Centerfield

Diplomacy... it's so, so 1970s.

I think the short answer is, yes.
They did think it would be rainbows and ponies.

The hardest thing in the world is to be in power and actually see the reality of what is happening around you. You may need the super loyalist to get into the oval office, but once there you need grounded pragmatic people who will challenge your views.

Reality doesn't care about your youthful indiscretions or your intellect. Reality is just a mindless meat grinder that gets the final say on everything.

The answer is no. It wasn't going to be rainbows and ponies; it was going to be flowers in the gunbarrels.

If you've got a few extra minutes, read this article from today's Washington Post. I was actually going to post it this morning with some commentary, but have just been swamped all day.

Anyway, it's about the Philippines and their century-long struggle to make "American style democracy" work. I do truly believe that our form of government is probably the greatest in the world, but at the same time, I guess I'm just to practical to think that it will work in all corners of the world, particularly if it's us (outsiders) trying to place it there. I've always felt that the US succeeded because freedom was a burning desire in an overwhelming majority of the citizenry. They were willing to lay their lives down--not the lives of soldiers from an assisting superpower--for that dream. It has to be in the heart of the populace at large to work.

In the case of Palestine and even Iraq to a certain extent, I'm just not convinced that our form of democracy is going to work effectively at this juncture. Part of the fundamental problem (IMHO) is the zeal that drives their populations. Americans of the 1700's may have felt some type of hatred for the Brits, but any animosity was driven by "taxation without representation." Once we won the war, we just wanted to be left alone and do our thing. That's simply not the case with many of the countries in the middle east. A sizeable portion of their population seems to be driven by devotion to a radical sect of Islam and hatred of "infidels"--individual liberty just simply doesn't seem to factor into the equation.

I'm rambling so I'll stop...just my two cents fwiw.

Yes they are the elected democratic government of Palestine.

But this means that any terrorist acts they commit or sponsor are technically acts of war.

Funny how that works.

Mathew, yes the palestinians made their choice in a democratic election, however we are not obliged to fund them. The palestinians made their choice for continued war and terrorism against Israel, now they have to live with the consequences of that choice. It's time the world held the palestinians responsible for their actions.

Also hamas in fact is still a terrorist organization, the fact that they came to power through elections doesn't change that, after all the nazis also came to power through elections.

I thought this was a centrist blog, it seems like I've stumbled across a far leftist blog instead, what with the recent whitewashing of islamic terrorism.

From a hamas video:

"In the name of Allah, we will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, [and] purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country... This operation is revenge against the sons of monkeys and pigs."
The second terrorist also told how he saw his death for Allah as a wedding:

"I dedicate this wedding to all of those who have chosen Allah as their goal, the Quran as their constitution and the prophet [Muhammad] as their role model. Jihad is the only way to liberate Palestine – all of Palestine – from the impurity of the Jews."
He then spoke directly to his mother.

"My dear mother, you who have cared for me, today I sacrifice my life to be your intercessor (on Judgment Day). O my love and soul, wipe your tears, don't be saddened. In the name of Allah, I've achieve all that I've aspired. Don't let me see you sad on my wedding day with the Maidens of Paradise. So be happy and not sad, because in the name of Allah, after death is merciful Allah's paradise."
.................
Now do you honestly believe these are people we can negotiate with? Mathew I really don't know where your head is at.

Here's yet more of hamas'peaceful intentions that you will probably find a way to whitewash:

The Hamas website this week presented the parting video messages of two Hamas suicide terrorists, according to Palestinian Media Watch. The first said: "We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood." The second said: "We will destroy you, blow you up, take revenge against you, [and] purify the land of you, pigs that have defiled our country."

JonBuck makes an excellent point. If any Hamas agent blows some Isreali up, or some American innocent bystander, that could be considered an act of war. Hamas and the Palestinians can't have it both ways. If they want to be treated as the duly elected government, then the government and the Palestinian people are responsible for all of their actions.

As for continuing foreign aid, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, cutting foreign aid may make the Palestinians hate us even more than they already do (if that's possible), and it could make us look a little hypocritical.

