Lou Dobbs As Winfield Scott?

By Michael Reynolds | Related entries in In The News, The World

In 1846 the United States, under President James K. Polk, cooked up a pretext for war with Mexico. That it was a pretext is not really in doubt. Even many contemporaries, including the young Captain with the odd name of Ulysses, who would, in less than twenty years be the commander of all Union forces in the Civil War, said as much.

At the conclusion of the war, Mexico was quite a bit smaller, and the US was bigger by Arizona, New Mexico, California and parts of a couple of other soon-to-be-states. It was simple, straightforward, no bones about it, imperialism.

It’s time to finish the job.

Let’s face it: all the suggestions for dealing with illegal Mexican immigration are nothing but politics. Stricter enforcement? A big giant fence? Guest worker programs? Come on, get real. On one side of the fence is a thirsty man, and on the other side is the world’s biggest, coldest beer. And here’s the kicker: quite a number of the most influential people on the beer side, want that thirsty Mexican to come across.

There is not a single damn thing you can do to stop illegal Mexican immigration. Nothing . . . Except.

Except complete the conquest of Mexico.

Some countries work out, and some don’t. For a while there was a Troy, and then not so much. There was a Carthage, and then, no, it was pretty well delendead. Italy used to be a hundred different city states and principalities. Does anyone today mourn the passing of the Venetian empire? Nah, no one outside of Venice (and possibly Turkey) remembers there was such a thing. Germany is another example: for centuries what we now think of as Germany was a whole menagerie of duchies and princedoms and then they united to become . . . okay, bad example. The point is, not every country needs to be a country forever. Some countries are just born to be historical losers. And let’s face it, in the category of “winner countries of North America,” Mexico is no Canada.

Mexico has all the natural resources any country could need. And God knows they have the hardest-working population on planet Earth. What they lack is competent government, Protestantism and self-confidence. And here we are with a surplus of the last two.

The Mexican military would have no capacity to resist us. The Mexican people — at least half of whom have spent time in the US or have relatives currently living in the US — would have no conceivable motive for resisting us. We would be met as liberators.

By pushing the borders of the US to the southern Mexico border we could solve our illegal immigration problem once and for all.

Look, we have to be realistic: Mexico is already engaged in a creeping reconquest of lands we stole from them fair and square. It’s us or them, take or be taken. If we don’t blow their leaves, they’ll blow ours. Unless we want the US to be be slowly absorbed into Mexico, the logical, even inevitable solution, is to absorb Mexico into the US. It’s time to finish the job we started 160 years ago. It’s time for Mexico to become the 51st through 55th states.

(cross-posted from The Mighty Middle.)


This entry was posted on Thursday, March 30th, 2006 and is filed under In The News, The World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

30 Responses to “Lou Dobbs As Winfield Scott?”

  1. Justin Gardner Says:

    Yeah Michael, but what about Canada? They have all the oil.

    Okay, first Mexico…then Canada, agreed?

  2. Callimachus Says:

    Excellent post! Don’t forget Ulysses’ boss, a guy named “Spotty” Lincoln, who also lost his job for opposing that war.

    If we had listened to Senator Dickinson and some others in 1847, who proposed as you do, all this would be a moot point.

    Of course, Yucatan was one of the places old Spotty wanted to send the slaves after he liberated them, so …. it’s complicated.

    And don’t forget: It was that danged Mexico that got us into World War I!

    Trouble is, they outbreed us. Then you’ve got the West Bank, but ten thousand times bigger.

    And if we swallow Mexico, we’ve got this border problem with Guatemala ….

  3. Callimachus Says:

    P.S. “delendead” is making my hair curl and breaking Priscian’s head. Delere is the archetypal second conjugation verb. I think deletus is right (singular pluperfect passive indicative).

  4. michael reynolds Says:

    Justin:
    Not to mention some perfectly drinkable beer up there.

    Cal:
    I knew, as I wrote the word “delendead” that it would cause you actual, physical pain.

  5. GN Says:

    Nice to see Cal in a quandry. Note from Pedro:

    “Sr. Mike, we le negociará Tiajuana y Ensenada para Tuscon y San Antonio, pero primero deben abrogar esos leyes estúpidos sobre ser bebido en una barra. ¡Usted americanos locos!”

