War and the Left

[Hoek]

The problem in the anti-war left is one of identity. The reason there were not big anti-war protests in the 90's is because the liberal establishment would not allow them to develop. Now that Bush is president, the liberal establishment does not object to these protests.

I have a problem with people deciding what to protest based on their own identity crises. There is a large contingent of people my age who hark back to the sixties and wish this was the sixties. But it isn't. A war in Iraq is not going to be a new Vietnam. This contingent is primarily protesting because they believe they SHOULD protest, not because they actually believe in anything they are saying. It's all about this neo-hippie identity and not at all about the real arguments over causi bellicus.

[Hoek]

There are other issues in which this neo-hippie contingent actually does great damage to liberal causes. A good example is the schism between animal rights activists and environmentalists. Here in the northeast, for example, Canadian Geese and common deer pose significant environmental hazards. However, it has become impossible to implement proper population-control mechanisms due to animal rights activism. By worrying so much about due process for animals, these "liberals" are dooming some of our remaining wildlands in the northeast. Also, by focusing on objections to cruelty to animals on farms, they draw attention away from the enormous amount of environmental damage agro-business causes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Hoek

This contingent is primarily protesting because they believe they SHOULD protest, not because they actually believe in anything they are saying. It's all about this neo-hippie identity and not at all about the real arguments over causi bellicus.

What have you been smoking? Have you talked to any anti-war protestors lately.

In any case the protestors don't all have to have the same reason for protesting. It's called democracy.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sprayber
You of all people have the gall to accuse someone of reducing issues to black and white (read US wrong-everyone else right)

Oh really? Your astute observation is such that you can see things where they don't exist.

Originally posted by Sprayber
Please spare us your indignation. At least others have the courtesy of providing entertainment value.

Unlike you

Originally posted by Sprayber
I mean you must seriously must have had a smile on your face when writing that cause it's the most extreme example of the pot calling the kettle black that i've seen on here in a long time. The sheer arrogance of the above statement astounds me.

Facts hurt when they are not on your side. I pity those who bought into W's warmongering rhetorics.

Originally posted by Sprayber
You can go back your sniping now. I know you excel at it.

What's this about pot-kettle black again? Good ole Sprayber, shooting himself in the foot again.

[DinoDoc]

We actually have a threadjack going about Mexico and it hasn't attracted the attention of MtG despite the fact that it concerns military issues!?!

[DuncanK]

I'm sure he is trying hard to resist.

[DinoDoc]

He really shouldn't. I'd really like him to give a definative answer regarding the relative strength of the Mexican army at the time.

[Shi Huangdi]

Weren't Mexican armies trained by Europeans during the era of the Mexican War?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Sava
There probably wasn't as big of an anti-Clinton crowd because Clinton was helping the economy... not destroying it. Clinton also wasn't taking away and suspending civil rights.

No, Clinton wasn't destroying the economy because the Republicans blocked his health care and tax programs. He was taking away and suspending civil rights, for example, charging anti-abortion protestors with RICO violations (which the Supreme Court struck down this week). They weren't "your" protestors, so what did you care about their civil rights, correct?

Clinton did nothing to help the economy, he was merely riding the stock market. During the last 2 years of the "Clinton" economy the stock market was drastically overpriced. Some brokers were so deluded as to recommend buys above 20:1 P-to-E ratios simply because there were so few companies below 20.

Government spending and the government budget affect every aspect of the economy. And the president controls most of this. This is basic Economics Arrain...

No, the congress controls most federal spending. Take a civics class.

Since there are stupid people in all aspects of life; and stupid people in both sides of the political arena, why don't you guys attack the issues instead of the people?

The anti-Clinton crowd didn't look as big because they were concentrating on the issues. Issues-oriented thinkers don't hit the streets in protests. Protesting is an emotional act, not a rational one.

Anti-Clinton folk concentrated on issues such as lying under oath to a Grand Jury. The subject of the lie was Monica, which was in turn merely the lie that could be pinned on him. Impeachment over perjury was principled, but perhaps you wouldn't understand.

We can't police the whole world. But we can do a little policing of the worst tyrants when called upon. That's what happened in 1991, we were called on to open a can-o'-whoopäss on a tyrant. If we turn our back once involved we'd be almost as bad as the tyrant. It is a principled cause, but again perhaps you wouldn't understand.

[Straybow]

"Nonsense, the majority of US were better trained and they had repeater rifles."

I sincerely doubt there were any production "repeater rifles" anywhere in the world in 1844-48. The source you later quoted says "breech loading rifles" as opposed to Mexico's [smoothbore] muskets. In truth, the breech loaders used were lousy. IIRC brass casings hadn't been invented yet, so they still had to be charged with powder and primed with a cap.

