How would hist have been affected had Pershing's Punitive Expedition into Mexico managed to actually capture or kill Pancho Villa during the 1st 1/2 of 1916 ? Would Villa have inevitably, in American hands, been tried for his murder of American engineers on the hijacked train and for the raid on Columbus, NM, then executed ? Would Mexico have become more or less stable as a result of Villa being taken, and what about the security of the southwest border states ?
Pershing catches Pancho Villa
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Brilliantlight
Banned
Melvin Loh said:
Minimal impact I would say, Pancho was just a criminal. Some Mexicans would be upset but Mexico is just too much weaker then the US to do much.
personally i loathe pancho but he was more than just a criminal, he was somewhat a revolutionary.
This is exactly the kind of attitude toward the rest of the world that explains why USA is not exactly the darling of everyoneBrilliantlight said:
Brilliantlight
Banned
LordKalvan said:This is exactly the kind of attitude toward the rest of the world that explains why USA is not exactly the darling of everyone
I have been in Europe, it is the same attitude the Swiss have about the Turks, the English have about the French and the Swedes have about the Danes.
It's such a wonderful world!
Maybe we should start to care about not doing that ourselves, and not claiming that others do.
Maybe we should start to care about not doing that ourselves, and not claiming that others do.
Brilliantlight
Banned
Condottiero said:
There are 100 + countries on this planet, many minor powers at best. You can't pay attention to them all. Countries that don't do what is in the best interest haven't and do not exist. The United States is no different then the rest merely more powerful.
It is a dangerous and selfish attitude. Where is the limit? or we should accept that the USA are world's governor?Brilliantlight said:
There are rules which differentiate a civilised society from a barbarian one, and they cannot just be waived by presidential fiat.
The European states have partially learnt the lesson (partially only: I agree that the EU is still crippled by nationalistic attitudes), and Europe post-WW2 has been a peaceful continent.
The USA will have to learn that being the most powerful nation in the world is not giving them a license to behave as a drunken bully.
Btw, bullish behavior abroad usually leads to anti-democratic behavior at home
Brilliantlight
Banned
LordKalvan said:
The Moslems have been asking for trouble for a quarter of a century now and are now finally getting it. The US is hardly going to invade Europe or East Asia is it? To put it bluntly unless the majority of the population prays facing Mecca it is hard to get public support for a war. Since when has Europe gone for permission to the UN for a war that was mostly in its own interest. Did it in the Falklands? No What about most of the French wars in Africa? No
Yeah. Or better said "if the majority of the population prays facing Mecca it is not hard to get public support for a war"Brilliantlight said:
And before this, it was not hard to get public support for wars against the Commies.
And tomorrow?
OTOH, Argentina occupied the falklands, against the will of inhabitants. So, Uk was quite justified in taking actions.
And which kind of wars did the French fight in Africa, after Algeria (45 yrs. ago!)? The only actions were anti-guerrilla, called by legitimate governments under existing pacts. And very limited in scope.
Brilliantlight
Banned
LordKalvan said:
The Moslems have been waging a Jihad for 25 years, only lately did the West(mainly the US) start confronting them. Putin's Russia has found out what a rather wimpy policy does when confronting Moslems. They take it as a sign of weakness and press the attack and the Russian government is finally starting to crack down.
Strange to say this, when most started with Afghanistan, and the old USSR. Was it a "wimpy policy" too? Or rather something like Vietnam?Brilliantlight said:
Brilliantlight
Banned
LordKalvan said:
It started mostly in Iran when Carter refused to do anything about the hostages. It proved to the Islamic world you could sieze Americans and NOTHING would happen to you. It just encouraged more of the same.