|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| No one is telling you that you can't leave the Union. I don't think anyone would lose sleep if the minority of Texans who are genuinely interested in leaving the Union just up and left. Go where ever you like. You just can't take American land with you. The land of Texas is a part of the United States, and it will remain that way. |
Why not? After all, the Americans took Mexican land that is now Texas from Mexico. Who's to say it will stay that way forever?
I detect some real historical chauvinism here. |
I don't agree it's historical chauvinism. The historic situation in which Texas was seized from Mexico is not the same situation we find ourselves in today. Military technology -- particularly Western military technology -- has evolved massively since then, and warfare is fought in a totally different fashion. Seizing and keeping Texas from the United States would be boarderline impossible. Constant air raids, massive amounts of readily availible troops nearby who can be armed with very effective weaponry, strategic missile capabilities...
It's just not the same world it was in the low technology era in which Texas was seized from Mexico. |
What planet did y'all come from?
Texas fought against Santa Anna and won, thereby becoming The Republic of Texas Nation.
We were lied to and hoodwinked into signing on to allow not-so USA to annex us.
We can't take American land? I'm sure Santa Anna made the same claims. "Silly Texicans! Who do they think they are?! Mexican subjects, all!"
Why on earth would the American Imperial Military unleash such a fury on TEXAS?
Are they that desperate to keep us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Texas was not seized from Mexico. Texas was slightly ambiguously independent and had been for nearly a decade. It's independence was recognized by several foreign governments, though not by Mexico. The Mexican Cession was seized from Mexico under the same rules that operate in many wars.
All this is irrelevant to the issue of the thread. Move it elsewhere, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No. Keep missing the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| No one is telling you that you can't leave the Union. I don't think anyone would lose sleep if the minority of Texans who are genuinely interested in leaving the Union just up and left. Go where ever you like. You just can't take American land with you. The land of Texas is a part of the United States, and it will remain that way. |
Why not? After all, the Americans took Mexican land that is now Texas from Mexico. Who's to say it will stay that way forever?
I detect some real historical chauvinism here. |
I don't agree it's historical chauvinism. The historic situation in which Texas was seized from Mexico is not the same situation we find ourselves in today. Military technology -- particularly Western military technology -- has evolved massively since then, and warfare is fought in a totally different fashion. Seizing and keeping Texas from the United States would be boarderline impossible. Constant air raids, massive amounts of readily availible troops nearby who can be armed with very effective weaponry, strategic missile capabilities...
It's just not the same world it was in the low technology era in which Texas was seized from Mexico. |
What planet did y'all come from?
Texas fought against Santa Anna and won, thereby becoming The Republic of Texas Nation.
We were lied to and hoodwinked into signing on to allow not-so USA to annex us.
We can't take American land? I'm sure Santa Anna made the same claims. "Silly Texicans! Who do they think they are?! Mexican subjects, all!"
Why on earth would the American Imperial Military unleash such a fury on TEXAS?
Are they that desperate to keep us? |
Again, it's not about you. The physical landscape of Texas belongs to the United States, and the United States obviously isn't willing to give it up. You, on the other hand, as well as any other citizen unhappy with United States citizenship, can leave any time you wish.
No one is desparate to keep you against your will. If you want to go, go. Just don't expect to take United States territory with you on the way out. If you give up United States citizenship, any attempt to seize Texas would be tantamount to attempted invasion. Of course the United States Army would put a stop to it; pretending to not understand why is being deliberately obtuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Again, it's not about you. The physical landscape of Texas belongs to the United States, and the United States obviously isn't willing to give it up. You, on the other hand, as well as any other citizen unhappy with United States citizenship, can leave any time you wish. |
That is a good point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US military wreaking havoc and bombing a place with a lot of brown people, a population of 25,000,000 religious fanatics, and many acres of desert -- all for oil resources. Where have we seen this before?
With Texas being W's homestate, that would be karma.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Again, it's not about you. The physical landscape of Texas belongs to the United States, and the United States obviously isn't willing to give it up. You, on the other hand, as well as any other citizen unhappy with United States citizenship, can leave any time you wish.
No one is desparate to keep you against your will. If you want to go, go. Just don't expect to take United States territory with you on the way out. If you give up United States citizenship, any attempt to seize Texas would be tantamount to attempted invasion. Of course the United States Army would put a stop to it; pretending to not understand why is being deliberately obtuse. |
| Quote: |
| The resolution did, however, include two unique provisions: first, it gave the new state of Texas the right to divide itself into as many as five states (a proposal never seriously considered). Second, Texas did not have to surrender its public lands to the federal government. Thus the only lands owned by the federal government within Texas have actually been purchased by the government, and the vast oil discoveries on state lands have provided a major revenue flow for the state universities. |
Any idea how much land or where these patches of federally controlled Texas are?
I was in the US Army. It would have been unlawful for me to have fired upon US citizens.
And the troops know this.
Do I understand you to say that Washington has enough control over its military to have it attack TEXAS?
The way it's presented to me, 90% of troops would simply not comply AND would take care of the 10% who tried.
Maybe I'm mixing my causes.
I wonder if any other state can claim 25% of its people want to secede.
We don't need to SEIZE Texas; we already won it once. Just gave some away to pay our debts.
No one mentioned running away to Seaville or wherever was mentioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the old junior high lit books of the 60's we read Edward Everett Hale's allegory "The Man Without a Country". I don't suppose anyone still reads it, but they should. It was written as a call to arms in late 1863 but has the background of Aaron Burr's treason.