  6. GN Says:

    P.S.
    Sr. Justin, no cuidamos un ululato sobre Canadá. Y haga por favor algo sobre ese Sr. Cal… Tendremos difícilmente un bastante rato que se comunican en English, sin pegarse la nariz en un libro cada día que intenta entender palabras de las culturas que son océanos lejos.

  7. Joshua Says:

    Not to mention some perfectly drinkable beer up there.

    Come to think of it, maybe the beer analogy isn’t the best one. Cerveza mexicana (Corona, Dos Equis, etc.) isn’t exactly chopped liver, ya know.

    On the other hand, if we conquered Mexico we’d also have to put up with a lot more soccer on TV. The World Cup, coming just once every four years, is different enough from the usual sports fare to be interesting, but a steady diet of soccer is too much for me to take.

  8. michael reynolds Says:

    GN:
    Yo qiero la salsa muy picante. No, not las mild, las hot, comprende? Hot? You know? Like fire. Caliente, that’s it. Muy caliente.

  9. michael reynolds Says:

    Joshua:
    The soccer issue is a serious one. But it may be offset by improved access to variety shows featuring buxom, olive-complected blond women.

  10. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    A note to Pedro: no one’s trading San Antonio to Mexico–that would kill my property value.

  11. GN Says:

    Maybe … but with the colored lights you could add to the yard … and a future car lot (with re-zoning) you could recoup.

  12. GN Says:

    Senor Mike,
    Entiendo, pero usted tiene que volver a los estados norteños al drinke el agua.

  13. ford4x4 Says:

    I’d take a Dos Equis dark over anything Canadian anyday.

    Seriously though…. Interesting post Michael. I wouldn’t be
    wholly opposed to this, but if we were to assimilate all of these people
    “legally” into the US, most of them would come in well under the federal
    poverty level. Where are we going to find the money to give them all welfare?

    I doubt any invasion would be needed.I suppose if we told them to put it to a vote, they would vote themselves in. Their national pride can just become state pride.

  14. goy Says:

    Brilliant!!

    But didn’t we already do this?? Enlightened nations no longer use military force for this sort of thing, do they? Don’t they use TREATIES! (http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/NAFTA/nafta.html)

    What the heck, if it makes Tequiza® more readily available, I’m in. Is there a petition for this I can sign, or something?

    p.s. the women don’t really need to be blond, if I get a vote.

  15. Kevin Says:

    What about bullfighting? If we conquer Mexico do we get to keep it or not?

  16. Jeff B. Says:

    The Mexican War talk and Cal’s mention of Lincoln’s opposition to it gave me a good enough excuse to bust out some of Lincoln’s quotes from a speech he gave to Congress in opposition of the war. Of course, you could see some parallels to the current war, which I think is interesting. But, more than that, I like it because they just don’t make speeches in Congress like this anymore:

    http://www.animatedatlas.com/mexwar/lincoln2.html

    I think Robert Byrd tried his best to give grave, poetic speeches in opposition to the Iraq war before it started, but mainly came across as a boring, crazy old coot (I know, it’s shocking).

    Here a couple of good quotes.

    Lincoln blasts Polk for using patriotism and support for the troops as a tool to garner support for the war:

    “That originally having some strong motive–what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning–to involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory–that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood–that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy he plunged into it, and has swept, on and on, till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he now finds himself, he knows not where. ”

    I love this too, where Lincoln rips on Polk for not expecting a prolonged war and not knowing what to do now that things haven’t gone according to plan. He ends his speech with this:

    “Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. At it’s beginning, Genl. Scott was, by this same President, driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or four months. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time our arms have given us the most splendid successes–every department, and every part, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had ever before been thought men could not do,–after all this, this same President gives us a long message, without showing us, that, as to the end, he himself, has, even an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show, there is not something about his conscious, more painful than all his mental perplexity!”

  17. Callimachus Says:

    If you really want to see eloquent war opposition from the 1840s, look up Calhoun’s speeches, if you can find them. He’s mostly been written out of the books or cast as a cardboard bad guy.

    Corona = Mexican Miller.

    I do, however, want to be a guest on Sabado Gigante.

  18. Callimachus Says:

    If we’re just doing it for the beer, definitely take Canada. One word: Unibroue. Best Belgian beer not brewed in Belgium. The one with the flying fur trappers on the label is outstanding.

  19. Jeff B. Says:

    Unibroue makes some great stuff, but you I think you have to watch your step with their products a bit.

    Maudite- Gimme gimme gimme. Strong as a bastard and tastes great. Good for having along with a giant piece of red meat.

