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

Quote: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.

Quote: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?)

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

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

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

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

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote:*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?

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

Quote:Hi,
Let's not forget Dewey.:)

--Pete

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

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

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

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

Quote: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.

Quote: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

Quote: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.

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

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

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

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

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

Quote: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.)

Quote: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.

Quote:Perfectly good soldiers badly lead.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote:Mine contains piss, at the moment.