Are you a domestic terrorist?

[Jester]

If I recall correctly the US' territorial ambitions were aided mostly by a duplicitous (if not traitorous) Antonio López de Santa Anna.

No argument there. But just because you took it from a nation led by an idiot doesn't mean you didn't take it by force. From the perspective of the 1840s, California was not "American" for any reason other than outright conquest.

True. Although, it was our interest in "liberating" Cuba that led to the Spanish-American war. If just happened that the Philippines got in the way, and then on the path to independance, WWII upset those plans. The US ended up staying much, much longer than expected due to wars, financial and political instability.

Yeah. Whoopsie daisy, we somehow ended up with an empire. Funny, it's exactly the story the British tell about themselves too. Just somehow woke up one morning in possession of colonies halfway around the globe populated by people who don't speak their language. Strange how it just seems to happen, between "liberating" people, and putting them "on the path to independence" when countries inhabited by tens of millions of people halfway around the world "get in the way" (of what, pray tell, other than manifest destiny?)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Yeah. Whoopsie daisy, we somehow ended up with an empire. Funny, it's exactly the story the British tell about themselves too. Just somehow woke up one morning in possession of colonies halfway around the globe populated by people who don't speak their language. Strange how it just seems to happen, between "liberating" people, and putting them "on the path to independence" when countries inhabited by tens of millions of people halfway around the world "get in the way" (of what, pray tell, other than manifest destiny?)

Again, we have a different perspective about colonization and war in 2009, than did our ancestors of 1935, or 1856, or 1770, or 1607.

What I was trying to get at was that it was WWII that left the US with the global presence and projection of power that allowed it to interfere globally, and allowed US corporations to become multi-national in a way that was complicit with US government interests. Yes, there was some early activity in Central America with companies like United Fruit, but in large part the large corporations in the US were tied to North American commodities like timber, minerals, railroads, and selected manufacturing industries like steel.

[Hammerskjold]

The non-natives are pressed less...
ooooo, cinnamon melts mmmmm

Even if you are fluent, and even if you are affluent, (and even if you are effluent) it takes more effort for non-natives to notice a typo than someone who is native. To me, "baking system" stuck out like a sour thumb, with no effort, whereas you would most likely have to consciously read it for typos.

? I don't get it, we're still talking about bread and dough right? Baking, banking. Tomay-to, tomah-toe. (I refuse to say Poh-tah-toe, because I haven't met anyone who ever said it that way, outside of the song, with a straight face.)

You see, some of us need some mirth in order to swallow the bitter pills of, say, an economic/political thread. Calls us mirthers. Or just don't call us, we'll just screen you out anyway.

Mirthers Original, great candy to have at tea parties.

[Jester]

Again, we have a different perspective about colonization and war in 2009, than did our ancestors of 1935, or 1856, or 1770, or 1607.

I think you'll find my perspective is not that dissimilar to Mark Twain's or Bertrand Russell's, although it certainly diverges quite sharply from Teddy Roosevelt.

What I was trying to get at was that it was WWII that left the US with the global presence and projection of power that allowed it to interfere globally, and allowed US corporations to become multi-national in a way that was complicit with US government interests. Yes, there was some early activity in Central America with companies like United Fruit, but in large part the large corporations in the US were tied to North American commodities like timber, minerals, railroads, and selected manufacturing industries like steel.

And, as I said, you'd be wrong. The US was projecting its power across the entire continent almost two hundred years ago, and across the entire globe over one hundred years ago. This is not a post-WWII phenomenon. This is not restricted to Central America.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

And, as I said, you'd be wrong. The US was projecting its power across the entire continent almost two hundred years ago, and across the entire globe over one hundred years ago. This is not a post-WWII phenomenon. This is not restricted to Central America.