    Trois Pistoles- Back away from me with that shit. Strong as hell, but tastes fruity and weird, like it’s partially gone stale even if it hasn’t. I’d rather have a Stag.

  20. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    GN:

    What makes you think I don’t have colored lights and used cars on my property already? Have you BEEN to San Antonio?

    I think there would be some resistence to this idea from the 18-20 year-old set. I mean, what’s the fun of going to Cancun if the drinking age is 21?

  21. Bob Says:

    1. One word: Bohemia. Best Czech beer not brewed in Plzn.

    2. How do we finance it? Geez, dude — we grab their oil!

  22. GN Says:

    ASC,
    Haven’t been there since 1969 … Lackland …. not a pleasant experience. Good point about the kids … move the break to venezuela … duck bullets and drink beer … can’t get more exciting.

  23. michael reynolds Says:

    I put forward a serious political program, and it devolves into a discussion of beer. You people disappoint me.

    That having been said, I’m a wine and booze guy, not beer so much. The Macallan 12, Baker’s or Knob Creek, big red wines, and only then, Belgian beers. Fairly standard choices, but it’s hard to go wrong with Macallan. Oh, and an occasional Bombay Sapphire up with olives.

  24. Callimachus Says:

    Don’t swallow what you can’t digest.

    Besides, the beer metaphor was in your original. We just ran with it.

    Before Mexico reclaims the Southwest, we’ll see China stake a clain to mineral-rich Siberia, where the Russian population is in the demographic death-spiral. That could get interesting.

  25. Brian in MA Says:

    But then we begin the slippery slope. We’ll then have to deal with Belize and Guatamala permeating our borders.

    Before you know it, we’ll have the continent and a half under our belt with half of the states speaking Spanish and the other half speaking English. Unless we provide a provision(and an actual attempt at creating bi-lingual children) for establishing a national or regional official language(as was done in Iraq’s constitution) we’ll be in hot water.

    On the other hand, if Mexico votes Republican… God bless the South.

  26. Ken Says:

    This is excellent… this theme! I was thinking along the same lines. In stages here’s what to do:

    First, conquer the seven jewels of sub-Mexico–Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama (where we already have bases!), Costa Rica, Belize and Nicaragua. Next, in a multi-pronged squeeze, take Mexico–by land and by sea, if necessary! Finally, if there’s a peep out of Canada, we take her too in a mult-pronged squeeze from Alaska, the Northern plains and the Atlantic coast. This way, all of our “borders” are the sea itself, including The Arctic and the Panama canal; the oceans and the Gulf. Then we commit to the full ENFORCEMENT of the rule of legitimate LAWS and to the florishment of our extremely successful brand of capitalism! How about that?

    Ken

  27. The Constructivist Says:

    I wonder if Jared’s been reading a lot of Jesus’ General lately. But whether just a good joke or a quasi-serious proposal, I appreciate that it gave an opportunity for people to bring up Lincoln and Calhoun. I’d suggest reading Calhoun’s speech pretty carefully, though, b/c his basic reasoning for being opposed to annexation were a) the Mexicans are basically Indians, and we’ve been busy dispossessing those within our borders, so why would we invite others into the Union and give them a vote, which b) would upset the South-leaning balance of power in the Congress and potentially create an anti-slavery majority. So long as you keep that in mind, the parts where he sounds like Noam Chomsky still stand as an excellent critique of our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

    Now if we removed the imperialism from Jared’s proposal and put it up to national referenda across the Americas on whether to join the US (under a petition procedure based on Article 4, Section 3 of the US Constitution), what would people think of that?

  28. Barbara Dolby Says:

    I want to thank you for making me interested in the news again. I make sure I am home and ready to see your program.I find it refreshing to finally hear an honest reporter talk the truth and never gives up. By the way i bought your book and read it in one day I strongly reccommend that every American read what this Government is doing to the middle class. I want to thank you again for sticking up for those of us that cannot or do not have the power that you have MAY GOD BLESS YOU YOU ARE MY HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. Justin Gardner Says:

    Barbara, this isn’t Lou Dobbs’ site. He’s on CNN.

    But glad you found the blog! ;-)

  30. Neesh Says:

    There has been lots of depate on mexican issue in particular what i think we should give them full autonomy to let their life according to their own will. Govt shall encouage those activities which promote national hormony nd must eliminate those discrepences which bring havoc to the people.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: