http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32470726
QuotePutin-backed bikers begin controversial ride to Berlin
An ultra-patriotic Russian bike club has begun a controversial ride to Berlin, even though Poland says it will not allow them to cross the country.
The Night Wolves want to retrace the route of the Red Army in World War Two, and visit memorials to the Soviet troops who died fighting the Nazis.
But Poland's prime minister called the trip a provocation.
The bikers are renowned for their staunch support of President Putin, particularly his policies in Ukraine.
The US has put the club on its sanctions list.
'Not provocative'
The group heading for Berlin joined a large crowd at the Night Wolves' headquarters in Moscow on Saturday for the annual launch of the season.
Their leather jackets were newly embroidered: "Routes of Victory, 1941-45".
"I don't think visiting war graves is provocative or aggressive," one of the men, Vladimir, told the BBC as a rock band played on stage.
"Ours is a friendly visit, and we're unarmed. The most important thing is to visit the graves and do something to tell our grandchildren about."
Another biker already has a Polish visa and says he informed the embassy of his plans when he applied.
"So what basis does the Polish government have for denying me entry now?" Viktor Keller wanted to know.
'An outrage'
The official reason is that the Polish authorities were not given sufficient notice of the trip and cannot guarantee the bikers' safety.
Russia's foreign ministry labelled that "a downright lie" and an "outrage".
But defiant statements aside, it remains unclear how the bikers can possibly reach the Reichstag by road now.
Their leader, known as "The Surgeon", suggested they may try to enter individually, via different crossing points. But even so, they could well be blocked at the border.
Now they have roared off towards Berlin, Russian state TV crews in tow, the Night Wolves will certainly cry foul if they are forced to return home.
But to Warsaw this war tour clearly symbolises a new era of muscle-flexing by Russia that makes it nervous.
I wonder if they planned to take an extended break before entering Warsaw.
This is so stupid.
We should have just ignored them/let them through. If we wanted to be dicks about it, once they are in, we should have just done a thorough check instead to make sure their exhaust pipes meet EU emission standards and none of the bikers is DUI.
Poland is one of the most easily trolled countries in Europe.
I have to say, though, if Putin is a Bond villain, "The Surgeon" makes for a good henchman.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2Fpb-130315-putin-motorcycle-nj-01.photoblog900.jpg&hash=c492d1c2fdd12b4f62213d4445da1f5a6276b178)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewslanc.com%2Fimages%2Fslava_nightwolf9.png&hash=3c25aefc348780d179fc0d1ff27afa9254c5de90)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trelokouneli.gr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FNight-Wolves-club-leader-is-Alexander-Zaldostanov-nicknamed-Surgeon-one-of-Vladimir-Putins-friends-.jpg&hash=a9c186bd34320c28073553d42340de2925006bf8)
Those fuck me eyes though. :D
Looks like Putin is offering him his dick on a plate in that last picture.
Quote from: Syt on April 26, 2015, 01:31:19 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trelokouneli.gr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2FNight-Wolves-club-leader-is-Alexander-Zaldostanov-nicknamed-Surgeon-one-of-Vladimir-Putins-friends-.jpg&hash=a9c186bd34320c28073553d42340de2925006bf8)
They need to find a chick.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christopherreeve.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fsuperman-ii-general-zods-terence-stamp-boots%2Fterence_stamp_image_superman_2_general_zod.jpg&hash=44cf5018af1ef24559247f7f70424966be7bf14a)
They do totally give the "Evil mastermind with his trusty henchman" vibe.
Putin is becoming a cartoonish villain. He's no longer a complex character who merely has no scruples when it comes to the means of fulfilling his huge ambitions. He just sides with everything that is evil and fights against everything that is virtuous.
Quote from: Martinus on April 26, 2015, 01:01:16 AM
Poland is one of the most easily trolled countries in Europe.
It has been a while since I tested, but I seem to remember Poles were indeed quite easy to troll.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2015, 10:07:11 AM
Putin is becoming a cartoonish villain. He's no longer a complex character who merely has no scruples when it comes to the means of fulfilling his huge ambitions. He just sides with everything that is evil and fights against everything that is virtuous.
Maybe he is a Darth Vadar type figure that appears evil, but deep down still has good in him. Don't forget what Bush saw when he looked into Putin's soul.
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
That's ridiculous. At the very start of the Crimea crisis Obama in effect offered international recognition of the annexation in exchange for pulling out of the rest of Ukraine.
We should just have let them go there. Who cares.
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
We had carved countries out of their sphere for the last twenty years, so why not continue? Those Eastern bloc countries that joined the West in EU and NATO are much better off than those that didn't.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2015, 01:50:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
That's ridiculous. At the very start of the Crimea crisis Obama in effect offered international recognition of the annexation in exchange for pulling out of the rest of Ukraine.
Of course its ridiculous. It is Neil. And it is funny, in a sort of Ide-hyperbole-shtick kind of way. Neil doesn't post stuff meant to be taken seriously.
Quote from: Zanza on April 26, 2015, 01:50:24 PM
We should just have let them go there. Who cares.
I agree. Whoever they are and wherever there is, let them go, and no one cares. Hell, the Russian Army went to Berlin in '45 and the Germans didn't seem to care.
The thing is that they are who they are, and they do things because of the history they have. We need to remember that they have always acted this way.
Wait, what they are they again?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2015, 01:50:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
That's ridiculous. At the very start of the Crimea crisis Obama in effect offered international recognition of the annexation in exchange for pulling out of the rest of Ukraine.
Do you think that recognizing the annexation of the Crimea was worth Russia giving up control of the rest of Ukraine? Russians don't.
Quote from: Zanza on April 26, 2015, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
We had carved countries out of their sphere for the last twenty years, so why not continue? Those Eastern bloc countries that joined the West in EU and NATO are much better off than those that didn't.
Why would Russians care about the quality of life in their subject states? Did you think that the Russians were just going to sit idly by as their territories were sliced away? Where do you think they should draw the line, and why do you think they should agree with you?