Seeing that the Constitution was not even ratified until December 15, 1791... Two hundred years is a stretch. I seem to recall some hootenanny around 1812-1814 where some hooligans took turns burning down each others public buildings. I wouldn't quite call the US a world power at that time projecting power across the continent. I mean, unless you call a few regiments of militia men with muskets a projections of world power. The US army military across the whole of the US at the start of the war was at most 7,000 inexperienced, poorly outfitted, and poorly led men. Had Britain actually tried, they would have walked over the US in a heart beat. I'm not saying that the US was isolated before WWII, and not engaged in skirmishes around the globe. They were, but mostly things that required a squad of marines to scare away pirates or escort some stranded US citizen to safety. Even for WWI, we sent over a token force of ill trained men who ran in unprepared and were slaughtered.

I mean, the only people that we might have intimidated prior to WWII would have been Canada and Mexico... well, I see what you mean. :-)

[Jester]

I wouldn't quite call the US a world power at that time projecting power across the continent.

How do you think you went from thirteen colonies on the coast to a sea-to-sea country five times that size? The US may not have started as a world power, but it sure became one right quick. You fought practically everyone on the continent, and took territory from pretty much all of them. You want a war about 200 years ago? Don't like 1812? Try the Seminole war. In the case of Mexico in 1848, you took half their country- and nearly half of yours. If the US in 1800 didn't look so powerful, by 1860, it was powerful enough to make not just one but two of the largest, deadliest armies ever fielded. That was 150 years ago. This stuff didn't happen accidentally, and it sure wasn't small potatoes.

The US army military across the whole of the US at the start of the war was at most 7,000 inexperienced, poorly outfitted, and poorly led men. Had Britain actually tried, they would have walked over the US in a heart beat.

I seem to recall them having tried to walk all over the US (or, rather, what would become the US) about forty years prior. It didn't go so well, if I recall correctly.

I'm not saying that the US was isolated before WWII, and not engaged in skirmishes around the globe. They were, but mostly things that required a squad of marines to scare away pirates or escort some stranded US citizen to safety. Even for WWI, we sent over a token force of ill trained men who ran in unprepared and were slaughtered.

*You conquered the Philippines*. That's an island group inhabited by millions of people halfway around the world. You weren't fighting "pirates". There were no "stranded US citizens." It wasn't a "skirmish", it was a long, bloody war of imperial conquest. You sent Jack Pershing over there, the only man ever to outrank George Washington. How is this not registering as a major colonial war?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

*You conquered the Philippines*. That's an island group inhabited by millions of people halfway around the world. You weren't fighting "pirates". There were no "stranded US citizens." It wasn't a "skirmish", it was a long, bloody war of imperial conquest. You sent Jack Pershing over there, the only man ever to outrank George Washington. How is this not registering as a major colonial war?

Which speaks more of the poor ability of the Spaniards in the Philippines , than it does the prowess of American forces. Upon reflection, Aguinaldo was probably a poor choice of ally against the Spaniards and Cubans. I would agree the end was pretty tragic for the Filipino's, and indicative of where what started out as the good intention of "helping fellow revolutionaries" descends into unadulterated greed. Probably also thinly veiled racism as well. I tell you though, the US wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the war in Cuba.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . Jack Pershing over there, the only man ever to outrank George Washington.

Let's not forget Dewey.:)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Let's not forget Dewey.:)

--Pete

Forget hell, I had to recite the memory of Admiral Dewey before meals, one hot and humid summer some ages of the earth ago ...

<blockquote>O' Dewey was the morning
Upon the first of May,
And Dewey was the Admiral
Down in Manila Bay,
And dewey were the Regent's eyes,
Them orbs of Royal Blue
And Dewey feel discouraged?
I dew not think we dew!</blockquote>

[Jester]

Which speaks more of the poor ability of the Spaniards in the Philippines , than it does the prowess of American forces. Upon reflection, Aguinaldo was probably a poor choice of ally against the Spaniards and Cubans. I would agree the end was pretty tragic for the Filipino's, and indicative of where what started out as the good intention of "helping fellow revolutionaries" descends into unadulterated greed. Probably also thinly veiled racism as well. I tell you though, the US wouldn't have been there if it weren't for the war in Cuba.