It's online here: http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/ManOut.shtml
It doesn't take very long to read, maybe 30 minutes or so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
RE: The Man Without a Country
I saw that movie on TV as a kid and it moved me enough to get a copy of the paperback once I found it.
Thanks.
Worth a refresher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
Do I understand you to say that Washington has enough control over its military to have it attack TEXAS?
|
In the event of attempted secession, yes.
| mole wrote: |
The way it's presented to me, 90% of troops would simply not comply AND would take care of the 10% who tried.
|
If you have a source, link it. If you "heard something from some guys," I can't give it much credit, though perhaps someone else here may.
| mole wrote: |
| We don't need to SEIZE Texas; we already won it once. |
Military victory against low technology Mexicans and military victory against the American military are so completely incomprable that I am not certain how you can rationally compare them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It would have been unlawful for me to have fired upon US citizens.
And the troops know this.
Do I understand you to say that Washington has enough control over its military to have it attack TEXAS?
The way it's presented to me, 90% of troops would simply not comply AND would take care of the 10% who tried. |
Point of information, mole. Maybe you can clear some things up.
#1. It's certainly true that US troops are not to fire on US citizens. However, if a portion of US citizens renounced their citizenship, swore loyalty to a different gov't and flag and then took up arms, would they still be regarded as US citizens in the same sense the rest of us loyal citizens were? It's clear US troops would never attack the State of Texas, but wouldn't the troops be obliged to attack the Republic of Texas (or whatever the secessionist state chose to call itself)?
#2. In a somewhat related scenario, what if some citizens took it into their heads to loot a federal arsenal to arm themselves and started taking shots at citizens on the street--more or less what John Brown did in 1859. Would US troops refuse to fire on them? After your officers carefully explained either this scenario or the one above, would the troops not have to fight or be considered mutinous...or something equally not good?
#3. Just the other day the DHS released a report in which it was mentioned that some right-wing whackos might try to recruit returning vets who were having trouble finding jobs and otherwise re-integrating into civilian life. Michelle Malkin et al went sort of ballistic over that, saying it was an insult to the troops. Here you are seeming to say that 90% of the troops would refuse to obey direct orders to fire on rebels. I'm more than a little confused.
Please help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
It would have been unlawful for me to have fired upon US citizens.
And the troops know this.
Do I understand you to say that Washington has enough control over its military to have it attack TEXAS?
The way it's presented to me, 90% of troops would simply not comply AND would take care of the 10% who tried. |
Point of information, mole. Maybe you can clear some things up.
#1. It's certainly true that US troops are not to fire on US citizens. However, if a portion of US citizens renounced their citizenship, swore loyalty to a different gov't and flag and then took up arms, would they still be regarded as US citizens in the same sense the rest of us loyal citizens were? It's clear US troops would never attack the State of Texas, but wouldn't the troops be obliged to attack the Republic of Texas (or whatever the secessionist state chose to call itself)?
#2. In a somewhat related scenario, what if some citizens took it into their heads to loot a federal arsenal to arm themselves and started taking shots at citizens on the street--more or less what John Brown did in 1859. Would US troops refuse to fire on them? After your officers carefully explained either this scenario or the one above, would the troops not have to fight or be considered mutinous...or something equally not good?
#3. Just the other day the DHS released a report in which it was mentioned that some right-wing whackos might try to recruit returning vets who were having trouble finding jobs and otherwise re-integrating into civilian life. Michelle Malkin et al went sort of ballistic over that, saying it was an insult to the troops. Here you are seeming to say that 90% of the troops would refuse to obey direct orders to fire on rebels. I'm more than a little confused.
Please help. |
"Point of information" sounds like debate team jargon.
#1- I haven't looked into the formalities of secession.
#2- We're talking about following lawful orders. I suppose it's lawful to fire on federal criminals.
#3- Napolitano has lamely apologized for that intentionally inflammatory report.
It's a lot more than Michelle Malkin, whoever she is, that are pizzed off.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m4d16-Congressman-demands-investigation-of-Secretary-Napolitanos-controversial-report
What's confusing?
90% of troops, who happen to believe the Feds have and are far overstepping the limitations placed upon them
by the Constitution, will refuse to fire on civilians of like mind.
Yes, that's what I said.
This is getting OT, not that I'm the OT, spelling, grammar or critical reasoning gestapo.
It's about Texas reasserting sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Texas was a latecomer to the party.
New Hampshire led the charge. Why are they not featured in a not-so-current event thread?
"This isn't about withdrawing from the union.
The happiest resolution of this resolution would be a renewed union within the confines of the Constitution."
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/17/122853.php
Troops and government servants to We the People are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.
If Oathkeepers are right wing extremists, count me in.
I prefer the label, "PATRIOT." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It wouldn't be a cakewalk for the US military.
- Texas has 8% of the US population. If around 8% of the US military is composed of Texans, that causes a reduction in manpower for the US military on all fronts along with possible subversion issues.
- Texas has about the same number of people as Iraq and Iraq didn't end up being the Three Month War that it was supposed to have been.
- The US budget is so screwed up already. Not getting tax revenue from Texas, along with the expenses of yet another war would be a big blow to the US economy. The US dollar would take a beating along with the economy in general.
- Americans would tire of the war quickly, especially when everyone wearing a pair of Wranglers bluejeans or Colt McCoy jersey, or driving a pickup truck, or drinking a Shiner Bock beer becomes a suspected Texas "terrorist." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