On the other hand, Hitler took power through a legitimate election, at least initially, so I don't think we have an absolute obligation to deal with any particular government simply because they were elected democratically. Additionally, all of our dealings and aid to the PLO was conditioned on them formally renouncing the destruction of Isreal as a goal. Hamas has not done that. Cutting financial aid because the new governing party refuses to abide by the conditions imposed on the previous party in return for the aid is hardly being hypocritical or inconsistent.

Finally, I suspect that there is more understanding among the Arab world at large about the nature of Hamas and the dangers they pose than the radical leaders let on. The intra-Arab violence is pretty high, and I'm sure a lot of the people on the ground know who's really behind it. Standing firm against extremists, in government or not, will win us friends in the long run (maybe the very long run, but eventually).

We've engaged and supported a lot of nasty regimes over the years. The Marcos in the Philippines, South American dictators, the Shah of Iran.

I think the only real question is, what would we be getting for our money, if we continued the funding?

No quid pro quo, then no dough.

I think Bob Young is pretty much on target. Yes, Hamas won a democratic election in Palestine. Yes, we have to recognize them as the legitimate authority of the Palestinian (that's what an election means). And, yes, we do have to negotiate with them (if we want to negotiate at all), because that's the hand that we've been dealt-- they are not the duly elected representatives of their people.

But the United States is in no way, shape, or form obligated to support every government-- or even every democratically-elected government-- with funding. The US government provides foreign aid to foreign governments and authorities not because we're nice people, but because we seek to influence the behavior those governments into doing something that we support.

In this case, our funding should be directly tied to (a) their decision to end their support of terrorism-- i.e., renouncing the use of violence to solve political problems in Israel/Palestine, and taking active measures to reduce their levers of support for terror; and probably also (b) recognizing the right of Israel to exist. I'm not even so sure that (c) removing their armed partisans or merging them into the PA security forces, is even something we need to worry about.. yet.

But to just fund them simply because they're there and regardless of their positions on the issues... that's just plain fourth grade foreign policy, and the US shouldn't do that (not just in Israel/Palestine, mind you, but everywhere-- as Bob says, "no quid pro quo, no dough").

Typo error in my last post...

Change:

they are not the duly elected representatives of their people.

To:

they are now the duly elected representatives of their people.

One letter and it throws the entire point out the window!

I think Hamas won because Fatah were terribly corrupt after many years of single-party rule. That's what most sound bites on the ground said. No doubt the fact that Fatah saw themselves as irreplaceable made them even worse.

Rice isn't saying she won't deal with Hamas, she's just saying the US won't support the PA or Hamas while they're a terrorist group. Indeed, IMHO it's hard to say Hamas is at the table when they won't even yield Israel's existence. Hamas could change that, just as Fatah did. I suspect that Hamas (after some years?) will at least give lip service to that notion, simply because there's no other way forward. Remember that, like Fatah, Hamas also has a big party-like side to it.

My biggest worry here is that Hamas might refuse to hold more elections.

Oh, and Laura, Hitler didn't come to power through elections. Even through the depths of German economic depression, the Nazis never polled better than 38 in a free election. They got power by taking advantage of the bad combination of a bad constitution and a too-old President.

This is a fable constructed and passed by those who wish to believe that democracy is inherently self-destructing, but it's untrue. That said, new democracies are more vulnerable. Their workings can be buggy (Hitler), the corruption present at the beginning can be enough to stop democratic workings (hi, Putin!), and high initial levels of moderate-party corruption can bring extremists to office (that's Hamas).

Note that one of the highest priorities of the new Hamas government will be the release of the men who murdered the Isreali Minister of Tourism (and former IDF general) back in 2001. If Hamas releases them because, to them, killing Isrealis is no crime but are rather legitimate acts of war, then it is only fair that Isreal (and the U.S.) also be allowed to conduct itself against the Palestinians on a war footing.

The interview with the Hamas leader goes on to say:

"We will not have any contacts with Israel, direct or indirect. We say to the whole world that Israel is the one that must change its positions, and go to a position of retreat from the conquered Palestinian territories [sic] and recognize the national Palestinian rights [sic]."

P.S., Jon, I believe I was the one who made the reference to Hitler's election, not Laura.

The idea that democracy spreads freedom and liberty has been, and always will be, jingoistic BS. Although, i thin some of the neo-cons are a bit disturbed by recent turns of events.

