adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
As I said certainly it would be harmful to our image. However, you are overstating the issue.The critique would hold for #5 as such a U.S. move would be seen as an outright imperialist action and would be condemned by the international realm as such. This action would just further add to the idea of America the bully.
I think you might want to reread my critique. I specifically explained why this would make our southern flank easier to protect but decreases OVERALL security by giving more coastal area (which is already difficult to protect).The southern flank remains open only now we have to deal with both west and east coasts of Mexico, a large strip of land. By flank I mean any threats that could conceivably come from the south. Of course, no Latin American country is going to attack us any time soon, but the acquisition of Mexico does not benefit our sphere of influence (The Western Hemisphere)
Except for the part of the coast which is part of our southern flank, the coast is distinct from our southern flank.
Again, which would hurt our image, but nowhere NEAR to the degree a hostile take-over would. Really, it would have less of an impact then the Iraq war, because in the eyes of the world nothing says "imperialist" better then an offensive war.We're already yankee imperialists in the eyes of most of Latin America. And yeah, we think they're banana republics, but ****ed if it isn't a d**k move to assert ourselves in such as a way as to state to Mexico and THE REST OF THE WORLD "Yeah, we're ****ing rich. We buy your puny *** out."
Cause that's the kind of U.S. I like to see.
The point being that you went a bit overboard.