At the risk of paraphrasing He Who Must Not Be Named Online, I wouldn't expect to read a history book that said, "and so, after pitilessly slaughtering the badly outgunned Mexican Army, America had Santa Annas hands shackled in FRONT of him so he could sign the 'purchase agreement' more easily. " Certainly it would be odd for a TEXAS history book to record it that way (and we all know how important TX is in determining what the nations history books say. ) It may interest you to know that the principal Mexican objection to the Rio Grande as boundary with TX wasn't disagreement about what the peace treaty actually SAID, but the fact that Santa Anna was a bound prisoner when he signed his agreement (a fact he also raised himself to explain why he was President of Mexico AGAIN just ten years later, despite a peace treaty term that required him to forever renounce power. ) So, yeah, we cloaked our territorial gains in legal legitimacy, but, let's be honest here, after the capture of Monterrey Mexico had few options apart from full capitulation on whatever terms we deigned to offer. That we came back in another decade to "buy" more land only underscores that.
But that really goes back to the core of the question asked: It becomes permissible when you can get away with it, but whether it ever becomes truly moral may depend on whom you ask, and when. Which, if either, of those definitions fits what Dark Knight meant by "OK" only he and God can say. As a fellow Texan, I encounter this kind of sentiment regularly, and have found the best antidote to be rts: We don't take it because we don't WANT it; it wouldn't make anything better and would likely make things a lot worse (although it could get VERY interesting to see what happened globally when the US physically owned all of Mexicos substantial oil rights, but since we pioneered the practice of leasing it all to private entities pursuing a profit even if it means charging US taxpayers $4/gallon, I doubt much would change strategically. ) It's not exactly a dispassionate area to discuss, given the history (and current reality; most Mexicans will tell you they didn't HAVE a drug problem until wealthy US customers started buying contraband illegal in their own country; they certainly didn't lose national political leaders over it. )
But that really goes back to the core of the question asked: It becomes permissible when you can get away with it, but whether it ever becomes truly moral may depend on whom you ask, and when. Which, if either, of those definitions fits what Dark Knight meant by "OK" only he and God can say. As a fellow Texan, I encounter this kind of sentiment regularly, and have found the best antidote to be rts: We don't take it because we don't WANT it; it wouldn't make anything better and would likely make things a lot worse (although it could get VERY interesting to see what happened globally when the US physically owned all of Mexicos substantial oil rights, but since we pioneered the practice of leasing it all to private entities pursuing a profit even if it means charging US taxpayers $4/gallon, I doubt much would change strategically. ) It's not exactly a dispassionate area to discuss, given the history (and current reality; most Mexicans will tell you they didn't HAVE a drug problem until wealthy US customers started buying contraband illegal in their own country; they certainly didn't lose national political leaders over it. )
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
At what point does it become ok to take over a country?
16/08/2010 04:25:09 PM
- 1187 Views
why would we want to make Mexico our problem? *NM*
16/08/2010 04:30:48 PM
- 307 Views
Yeah that's why i don't want us to take over. I think the US is already too big as is *NM*
16/08/2010 04:37:41 PM
- 281 Views
One might argue it already is. The other way around too, though. *NM*
16/08/2010 04:44:19 PM
- 269 Views
I'm fairly sure that yes, the majority of them have national pride.
16/08/2010 04:51:38 PM
- 725 Views
Re: I'm fairly sure that yes, the majority of them have national pride.
16/08/2010 05:11:49 PM
- 585 Views
Actually, make that number 120 to 150. *NM*
16/08/2010 05:14:15 PM
- 280 Views
We don't invade countries we can't locate on the map...
16/08/2010 06:01:43 PM
- 787 Views
So that means there are only five or so countries you can invade, one of them yourself?
16/08/2010 06:11:43 PM
- 547 Views
Re: So that means there are only five or so countries you can invade, one of them yourself?
16/08/2010 06:30:56 PM
- 767 Views
When they get on your nerves or have something you want, preferably both
16/08/2010 05:04:10 PM
- 710 Views
I agree we should attack Canada instead
16/08/2010 05:19:48 PM
- 703 Views
Yeah, but they don't gouge us for the oil, cost the same as anyone else *NM*
16/08/2010 05:49:38 PM
- 289 Views
I would legalize drugs ten times over before I would annex Mexico.
16/08/2010 05:36:37 PM
- 784 Views
"I would stop doing a bad thing 10 times over before I did a worse thing"? WTF? *NM*
16/08/2010 06:04:48 PM
- 362 Views
Read the original post. He proposes annexing Mexico due to the drug problem.
