Does America have enough security?

[dalem]

I won't do it. You can't make me do it. I'm not gonna do it.

I am a Democrat...I AM a Democrat...I am a Democrat...I am a Democrat

:)

You are a Democrat like I'm a Republican, dearie. ;)

-dale

[TopHatter]

What the hell does the Mexican-American war have to do with this thread?

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure that one out Leader, but if Snaggle wants to have a go at a nice serious debate, I'm more than willing.
I haven't really contributed anything to this board except wisecracks in a couple months so this is like a breath of fresh air.

American's live on that land now. Would you up root over a hundred million people to satisfy your self-righteous crap?

Yes, there are indeed people that wallow in self-flagellation over shameful events in U.S. history. I'm not exactly proud of what the United States did in Mexico and quite a few other instances (like oh say, slavery) but the U.S. didn't invent aggressive warfare and it sure as hell didn't invent slavery.

OK...on with the debate!

(Hey! The Preview Post function finally works! :) )

[TopHatter]

Urgh...Yeah, I don't get that one. Would you mind rephrasing it?

What I meant was, Mexico was soundly and thoroughly defeated during the war.

Problems? What problems? The foreigners not having stolen enough land from the people that lived there in the first place? THAT problem?

Let's be clear on something here: You are speaking of Mexico as she was the honest householder and the "foreigners" were the thief in the night. Incorrect.
ALL of that land originally belonged to the Native Americans. The "people that lived there in the first place" obtained that land by pushing off the natives!
You are crying over the theft of property that was stolen to begin with! I'm not saying that made it all better and I sure as hell am not going to get into a "Native Americans were robbed" debate. But don't make Mexico out to be this peaceful agrarian commune.

Again, I can't understand what you're saying. I'm too slow...>.< Are you saying that those families didn't have a very good income to begin with? Or that they didn't get any compensation?

I'm saying they probably didn't get much - if any - compensation.
I honestly don't know either way, but I rather doubt it.

Or maybe it was because of America turning to diplomacy with Mexico AFTER 30,000 good men lost their lives.

Of course American turned to diplomacy AFTER the war. That's how you extract the maximum amount of reparations from the defeated country.
In this case, the United States twisted Mexico's arm for 525,000 square miles and it only cost them 627 million bucks. What a bunch of suckers...the U.S. could have said "We are taking this land from you at the point of the bayonet...any problems with that?" Instead they decided to pony up the dough.

I can't believe today we're freaking out because of 2,000 dead for a just cause, and not even caring about the 30,000 thousand that died for land the U.S. could have purchased in the first place.

You are perceiving from a false assumption, namely that Mexico would have sold that land to the United States. No, not a chance. There was little land to expand into to Mexico's south. The great potential was to her north.

I will also quote directly from that link that provided since you obviously didn't read it:
Also known as Mr. Polk's War, The Mexican-American War grew out of unresolved conflicts between Mexico and Texas. After winning its independence from Mexico in 1836, the Republic of Texas was annexed by the United States in 1845; however, the southern and western borders of Texas remained disputed during the Republic's lifetime. That same year tensions between the two countries over territory were raised when the United States government offered to pay off the Mexican debt to American settlers if Mexico allowed the U.S. to purchase the territories of Alta California and Nuevo México from Mexico. Britain and France had used force, or the threat of it, to induce the Mexican government to pay their claims on behalf of their citizens. The United States, however, preferred to negotiate, and the negotiations had dragged on for years.

And yes, most Americans are extremely distressed over the 2000 dead in the Iraq War.
Most Americans also don't have a clue was has been accomplished over there. Most Americans also don't have a clue how many servicemen and women die every year in simple training accidents....nor do they care. If they did, they'd be out in the streets with banners calling for the abolition of the military.
Most Americans also don't care how many Americans die every day from automobile accidents, drunk driving and the like. They continue to drive recklessly and have about "6 or 7" drinks before stepping behind the wheel.

Yes, 2000 dead is a horrifying thing to think about. I don't deny that. But don't point to it and scream about how "we don't care" about this or that.
There is a LOT that "we" don't care about.

