Did you notice how easy it was to begin American military action in Libya? Sure, the president made a sober explanation—best summarized as: the current leadership is corrupt and the people of that nation need our help. It makes sense—in theory. But couldn't you say the exact same thing about Mexico? And isn't Mexican drug violence a much bigger threat to American citizens than anything going on in Libya? Hey, it's not like we haven't invaded Mexico before. It was something of a national pastime for decades. Unlike Libya, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam, Mexico is right on our border... so once we get rid of the bad guys, we could just annex it. On the plus side, that would end our border problems, since, well... there wouldn't be a border anymore. Of course, this is an outrageous notion in 2011, but the idea has been considered very seriously many times in American history—and it is being discussed again in some quarters. In fact, the only reason Mexico and Cuba aren't a part of the US right now is because the U.S. Congress of the 19th century didn't want more people of color added to the electorate. So maybe President Obama should right this wrong! Does military action in Mexico fit the Obama Doctrine? I'm not sure—even John Stewart can't figure out the Obama Doctrine. The map above shows what an expanded USA would look like.