People choosing their own governments rather than being subjugated by others? Yes, I am. The problem with Wilsonian idealism is the limited extent to which it was put into practice, not the idea in itself.
Not having your own piece of land doesn't mean you are under "subjugation". Likewise having your own piece of territory does not mean you are "free". Me thinks this is "Northern Ireland" talking..........
No, you don't thinks that. You are perverting the idea of self-determination if you insist that it means carving the world up into infinitesimal national territories to suit every group and sub-group. In reality the main principle is that people choose their own governments without external interference. That can of course, be encompass federalisation, devolution, multi-ethnic states or shared sovereignty and obviously it comes with difficulties in some areas of the world - but that doesn't discredit the general principle.
You ignore basic human nature Rick. Offer a group of people something that they can say is "theirs" and they tend to take it regardless of the merits. That same group also then tends to want as much or more than their neighbors. Nor is people choosing their own governments a free ride to freedom and liberty.
I don't ignore human nature. That there will be attempts at subjugation from outside groups is precisely the reason that the principle of self-determination needs to be protected in the first place. And no, it doesn't guarantee freedom or liberty, but it's a necessary condition for same.
Sorry Rick. I prefer situations in regards to political entities where disparate peoples are united as much as possible rather than being divided. One reason I've staunchly opposed ideas as diverse as breaking Iraqi up in to several smaller nations or Texas (or California) breaking up into smaller states.
I don't think you can say that given his brilliant handling of national crisis such as the Mount Rainier eruption of 2037 or the EMP attack of 2039. Or the reorganization and funding stabilization of the U.S. space program that led directly to the manned expeditions to Mars in 2041 (and every 26 months thereafter) and to Jupiter in 2048. And of course the permanent reset of relations with Russia, China, and Iran after their defeats by the U.S. in 2040. The relocation of the UN to Istanbul and heavy changes to Security Council membership and establishment of a permanent international air force and navy helped as well. None of which would've been possible without the budget and regulatory reform acts of 2037 that cut the U.S. short and long term budget deficits dramatically leading to sustained economic growth across America of nearly 6% for more than a decade. All in all, much to be proud of.
Fortunately, since you lack any power, the arbitrary preferences of you or of any other fascist are immaterial and no substitute for an actual argument against people being free to choose their own governments.
The extent to which you don't understand the question is hilarious. Hint, look further back in history, about 150 years before the Revolution.
ummmm...... Unless I missed something Mexico invaded Texas which at the time was not a US State and technically belonged to Mexico in the first place. If anything Mexico was sending troops into a rebellious area. Not that I don't mind kicking Mexico's ass out of Texas and most of the Southwest.....
Obama is a massive failure, but he didn't do half the damage that George W. Bush and his administration did. Easily one of the worst presidents in recent memory and completely mishandled the "war on terror". The world will be paying for his mistakes for the next century.
Worst President? That's easy. It's this guy: How do you not make multiple copies of a tape that could end a war and then while carrying the only copy fly over a giant prison instead of around it? What an idiot!
You are a little off on the sequence of events. Here's what happened: Texas declares independence Texas defeats Mexico, petitions for US annexation US responds with "suck it, we don't want another slave state; we don't want a war with Mexico." Lone Star Republic US position changes, "erm, yeah, we'll take another state, especially if we can troll Mexico in to a war it can't win." Texas annexation Long standing border dispute between Texas-Mexico becomes border dispute between US-Mexico Polk moves troops in to the disputed zone (South of Mexico's claimed border, North of our claimed border). Mexican army crosses Rio Grande, is defeated by US army, much hilarity ensues. So yes, Mexico invaded US territory, and we then responded completely out of proportion by capturing all of Mexico. Of course we gave half of it back, but seriously, the whole thing should have ended after the first battle.
Ok dul, I'll bite, what's your fucking point? 150 years prior to the revolution the British were in charge. That has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of the country. That's like saying that because we gave civil war vets pensions, that directly led to Obamacare. If you have a point, please make it. You keep dancing around it. Either make it or shut the fuck up. I'm assuming it either has something to do with taking the Indians' land or the pilgrims or some other bull shit liberalism. Go ahead, spill the beans.
Reading thru the thread, I think the basic answer to the question is: If you're a liberal, it was a conservative. If you're a conservative, it was a liberal. No surprises.
What departments did Wilson create? Teddy was way ahead of him in terms of increasing the size of government. Wilson did have some stuff specifically relating to the war and some unconstitutional attacks on free speech but I cannot think of any long term programs he created (the US didn't even join the league of nations or ratify the treaty to end WW1).
That was only because of Wilson's stroke and his inability to overcome U.S. Senate opposition to the League
You missed something. Texas became a state two months before the start of the US/Mexican War. Prior to that, Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836, though there were border skirmishes for most of the nine years prior to it becoming a state.
Okay, so those British guys, whose descendants decided to become American guys. How did they get the land that became the thirteen states? Here, I'll answer the question for you: they stole it, through aggressive wars of conquest. You have articulated that such wars are wrong, and that it is immoral to profit by such wars. I agree. Be that as it may, for those of us who take that view, the United States exists on a foundation of theft and fraud, and I'm not talking about the British folks who tried to over tax other British folks. Get it now?
I like to refer to the episode of "High Chaparral" where the Army officer refers to the Cannons, owners of the ranch as "thieves". Buck Cannon- "My brother bought this land" Army officer- "Who did he buy it from?" Buck Cannon- "The Spanish" Army officer- "Did the Spanish buy it from the Apache?" Army officer- directs same question at Wind, the Apache ranch hand. Wind- "Not that I recall. But then the Apache didn't buy it from the Navaho either"
Agreed, it is far more complicated than the simplistic notion expressed by Federal Farmer. I'm simply illustrating that his complaint about the Mexican War implies a larger conclusion that he might not like.
The conclusion nobody will like is that we need to reconquer Mexico to create a homeland for our rapidly expanding Hispanic population.
I've always been more of a "Rifleman" fan You know people always on the show talked about how great Lucas McCain was with his modified 44-40 Rifle. What they neglect to mention is that Lucas was using a rifle, modified to fire semi-automatically with a 12 round capacity and far longer range......against single action six shooters for the most part. They also don't mention that McCain seldom actually bothered trying to "outdraw" opponents. For the most part he carried his rifle sidearm fashion but ALREADY POINTED at his opponent. It is like an AK-47 against a musket. First rule: Get a better horse.......
Actually the natives of the Americas suffered 90%-98% population loses due to diseases mostly spread from Indians to Indians. So much of the land really was depopulated at the time of colonization. When they ran out of the freely available land then the wars of conquest started.
There is absolutely no evidence of that. Also note that plagues just don't strike entire hemispheres when people have to travel on foot. The high death counts occurred in dense population centers in Central America and the worst was centered around Mexico City. That one seems to be from a rodent-borne disease that Aztecs were already familiar with. Smallpox and other diseases don't have a high death toll and even in a severe outbreak the population would've recovered in a generation, such that if it could explain a slightly low population in 1540 it couldn't explain one in 1560.
