Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

[Sarmatian]

Because there's a small chance with each puppet that the guy propped up actually gives two figs about the people being "protected", whereas annexation pretty much allways brings in either antagonistic or uncaring governence.

On what exactly are you basing this opinion?

Was Cuba better governed with Batista in power than California which was outright annexed?

[Greyblades]

It's a generalization, and I did say "chance"; there's a fair chance as well that the puppet government is as bad or worse than provincial governers assigned through annexation. I'm saying there's usually a better chance a puppet turns out benevolent than the alternative. Plus California wasnt a forceful annexation, they joined the states willingly and dont really come under my previous post.

[Sarmatian]

Plus California wasnt a forceful annexation, they joined the states willingly and dont really come under my previous post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican...93American_War

[Greyblades]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

Prior to the U.S. occupation there were approximately 1,500 local Hispanic men (and about 6,500 women and children), commonly called Californios, primarily located in Southern California around Los Angeles.[2] Most of the over 2,000 American immigrants (nearly all adult males) lived in the northern half of California. Most of them approved of the change in government and gave only token resistance to Stockton and Fremont's forces.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_California

Plus as my statement was a generalization one example doesnt really disprove it.

[Husar]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

So, just like Crimea then?

[Greyblades]

So, just like Crimea then?

Huh, your choice of double post seems to indicate you seem to think that a zinger worthy of such emphasis, yet it only works if I was a great supporter of crimea staying in the ukraine, which I'm not in particular, nor do I believe I expressed otherwise.
Of course seeing as you triple posted you might have just forgotten what the edit button does.

[Sarmatian]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

Plus as my statement was a generalization one example doesnt really disprove it.

Actually, since you made the statement, the burden of proof is with you.

I just didn't agree with you. There's nothing to indicate that either is inherently better or worse for the local population. Both can work and both can fail spectacularly.

[Greyblades]

Actually, since you made the statement, the burden of proof is with you.

Yes it is, however you didnt ask for proof you presented a counter point.

I just didn't agree with you. There's nothing to indicate that either is inherently better or worse for the local population. Both can work and both can fail spectacularly.

Yes both can work and both can fail, but I take the factor of nationalistic favouratism: a general increased empathy towards what is seen as a fellow countryman and apply it to the dynamic of governance. I come to the conclusion that a governer, or king or sultan or whatever you call the man that rules the area, that sees his subjects as his countryman will treat them better than some clerk from far away moscow or washington who sees the people he's been told to govern as a bunch of smelly foreigners who only matters to him as long as keeping them in lineg gets him a government paycheck.
There's always exceptions and anomalys of the gentle governer being better to the people under him than the asshole princling who his government replaced but I believe in comparison a puppet will, say, 55 out of a 100 be less inclined to screw over the people than a direct foreign governer.