So there’s this country, and the government of this country
sucks the big one. There is a certain
part of this country, into which a bunch of foreigners moved, and began to
agitate to separate that region from the government. Eventually, it lead to full-on, open revolt,
and shots were fired.
The region held a referendum to vote on what it should do,
and it voted to be free and independent.
They fought against their government, and won their freedom, and then
shortly thereafter, seeing their poor position as an independent state, voted
to join up with a strong neighbor and become part of that country, in their own
self interest.
Do you think I’m talking about the Ukraine?
No, I’m talking about Texas.
What the hell did you think I was talking about?
Again, this whole Russian “invasion” of Crimea is being
overblown. I could be wrong. If I am, I’ll apologize publicly to every
person who was harmed by my opinion, but I don’t think I’m wrong.
I think this is a case of things seeming harmless when we do
them, but looking much different when someone else does the same thing. Yeah, we don’t trust Russia. I don’t necessarily think we have any duty TO
trust them, and I certainly don’t think such a policy would be wise at
all. But I don’t think that this is what
we think it is. I think it is exactly
what Russia has said it is – a mission to protect Russian interests.
Or do you think we should give Texas back to Mexico?
Considering that there's a lot of people from Mexico living in the US who might want to repeat the event we should tread carefully.
ReplyDeleteI hope they don’t try, because apparently the global community would consider it beyond the pale for us to try and stop them, in the process of trying to protect our own interests…
ReplyDeleteIf such a thing were to happen, we could stop it easily, if only we had the will to do so. I’m afraid that the multinational popularity contest that international politics has become would preclude us from acting in our own best interest though, and erode our will. We’re more worried about people from Europe not liking us than we are protecting our interests from a foreign invader.
So we’d give the southwest to Mexico and then bask in the glory of a fawning Europe, and then wonder, ten months later when they’d found another reason to hate us, why we even bothered.
Putin is one of the last global leaders that just doesn’t give two hot shits about what other people think. He protects Russian interests, whether it is popular or not. People say that makes him a tsar, or a dictator, or whatever. You can say what you want about Vlad – I’m not particularly fond of the man for a variety of reasons – but his proclivity, as the leader of a nation called Russia, to protect the interests of that nation of Russia, and be damned what everyone else thinks? That is NOT one of the man’s failings. That is what we need in our leaders.
Obama is too worried about what Sarkosy would think to ever do anything sso rash as to protect America.
I do not agree with your analogy.
ReplyDeleteThe people fighting for Texas were not fighting to get a nation to join an empire, they were fighting to keep it from being ruled by a budding Napoleon (Santa Anna's words).
The goal here is not to create a republic, it's to seize land for an empire.
Just because the Texans later decided to join America does not mean that was the purpose of their revolution.
A better analogy would be Tibet where a dictatorial empire sends in immigrants to take a free nation.
I also note that Putin had a different idea on voluntarily leaving a nation when Chechnya didn't want to be part of the Russian Empire.
So he uses his military to force a nation to stay in his empire and to force a nation to join his empire.
Not exactly Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie.
Veeshir,
ReplyDeleteI think you're wrong. Many of the folks who helped tear Texas away from Mexico at least had the idea that it would become part of the United States. One of the strategic considerations, or options, during the Runaway Scrape was how to bring the US in on the Texian side. Some folks thought that if the Texian Army and its attendant refugee column could get close enough to the Red River, US volunteers in Lousiana would cross the border and join the fight.
Before the Revolution, Mexico had a history of oscillating between centralist governance and federalist governance. Santa Anna himself was elected on a federalist platform, then changed his mind. The Texians asked for a return to the Constitution of 1824. This was the demand of the Alamo garrison. When that failed, they opted for Independence instead, declaring their independence four days before the Alamo fell. The Republic of Texas had trouble defending its borders for the whole span of its existence.