Okay. So, the US fought a war against a weak opponent that added large slices of land to its direct or indirect control. It had tragic effects for the local populations. The war started with noble intentions, but the motives were quickly corrupted by greed and racism.

Now substitute "Britian," "France," or "Spain" for "the US", and you have a handy modular history of colonialism.

-Jester

Afterthought: What does Aguinaldo have to do with Cuba? Best I can tell, he never came within 5000 miles of the place.

[Occhidiangela]

Okay. So, the US fought a war against a weak opponent that added large slices of land to its direct or indirect control. It had tragic effects for the local populations.

The relative power imbalance between the US and Mexico, circa 1848, wasn't what it is today. The core weakness in Mexico was then, as it is now, cultural and conceptual, which is why Scott's campaign from a port to the inland capital with such a small force was a success. He was able to make deals with some of the locals in his rear.

Santa Anna was no fool, on the battle field nor in politics, but he was a typical example of the deeply corrupt hacendado culture that remains Mexico's core failing as a nation, and a so called culture. The current rise of the crime families of Mexico, the narco lords, is a logical extention of the cultural weakness. it is a modern version of Southern Italy's (gee, Latins and Papists again, who would have seen that coming?) immensely powerful and successful crime families -- La Cosa Nostra (Mafia), Comorra, Ndrangheti, Corona, with a the usual similarities in roots, and a corrupt, feudal style of society and government from which to work. The root cause is the inherently feudal nature of the society.

DR

[Jester]

The relative power imbalance between the US and Mexico, circa 1848, wasn't what it is today. The core weakness in Mexico was then, as it is now, cultural and conceptual, which is why Scott's campaign from a port to the inland capital with such a small force was a success. He was able to make deals with some of the locals in his rear.

Santa Anna was no fool, on the battle field nor in politics, but he was a typical example of the deeply corrupt hacendado culture that remains Mexico's core failing as a nation, and a so called culture. The current rise of the crime families of Mexico, the narco lords, is a logical extention of the cultural weakness. it is a modern version of Southern Italy's (gee, Latins and Papists again, who would have seen that coming?) immensely powerful and successful crime families -- La Cosa Nostra (Mafia), Comorra, Ndrangheti, Corona, with a the usual similarities in roots, and a corrupt, feudal style of society and government from which to work. The root cause is the inherently feudal nature of the society.

Sure. Because drug gangs and mafias don't happen in other nations (especially ones with real cultures - none of this "so called" business, which is all the Mexicans surely have.) It's all about the Hacienda. And the Pope.

Or, alternately, the US' military power, wealth and organization was vastly greater than the Mexicans', and were up against the kind of megalomaniacal moron who buries his amputated leg with full military honours. You're certainly right that the difference wasn't as great as it was today, but the US still invaded with a force that was overwhelmingly superior in almost all senses - against a country racked by decades of civil wars and political divisions.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Now substitute "Britian," "France," or "Spain" for "the US", and you have a handy modular history of colonialism.

Right and the Hapsburg Empire didn't extend into Mexico either. I recall the US purchased most of North America from France, and wrested or purchased the remainder from either Spain, or the British.

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

The intention was to push Europe out of colonialism, rather than to practice it ourselves. Oh, well, you know what they say about good intentions.

[Jester]

Right and the Hapsburg Empire didn't extend into Mexico either.

I'm not sure what you mean. By the time Mexico went to war with the USA, it was an independent nation, and had been for almost thirty years.

I recall the US purchased most of North America from France, and wrested or purchased the remainder from either Spain, or the British.

About a third was bought - the Louisiana purchase - not that the French had any particularly great claim over the area, which was by and large inhabited by indigenous peoples. The rest was "wrested" or "purchased" in peace treaties, mostly at the ends of wars that the US won.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
The intention was to push Europe out of colonialism, rather than to practice it ourselves. Oh, well, you know what they say about good intentions.