Love the lingo, Neil. "As their territories were sliced away" sounds so Third Age Gondor. Russians are used, by now, to having "their" territories "sliced away." Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, on and on. The temporary lull in Russian loserdom from 1815-1914 was the exception, not the rule. They'll lose a hell of a lot more before they gain anything.
I think your analysis ignores the couple of centuries of Russian expansion prior to 1815. But even if you were spot on, why would the Russians want to give up what they see as theirs without a struggle? What are we offering them?
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 05:57:49 PM
I think your analysis ignores the couple of centuries of Russian expansion prior to 1815. But even if you were spot on, why would the Russians want to give up what they see as theirs without a struggle? What are we offering them?
Russian expansion prior to 1815 (and after 1815) was akin to Britain's expansion overseas. Chechnya is to Russia as Palestine is to the UK. Like the UK, Russia will eventually retreat from empire out of sheer weariness. I certainly don't expect Russians to do the smart thing and abandon their empire without a fight; like the French, they will lose as many wars as they can economically afford to, and then lose one more. Hopefully, like the French, that last war will shock them to their senses.
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2015, 01:50:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
That's ridiculous. At the very start of the Crimea crisis Obama in effect offered international recognition of the annexation in exchange for pulling out of the rest of Ukraine.
Do you think that recognizing the annexation of the Crimea was worth Russia giving up control of the rest of Ukraine? Russians don't.
I think recognizing the annexation of the Crimea is not "Russia giving whatever the West asks, in exchange for nothing."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2015, 06:12:23 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2015, 01:50:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
That's ridiculous. At the very start of the Crimea crisis Obama in effect offered international recognition of the annexation in exchange for pulling out of the rest of Ukraine.
Do you think that recognizing the annexation of the Crimea was worth Russia giving up control of the rest of Ukraine? Russians don't.
I think recognizing the annexation of the Crimea is not "Russia giving whatever the West asks, in exchange for nothing."
But think about it. The West was saying 'You can have Crimea, but the rest of Ukraine is ours', whereas before it had all been under Russian sway.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2015, 06:06:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 05:57:49 PM
I think your analysis ignores the couple of centuries of Russian expansion prior to 1815. But even if you were spot on, why would the Russians want to give up what they see as theirs without a struggle? What are we offering them?
Russian expansion prior to 1815 (and after 1815) was akin to Britain's expansion overseas. Chechnya is to Russia as Palestine is to the UK. Like the UK, Russia will eventually retreat from empire out of sheer weariness. I certainly don't expect Russians to do the smart thing and abandon their empire without a fight; like the French, they will lose as many wars as they can economically afford to, and then lose one more. Hopefully, like the French, that last war will shock them to their senses.
Perhaps. Still, there's always a chance that Russia will go the American West route and just exterminate their subject peoples. Although with the low Russian birthrate and high emigration, perhaps that's not in the cards.
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 06:16:43 PM
But think about it. The West was saying 'You can have Crimea, but the rest of Ukraine is ours', whereas before it had all been under Russian sway.
After deep and prolonged thought, I still don't see how recognition of the annexation is Russia giving whatever the West asks in exchange for nothing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2015, 06:19:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 06:16:43 PM
But think about it. The West was saying 'You can have Crimea, but the rest of Ukraine is ours', whereas before it had all been under Russian sway.
After deep and prolonged thought, I still don't see how recognition of the annexation is Russia giving whatever the West asks in exchange for nothing.
Because Russia has to give the west the rest of Ukraine, only keeping the Crimea.
OK Neil.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2015, 06:06:25 PM
Russian expansion prior to 1815 (and after 1815) was akin to Britain's expansion overseas. Chechnya is to Russia as Palestine is to the UK. Like the UK, Russia will eventually retreat from empire out of sheer weariness. I certainly don't expect Russians to do the smart thing and abandon their empire without a fight; like the French, they will lose as many wars as they can economically afford to, and then lose one more. Hopefully, like the French, that last war will shock them to their senses.
Siberia was pretty beneficial. Lots of oil and other resources, hardly any unruly natives.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2015, 08:09:56 PM
Siberia was pretty beneficial. Lots of oil and other resources, hardly any unruly natives.
Siberia (except the farthest-east portion, which has its own independence movement) is to Russia as the North Sea is to the UK.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2015, 08:25:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2015, 08:09:56 PM
Siberia was pretty beneficial. Lots of oil and other resources, hardly any unruly natives.
Siberia (except the farthest-east portion, which has its own independence movement) is to Russia as the North Sea is to the UK.
Technically the Far East is not Siberia. But, you are right. That's is why they keep an entire flotilla of ships in Omsk.
I think this may be the worst biker gang ever. Associating with politicians, going on history tour bike rides, and upholding traditional national values?
Speaking of traditional russian values, check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqZ7OAUClKc
Supposedly it comes from some school, and has some sort of connection to WWII, and people in charge are going to jail.
Siege and Ed will probably lose their mind.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2015, 06:06:25 PM
Russian expansion prior to 1815 (and after 1815) was akin to Britain's expansion overseas. Chechnya is to Russia as Palestine is to the UK. Like the UK, Russia will eventually retreat from empire out of sheer weariness. I certainly don't expect Russians to do the smart thing and abandon their empire without a fight; like the French, they will lose as many wars as they can economically afford to, and then lose one more. Hopefully, like the French, that last war will shock them to their senses.
Palestine was an overseas possession, and belonged to the UK between 1918 and 1948 (30 years). Chechnya is directly linked by land to Russia and has been Russian since 1859 (156 years). Quite a bit of a difference.
That said, I find odd the idea of giving up an Empire as being the "smart thing". How is it "becoming small, militarily irrelevant and ever more populated by your former subjects who then groom your little girls for sex" working for Britain? Making the country ever greater?
