See? Us Mexicans care for you! (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 16, 2024, 08:18:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  See? Us Mexicans care for you! (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: See? Us Mexicans care for you!  (Read 4140 times)
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« on: September 24, 2005, 05:26:47 PM »

We didn't "steal" Mexican land. If another nation trys to steal your territory, it only makes sense to teach them a little lesson.

Now, the Spanish-American War on the other hand...
Come on, what kind of legitimate claim did the US have on Mexico north of the Rio Grande?
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2005, 05:35:45 PM »

Given how awful a country Mexico is, we had a very legitimate claim even before they unjustly invaded Texas.
This is getting better and better. You can might say that the US were protecting its newly aquired lands (Texas) but when they claimed California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colerado and Arizona it wasn't really a war of protection.
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2005, 05:40:55 PM »

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
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2005, 06:01:33 PM »

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.
Uhm, I was only refering to this in a historic perspective. Or els Dernmark would have a more legitimate claim to Northern Germany and Germany to Western Poland (and we all know what will happen then Wink ). Hong Kong was given back to China after the lease ran out, it wasn't ever de jure owened by the UK
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2005, 02:17:56 AM »

I believe we actually purchased the land after we won the Mexican-American War. That's just how nice we are. Wink
Only the southern parts of New Mexico and Arizona (1853). The majority was aquired in the peace treaty after the war (1846-1848)
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2005, 02:46:25 AM »

I believe we actually purchased the land after we won the Mexican-American War. That's just how nice we are. Wink
Only the southern parts of New Mexico and Arizona (1853). The majority was aquired in the peace treaty after the war (1846-1848)
Actually, we purchased the land in the peace treaty as well. Smiley We just got far better terms then. Wink
Yeah, I'm not talking about the Gadsden Purchase.
IIRC, we offered them $30,000,000 for the land before the war and gave them $15,000,000 after it.
When you force a country to give up half its territory and then give 15 million so they will stop crying, I wouldn't really call it a purchase
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2005, 05:17:36 AM »

We didn't "steal" Mexican land. If another nation trys to steal your territory, it only makes sense to teach them a little lesson.
Now, the Spanish-American War on the other hand...
Come on, what kind of legitimate claim did the US have on Mexico north of the Rio Grande?
The government of Texas voted to accede to the United States.
True, but in the eyes of everybody els they were a rebel province, much like Somaliland is looked upon today. Do you know how many states that recognised the independent republic of Texas?
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2005, 05:21:02 AM »

We didn't "steal" Mexican land. If another nation trys to steal your territory, it only makes sense to teach them a little lesson.
Now, the Spanish-American War on the other hand...
Come on, what kind of legitimate claim did the US have on Mexico north of the Rio Grande?
The government of Texas voted to accede to the United States.
True, but in the eyes of everybody els they were a rebel province, much like Somaliland is looked upon today. Do you know how many states that recognised the independent republic of Texas?
Looked it up myself. According to Wikipedia, France, USA, UK, Netherlands and Yucatán recongnised Texas
Logged
Jens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,526
Angola


« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2005, 05:58:28 AM »

We didn't "steal" Mexican land. If another nation trys to steal your territory, it only makes sense to teach them a little lesson.
Now, the Spanish-American War on the other hand...
Come on, what kind of legitimate claim did the US have on Mexico north of the Rio Grande?
The government of Texas voted to accede to the United States.
True, but in the eyes of everybody els they were a rebel province, much like Somaliland is looked upon today. Do you know how many states that recognised the independent republic of Texas?
Looked it up myself. According to Wikipedia, France, USA, UK, Netherlands and Yucatán recongnised Texas
Ah, but IIRC most of them did not recognize Texas' claim to extend all the way to the Rio Grande. Texas ended at the Nueces (or the Brazos? Can't tell those names apart...Not the Pecos.) River. In many ways it still does. Smiley
Rio Nueces
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 10 queries.