It is my understanding that artillery was far more instrumental than any rifles present. Furthermore, saying that the Americans had rifles doesn't mean that was their primary armament. 20 years later in the ACW the primary infantry weapon was still the muzzle-loading musket, and muzzle-loading rifles far outnumbered breech-loaders. Mostly the cavalry had breech-loaders, and the occasional Sharpe's sniper.

As for California, the Mexicans didn't think the Americans could threaten them in the West, so their armies were in the East. If any credible force had been in California the US could not have held it for long.

Fremont had one cannon, and he managed to let that get captured! Somehow he still succeeded in the central valley. An unfortified port like Monterey or San Fran is a sitting duck before a frigate with 20-30 cannon.

[Hoek]

How did we start talking about the Mexican-American War?

It was our fault. White southern settlers started moving into the area that was known as Texas. Their goal all along was to rebel against the Mexican government and then request annexation by the American government. When the Texans declared independence the second time, the American government was faced with the prospect of having the British or Russians annexing Texas, and so annexed it themselves, which caused the war.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Hoek
How did we start talking about the Mexican-American War?

It was our fault. White southern settlers started moving into the area that was known as Texas. Their goal all along was to rebel against the Mexican government and then request annexation by the American government. When the Texans declared independence the second time, the American government was faced with the prospect of having the British or Russians annexing Texas, and so annexed it themselves, which caused the war.

It was more than that. It was a plan to take California and the rest of Northern Mexico and make it Western US. The Mexicans were ready to accept the loss of Texas when Polk sent a diplomat to Mexico to make a low ball bid for the whole territory. When Mexico refused he moved the troops into the disputed territory making his intentions obvious.

Maybe the Mexicans were stupid for attacking us, but there wasn't really anything they could do to stop us from taking the territory from them since we wanted it so bad.

[Straybow]

Don't forget Florida in, what, 1819 or something?

In any case, American expansionism ended a hundred years ago. We could have been more aggressive against Mexico in the little conflict prior to WWI, but we weren't. We didn't take Okinawa from Japan, we just claimed a corner for a military base.

Hell, we even gave up the Panama Canal! You youngsters and non-USA folk probably have no idea what kind of fuss that raised. Three of my great-Aunts married the men they met in Panama during construction.

Aunt Inez was actually on the Secret Service angry letter list during FDR's tenure. She hated him with a passion—something to do with political machinations in NC in the wake of '29 crash and '32 election. She called him "that man in Washington" and wouldn't even speak his name. She never thought she'd live to see another president she could hate that much...

[GePap]

Hell, we even gave up the Panama Canal! You youngsters and non-USA folk probably have no idea what kind of fuss that raised. Three of my great-Aunts married the men they met in Panama during construction.

You renegotiated the lease you had on the land from Panama..and the Canal has been dpoing better since Panama took full operational control. Finantially, good ridence. As for Conservatives getting their panties ina bunch..just look how "true" all their idiotic predictions were.. tells you much about the credibility of Conservative pundits.

On the Mexican war: I still find it precious that so many of you argue about "Mexican superiority" Talk about revisionist history if there ever was an example



And on leftist protest: It would be nice for conservatives who disagree with this policy to come out and write something similar, but of course, being in power brings out this weird instinct of not making waves.

The left has the right and duty to protest a war they see as wrong: that they based their oposition on divergent causes, well, those are their issues. The same can be said of anti-trade protests, were you see unions and green marching next to each other.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Even if Mexico would have won the war they would never be able to keep the territory that they had lost. The US had a larger population and gold was about to be discovered in California.

You are only considering the Mexican army. Mexico never had a chance to defend those territories.

There is little doubt that the American's had a much larger navy and that they could better afford to finance a war & equipe an army. The U.S. policy from the revolution until the end of WW1 was to have a large, well trained officers corp and a small standing army which could quickly be augmented by volinteers once war broke out.

BTW Mexico only won a single battle in the entire war; it was the Battle of San Pascal Valley just north of San Diego. The U.S. Army had just siezed Los Angles and was marching south to take San Diego thus securing its excellent port for use by the U.S. Navy. The Cornel in charge was way over confident (since they'd been able to kick the Mexican Army out of 90% of California) and wanted to move fast so he was marching ahead without sending out sufficient recon petrols. The result was he walked right into a larger Mexican force positioned in the nearby hills and was ambushed while marching up the valley. There was a short battle which lasted about two hours after which the Americans were forced to retreat back to the city of Santa Ana and wait for reinforcements to arrive.