Sinn Fein was not even part of the democratic process until it began to denounce the use of terrorism. Hammas still fully advocates this through words and actions. Withholding monetary support is not attempting to thwart the will of the people. Peoples choices have consequences. They got what they want; but as a democracy of our own, we have no responsibility to fund a terrorist group. They are free to govern as they see fit, just without cash from certain foriegn sources.

"Jingoistic bs"? Nobody ever said it was an immediate cure, just that democracy, in the long run, is the only form of government proven over time to result in peaceful, free, stable governments and societies. Do you disagree with that? If so, what example can you give of a peaceful, free, stable government that was not basically democratic?

In fact, Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder have demonstrated in a rather 1999 lengthy essay and now in their book, Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War, that states in the democratization process are inherently MORE likely to to go to war than either autocratic regimes or consolidated democracies. But they specifically argue that this does NOT refute Democratic Peace Theory, and that the solution to this problem is MORE democracy and not LESS.

The "neo-cons" (who, by the way, are not the first to endorse DPT; that would be the Clinton Administration's policy of "enlargement," the difference being that neo-cons were actually willing to implement the policy, while Clinton primarily just paid lip service to it) may not have done a good job of explaining that distinction to the American people-- and in fact we could probably argue that they haven't, if there's so many people running around surprised about the Hamas election. But their failure to articulate their policy does not invalidate the policy in any way.

Considering how short a period in human history democracies have been in existence, I think it's a tad soon to draw that conclusion. We very democratically wiped out the Indians, stole Mexican territory and attacked Spain. Over the long term (centuries?) democracies may be less prone to war. On the other hand, the learning curve for that population is long, unpleasant and tends to drag the neighbors in. Forcing a violence prone, uneducated population of religious nuts into democracy seems like a really bad idea.

After all, have we learned that lesson yet? It seems that every generation of Americans has to be reminded that war is not fun.

STOLE Mexican territory, Bob? For every bit of formerly Mexican territory, we have we also have the proper paperwork from the Mexican government ceding it to us.

If that's "stealing," then I want my old house back. I know the other guy has the title, and I signed the paperwork, but it used to be mine so he must have stolen it....

Now Tully, territory won during a war can hardly be counted as a legitimate sale.
Did you purchase your house with the assistance of firearms?

Democracy does not create a free society. The people must. Without an educated and strong middle class, you can not get a government of the people. Democracy really has nothing to do it. A true democracy is the byproduct of a free society, it is usually not the cause of it. True freedom has almost always come from a developed middle class. That is why I call Democracy as freedom jingoistic BS.

The 20th century is riddled with failed democracies forced upon people and countries who were not ready for them. Many of them ended up unstable, overthrown by coup, or co-opted by dictators.

We are getting exactly the kinds of government that we should expect in the Middle East. To think that we could go in and force secular and open government on a people who are not willing and do not want it is crazy. I am not a buyer of DPT. I think it is a backward method doomed to fail many more times than it is going to succeed. I am all for supporting and nuturing developing democracies. I just think that trying to impose a democracy versus allowing one to develop on its one, its doomed to failure in this region.

We really need to take our policy responses to the new Hamas-led palestinian government one day at a time.

I am not as prone as some others to get all bent out of shape by the zealous rhetoric of say, a suicide bomber. I'm lucid enough to know that such people probably don't represent ALL Palestinians, and may not even represent all of Hamas.

It's possible that being required to actually lead and to make political decisions will have a tempering effect on Hamas.They can't change overnight. But change they must.

We must hold them responsible for how they act as leaders and for what they come to advocate while they are in power. Certainly we are under no obligation to finance their activities if they won't renounce violence and don't move towards a willingness to co-exist peacefully with Israel. That's not negotiable, and we do need to make that eminently clear. But I don't think we should do that publicly and immediately.

I think it may be a mistake to immediately punish Palestine by cutting off funds because we don't like the newly elected government. We've spent far too much time recently trumpeting the merits of democracy to do that right away. Diplomatically speaking, it makes sense (for the time being) to tolerate some over-the-top rhetoric from Hamas, since they are preaching the gospel to their base in the wake of a win. At the least I hope we give Hamas a sketch of what we're looking to see from them if they wabt some of this funding back.

