Lightdemon

Exactly. It's basically invasion.

A good point, however I don't see Mexico as thier savior. Nonetheless, a nice parallel.

__________________

Bodhisattva

That was not my assertion.
Just another comment that you can't seem to keep in context.

I will let you come to another ridiculous conclusion on your own again and not waste any time clarifying my position since you seem to prefer thinking that your assumptions are correct in the face of the facts and that you appear to think that murder is fine as long as there is gain from it.

I am not sure why any person would support murder, minors having sex, minors fighting, pre-emptive invasion for any reason as long as there is gain for the voctor... but you seem to. It is clear and extremely enlightening. Thanks and have a nice day.

__________________

Lightdemon

In all fairness Bodhi, Korimyr actually did keep it in context.

The influx of Texan immigrants came from Southern US. If it had not been for these immigrants, Texas wouldn't have had the balls to claim independance. It was the immigrants that crossed borders, some without fulfilling legal requirements in becoming actual Mexican citizens (such as becoming catholic, freeing thier slaves, and learning how to speak spanish, etc), and they demanded that the Mexican govt to stop "oppressing it's citizens."

Those who are crossing our borders today, aren't they doing the same thing? Claiming that they are being "oppressed?" They can't get a driver's license, they're not allowed to work in certain places, etc. They are not considered "citizens?" Yet American's considered themselves "citizens" when they immigrated to Texas, didn't they?


If Texas' independance was justified on these grounds, then should Texas and other border states that feel they are "oppressed" then are they justified in leaving the US? Should the immigrants have a say on the states independance?

Bodhisattva

"Complaining" about being oppressed and actually "Being" oppressed are drasitically different.
IMO the Texans were not being oppressed in the slightest just as the Illegals in CA and such are not either.

Seeking a better life and not finding it is very different from what the Texans and what the Illegal Mexican Immigrants are finding. Practically all, in both cases, found likfe better for various reasons and both complain about not having it even better than they do... much like the American Revloutionaries are their ire over imagined or made up ideas about "No Taxation wtihout Representation"

As to the rest, it is subtle differences such as this that I will not engage in with KTR.
He likes his assumptions and he can have them.

Lightdemon

For Texans: Forcing them to free thier slaves is one form of oppression, as the popular opinion at the time was thier god-given right to own slaves. Another form of oppression is the amount of taxation that hinders the development of a man's earnings. In other words, economic/trade manipulations that prevent individuals from acting "freely," as in selling thier product how they wish.

For immigrants today: Not being able to drive a car is a drastic hindrance to making a living. One would argue that it should be a right, rather than just a priveledge, simply because of it's a near necessity for life in the modern world. Especially in the a developed nation such as the US. Another form of oppression is that employers can threaten immigrants by deporting them if they complain, which is a manipulation of the system to exploit immigrants.

The above examples are not complaints of being oppressed, these are examples of being oppressed.


In the case of the Texans, they took advantage that the Mexican gov't was practically giving away free land. But even when the Mexican gov't closed the offer and even closed thier borders by building outposts to gaurd against any more immigrants, Americans still illegally crossed the borders.

It wasn't that they didn't found what they want because they did, which was the free land. The problem is that Mexico couldn't control the illegal immigration problem, and because of this, Americans squatted on the land until they had a large enough population to claim independance.

In both cases, these illegal immigrants filled a need. Mexico wanted to use up the empty land in the north, when the Americans didn't do what the Mexican gov't expected them to do, they tightened control, which lead to rebellion. Illegal Immigrants in the US today, they're also filling a need. Which is to provide cheap labor to make American products/services competitive in the global market. Will we see rebellion from these illegal immigrants? I don't know. Maybe. Who knows?

But in both cases, the illegal immigrants are being exploited. So should a foreign gov't step in and free these exploited people? Is it justifiable?

What we are experiencing here in the US, with our own problem of illegal immigration is very similar to the Texan situation. The only difference is that Mexico can't beat the US military. A call for independance will fail. But would a call for independance be justifiable? The same justification that Texas had?

I'm not trying to stick up for Korimyr, I just thought he made a very good parallel.

Korimyr the Rat

It's not a matter of "keeping things in context". It's a matter of taking the principles you advocate and applying them-- and exposing how ridiculous they are. The fact that your principles, once applied, lead to conclusions that you are unwilling to support speaks volumes to the soundness of those principles and the process by which you come to your positions.

It isn't my fault that your logic is inconsistent, and that fact that you're offended when this is pointed out to you has very little to do with any character flaws on my part.

__________________

Bodhisattva

..yet another ridiculous assumption. Good job.

I am not offended, do you think that your opinion merits serious consideration? I am simply not going to engage a point in which the other person is not going to attempt to understand... where a person is either unable or unwilling to discuss a point to its logical conclusion and understanding instead of watching them sit on an initially incorrect assesment and not alter in any way in order to maintain a delusional sense of a self-admitted superiority complex.

That is all. You have shown consistancy in this area and yet again you don't disappoint.

I have yet to debate you on a topic... for all we have done is witness your inablity to maintain perspective and context. Of course, as we can expect, you will not desire to understand something that you feel you already do when you in fact do not.

As I outlined in my previous post, you have serious issues to contend with and in which you should address your focus rather than attempting to understand my subtle and valid points.

Do what you do best... don't let us down now!

conquer

Lets say that the Mexican war wasn't justified. Now what? Returning the lands? Are you crazy? ...Giving compensations? Are you insane?

Centuries after the war the only thing you can say is "oops!"

Joby

Seriously.

This was in the era, ableit at the tail end, of the British/French/Spanish Empires trading off huge sections of land. When it comes to America's ambitions to get on the scene, taking on Mexico and that despot was necessary.

Luckily, we were able to do it this early. If we had been divided and tried to accomplish it later, like Germany/Japan, there's a good chance we would have failed.

__________________
“U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Bodhisattva

Who are you talking to?



Being oppressed is to be robbed of life, liberty or property.
An extremely weak case could be made for slavery, but they entered into a foreign country with different laws, so it was their choice in the end.

Result: Not oppressed

LEGAL Immigrants can drive cars
ILLEGAL Immigrants can not.

This is their argument then:
I can't drive because I am breaking the law and an ILLEGAL Immigrant, so I am being oppressed?

That is a weak argument.

Result: Not oppressed

Employers that employ ILLEGAL Immigrants are guilty of breaking the law and are also morally bankrupt, much like...

They should be punished accordingly and ILLEGALS can complain all they like, but I bet you money, since I have known many and they confirmed this, that their lives are STILL better than they were down south.

Result: Not oppressed

So the Texans ILLEGALLY crossed the border, took advantage of the Mexican government, found free land as they wanted and waited until their numbers were high enough to fight the Mexican government for sovereignty?

Result: Not oppressed

Filling a need to not justify their greed to want more than they deserve or should have. We all work. All I know is that if we see a rebellion from ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants, there is gonna be a whole lotta dead ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants lying in the streets. Not a good plan for them to consider.

Exploited is not oppressed.
Oppressed is to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority
Exploited is to employ to the greatest possible advantage

When people are exploited, they can make a choice to leave.

Neither call is or was justified and if the ILLEGAL Mexican Immigrants called for one, or to those that have, they are greedy, selfish and corrupt people that are exploiting their own people instead of helping them.

Mexicans and such being here is fine and dandy, but their leaders must learn to work within the system rather that to try to usurp it.