Indeed. I think you'll find all colonial powers had some similar justifying doctrine which served the underlying purpose - the acquisition of colonies. The British had very high minded ideas about good government and civilization in India, and that the Spanish really did think they were bringing God to a land plagued by the devil's work. Or, at least, they told themselves these pious untruths, a kind of colonist's foma. But when it came down to brass tacks, it all amounted to roughly the same deal - you do what we tell you to, because we have bigger and better guns.

-Jester

*edited to "mostly", since the Oregon territory, while acquired in part from threat of war, was obtained through treaty without war.

[Occhidiangela]

Sure. Because drug gangs and mafias don't happen in other nations (especially ones with real cultures - none of this "so called" business, which is all the Mexicans surely have.) It's all about the Hacienda. And the Pope.

Or, alternately, the US' military power, wealth and organization was vastly greater than the Mexicans', and were up against the kind of megalomaniacal moron who buries his amputated leg with full military honours. You're certainly right that the difference wasn't as great as it was today, but the US still invaded with a force that was overwhelmingly superior in almost all senses - against a country racked by decades of civil wars and political divisions.

-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.

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

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. 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.

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

Wrong.

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

[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

[eppie]

on second thought...I can't be bothered.

[Occhidiangela]

They got sucker-punched into a war they didn't want, against a much stronger army and a much stronger, richer, more powerful nation.

They got into a war they very much begged to have, thanks to the Mexican actions for nine years along the Nueces Strip. (I happen to live in that still debatable territory.)

Santa Anna ran into a particularly nasty problem: he faced an army with a cadre of professional officers, and some professional non coms. Back to my point about the his and Mexico's cultural problem, our culture (and that would include the culture in Canada) isn't and wasn't inflicted with the dead weight of Mexican culture in terms of how to raise and run and Army. Perfectly good soldiers badly lead. Funny, that is exactly how another Latinate Army was described by both British and German observers: the Italians, who yes indeed are still in the mix. Those nasty Puritanical virtues of leadership and professionalism had immensely more to do with that campaign's success than your allusion to "bigger and stronger" country, given how bloody small America's standing armies have always been historically until AFTER WW II. Ya know, about a century later.

That Santa Anna had problems with the political maneuvring in Mexico City isn't trivial for his efforts, no, but funnily enough, Scott had somewhat similar problems plaguing him in re the civilian watch dogs Polk (and anti Polk) factions sent along for the campaign.

But what do we see here? Funny old dog, you insist on an anachronism as your model: the US behemoth in the late twentieth century as the unbreakable model, actual history be damned. That the Mexicans had gifted themselves with what you describe as perpetual revolution is certainly close to the truth, once again a cultural problem, part of their inherent cultural rot, and FWIW, a gift of European Liberalism to Mexico in the early nineteenth century. I wonder if Santa Anna's successors ever wrote to thank anyone back home for all that? I don't think so, given Maximillian droping by a few years later.

Occhi

[Jester]

They got into a war they very much begged to have, thanks to the Mexican actions for nine years along the Nueces Strip. (I happen to live in that still debatable territory.)

Mexico was obviously not happy about Texan independence, and never fully reconciled themselves to it. (Something the US would learn a thing or two about in the decades after.) The US, having freshly annexed Texas, suddenly became very bold about border claims and the enforcement of "treaties" signed by (who else?) Santa Anna to save his own butt, that had never actually been ratified by Mexico, and moved troops to claim the Rio Grande as the border. Mexico hadn't even started the fight with Texas, let alone the fight with the whole United States of America - but it's the war they ended up having to wage, and unsurprisingly, they lost badly.

Santa Anna ran into a particularly nasty problem: he faced an army with a cadre of professional officers, and some professional non coms. Back to my point about the his and Mexico's cultural problem, our culture (and that would include the culture in Canada) isn't and wasn't inflicted with the dead weight of Mexican culture in terms of how to raise and run and Army.

I'm not sure I'd tie that all into culture, as opposed to economy, politics, technology, or (perhaps most importantly) human capital development, but it is certainly clear that the effective organizational capacity of the US in terms of a large, deep body of skilled officers, and the infrastructure to raise and support and army, was much higher than Mexico's.