In private, we have to be very clear that we won't tolerate any violent actions towards Israel, that we won't be releasing any of their very violent comrades, and that they need to start toning down the anti-Israel rhetoric sooner rather than later. I read an article a few weeks back suggesting that a fair number of Palestinians voted for Hamas more as a protest against a corrupt and ineffective Fatah leadership than because they felt Hamas had the political answers. If that's so, then Hamas has to acknowledge the very probationary nature of their new reign, or they'll be booted out.

Hamas is today far more beholden to both the Palestinian people and to the US and other western nations than they were a few weeks ago. We should be at least patient enough to wait and see if that light bulb of acknowledgement can go on. Our policy should be one that employs both carrot and stick, has a short leash, and has very little tolerance for Hamas's actions deviating from a non-violent path towards peaceful coexistence.

On a personal note, I'd like to request that Laura please stop accusing us of being a far left blog. Stop embarassing yourself, Laura, you really don't know what you're talking about.

I think Hamas won because Fatah were terribly corrupt after many years of single-party rule. That's what most sound bites on the ground said. No doubt the fact that Fatah saw themselves as irreplaceable made them even worse.

One thing I'd like to know. Why is that since Arafat moved in in 1993 that the only opposition that operated openly was rejection of the Oslo accords? If non-rejection opposition had been allowed to operate, then the Palestinians would have had an option to vote against Fatah's corruption without voting for Hamas's terror/theocracy.

I can think of two reasons that Arafat would have allowed Oslo-rejection opposition and no other. One is that he would have preferred no opposition at all, but that the rejectionists forces were too powerful to restrain entirely. The other is that Arafat wanted to set up a good cop-bad cop image for the West. He would have figured that with rejectionist opposition, he would have been indispensible to the West, lest that rejectionist opposition take power, thus the West would be forced to accept whatever he wanted to do.

The solution is to allow non-rejectionist opposition to operate freely. Why are such issues of freedom, and the freedom to advocate peace, ignored in the pursuit of empty promises renounce terror and recognize Israel?

"Won," Bob? That a seller is under duress does not obviate a sale, and we paid for the territory. Then we paid even more for it, without war. Had we kept all the territory we "won" during the war, about half of modern-day Mexico would be US territory. Any beef the Mexican people have is with their own ruler for selling the land, not with us for buying it. Santa Ana was a lousy sovereign, but that was their problem, not ours.

Not that Mexican claims to the territory were all that strong in the first place, consisting mainly of having forcibly established some missions in the region, and having set up some cattle ranches in California. And they actually shorted us on the final deal, which was originally supposed to include the states of Coahuila, Chihuahua, and Sonora as well as ALL of the Baja peninsula for the price offered.

Under your standards, we also "stole" the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska. We "stole" the original thirteen colonies from Great Britain, who also "stole" Acadia from the French. The government of Mexico itself said (and says) it was a legitimate transaction.

"Stole," my ass.

Tully, 'fess up. You wrote all of the Wikipedia, didn't you. It's all up there in your brain, and you just spilled it out to create the compendium of all knowledge. Right?

There is no way you can equate the Louisiana Purchase with the acquisition of Mexican territories.
France wanted to sell the Louisiana territory while we “encouraged” Mexico to sell with with U.S. Troops.

If it make you more comfortable we can use the word “extortion”.

\Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.]
1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting
anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any
undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.

There is no way you can equate the Louisiana Purchase with the acquisition of Mexican territories.

No? I just did! Here, watch, I'll do it again!

We paid for both the Louisiana Purchase and the Southwestern lands. We paid for both in cash. We bought them both after military hostilities between us and the sellers. So bloody what? A deal is a deal. We paid, they sold, all signed, it's ours.

In the case of the Southwest, we paid Mexico twice, with the second payment coming years after the Mexican-American war, with the Gadsden Purchase. That second payment was supposed to include a major chunk of what is now modern Mexico, but the ever-weaselly Santa Ana reneged, and demanded the complete price anyway. And we paid it.

We ended up buying a far smaller chunk than was originally offered, yet we paid the price first proposed by Mexico for the much larger parcel. That price was set and demanded by Mexico to include additional payments for the land acquired in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. They wanted more out of Round One, and we coughed up on demand. We bought it. It's ours.