It was acceptable at that time? Really? Because in the Constitution I read, having 30,000 men killed because of some land isn't at all acceptable.

Where exactly in the Constitution does it say:

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the
American people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation
and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and
air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right
of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

"...America didn't have to pay Mexico one red cent for that land."
One red cent? Red with BLOOD?!

Get real. This is a serious debate. Debate seriously and without a lot of emotionalism.
I'll say it one more time. The U.S. was under absolutely NO obligation to pay Mexico anything.

No, but it DID take two years to realize it had so much money.
$627,482,629 in current money was given to Mexico after the war. I'm assuming this money didn't magically poof here by the will of God, as a gift for warring with each other when I say, why didn't they use that BEFORE lives were lost? Come on, if a kid can figure it out, I'm sure a U.S. President could--no matter what time they lived in.

Again, you are going under the assumption that Mexico was willing to sell the land to the United States. Not A Chance. Yes, they already figured it out.
And yes, it was basically one giant landgrab as U.S. Grant said:

"The occupation, separation and annexation [of Texas] were ... a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union."

And I'll say again: This was a different time period. SLAVERY of human beings was the Law of The Land in many U.S. states. You think a little landgrab there 30,000 people were killed was much of a problem? Hell, they'd lose those many in a really bad epedemic! Live was not as precious as it is today.
Aggressive warfare for the purpose of gaining land was acceptable right to the Spanish-American War in 1898.

Two things I want you to look up for today's assignment:

The Gadsden Purchase:
Specifically, I want you to list the land (in acres) "stolen" or "bought" from Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the price paid for it, and the number of dead suffered by both sides.
Then I want you to compare/contrast the land (in acres) "stolen" or "bought" from Mexico under the Gadsden Purchase, and the price paid for it, and the number of dead suffered by both sides.

[Guest]

after having been living in USA for more than 3 years i find a lot of common things between politicians of my home country INDIA and my adopted country USA.
Politicians care a damn about majority, what they think about is how to get the minority vote(they think they can get the vote by giving them more sops). And thats the reason why i think both the parties are not stronger about immigration.
BTW when was the last time u guys discussed about ur home problems with ur neighbour and do as ur neighbour tells u(bcos u dont want to piss him off). i think its riduculous on the part of federal govt to discuss immigration with mexican govt, its ur home try to set it right on ur plan, not ur neighbours.
comming to the plan of stopping the illegal immigrants, i think federal govt should make a 500Meter stretch of land on mexico border as no mans land and fence both the sides of no mans land and fit the nomans land with all kinds of senosrs(I am sure ISRAEL has a lot of experience in this and it would be happy to help federal govt) and fill that land with the latest generation of mines(computer controlled(i,e) mines that can be activated and deactivated with a simple command from a central computer).
i just say one thing to all those guys who say illegal immigration cannot be stopped, " where there is a will there is a way"
-raj

[THL]

You are a Democrat like I'm a Republican, dearie. ;)

-dale

A republican, Dale? I had no idea.

There are certain issues I walk the line on, maybe a couple I slightly cross over on. But when the chips are down, the republicans would have nothing to do with me on the issues that I absolutely would not, could not, will not give in on...the right to choose (with restrictions) and gays being treated like heteros (basically I don't care who other people are sleeping with, & I don't think it should be a determining factor in anything).

[Ray]

TH,

If THL is a democrat, then are you a democrat or an autocrat?

[Ray]

the right to choose (with restrictions) and gays being treated like heteros (basically I don't care who other people are sleeping with,

I too don't care who they are sleeping with, so long as they sleep!

[TopHatter]

TH,

If THL is a democrat, then are you a democrat or an autocrat?

Hmmm....good question. I've never really determined my political affiliation.

I do like the sound of an autocracy...provided that I was autocrat :)

[Leader]

if Snaggle wants to have a go at a nice serious debate,

I've found that to be almost universally untrue of this person. I was once told that gas costs ~$70 to fill up half a tank in Western Australia because snuggle didn’t bother to check the conversion rate. This person has a history of taking absurdly anti-American positions.