16/08/2010 06:28:54 PM
- 751 Views
He's just nitpicking on your phrasing in the subject line. I think. *NM*
16/08/2010 06:37:17 PM
- 272 Views
that sounds like a much better immigration solution idea than "let's build a GIGANTIC FENCE!!!" *NM*
16/08/2010 06:33:46 PM
- 287 Views
Work Visas might help, but...
16/08/2010 06:51:11 PM
- 907 Views
Oh i know it's not a complete solution and i have no problem with a fence
16/08/2010 07:43:26 PM
- 645 Views
Just so long as we're both on the 'multi-front solution' page
16/08/2010 08:35:06 PM
- 563 Views
it's also worth noting that no one is proposing throwing out the Cubans
16/08/2010 08:54:46 PM
- 712 Views
When the US says so. We are the bosses of the World, are we not? *NM*
16/08/2010 08:06:08 PM
- 289 Views
Not even Hitler's Germany? (if he never went to war but just stayed put) Reply to Yuna *NM*
16/08/2010 09:24:41 PM
- 377 Views
If he had never gone to war, that would also have meant no Holocaust... *NM*
16/08/2010 09:28:16 PM
- 282 Views
Really? Why is that? I'm not too terribly familiar with Hitler's reasons for mass genocide *NM*
16/08/2010 09:30:48 PM
- 286 Views
Dachau opened in '33, Nuremburg Laws were '35
16/08/2010 09:36:59 PM
- 638 Views
Ok that's what I was thinking
16/08/2010 09:45:51 PM
- 629 Views
Uh, yeah, see, there's a difference between "blaming" and "exterminating".
16/08/2010 09:52:37 PM
- 685 Views
Re: Uh, yeah, see, there's a difference between "blaming" and "exterminating".
16/08/2010 09:54:29 PM
- 611 Views
I don't know if there's really anything to specifically compare it to...
16/08/2010 10:00:59 PM
- 778 Views
Also, perhaps someone should just invoke the (variation of the) Godwin Law and stop this whole thing
16/08/2010 10:02:23 PM
- 690 Views
Ah,
16/08/2010 10:04:39 PM
- 589 Views
Nah, more like, I know I shouldn't have done this, but I couldn't resist. *NM*
16/08/2010 10:07:35 PM
- 303 Views
Well, you'll note I didn't make that causal relation you attribute to me.
16/08/2010 09:55:39 PM
- 719 Views
The Dachau follow up was bookkeeping
16/08/2010 10:05:35 PM
- 677 Views
I'm confused, but I'll take that as something I don't have to argue.
16/08/2010 10:09:16 PM
- 728 Views
Re: I'm confused, but I'll take that as something I don't have to argue.
16/08/2010 10:19:19 PM
- 650 Views
The US already took half of Mexico, so why not the other half?
16/08/2010 09:57:56 PM
- 724 Views
"Took" is an unfriendly word, we purchased it *NM*
16/08/2010 10:21:58 PM
- 285 Views
yes after a messy political and physical "conflict"
16/08/2010 10:53:22 PM
- 688 Views
There was also the Gasdsen Purchase
17/08/2010 12:30:21 AM
- 639 Views
The Gadsden Purchase was a pittance and an afterthought, as I'm sure you're aware.
18/08/2010 12:36:24 PM
- 556 Views
It is fairly large, but yes
18/08/2010 02:21:25 PM
- 632 Views
Well, yes, it WAS a purchase, but then, it would be.
18/08/2010 03:22:23 PM
- 1071 Views
and why did it belong to Mexico to begin with? *NM*
17/08/2010 01:28:28 AM
- 319 Views
same way it seems to be the way most people who own the Americas came to own it.
17/08/2010 01:46:49 AM
- 507 Views
my best friend is an illegal and is going back to mexico in a few months
16/08/2010 11:28:11 PM
- 692 Views
every issue is simpler when you don't have faces to represent it for you. *NM*
16/08/2010 11:29:38 PM
- 293 Views
We should seal our border and peform drone strikes on cartels.
17/08/2010 12:58:37 AM
- 532 Views
Re: We should seal our border and peform drone strikes on cartels.
17/08/2010 02:39:11 AM
- 604 Views
Re: We should seal our border and peform drone strikes on cartels.
17/08/2010 03:34:59 AM
- 761 Views
I think maybe we've had enough of nation building for a while *NM*
17/08/2010 02:45:22 AM
- 271 Views