Hah, the British now only have two things to look for in the future: being absorbed by an European superstate, or eventually dilluting into a tiny backwater between America and Europe called England, if that.
For that analogy, why doesn't the US do "the smart thing" and closes all its overseas bases, withdraws all its troops from other countries and returns Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico?
Also, as part of that "smart" deal, tell you what America can also do: Russia gets all of the Alaska. But, since Moscow is so nice, the US gets to keep the panhandle.
If you don't like this agreement, your're an "impossible person to deal with".
Also find funny the alleged amazement of Western leaders that "Russia still thinks in terms of spheres of influence". And then they go apeshit if someone seems to step in *their* spheres of influence.
That is why the US is currenty trying to make a free trade deal with the Asian countries that specifically excludes China, in order to prevent more chinese influence in the area, which would reduce its sphere of influence. Imagine the American reaction if Beijing tried to make a free trade pact in the Americas that excluded the US...
America could also be more honest about why the US Congress was delaying the long-agreed reform of the IMF and World Bank - it was clearly in order to prevent the Chinese from gaining power in them, reducing the influence the US has over these institutions.
This also led China - annoyed at the lack of progress in the IMF/World Bank reforms because of the US - to decide to set up its own world financial institution last year, the AIIB. Which made Washington ask the other nations not to join it.
It was fun to see the American dismay at the fact that that only its political puppet Japan obeyed the instructions, while everyone else, recognizing the rise of Chinese power, decided to join Beijing's development bank, even the British, ever so eager to try to cling to whatever little straws of their former power [namely, the financial prowess of the City of London] they still have.
Quote from: grumbler
Siberia (except the farthest-east portion, which has its own independence movement) is to Russia as the North Sea is to the UK.
Oh, didn't realize that the UK had its third-largest city in the North Sea. Not to mention a large industrial area and tens of millions of its inhabitants.
Quote from: Razgorovy
But, you are right. That's is why they keep an entire flotilla of ships in Omsk.
Hard to station ships in Omsk, given that is landlocked and 6.400km (4.000 miles) away from the Far Eastern ports.
Don't you mean Vladivostock, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy and Vilyuchinsk instead?
:lol:
Texas, California, Alaska, etc are full of Americans. Not really comparable to India or Palestine.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2015, 09:57:49 PM
Texas, California, Alaska, etc are full of Americans. Not really comparable to India or Palestine.
Grumbler was comparing Chechnya to Palestine, not me. I was pointing out the comparison is absurd. Would be akin to suggesting that all the Native Americans should move to Oklahoma and making that state independent because it's the "smart thing to do" [althogh Oklahoma has been a US state for less time that Chechnya has been part of Russia, actually].
If you want population comparisons, there are 8.3 million ethnic Russians in the Ukraine (and there were 1.1 million more in the Crimea). How many Americans live in Alaska, exactly?
Not to mention large Russian minorities in other states - Russians make up almost 24% of the population of Khazakstan, for example.
And that country, the 10th largest in the world [roughly a third of the size of the US], has less than 17 million people living there - it's very sparsely inhabited.
Since Americans love to justify their annexation of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas with "there were few Mexicans there anyway", what prevents the same reasoning to be applied by Russia to Khazakhstan?
:zzz Martim was more interesting to read when he was writing about getting handjobs from ambassadors.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2015, 10:14:15 PM
:zzz Martim was more interesting to read when he was writing about getting handjobs from ambassadors.
Speak for yourself. I think this stuff is great.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 26, 2015, 10:09:25 PM
Grumbler was comparing Chechnya to Palestine, not me. I was pointing out the comparison is absurd
Yeah, a better analogy to the relationship of Russia to Chechnya would be that of Austria to Bohemia.
QuoteSince Americans love to justify their annexation of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas with "there were few Mexicans there anyway", what prevents the same reasoning to be applied by Russia to Khazakhstan?
Aside from the fact that I don't think I've ever heard another American use that justification, I'm not sure that "there were few Mexicans living there anyway" would provide much justification for Russian taking back Khazakhstan. Though I suppose it is factually correct that there are few Mexicans living here.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 26, 2015, 10:09:25 PM
Since Americans love to justify their annexation of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas with "there were few Mexicans there anyway",
what
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
You have got to be joking, Neil. You're a fairly reasonable man. But you don't live in a country neighbouring Russia.
Putin is a mad dog that needs to be put down. Plain and simple.
If that means upping the defence budget tenfold, so be it. I, for one, won't stand for what Putin does.
Quote from: DGuller on April 26, 2015, 10:14:15 PM
:zzz Martim was more interesting to read when he was writing about getting handjobs from ambassadors.
I dislike when the dingus doesn't get my joke. Still his geo-political analyses is as trenchant as ever. European susperstate! :lol:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 26, 2015, 11:14:32 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 26, 2015, 10:09:25 PM
Since Americans love to justify their annexation of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas with "there were few Mexicans there anyway",
what
Otto did that once, of course he's just some old drunk.
It's true though. The Comanche and Apache didn't care much for Mexicans.
http://tass.ru/en/russia/791948
QuoteRussian bikers participating in Moscow-Berlin motocross reach Polish border
More than 100 Polish Katyn Raid bikers are waiting for Russian motorcyclists to cross the border
WARSAW, April 27. /TASS/. Bikers from Russia's Night Wolves club have reached the border with Poland on Monday. The bikers participating in the Moscow-Berlin motocross dedicated to the 70th anniversary of Victory Day are now undergoing border control procedures.
"Border guards will act in compliance with existing legislature," a press secretary of the border control department told TASS, adding that they will check the bikers' documents.
Polish media reported earlier that border guards will scrupulously check every Russian on a motorcycle, look for Night Wolves badges in order to prevent bikers from the club from entering the country as individual motorcyclists.
According to a preliminary plan, participants of the motocross will head for Warsaw after crossing the border. In the Polish capital, they will lay wreaths at the Soviet Military Cemetery, at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and at the Volyn Park.
