See? Us Mexicans care for you!

[KillerPollo]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/08/katrina.mexico.ap/

It's the first time Mexican Military operates on US soil since 1848.

In 1846, Mexican troops advanced north of the Rio Grande in Texas, a rebel state that had joined the United States.
Mexico did not then recognize the Rio Grande as the U.S. border.
Soon after, the Mexican-American War began, and this led to the theft of half of Mexico's territory in 1848.

[KillerPollo]

I think it hardly matters whether the U.S. had a "legitimate claim" or not; the point is, I think, a very obscure and trivial one. In foreign policy, "legitimacy" is not particularly relevant.

Did the colonists have a legitimate claim to the land of the Native Americans? Of course not. But that should not make any difference. The same argument applies to the conquest of Texas.

By taking this stance you open Pandoras box, making any war of aggresion legitimate. Legitimacy has played a major role throughout history. You just don't go conquering like a mad man, but laying claim to a territory fx to christian the savages where quite legitimate - that was the one use towards the Amerindians, who were neither Christian nor civilized. The Mexican republic were both

Thank you, My Danish friend.
Also. LEGITIMATELY that territory is Mexican. and if this were to be put before the International courts, i think They'd be in favor of giving that land back to Mexico. I mean, WHAT happened to Hong Kong after the English gave it back to the Chinese? NOTHING!
Nothing would happen if the US gives that land back to Mexico.

Also, A-18, What makes my Motherland so "awful" I think you're jealous that we own such a beautiful, culture-filled, and better-preserved place than you do.

I mean, Go to any city in the Former Mexican lands. you do not see A SINGLE remnant of the old European architecture. you DO see this in mexico. You Modernized LA beyond recognition, and bastardized a lot of towns' names as well. Houston was once called San Jacinto.

[KillerPollo]

As far as the Mexican War goes, the US could have conquered all of Mexico

No, they couldn't have. Did you guys take over Vietnam?
We would have fought to the last man in our honour and still defended it with success. We would have fought as readily as the Japanese would have in the invasion that would have taken place, had the US not dropped the A-Bomb.

[KillerPollo]

As far as the Mexican War goes, the US could have conquered all of Mexico

No, they couldn't have. Did you guys take over Vietnam?
We would have fought to the last man in our honour and still defended it with success. We would have fought as readily as the Japanese would have in the invasion that would have taken place, had the US not dropped the A-Bomb.

You realize that the US had conquered and occupied the capitol and the Mexican Army was a non-entity by the time of the treaty?

The US in Vietnam, thanks to stupid politicians, never launched an offensive.

Yes, but the country would still exist today.

[KillerPollo]

As far as the Mexican War goes, the US could have conquered all of Mexico

No, they couldn't have. Did you guys take over Vietnam?

Red herring. It is quite clear, I think, that the U.S. could have taken over pretty much all of Mexico: by the end of the war, the U.S. had gained control of Mexico City, Santa Anna had lost power, the Mexican government was in disarray, and the Mexican military was in chaos.

Are you saying that I could have been long been born an American citizen?

Keep in mind that the reason you did not take us over, was not just because of the lukewarm cowards of Congress, but because the conditions your soldiers were in (Thank God for disease). Even w/o your bias of the story.

[KillerPollo]

I think it hardly matters whether the U.S. had a "legitimate claim" or not; the point is, I think, a very obscure and trivial one. In foreign policy, "legitimacy" is not particularly relevant.

Did the colonists have a legitimate claim to the land of the Native Americans? Of course not. But that should not make any difference. The same argument applies to the conquest of Texas.

By taking this stance you open Pandoras box, making any war of aggresion legitimate. Legitimacy has played a major role throughout history. You just don't go conquering like a mad man, but laying claim to a territory fx to christian the savages where quite legitimate - that was the one use towards the Amerindians, who were neither Christian nor civilized. The Mexican republic were both

Thank you, My Danish friend.
Also. LEGITIMATELY that territory is Mexican. and if this were to be put before the International courts, i think They'd be in favor of giving that land back to Mexico. I mean, WHAT happened to Hong Kong after the English gave it back to the Chinese? NOTHING!
Nothing would happen if the US gives that land back to Mexico.

*goes and buys guns*
Oh no, nothing at all...

No it wouldn't. Besides, Anyone who does not like to live in Mexico might just as well leave. IMO it would become Mexico's Quebec, w/ English as the 2nd official language. Not to Mention once we own California, We're gonna get their economy, and MORE Asian babes.

[KillerPollo]

Come on, what kind of legitimate claim did the US have on Mexico north of the Rio Grande?

Whether they had a legitimate claim or not, I am glad my current place of residence isn't still in Mexico now.

"Now why don't you look down to where your feet is planted? That US soil that makes you take sh1t for granted!
If not for Santa Anna Just to let you know, that where your feet are planted would be Mexico! CORRECTO"

-Frijolero By Molotov-

[KillerPollo]

Well if I would have had my way I would have forced the US government back then to take all of Mexico. (Literally they were too racisit because the rest of Mexico wasn't like the rest of the US so we didn't take it)

That, and the intense prejudice for the Amerindians led fear to the expansion of slavery.

[KillerPollo]

Thomas Jefferson believed that the Louisiana Purchase extended to the Rio Grande

wow! how lame!