Perfectly good soldiers badly lead.

Well, yeah. Their leadership was terrible. Didn't I already say that, to your protestations that Santa Anna was a smart cookie? Huge blunders, both tactical and strategic, cost the Mexicans enormously. I don't blame that on the average Soldado. I blame that on Santa Anna.

Funny, that is exactly how another Latinate Army was described by both British and German observers: the Italians, who yes indeed are still in the mix.

What mix are we talking about now?

Those nasty Puritanical virtues of leadership and professionalism had immensely more to do with that campaign's success than your allusion to "bigger and stronger" country, given how bloody small America's standing armies have always been historically until AFTER WW II. Ya know, about a century later.

A century? How about a decade later? During the Civil War, the US put to field over three million men. They didn't just all pop into existence in the 13 years between the two wars, nor did the organizational capacity to militarize them, nor the economic capacity to pay and arm them. The Confederacy alone, clearly the weaker of the two halves economically and in population, could have drawn up an army to blow Mexico's clean out of the water, if push really came to shove. It's all well and good to say the US had a smallish standing army, but that's only a tiny fraction of the strength they could (and did) draw on through volunteers, which was itself only a fraction of what it could conscript. Mexico could not match the US' 1846 capacity to field, replenish, supply and equip an army, not in 1846, not in 1860, probably not even by 1900.

That Santa Anna had problems with the political maneuvring in Mexico City isn't trivial for his efforts, no, but funnily enough, Scott had somewhat similar problems plaguing him in re the civilian watch dogs Polk (and anti Polk) factions sent along for the campaign.

I don't think those problems are "somewhat similar". Scott wasn't pondering marching back to Washington DC to stabilize the government. I doubt the thought ever crossed his mind - whereas I'm sure it preoccupied the Mexicans nearly as much as the war itself.

But what do we see here? Funny old dog, you insist on an anachronism as your model: the US behemoth in the late twentieth century as the unbreakable model, actual history be damned.

I'm not sure I'm actually guilty of that - what I've said is all factually true of the situation between the US and Mexico in the 19th century. I try to avoid anachronism, and I've not seen anything except your assertions to say that I haven't. The US was not "unbreakable" - 1812 didn't go that well. But the US usually took on weaker opponents - and won wars consistently, if not always the battles. But that was fine, since this was the 19th century, and the world was still full of relatively weak opponents to take land from. All the major powers played this game.

However, you seem to have no qualms about making gigantic anachronistic reaches between "latinates", be they WWII Italians, the Sicilian Mafia, 19th century Mexicans, whatever. Does that not trouble you, who are insisting on such rigorous chronology?

That the Mexicans had gifted themselves with what you describe as perpetual revolution is certainly close to the truth, once again a cultural problem, part of their inherent cultural rot, and FWIW, a gift of European Liberalism to Mexico in the early nineteenth century.

If they hadn't been Liberals, it would have been less problematic that they were Latins and Papists? This whole line of reasoning strikes me as simplistic essentialism. Protestant = organized and efficient, Catholic = corrupt and backwards. I don't buy the Max Weber argument, but even if I did, it would only confirm my point - the US vs. Mexico fight in the 1840s wasn't even close to a fair matchup. The US was perfectly aware (perhaps arrogantly, but correctly) of their superior force, and started the war with the express purpose of seizing California. Polk was elected for more or less this exact purpose - expansionism at its finest.

-Jester

[Vandiablo]

It may be a mistake to do this while you're worked up about dead Mexicans, but here goes...

(replying about vessels that contain equivalent volumes of air and liquid: )

Mine contains piss, at the moment.

And vinegar, evidently.

I agree you shouldn't drink from that big porcelain vessel.

If you get up off the floor and stagger around you'll probably find a better source of drink, whether it comes from a faucet (like the one in that porcelain bed nearby) or in a cabinet filled with funny-looking bottles.

-V