More than 100 Polish Katyn Raid bikers are waiting for Russian motorcyclists to cross the border. "If Russian motorcyclists are attacked, it will be a disgrace for us. In Poland, all bikers are our guests. We must help them and protect them," head of Katyn Raid biker club Viktor Vengzhin said.
On April 25, Russian motorcyclists started Moscow-Berlin motocross which will pass through Minsk, Brest, Wroclaw, Brno, Bratislava, Vienna :hmm:, Munich and Prague.
The Polish authorities have not allowed Russian bikers from the "Night Wolves" club to ride through the Polish territory, saying the motocross represents "a political provocation." The decision came in spite of remarks by Poland's former Prime Minister Leszek Miller who called the step "a political paranoia."
The Polish Interior Ministry sent a note to the Russian Embassy in Poland "containing information on refusing entry to the territory of Poland to an organized group of motorcyclists, including representatives of the Night Wolves club."
President of the Night Wolves club Alexander Zaldostanov said this will not affect the motocross.
QuotePolish media reported earlier that border guards will scrupulously check every Russian on a motorcycle, look for Night Wolves badges in order to prevent bikers from the club from entering the country as individual motorcyclists.
Why? :huh:
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on April 26, 2015, 11:14:32 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 26, 2015, 10:09:25 PM
Since Americans love to justify their annexation of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas with "there were few Mexicans there anyway",
what
Don't question Martim's mastery of American culture. He just had lunch with the ambassador from Texas, and the ambassador told him how Americans love to justify annexations.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2015, 09:50:22 PM
:lol:
:D Yeah, somebody didn't get the joke; well, somebody besides maybe Raz - I can't tell if Raz is playing along with the joke or thinks he is insulting me through smarm.
Quote from: Norgy on April 26, 2015, 11:21:54 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Putin was a man that could be worked with. I feel that if the West was willing to play the give and take of diplomacy, Putin could probably be dealt with. However, at this point, Putin is well aware that the West expects Russia to give whatever they ask, in exchange for nothing. Did people really think that they could just carve countries out of Russia's sphere and that the Russians wouldn't react?
You have got to be joking, Neil. You're a fairly reasonable man. But you don't live in a country neighbouring Russia.
Putin is a mad dog that needs to be put down. Plain and simple.
If that means upping the defence budget tenfold, so be it. I, for one, won't stand for what Putin does.
Putin will mind his own business if we mind what he sees as ours. That said, our businesses are mutually incompatible.
I think Irkutsk is to Russia as Reunion Island is to France.
Martim: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: AMERIKKKA IS EVUL!
Well, now let's hope that Poland stops the Night Wolves as they should. Just in case they fail to do so [trust in Polish capabilities is... low], Germany also banned them.
To the core of the issue: yes, the EU is messing in Russia's direct sphere of influence. This was unavoidable - we are creating a rising European power, Russia is a declining one. Eventually our interests would clash. At least it is over a worthy prize, the Ukraine.
So far, things have been going well. As long as we have the Ukraine, we get strategic relevance not only in Eastern Europe, but we can project it towards the Caucasus (hence the negotiations with Georgia). This is good, but also means the relations with Moscow will become gelid - without at least the Ukraine, Russia cannot hope to regain its Imperial status.
Quote from: Neil
Putin will mind his own business if we mind what he sees as ours. That said, our businesses are mutually incompatible.
Correct.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2015, 07:41:42 AM
I think Irkutsk is to Russia as Reunion Island is to France.
Martim: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: :ultra: AMERIKKKA IS EVUL!
Not my point at all. You like to dream?
I was just pointing out that direct comparisions (especially the inane ones being made by Grumbler) were nonsensical.
And also venting at a pet peeve of mine, the prevaling idea that "Empires are Evil" and anything associated with them must be done away with.
I mentioned the Mexican Cession [and yes, the 'lands were mostly unhinhabited' is the first argument used by Americans in defense of their annexation, closely followed by the 'but we paid for them' one, not my fault that you as Americans never question this among yourselves] because it was a purely Imperial war to enlarge America.
It is, therefore, a great example to give to many Americans that Empire-building does have its benefits. If all relating to it is bad, then those lands would have to be returned. Which is not a good idea for any American.
And the Alaska was just an analogy so that you get an idea of what Russia thinks about Ukraine, the Crimea and the West's offers (for Russia, the Ukraine isn't a 'real' nation, not even a 'real' state; it is just an artificial creation, and its existance can only be justified by it being propped by outside powers. The EU sees it otherwise, but that will hardly stop the Kremlin from being infuriated at losing one of the most important provinces of its 'Empire'.
And for the record, it's hardly just America that does this. France also goes ballistic over stuff happening in it's 'sphere of influence', which are its former colonies in Africa, for example. And Italy has been taking quite an interest in its former colony of Libya that seems to go beyond the migrant question, just to say two european cases.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 27, 2015, 08:06:43 AM
Not my point at all. You like to dream?
I thought it was funny we went right from Palestine and Chechnya right to an attack on my state. It seems the USA annexed us not because we begged them to do so but because there was a lack of Mexicans here. And it is true, there were no Mexicans here only proud Tejanos who were not going to put up with Mexico City's autocratic shit. Who died for Texas' independence. Though annexation did not go well for them at all unfortunately, at least for awhile.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2015, 08:10:31 AM
And it is true, there were no Mexicans here only proud Tejanos who were not going to put up with Mexico City's autocratic shit.
Like banning slavery. :P
Quote from: Syt on April 27, 2015, 08:31:33 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2015, 08:10:31 AM
And it is true, there were no Mexicans here only proud Tejanos who were not going to put up with Mexico City's autocratic shit.