I'm more than willing.
I haven't really contributed anything to this board except wisecracks in a couple months so this is like a breath of fresh air.

Just as long as you're having fun.

Yes, there are indeed people that wallow in self-flagellation over shameful events in U.S. history. I'm not exactly proud of what the United States did in Mexico and quite a few other instances (like oh say, slavery) but the U.S. didn't invent aggressive warfare and it sure as hell didn't invent slavery.

To understand these things you have to have some base understanding of US history or world history in general. I have serious doubts as to whether this person possess either. If I recall correctly, this person admits to being a real live commie.

(Hey! The Preview Post function finally works! :) )

There was some point when it didn't work?

[TopHatter]

I've found that to be almost universally untrue of this person. I was once told that gas costs ~$70 to fill up half a tank in Western Australia because snuggle didn’t bother to check the conversion rate. This person has a history of taking absurdly anti-American positions.

Sooner or later I'll get annoyed with it I'm sure.

To understand these things you have to have some base understanding of US history or world history in general.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

I have serious doubts as to whether this person possess either. If I recall correctly, this person admits to being a real live commie.

Yeah well, Snagglepuss is young (I'm guessing) and I don't mind giving history lessons.
Always wanted to be a history teacher, just never made the leap.

As for being a communist, I'll have to look back at some of his past posts.
Wouldn't surprise me though, given some of the things he's said.

There was some point when it didn't work?

Yeah, for me anyway.

[THL]

TH,

If THL is a democrat, then are you a democrat or an autocrat?

An Aristocat!....

[dalem]

A republican, Dale? I had no idea.

There are certain issues I walk the line on, maybe a couple I slightly cross over on. But when the chips are down, the republicans would have nothing to do with me on the issues that I absolutely would not, could not, will not give in on...the right to choose (with restrictions) and gays being treated like heteros (basically I don't care who other people are sleeping with, & I don't think it should be a determining factor in anything).

I think you are probably wrong on both issues, and could find room in the Big Tent if you wanted.

-dale

[Leader]

There are certain issues I walk the line on, maybe a couple I slightly cross over on. But when the chips are down, the republicans would have nothing to do with me on the issues that I absolutely would not, could not, will not give in on...the right to choose (with restrictions) and gays being treated like heteros (basically I don't care who other people are sleeping with, & I don't think it should be a determining factor in anything).

I think too much is made of both of those issues. Abortion I oppose in almost all cases, but I don't vote on that issue. I too could careless less who people sleep with. I mean I don't want to see it in the middle of the street or have it shoved in my face, but what consenting adults do in the privacy of there homes is not my problem or by extension the government's. As to gay marriage, I would prefer that the government not give out marriage certificates. I think they should license churches or individuals to conduct marriages of consenting adults.

[TopHatter]

As to gay marriage, I would prefer that the government not give out marriage certificates. I think they should license churches or individuals to conduct marriages of consenting adults.

I think what gay couples want, in addition to recognition of their relationship, is also the legal benefits that come from marriage.

[THL]

I think what gay couples want, in addition to recognition of their relationship, is also the legal benefits that come from marriage.

They should be entitled to them, but not just the benefits either...gay marriages should have to be just as difficult to end as hetero marriages. One party should have to pay child support to the other or share custody, etc. Basically, any "married" couple, gay or straight, should have the same negatives as well as benefits.


As for the abortion thing - I think it should go by the three strikes and you're out theory. A woman messes up, gets pregnant....fine, we all make mistakes, give her the abortion.
A second time, fine...sometimes people don't learn as easily as others.
The third time, this is now becoming a means of birth control, not a means to correct a wrong doing and I think she should get the 3rd abortion, but at the same time, regardless of her age, her tubes get tied.
This would mean keeping a national regstry and there would be a huge uproar about privacy and human rights, but my thoughts are that we are killing potential children and women should not be permitted to have 4, 5, 6 or more abortions. Especially since generally, the women that are doing this are on public aid and not paying for the abortions. Free or low cost birth control is available so there is no reason to become a habitual abortioner.

And thats all I have to say about that....