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.

[opebo]

Please, Please, take Texas and Louisiana away from us!

[A18]

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

Now, the Spanish-American War on the other hand...

[Jens]

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?

[A18]

Given how awful a country Mexico is, we had a very legitimate claim even before they unjustly invaded Texas.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Jens]

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.

[Jens]

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

[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.

[Jens]

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 ). Hong Kong was given back to China after the lease ran out, it wasn't ever de jure owened by the UK

[Emsworth]

By taking this stance you open Pandoras box, making any war of aggresion legitimate.

That's not exactly my view, though it is similar. I feel that the completely subjective concept of "legitimacy" need not play any part when a government decides to wage war (although the appearance of legitimacy is certainly important for PR purposes). All that matters, I think, is whether the war is in the national interests.

As it so happens, I think that most wars of aggression are not in the national interest. In general, imperialism brings with it many more problems than benefits; keeping the conquered territory subjugated may be quite difficult. But that is a different matter from whether the war is "justified."

In effect, I have no "moral" objections to wars of aggression, only practical ones.

[Jake]

Legitimately, you got your ass handed to you. I'd advise you to stop crying about it.

[A18]

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.

They invaded us, so we took their land. Pretty simple.

If we had initiated the war, things might be different, although I think manifest destiny is a perfectly legitimate principle anyway.

[Storebought]

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.

They invaded us, so we took their land. Pretty simple.

If we had initiated the war, things might be different, although I think manifest destiny is a perfectly legitimate principle anyway.

I won't go into the Texas Revolution, because that really was a grievance between Texans, both white and Mexican, and the implacably corrupt Santa Anna dictatorship of the 1830s.

As far as the Mexican War goes, the US could have conquered all of Mexico, not just the uninhabited northern 1/3 which was merely a hideaway for bandits and murderers. But there was no Congressional support for that move, so President Polk just settled on what he could in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

[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.

[ATFFL]

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.

[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.

[Emsworth]

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.

[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.

[A18]

We only took the uninhabited parts, quite widely in my opinion.

[WMS]

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...

[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.

[Emsworth]

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

I have said nothing of the sort. It is not for an humble mortal such as I to speculate and prognosticate as to what could have or would have happened on such a level. Who knows, you might not have even been born in the first place, had history been slightly different?

[WMS]

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.

You'd lose a plebiscite if it was held. Except maybe in parts of Los Angeles...

[Jake]

Anyone who does not like to live in Mexico might just as well leave.

What do you think happens every day down in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California?