Like banning slavery. :P
Free-market interference. People were slaves because they didn't have better options.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 27, 2015, 08:06:43 AM
And the Alaska was just an analogy so that you get an idea of what Russia thinks about Ukraine, the Crimea and the West's offers (for Russia, the Ukraine isn't a 'real' nation, not even a 'real' state; it is just an artificial creation, and its existance can only be justified by it being propped by outside powers. The EU sees it otherwise, but that will hardly stop the Kremlin from being infuriated at losing one of the most important provinces of its 'Empire'.
I find it interesting that never once in your remarks about the Ukraine have you mentioned the Ukrainian people.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2015, 08:10:31 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 27, 2015, 08:06:43 AM
Not my point at all. You like to dream?
I thought it was funny we went right from Palestine and Chechnya right to an attack on my state. It seems the USA annexed us not because we begged them to do so but because there was a lack of Mexicans here. And it is true, there were no Mexicans here only proud Tejanos who were not going to put up with Mexico City's autocratic shit. Who died for Texas' independence. Though annexation did not go well for them at all unfortunately, at least for awhile.
Don't dream that you know more about Texas history than the Texas ambassador told Martim! :ultra:
The Palestine and Chechnya stuff was a joke on my part, playing up to Neil's shtick about how Russia's "territories were sliced away." Your Reunion Island bit fit that spirit perfectly.
I find it highly amusing that Martim, the champion of the anti-colonial "Union," argues that Britain is worse off for having dumped its empire, justifying his stance with a horrific racist lie. Racist Martim isn't as funny as Marxist Martim was.
Quote from: Syt on April 27, 2015, 08:31:33 AM
Like banning slavery. :P
There were few slaves in Texas at the time. Which is why there was talk of splitting us up into multiple free and slave states in order to make annexation less destabilizing. Of course once Annexation was official slave owners from the South flooded in for the cheap land and put a stop to that. But a large portion of Mexico rose up against Mexico City, along with the Yucatan and the Rio Grande valley. Did they have slaves as well? Do you really think the entire nationwide revolt was because of a few slaves in East Texas? And the Tejanos owned a statistically insignificant amount of them. Yet they were active participants in the revolt.
Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2015, 08:37:12 AM
Free-market interference. People were slaves because they didn't have better options.
The Yucatan demanded its slaves be preserved!
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2015, 08:56:26 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 27, 2015, 08:31:33 AM
Like banning slavery. :P
There were few slaves in Texas at the time. Which is why there was talk of splitting us up into multiple free and slave states in order to make annexation less destabilizing. Of course once Annexation was official slave owners from the South flooded in for the cheap land and put a stop to that. But a large portion of Mexico rose up against Mexico City, along with the Yucatan and the Rio Grande valley. Did they have slaves as well? Do you really think the entire nationwide revolt was because of a few slaves in East Texas? And the Tejanos owned a statistically insignificant amount of them. Yet they were active participants in the revolt.
Quit confusing my simplistic view of other countries' histories with facts! :mad:
Mew, y'all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2015, 08:39:44 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 27, 2015, 08:06:43 AM
And the Alaska was just an analogy so that you get an idea of what Russia thinks about Ukraine, the Crimea and the West's offers (for Russia, the Ukraine isn't a 'real' nation, not even a 'real' state; it is just an artificial creation, and its existance can only be justified by it being propped by outside powers. The EU sees it otherwise, but that will hardly stop the Kremlin from being infuriated at losing one of the most important provinces of its 'Empire'.
I find it interesting that never once in your remarks about the Ukraine have you mentioned the Ukrainian people.
Putin said that Ukraine wasn't a real country, so there can't be a Ukrainian people now eh?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 12:38:39 AM
It's true though. The Comanche and Apache didn't care much for Mexicans.
Ah, the Jaron option. :cool:
QuoteI mentioned the Mexican Cession [and yes, the 'lands were mostly unhinhabited' is the first argument used by Americans in defense of their annexation, closely followed by the 'but we paid for them' one, not my fault that you as Americans never question this among yourselves] because it was a purely Imperial war to enlarge America.
The acquisition of lands from Mexico was a bit more complicated than that. In the early 1800s Mexico invited, encouraged Americans to move into Texas as a buffer to the American Indian tribes which were devastating northern Mexico. Mexico's control over northern Mexico was difficult, let alone north up to Utah, Colorado, Nevada and such. The US did try to purchase the land before the Mexican-American war. Yes, of course the fledgling US wanted to increase its territory, as any nation would, especially given the geography and politics of the areas in question and many were pushing for more action against Mexico to do that.
After a while the Americans in Texas, and probably many Mexicans, grew tired of the Mexican dictatorship and revolted, winning their independence. (California was probably looking like it might also want to leave Mexico also, making some noise to that effect.) Some ten or so years later Texas asked to join the US, and was eventually accepted. Mexico then declared war and lost. The US occupied Mexico City and many major cities, but made a deal to annex lands with the Rio Grande as the dividing line. Also gave Mexico cash and other things, like forgiving or taking on Mexican debt.
I think it's quite a bit different than what Russia often is trying to do, to conquer sovereign nations, retake territory from those nations who left Russia because of the lack of freedoms, and being under a near authoritarian government. Russia's government has gotten worse. In fact, I think Ukraine and the Baltic States leaving Russia are more like the Texas, but in that case Texans chose to fight against Mexico for independence.
Yes it was a purely imperialistic war. People were outraged about it at the time. US Grant said the Civil War was God's punishment on us for doing that to Mexico. Not sure why Martim thinks nobody has ever questioned it since we have constantly since it happened.
The only thing I can say is that things were more fluid then and the borders less sacred. This was more about settling rights than anything else. Still a pretty naked territorial grab.
Were people outraged at the start of the war or at the announcement of the peace treaty? My understanding is that Mexico actually initiated hostilities.
Also keep in mind that the US didn't have much of a standing army at the time. Most troops that fought were volunteers. I've read that most European commentators expected a Mexican victory because of the professionalism of their army.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2015, 02:36:27 PM
Were people outraged at the start of the war or at the announcement of the peace treaty? My understanding is that Mexico actually initiated hostilities.
