How Do You Feel About America?

Consider this:

* In 1846 we made war on a helpless neighbor (Mexico) because we wanted to add Texas to our land holdings. We ended up robbing -- yes, I think that's the right word -- Mexico not only of Texas but also of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. Did I leave out anything?

* In 1894 we decided we needed a foothold in the Pacific, so we simply stole the Kingdom of Hawaii from its rightful rulers, headed by Queen Lililiokalani. Our own Congress, at the time, censureed this move and cried "For shame!" but a subsequent administration in 1898 decided that usurpation of someone else's property was okay and accepted Hawaii as a Territory, granting it statehood in 1957. If that's your noton of turning other states into "allies," I'm glad you're not in politics, foofie.

* In 1898 we took on another anemic foe, just like we picked a fight with Mexico earlier. This time it was the tottering European monarchy of Spain. We kicked Spain out of Cuba and Puerto Rico in a war that lasted a good deal less than a year. No, this wasn't to help our neighbors get independent from Spain; it was so we could establish a naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba and keep Puerto Rico as a territory with no hope for independence in perpetuity. (What was that you said about the English language, foofie?)

* While we were at it, taking away Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain, we also wrested the Philippines from that hapless nation on the Iberian Peninsula of Europe. The Philippinos didn't like this, however, and one Aguinaldo, who had been our ally against Spain, suddenly became our enemy, leading insurgents against the US occupation. But we took care of him, too, eventually. The only reason the Philippines today are an independent country is because, following World War II, we had little choice in the matter.

Now what is this crap about communicating in English? It's a historical fact, that's all. The Spanish-speaking population is growing by leaps and bounds while the birth-rate among Anglophones seems to be at a decline. Let's see what the next 100 years will bring in terms of linguistics.

[Oh, yes, btw -- those of you so fond of comparing the Roman Empire to the current USA , I hope you realize that by the time of the Western Empire's collapse (somewhere around 500 c.e.) the language on the streets of Rome was not Latin any more. It was primarily a Greek dialect with some Germanic thrown in (much of the army was made up of Germanic mercenaries). In the Byzantine Empire, of course, Greek was always the language of not only of the common people but the government as well.]

won't deny the country has done some shitty things, name me one that hasn't
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree however my problem with our friendly neighbors from the north is that you guys enjoy getting on your high moral horse when it comes to the US.

In fact doing so seem to be the real national sport of Canadians.

It is not our faults that your great great grandfathers did not take up our invitation to join us given in person by B. Franklin and as a result, instead of being part of us you need to be in our very big shadow.

i like the american people on the board, even you bill, i don't like blind patriotism, in any country, and i see a lot of it in america, i think it's small minded, and we are after all human beings first, nations second

Let see first we could had taken all of Mexico but did not in the end wish to deal with such a large population with such a foreign culture. Funny part thank to a fairly open border we are ending up dealing with them in any case.

Hawaii would had been taken by the Japanese Empire within a month if we had removed ourselves from the scene, in fact not only did the Japanese grumble at our seizing the islands chain they even try a show of force with a cruiser or two off the island.

Hawaii could not had existed as an independent nation state and the only issue was who would seize them and all in all I do not think they would had gotten a better deal from the Japanese of that time period.

In fact when we was busy with our civil war France took over Mexico and only after the war when President Johnson was able to order them to leave did they do so.

History is never simple and mostly everyday morals does not fit the situation between nations.

I am an Originalist Conservative,
but I do not consider myself to be blindly patriotic.





David

I don't.

I have feelings about people, but not about countries.

i don't like blind patriotism, in any country
------------------------------------------------------
Being damn proud of your country and it many achievements is not of itself blind patriotism anymore then being ashame of your country history made you morally superior in some fashion.

which is pretty much what everyone has been telling you but you keep arguing the other side.

Would that be the same 1880 as the one when Susan B Anthony went to jail for the crime of trying to vote as a woman, when Southerners lived under a de-facto military occupation, and lynchings of Blacks ran rampant anyway? If so, how was the 1880 regime conducive to freedom?

U made some good points, Thomas.
I was looking at it from the perspective of a New Yorker.
Note that I support the 19th Amendment.





David

which is pretty much what everyone has been telling you but you keep arguing the other side.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In what way had I been on the side of using everyday morals in taking needed actions of national self-protection?

Threads with fools stating how we had no “rights” to break foreign countries laws even in the efforts to shortstop large scale terrorists are attacks on our soil.

I was not the one who posted with delight how the Italy courts was trying to go after our guardians/agents now was I?

So what are you talking about?

not true david, the truth is you were looking with your eyes wide shut. That seems yor be your most common perspective.

I know that u r trying to be insulting,
but whatever your point is, it is not clearly expressed.
I don 't know what u r talking about.

in my mind it has nothing to do with delight, it has to do with international laws, or rather the fact that other countries have laws and the right to enforce them, no matter who breaks them

when Southerners lived under a de-facto military occupation, and lynchings of Blacks ran rampant anyway? If so, how was the 1880 regime conducive to freedom?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm you wish to have it both ways it would seem the military occupation did stop the lynchings and gave the blacks the power to vote and have a large say in their state governments. it also plenty must stop the first version of the KKK in it evil tracks.

Only after the military was withdrawn from the south did the KKK and the large scale lynching came about along with stopping the ability of blacks to vote.

After the Federal government once more step in the late 1950s the blacks once more regain the rights they had enjoy right after the civil war.

I'd have to say that Canadians are one of the most nationalistically-obsessed people i've ever seen. On CBC, you have Canada Reads, you have Canadian song contests, the radio personalities interview Canadians with opinions on this or that subject. Everywhere around you, you see Canadian this, and Maple Leaf that--i don't see Canadians as being any less nationalistic than Americans. They only difference is that Canadians have Americans to bash, and most Americans go from one year to the next without ever giving a thought to Canada.

I've seen literally thousands of Canadians gather on July 1 to renew their "citizenship vows." On the fourth of July, Americans party, and then go out to watch the fireworks. Different strokes, Boss . . .

It means, quite simply david, that your stated opinions almost always display an unusual degree of myopia.

HOW is international law involved?

i guess i need to get out more,

as distinct from YOU, who sees things BACKWARD