Santa Ana thought he got rooked with the purchase price in the original treaty, and he wanted more money. So he offered additional land, a lot of it, at a VERY high price for the time. When it came time to settle up, he only delivered a little piece of the new parcel. Note particularly that we didn't "take" any of that land with the military. The US military went into Mexico itself, and we didn't keep any of the territory seized by them. It was all restored to Mexico. Every damned acre.

Don't try to shine off Santa Ana's screwups and incompetence by blaming it all on the US, Bob. We swindled him the first time, he swindled us the second. That he squandered the money on his own pursuits both times is Mexico's shame, not ours.

The French had even less claim-by-occupation to the lands they sold us than Mexico did to the Southwest. Bonaparte sold a shaky ownership claim on territory he couldn't possibly hold or defend in order to get ready cash. Santa Ana did the same. I have no problem at all equating the two.

France approached us in an attempt to unload something they didn't want to hold on to.
We sent troops to Mexico to threaten them into selling, then we fought a war. The two are not even close

Bob,

The thing about Democratic Peace Theory is not that democracies are inherently more peaceful or that they don't go to war (as was the hypothesis of Immanuel Kant's essay on "perpetual peace"). In fact, DPT argues that democracies can be quite war-like and are often very prone to use violence against other states.

What DPT says is that liberal democracies do not go to war with other liberal democracies. Now it's true that the sample size is exceptionally small and that there may be other effects that are actually upholding the peace-- i.e., NATO's collective security in Europe, proximity and distance between existing democracies, complex interdependence, American hegemonic stability, and oh, by the way, the chances that any two states are ever at war with one another during any given year is actually quite small. Critics of DPT say they're giving credit to the wrong cause, and that what they think is girding the peace, really isn't.

But, at least so far, the theory's been demonstrably accurate, even if its sample is so insignificant that it would be reckless to fanatically embrace it (as many Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons have done).

I'm not actually endorsing the theory, mind you, I'm just pointing out that to criticize it, we have to critique what its proponents (such as Michael Doyle and Bruce Russett) actually say and not what others have mistakenly told us it says.

You're in denial, Bob. Why do you feel it so necessary to paint the US as the aggressor, when Mexico spent well over a decade threatening to take back Texas by force? After Texas kicked their butts and after Mexico acknowledged Texan independence by treaty, and settled the border by treaty? Whom was threatening whom again?

Once again, WE paid THEM. They agreed on the price. And five years later they demanded more money, and we paid them again.

Sorry, it doesn't wash. First Mexico tried to blackmail us into paying THEM for Texas, after Texas voluntarily joined the US (one of only two independent sovereign nations to ever voluntarily petition to do so). Then, when we made offers to purchase more territory--territory that Mexico was probably going to lose to the British, BTW, if we didn't get it--THEY invaded American territory, killing American soldiers.

Santa Anna was incompetent, ruthless, and greedy, to be sure, and carrying a big chip on his shoulder from having had his butt kicked in losing Texas in the first place, not to mention the humiliation of being caught trying to sneak away from the battle of San Jacinto dressed as a senorita. But as ruler of Mexico he signed the treaties with Texas, after which it was no longer Mexico's. And he agreed to sell the Southwest Territory, and set the price, and took the cash. And then he got even more later on, claiming he was underpaid.

And let me remind you that we were fighting the French at sea just a couple of years before the Louisiana Purchase. Less time lapsed between the end of the Quasi-War and the Louisiana Purchase than did between the end of the Mexican-American War and the Gadsden Purchase, where we paid even MORE for territory we'd already purchased, and held clear title to.

You seem intent on putting the US in a bad light, without acknowledging the facts of the encounter. We certainly weren't angels at the time (no nation ever is) but Mexico worked very hard to provoke a war, and they got one. Then they got paid handsomely to give up land they could not possibly occupy and defend, and were going to lose anyway.

You should read up on Santa Anna and the history of Mexico for the time, Bob. Everytime Santa Anna became "president" again, some of the Mexican states would rebel. In fact, he became president duirng the Mexican-American War by betraying and overthrowing President Gómez Farías. He did that a lot--he overthrew the legitimate ruler of Mexico to become dictator no less than four times, and betrayed his own side as a turncoat no less than eight times! A truly venal and corrupt man.

On the bright side, his greed and corruption in pocketing all the money received from America for the purchases pissed off the rest of Mexico so much that Benito Juarez and his crew rose to power, kicked his ass out, and managed over the next twenty years to finally establish Mexican independence.