There was widespread opposition to the war in the north while it was going on. Abraham Lincoln was a particularly vocal critic. They did not want Americans to die for land that would all be below the Missouri compromise line in particular.
Quote from: KRonn on April 27, 2015, 01:47:07 PM
The acquisition of lands from Mexico was a bit more complicated than that.
Indeed it was, like all human conflicts are. Never a simple explanation.
Quote from: KRonn
In the early 1800s Mexico invited, encouraged Americans to move into Texas as a buffer to the American Indian tribes which were devastating northern Mexico. Mexico's control over northern Mexico was difficult, let alone north up to Utah, Colorado, Nevada and such. The US did try to purchase the land before the Mexican-American war. Yes, of course the fledgling US wanted to increase its territory, as any nation would, especially given the geography and politics of the areas in question and many were pushing for more action against Mexico to do that.
More accurately, the American settlers were invited because of the aggressive nature of the Comanches, which the 4,000 mexican settlers in Texas could not hold alone.
The Americans started to arrive in 1823, and by 1830 there were 20,000 of them there, outnumbering the native mexicans. This led the mexican government to decide to close its borders. Americans did not care, and in the next three years another 10,000 Americans migrated illegally into Texas (basically the opposite of what is happening today).
Quote from: KRonn
After a while the Americans in Texas, and probably many Mexicans, grew tired of the Mexican dictatorship and revolted, winning their independence. (California was probably looking like it might also want to leave Mexico also, making some noise to that effect.)
It was in 1833 that General Santa Anna rose to power in Mexico, and quickly made itself rather impopular, and disregarded the Constitution.
The Americans in Texas (who at the time called themselves 'Texians') did not accept this, leading Santa Anna to declare them in rebellion, alleging they had failed to convert to Catholicism. The Texians, led by Sam Houston, argued (correctly) that they had sworn to defend the Constitution of Mexico, one Santa Anna was not obeying. And they did win their independence. Still, the rebellion of the Texians was very much an overwhelmingly American revolt: ethnic Americans, either by legal or illegal means, now made up the huge majority of the population of Texas.
(the wonders of legal and illegal immigration, I guess)
Quote from: KRonn
Some ten or so years later Texas asked to join the US, and was eventually accepted. Mexico then declared war and lost. The US occupied Mexico City and many major cities, but made a deal to annex lands with the Rio Grande as the dividing line. Also gave Mexico cash and other things, like forgiving or taking on Mexican debt.
Let's make all those events more clear, shall we?
After winning its independence, Texas immediately applied for statehood of the US. And was promptly rejected by the US Congress, since Northern congressmen knew very well that Texas would enter the Union as a slavery-supporting state, a very sensitive political issue at the time.
Texas, therefore, spent 9 years as an independent nation, and established diplomatic and commercial relations with many countries, Great Britain in particular. This led to a change of attitude in Washington, and president Polk was elected in 1844 with the promise to annex Texas, which became true in 1845.
(Washington did not want a British-friendly Texas, especially as it had just negotiated its northern border with Britain, and that issue almost made the US and Britain go to war with each other again)
Now, the reason for the Mexican declaration of war was because of the exact location of the Texan border: the treaty of independence negotiated with Santa Anna made the Rio Grande the border of Texas. But the mexican government never ratified it, and stated that the border was in the Nueces river, pointing that there were no Anglo Texan settlements in the area between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. But there were very few mexican ones, so the US got Texas claim that the border was in the Rio Grande.
Mexico replied it was willing to accept the loss of Texas [even if the government had not ratified the independence treaty], as long as the border was set at the Nueces River. President Polk replied by trying to buy all the land between Texas and the Pacific for $15 million ($400 million in modern dollars; for a gigantic amount of land). Needless to say, the mexican government did not even accept the credentials of the American diplomat sent to present the offer for 55% of its territory.
As a result, Washington dispatched Major General Zachary Taylor with 4,000 men to the Rio Grande, where they started to build a military fort, completed during 1845-46.
Needless to say, this was seen by Mexico as an invasion, so they sent their army to try to expel the Americans, eventually wiping a force of 64 US dragoons. President Polk immediately asked Congress for war, saying "American blood has been shed on American soil".
The war followed, with the Americans indeed gathering strength from many volunteers, and ended with a crushing Mexican defeat.
The deal that ended the war - the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - was by no means a 'generous' peace by the US. In fact, the annexation of all that mexican land was negotiated by the US representative, Nicholas Tirst, who acted under the first intentions of Polk: all the land to the Pacific. But Polk had had other ideas, and its goal was in fact to demand the annexation of the WHOLE of Mexico. But there were several communications breakdowns that complicated issues (Polk had recalled Tirst, but the diplomat had just recieved news from Mexico that they were, after much discussion, willing to resume negotiations on the original terms).
So Tirst agonized between going back to washington as he had been ordered, or staying and signing the treaty he had first been sent to sign. He choose the latter, eventually sending a 61-page letter to the President, to explain his reasons. That was no good, as Polk fired him: his lack of Imperial ambition cost him his job and pretty much his future.
The US accepted the treaty due to congressional divisions: the Whigs claimed it was too much, the Democrats too little. Still, there was no cause to resume the war.
Also, worth noting is that the $15 million the US offered Mexico were not for the land, but rather as compensation for damaged property; in addition, no money was ever sent: Washington simply deducted them from Mexico's debt to the US.
That said, note that we went from the independence of Texas (made possible by the immigration of Americans to the area) to a wholesale grab of pretty much everything from Texas to the Pacific, from Utah to the Rio Grande. And the real goal was to gobble all of Mexico, not just what was effectively taken.
And yes, like is said here, it was quite controversial at the time; but today's Americans don't remember things as they were and - as your post proves - tend to think "Mexico started it" and have little to no idea of the very real Imperial ambitions of the US at the time.
