Are you a domestic terrorist?

[Jester]

Your non sequitur is rather pointless. Got something intelligent to say? I have actually bothered to study the problem of politics, culture, and war in juxtaposition. I do not find your utterances to be any evidence of having done similarly.

Holy smokes, dude. I'm all for vigorous argumentation, but lighten up. That's just about the most pompous thing I've ever read.

I have bothered to study that campaign. You are dead wrong.

Then it seems you have somehow missed the forest for the trees. Who had more troops? Who had more money (and crucially - better credit)? Who had better weapons? More artillery? A more stable political situation? More domestic support? A navy worth floating?

If it wasn't for Yellow Fever, the US would have suffered even fewer casualties - Latin America's great defensive advantage in action.

You completely ignore the problem of continually extending supply lines, operating on exterior lines, operating with near mutinous troops under your command, the advantage of the defensive, and more.

And you seem to be ignoring the obvious: the Americans walked into that war with a much stronger army, lost very few major combats even when the numerical odds were against them, and the fact that Mexican desertions and "near mutinous troops" were in a far worse state than the Americans. Remember that whole "perpetual civil war" thing that'd been going on since Mexican independence? National cohesion was not what we would call very high in the 1840s.

By the way, Santa Anna having only one leg is irrelevant to his talents in the field. Nelson was missing an ey and an arm by the time of Trafalgar. John Bell Hood and eye and and arm as well, yet still he fought admirably well, and with full use of his wit.

Yes, because I totally said "and you were up against a one-legged guy, and everyone knows they can't fight". I'm sure you can quote me back where I said that. I said Santa Anna was a megalomaniacal moron, the kind of man who would *bury his leg with military honours* because he was just that sure that he was awesome. I didn't say squat all about amputees not being able to fight - nor would I, because that would be a stupid argument. Not that this stops you from going after that particular strawman...

On a second point, you might want to stop trying to cookie cutter the Mexican War into the Iraq War of 1991, for a start.

The strawmen just keep popping up...

For another, I am amazed at your attitudes toward Mexicans. They demonstrate the sort of disgusting paternalism and condescension embedded in the typical British EMpire White Man's burden world view one could imagine.

As they say over here, sod off.

"The poor things, never had a chance," cries Jester."

They got sucker-punched into a war they didn't want, against a much stronger army and a much stronger, richer, more powerful nation. Sometimes, nations win under those circumstances. Usually they don't. When they do, they're always led by someone a heck of a lot more competent than Mexico's bad penny President. They tend to be unified in their cause, and not fractured into factions vying for power. This has nothing to do with "poor Mexicans", and everything to do with the state of Mexico in the early 19th century. Mexico vs. the US in the 1840s was a fight the Mexicans were almost certainly going to lose.

I find it very sad that an educated (and very intelligent) man adopts such blindly ignorant postures.

And I've found it very sad that for years you can't seem to discuss something with me without it immediately descending into this horsecrap. You have interesting views and a wealth of experience - and some kind of chip on your shoulder about anything I write. But, as you no doubt know, the world is a place filled with sadness.

-Jester