old taxes and fees for permits and licenses.
Why the US Military? Because I am thinking that any country that would request such extreme measures is probably lawless and violent and corrupt to the point of desperation. (Somalia comes to mind.) A military intervention is the only thing that would get the attention of the warlords and criminals. And I’m talking TOTAL occupation, not just a security force or a battalion of advisors. I’m talking firepower and overwhelming presence.
The first step in stabilization is the cessation of hostilities, whereupon police and para-military units may be slowly integrated into guarding the civil order. It has been said that the only thing that a shark is afraid of is a bigger shark. I intend the US Military to be that bigger shark.
You may fairly object that the US has a abominable history of international intervention and government stabilization. Indeed, the current Iraq War is proving to be a bit more than we can chew, and Afghanistan is now needing attention again. I will counter that we have NEVER done what I have just described apart from post-WWII Germany and Japan. And what I am suggesting is a spin on that, but instead of rebuilding a vanquished foe, we rebuild a struggling country.
I like the idea of developing a country to become a worthy trading partner with the world, one with a stable economy, one with an emerging middle class. I like that we can manufacture goods and grow crops to send as foreign aid to a struggling country (our businesses' benefit and their people's benefit). I like the idea of foreign aid that actually gets to the people it is intended to benefit, and in a systematic way. And I like to see ANY country become self sufficient to the point where they can import and export at a comfortable ratio. Is this wrong?
In some ways this seems like turning swords into plowshares. But I don’t think so. Guns will remain guns, tanks will remain tanks. But their purpose is to guard the peace until the country can stand on it’s own, and then move on. But more. The efficiency and effectiveness of a plan implemented by a military regime, rather than cooperation (muchless consultation and approval), is demonstrability better than anything else, providing there are no abuses and the “plan” is a good plan. Ruling with an ‘iron hand’ is only for immature societies. When they grow up, they can fend for themselves.
Permission to snicker granted.