Quote from: KRonn
I think it's quite a bit different than what Russia often is trying to do, to conquer sovereign nations, retake territory from those nations who left Russia because of the lack of freedoms, and being under a near authoritarian government. Russia's government has gotten worse. In fact, I think Ukraine and the Baltic States leaving Russia are more like the Texas, but in that case Texans chose to fight against Mexico for independence.
From Russia POV, the Ukraine is a fake nation, vital to Russia leading a serious world-scale Empire. It split from the USSR, but it is not capable of effectively ruling itself, rather being devided by powerful oligarchs (all you have to notice is that Belarus managed to have a bigger GDP per capita than Ukraine to see things are horribly wrong there).
Moscow now sees the EU attempt to get the Ukraine [Presidente Poroshenko announced today that Kiev indends to present by 2020 a formal application to join the EU] as a proof that Western powers want to weaken and contain Russia, preventing it from restoring the core areas of its Empire, now under the name of Eurasian Union, of which Russia, Belarus and Khazakhstan are part of. This is also why, at the formation of this union last year, presidente Lukashenko of Belarus said "we are not all here", meaning very specifically that the Ukraine was missing.
And so the Russian parts of Ukraine rebel; the Kiev government wants to stamp them out (and refuses to cede the Crimea). It then becomes obvious that Russia would send its own troops to fight alongside ethnic Russians. Here, we have a situation that more closely resembles the mexican/US one.
That said, for the EU this is the best chance ever to advance further East and cut Moscow's plans to recreate its Empire; without it, they are a husk of their former selves, and the EU starts to become a really big entity, whith access to Ukranian food production and serious strategic choices.
The Caucasus beckons, and with it lots of energy options: this is also why Brussels did all it could to wreck the Russian South Stream gas pipeline (that would send Russian gas directly to Bulgaria, sidestepping the Ukraine). Instead, we are negotiating the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), from Azerbaijan to the Adriatic coast, to reduce dependence on Russian gas.
Moscow replied by creating the 'Turkish Stream' pipeline, that now goes to Turkey. Russia now wants an entry point into the EU to sell its gas, and there is where the Greek Syriza government enters the issue, being willing to let the Russian pipeline enter its territory, from where it can go to Macedonia, Serbia and from there to Hungary and everywhere else in the EU.
So yes, the EU is locked in a conflict with Russia that transcends the mere scope of the Ukraine; it is a clash to decide who will be the hegemon of Europe in the future. And we're not backing down.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 27, 2015, 10:47:34 PM
And yes, like is said here, it was quite controversial at the time; but today's Americans don't remember things as they were and - as your post proves - tend to think "Mexico started it" and have little to no idea of the very real Imperial ambitions of the US at the time.
Actually, it's usually coupled with discussion of "Manifest Destiny" in US history classes. I actually thought the US had a larger share of the responsibility(like nearly all of it) for the war than your post suggests.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2015, 08:39:44 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 27, 2015, 08:06:43 AM
And the Alaska was just an analogy so that you get an idea of what Russia thinks about Ukraine, the Crimea and the West's offers (for Russia, the Ukraine isn't a 'real' nation, not even a 'real' state; it is just an artificial creation, and its existance can only be justified by it being propped by outside powers. The EU sees it otherwise, but that will hardly stop the Kremlin from being infuriated at losing one of the most important provinces of its 'Empire'.
I find it interesting that never once in your remarks about the Ukraine have you mentioned the Ukrainian people.
That's a fair point but then it also describes 90% of Languish's armchair real politik aficionados.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fic.pics.livejournal.com%2Ffastcult%2F50338851%2F5614794%2F5614794_original.png&hash=a24339ed448991b3041c24f89295576273de8617)
:lmfao:
Text: So that's why you need a makeup purse.
Background: One of the bikers posted that they were detained on the Polish border for hours and "everything was searched, every sock and makeup bag".
Always nice to see a foreigner like Martim attempt to interpret American history and tell Americans what Americans currently believe. That he is unsuccessful in understanding US history is not shameful.
I didn't see racism in this post, either, so there's that as well.
In some cases, foreigners are actually better at understanding a country's history than the natives. Less of an emotional attachment.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2015, 11:08:08 PM
Actually, it's usually coupled with discussion of "Manifest Destiny" in US history classes. I actually thought the US had a larger share of the responsibility(like nearly all of it) for the war than your post suggests.
Yeah Martim is funny lecturing us what Americans are taught about history. I guess we weren't there or anything. Manifest Destiny and the US' imperialist ambitions absolutely were front and center in what was taught in school. Now American kids do not pay much attention but that is something else.
Quote from: Neil on April 28, 2015, 07:39:53 AM
In some cases, foreigners are actually better at understanding a country's history than the natives. Less of an emotional attachment.
Understanding a country's history? Yes. Understanding what the people in that country think about that country's history? Please.
Well, 10 Night Wolves were stopped by the Polish border guards (though some Polish bikers buzzed their horns in protest against the refusal on the Polish side).
They promise to find "alternate" routes to Berlin. Seems it may involve moving without showing they are part of the group.
Regardless of what they achieve or not, the situation clearly shows the new power balance in Europe: in 1945 the Russians rolled in that area as conquerors, from 1945 to 1989 they were its masters.
Now they have to be desguised to move anywhere.
What a different place Central Europe is now.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 06:49:48 AM
Always nice to see a foreigner like Martim attempt to interpret American history and tell Americans what Americans currently believe. That he is unsuccessful in understanding US history is not shameful.
Well, let me try to rephrase, since the previous post was really more a description of events (done in a hurry way too late at night; I really should know better) than noting my point.
I am not trying to assign blame to the US, or to anyone.
What I am pointing out is that the areas the US got out of the Mexican Cession were achieved through Imperial conquest, and that Empire-building is really not a bad thing most of the time. On the contrary, it is what makes nations strong. Those that refuse it become pathetic husks, like the UK is now, its men and government uncapable even to protect their little girls.
