Death of Michael Ledeen, maker of the phony case for the invasion of Iraq

I've never understood what the real reason we invaded was. I just know it wasn't what we said, or oil.

A US invasion, occupation, and political reformation of Iraq to serve as a lever for a pro-US series of regime changes in the Middle East were central ideas of the Project for a New American Century, from which the Bush Administration drew heavily for its defense and foreign policy officials (as well as VP.)

Methods aside, it is funny how quickly Republicans went from "we want to rule the whole world" to "we want nothing to do with the world and btw, foreigners get out".

Now they just want to annex Canada and Greenland, and hand over the US’s role in UN, WHO, and economic development to China.

How realistic is the idea of the U.S. annexing Canada, and what would that even look like in practice?

Is there any historical, legal, or strategic precedent that would make this even remotely feasible? And given the likely short political shelf life of the current U.S. administration, would any of this outlast the next four years anyway?

I mean, historical precedents for land grabs abound, but after the 1918 Wilson Doctrine (a US creation, btw) there is nothing. Colonialism is over and blatant imperialism doesn't work; we hold this as self-evident truth.

Then again, certain governments continue to act like we were still in the XIX century so "might makes right" (Russia, Israel, China, Morocco, Turkey...). If one is not ashamed to be in such an esteemed company, everything is possible.