For some real amusement review the history of the European royal's attempts to bring Mexico under their control, AFTER the Mexican-American War...if you want to count the number of times the rule and government of Mexico changed hands violently in that century, or even the number of times the various Mexican states declared their own independence, you're gonna need an abacus. Santa Anna, for example, promised to sell the Southwest territories to the US while still in exile, then reneged when he returned and seized power, then followed through but upped the price, then was exiled (again) after the sale, then seized power again and promised to sell America lots more territory (annoying states in rebellion) IF he got more money for the previous sale as well, then reneged on selling most of the extra territory (he retook the rebel provinces) but insisted on full payment of the agreed price anyway--and got it!--then was exiled again for the last time. After which he came to America and inadvertently started the American chewing gum industry, while getting nothing out of it. He wanted to use chicle to make tires, his assigned minder from the government found another use for chicle, invented Chiclets and got rich, cutting out Santa Anna. Karmic retribution?

History is fun. :-)

Tully, 'fess up. You wrote all of the Wikipedia, didn't you. It's all up there in your brain, and you just spilled it out to create the compendium of all knowledge. Right?

I think you are on to something there, Pat...

Bwa ha ha! I must confess, I'm actually a sentient mainframe in the basement of the Smithsonian...but if I'd written Wikipedia it wouldn't have so many errors. :-)

The real surprise to me (in the historical sense) is that Mexico eventually became one nation, and not a half dozen or more as happened with the UPCA. And if we're going to follow Bob's reasoning, we should be helping Guatemala get back all those states that Mexico stole from them, especially Quintana Roo and the Soconusco. And the Brits should be really ashamed of having knicked off with Belize while the Spanish were looking elsewhere. Fair's fair. ;-)

Central and South American history after the revolts against Spain is fascinating stuff.

I'll admit to not really being that "up" on my Central and South American history. For far too many American's, our knowledge of history (if we have any at all) is typically limited to Western Europe and North America. We've really neglected our southern neighbors, and not just in the study of history.

And were the Mexicans under Santa Ana mostly native "Americans" (funny how the P.C. term for this continent's aboriginals is taken from the name of an Italian cartographer), or were they more of European descent? Seems kind of silly to be arguing over which bunch of European grandchildren took, by hook, crook, or legitimate sale, any territory on the north or south American continents. And when you go back to the Hopis and the Aztecs and the Navaho and the Sioux and the Choctaw (etc., etc.), you then have to ask which other tribe did they take it from?

It all reminds me of the rather humorous old lawyer's tale about tracing the title of some property back a very long way...

Check it out sometime, Abel, it's fascinating. The Spanish held all of Central America and much of South America for three centuries. They blew it all by joining with Napolean in the Third Coalition period, wiping out their own military ability to control the New World colonies.

The Napoleanic Wars pretty much left the Spanish and Portugese colonies on their own, and they responded by declaring independence. Pretty much ALL of the colonies in South and Central America (including Mexico) jumped ship between 1815 and 1822. In Central America, many of the provinces of the Guatamelan Republic at first joined the Mexican Empire (the first one, that is) which lasted about a year.

Then they formed their own federal republic (NOT including Mexico) based on the old Guatamelan Republic, hoping to copy the United States, but it fell apart, lasting only about fifteen years. Guatemala itself got the worst whipsawing, losing much of their north to the Mexicans, including the Yucatan Peninsula. And ALL of their southern provinces, which wanted their own deals and are now the nations of El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, etc. The Guatemalans also claimed Belize, but the Brits were the only Euros that stayed put and held on, so that didn't work out either. From once being half of Central America, the country of Guatemala is now about a tenth the size of the original Guatemalan Republic.

Guatemala is still arguing with Belize about borders, BTW, almost 200 years later. And South America is even more confusing--the French still have a colony, with a spaceport! :-)

Oh, and the Mexican armies were mostly mestizos. naturally enough, as most Mexicans were (and are). But the officers tended to be more Spanish by blood. The aristocracy was still holding on. They'd had 300 years to settle in, after all.

Good work. I like your site. Game can Roll Cosmos: http://www.arabnews.com/ , when Slot is Game it will Rape Corner Profound Player becomes Astonishing Boy in final , Table can Create Chips Tremendous Pair Do or not