War In The USA

[JBeukema]

There already is a war in the US. The government against YOU, ...
Idiots.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTlFTKyp_28]YouTube - Bad Religion - You are the Government lyrics[/ame]

 

[Lycurgus]

The piece I read referenced the invasion of Iraq.

As the political and media machines in this nation would like us to believe that we invaded Iraq without just cause or frankly legal justification, this simply is not true.

As it is simple to explain why, I have found it best to suggest to those curious to go read carefully about our military engagements with Iraq from the 90's on. The answer is well documented.

In fact, had Clinton properly honored his duties as president, Iraq would have been a non issue by the time GW rolled around. Again, well documented.

 

[Varangian]

But we had no problem going to war (with...Mexicans) to expand our own territory in the Western Hemisphere.

Two words: Thornton Affair.

"The cup of forbearance had been exhausted even before the recent information from the frontier of the Del Norte [Rio Grande]. But now, after reiterated menaces, Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are now at war."

Mexico started that one, and got its ass kicked for the trouble.

 

[mightypeon]

You know, a peculiar thing about Americans is that they always make up a casus belli beforehand. Gulf on Tonkin anyone?

In this particular case, it was not American but Texan soil at most, and Mexican soil from a de jure pow. I mean, the treaty of Velasco was made under duress, the mexican parlament never ratified it and Texas itself didnt uphold it either.
The whole thing is an almost textbook example of "how to forge/provoke a Casus Belli".

 

[Varangian]

You know, a peculiar thing about Americans is that they always make up a casus belli beforehand. Gulf on Tonkin anyone?

In this particular case, it was not American but Texan soil at most, and Mexican soil from a de jure pow. I mean, the treaty of Velasco was made under duress, the mexican parlament never ratified it and Texas itself didnt uphold it either.
The whole thing is an almost textbook example of "how to forge/provoke a Casus Belli".

Hardly.

The Republic of Texas won its independence in the same way that Mexico won its own, and for the same reasons.

The Mexican citizens of Texas, mostly but not exclusively of Anglo origin, objected to the abolition of the 1824 constitution by Santa Anna and its replacement with the centralist dictatorship of the 1835 constitution. It was not only the Mexicans of Anglo origin who objected; the states of Zacatecas, Nuevo Leon, Jalisco, San Luis, and Coahuila (which at that time included Texas) rebelled against the new dictator. All of them quickly submitted when Santa Anna came calling with his army, with the exception of Texas (which broke away from Coahuila) and the state of Zacatecas. Santa Anna decided to deal with Zacatecas first, as he perceived it to be the greater threat. The brutality of that expedition is a matter of record; Texans took careful note of what Santa Anna had planned for them and we know the outcome of his expedition to Texas. The dissatisfaction with the 1835 constitution lingered long after Texas secured its independence; in 1840-41 the state of Yucatan seceded and formed its own Republic, and the states of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas seceded again and formed the Republic of the Rio Grande.

Mexico never seriously moved to enforce its claims to Texas, its most significant effort being the disastrous Woll expedition of 1842. Texas successfully defended itself against all of Mexico's attempts to reclaim it. The Republic of Texas was not only recognized by the US; it was also recognized as an independent Republic by Belgium and the Netherlands. France, one of the two most powerful nations in the world at the time, fully recognized Texas' independence. The other most powerful country, the UK, did not officially recognize the Republic due to its own relations with Mexico, but did allow the Republic to establish a formal Embassy in London.

Bottom line is that the Republic of Texas was de facto independent. On the topic of annexation, the US was treating with a sovereign nation that had defended its own sovereignty for nine years against all comers.

And the Mexicans were not lacking on other provocations. Due to their endemic lack of capacity for getting their shit together, which continues to this day, successive Mexican governments had confiscated American private property in Mexico and raided American shipping in the Gulf in a desperate bid for resources to continue their internal conflicts. American losses at the outbreak of the Mexican war were about $6 million 1845 dollars. In contrast to the UK and France, which used force to successfully obtain reparations for their losses, the US tried to negotiate a settlement and was scornfully rejected.

The US bent over backwards to obtain diplomatic resolutions to the long list of very real problems between it and Mexico, only to be met with derision and rejection. Mexican violence against US troops on US territory was the last straw.

Like I said, the Mexicans practically begged for a war with the US, and got exactly what they wanted. If they don't like how the war turned out, too bad. But the Mexican war was hardly a war of American aggression.

 

[Smartt33]

As many Americans seem to support the notion of war and export of same around the World just how many Americans would welcome war if it was happening in their own country.

Having the good fortune nay luxury of not having the bloodshed and destruction of their people and nation would the average America be so pro war if they suffered as so many others have.

It is my firm belief that this total detachment from the reality of war that leeds Americans into believing its perfectly OK to attack any nation they like be they a threat or not. The average American does not know what war is like even for their own combatents never mind what it must be like to be invaded and occupide by a foreign force.

I am sure that many would soon loose this lust for mass murder and wholesale looting if they had undergone the same process.

Land and property destruction happens in many ways, but when you talk about bloodshed, have you not noticed that our military men and women often come home in body bags? We do suffer loss in many ways, including economical loss due to the costs of wars abroad. Our nation is suffering now in that way.

Personally, I believe we may soon be involved in fighting here in America. It may be a war waged against the corrupt government here. It may be a war that will result from the growth in number terrorist muslims in this country, and a religious/national war break out. The poor may rise up against the rich because of the way the government is padding the rich deck and robbiung the poor. The military men and women returning home may actually be fed up with the government corruption, and their degrading of these returning soldiers as potential terrorists. In some cases, I would support such a war.

However, you have it wrong, we do suffer from the bloodshed and loss in America.

 

[BrianH]

I will agree that today's American society is distanced from war and bloodshed. However, I would not pretend to know how Americans would handle it. Lets not forget that it took many years for Americans to get involved in both WWI and WWII. Americans have been "historically" (that is until the 1940s) a typically neutral country that preferred to stay out of war.

Got a long way to beat the Swiss

wb Brian.

Agreed...

 

[BrianH]

I will agree that today's American society is distanced from war and bloodshed. However, I would not pretend to know how Americans would handle it. Lets not forget that it took many years for Americans to get involved in both WWI and WWII. Americans have been "historically" (that is until the 1940s) a typically neutral country that preferred to stay out of war.

Stay out of European wars you mean. And that served us very well, too. As did imposing tariffs to encourage American industry I might add.

But we had no problem going to war (with AmerIndians and Mexicans) to expand our own territory in the Western Hemisphere.

I think in this point in the discussion, we need to distinguish the difference in attitude of the people and the government. The government had no problems going to war. The majority of the American people preferred to stay out of the affairs of the eastern hemisphere.

Personally, I just don't think that the OP can be seriously debated, considering the futuristic predictions based on an idea that American society is distanced from bloodshed.

 

[Diuretic]

The piece I read referenced the invasion of Iraq.

As the political and media machines in this nation would like us to believe that we invaded Iraq without just cause or frankly legal justification, this simply is not true.

As it is simple to explain why, I have found it best to suggest to those curious to go read carefully about our military engagements with Iraq from the 90's on. The answer is well documented.

In fact, had Clinton properly honored his duties as president, Iraq would have been a non issue by the time GW rolled around. Again, well documented.

Don't be a tease - come out with it