So, I have to ask, since the current thought line is that Imperialism is "not smart" and should not be done (as was also the opinion of Lincoln and Grant at the time):
- Was the adding of these territories to the United States good or bad for the country?
- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?
- Would you prefer if the Mexican border had remained unchanged?
(and let us not forget the territories taken from the Native Americans: that was a sort of Imperialism, too. Apart those "bought" from drunk Native Americans that did not know what they were doing, was the acquisition by the US of places like the Dakotas and Montana a "not smart" move?)
To sum it up: were these Imperial Conquests a good or bad move by the United States?
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 28, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
- Was the adding of these territories to the United States good or bad for the country?
- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?
- Would you prefer if the Mexican border had remained unchanged?
Well they almost certainly made the Civil War inevitable and almost immediate. The annexation of California and the Gold Rush especially turbo-charged that. So it was pretty devastating in the short term. In the long term eh probably? I think the US would be fine either way.
My preferences are a little weird to ask about for this situation. Mexico was ruling a territory where the majority of the territory was controlled by people who rejected its authority and it was pretty intent on crushing them by force, as evidenced by their wars with the Apaches. It was all based on the antiquated claims of the Spanish Empire. I mean if we are talking about my fluffy bunny pie in the sky preferences for world history I am not sure I would include the Spanish Empire in that. But hey maybe it would have been better for Mexico if they had kept them...or maybe not maybe lots of immigrants from European states and the USA move in and they rebel against Mexico and it breaks up anyway. Who knows? I would rather the US had not launched expansionist wars though. But hey what is done is done.
Quoteand let us not forget the territories taken from the Native Americans: that was a sort of Imperialism, too.
No shit Sherlock. But we are talking about which Native American oppressing new world county do you prefer? Britain, the USA, or Mexico? The land was already taken and claimed.
I am actually less concerned with more hunter-gatherer societies being displaced by modern societies than I am by the more normally-considered imperialism. After all, the tribes displaced had themselves displaced earlier tribes, and there are more American Indians alive today than there have ever been. Yeah, you can call what the US did to the natives "imperialism," just as you can call the Bantu migration imperialism, or talk about the Indo-European imperialist policies in Europe and South Asia.
Now, the treatment of the American Indians people was infected by racism (see the treatment of non-H-G natives) and so perhaps more morally reprehensible than the Bantu or IE efforts, but it was no less inevitable. H-G societies simply cannot generate the warriors needed to defend their lands from pastoral or agricultural peoples.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 27, 2015, 10:47:34 PM
And yes, like is said here, it was quite controversial at the time; but today's Americans don't remember things as they were and - as your post proves - tend to think "Mexico started it" and have little to no idea of the very real Imperial ambitions of the US at the time.
I would be willing to bet that the average American thinks-incorrectly-that the US started it.
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 28, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?
Yes. Because we were able to assimilate them. It's nothing like the situation 20th century Britain found itself in.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2015, 08:47:09 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on April 28, 2015, 07:49:41 AM
- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?
Yes. Because we were able to assimilate them. It's nothing like the situation 20th century Britain found itself in.
Plus: Mexican food! :mmm:
Sure, but the UK got curry even though they let India go. ;)
Don't make me talk about the difference between Tex-Mex and interior food again damn it :lol:
Now I'm hungry.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2015, 08:55:09 AM
Sure, but the UK got curry even though they let India go. ;)
:yes: and the US let Mexico go.
Shoulda kept Cuba though.
QuoteSo, I have to ask, since the current thought line is that Imperialism is "not smart" and should not be done (as was also the opinion of Lincoln and Grant at the time):
- Was the adding of these territories to the United States good or bad for the country?
- Is America stronger for having Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and part of Colorado?
- Would you prefer if the Mexican border had remained unchanged?
(and let us not forget the territories taken from the Native Americans: that was a sort of Imperialism, too. Apart those "bought" from drunk Native Americans that did not know what they were doing, was the acquisition by the US of places like the Dakotas and Montana a "not smart" move?)
To sum it up: were these Imperial Conquests a good or bad move by the United States?
The US is better off for having these states. I don't think it would have mattered much to Mexico's benefit as they'd be as poor and economically deprived with poor governance as Mexico has been for much of its history. These states became strong and vibrant due to the American laws and values regarding economy and governance. I think the natural progression of settlement greatly favored the US and its settlers so eventually those lands would more likely have become a part of the US just by the weight of settlement and agreements later on between the US and Mexico.
I also would think that they're a lot more "American" than some of the former Soviet republics are Russian, even with many Russians living there. I'm sure it's not the same in all republics, some more or less Russian.
As for adding territories/states, why single out the US? Canada did the same, as did Russia in its history. I think in Russia's case some of the territories they added often had stronger societies already there than the American Indians. I do feel strongly though that I wish the US had treated the natives a lot better. The US did many horrid things to the native populations. As did Mexico for that matter, which had a large native population, maybe larger than in north America.
Putin talks foolishness of arming Mexico to retake the southwest US. That isn't really any kind of issue for even Mexico, though maybe for a few Mexicans who talk about it but it doesn't have any real support or traction. Those states are strongly US, as much as any other state is. Can Russia say the same about all its former republics?
That said though, I can understand some of Putin's/Russia's views on some of their former republics. But I think that it's a lot more complicated than the case of US states.
They've driven around Poland through Slovakia and Austria and are now in Germany. Next stop is Dachau and then onwards to Berlin.
I am not sure why they get any media attention.
Russians do need visas, don't they?
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2015, 08:38:40 AM
I am actually less concerned with more hunter-gatherer societies being displaced by modern societies than I am by the more normally-considered imperialism. After all, the tribes displaced had themselves displaced earlier tribes, and there are more American Indians alive today than there have ever been.
:hmm: No, that doesn't appear to be true, but that never stopped you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2015, 02:08:47 PM
Russians do need visas, don't they?
They need a Schengen visa to enter Slovakia. There are no border controls after that.
So who are the Quislings that gave them visas?