lol Lola

and as for the British...those first ships were filled with landless men, indentured servants, religious refugees, and debtors...all formed under Charters which were either penal or commercial in nature....so basically the US is a bunch of ruffian capitalists at its base:)

It took less than 165 years (1620-1780ish) for the US to seperate itself from Britain...compared to 300+ for some countries in South America to free themselves from Spain....lesson? Don't send boatloads of people who want to make money and don't like the current system of govt to go form a facsimile of that govt 3000 miles away:)

As to the US being too young to ever have been invaded and know what it feels like to be occupied...I'd argue that Britain has lasted nearly a thousand years under the occupation of its only invader and has done pretty well for itself:) And we have been invaded (1812).

Hah, our capital was invaded and BURNED TO THE GROUND

US has been invaded plenty of times, just not in recent times...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Torrid
Hah, our capital was invaded and BURNED TO THE GROUND

---

In your lifetime? In the past 100 years?

Yes, the British mop tops came in during the 60s, and brainwashed our women. My poor mom.

It's amazing how 200+ years of history can be compressed into a post of less than a page...

The US war with Mexico was started by the US NOT Mexico (it started with a border dispute and the US was clearly in the wrong) and France (although they were in Viet Nam for the usual $ reasons: rubber and tin) pulled out of Viet Nam long before the US finally did. ;)

I guess my point is this, the US had its own reasons for entering WW2 and its own reasons for entering the Viet Nam conflict; to say either incident was "pay back" for France's help in the US War for Independence (which France had its own reasons for entering) is to grossly oversimplify the issues. Governments change, political ideologies change, and one particular administration is not necessarily analogous to a different administration even within the same nation or governmental entity.

I dont give a shit about the history, or enough to read all those long posts anyway but one thing i cant get over is these countries, france canada whatever, not supporting the US. If they(<--- other countries, not america) were getting invaded, who would they turn to first for help?

Its not a very fucking hard question...

As much as i like to get up on the anti-yank pony, who the fuck is probably the only reason your countries(<--- Other countries, not america) arent run by germans or gooks(<--- Please dont take offense, asian people)?

The US has been invaded? :rolleyes:

1814, Vinilaa. Washington was occupied and there was a failed attempt by the British to take Baltimore, which resulted in a treaty ending the War of 1812.

Edit: Nevermind! I think you were responding to Shik, whose post I did not read :|

Shik, a pre-emptive strike on a country that is a debateable threat is a lot different than an invasion of Canada or France or whatever.

If that were true though, noone would be bringing up the US involvement in the Iran/Iraq war and saying "well it's your mess, you clean it up". If Bin Laden hated the US for occupying Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, why attack embassies during Clinton's administration? 11 years after the Gulf War ends, he then decides it would be a good time to attack during GB JR's administration...There is no blank slate just because an administration changes.

Why is the generational warfare and hatred aspect of this or any war expected, but when it is also supposed that there should be things like general gratitude it is cast aside?

I picked out some major events in US/France military relations to augment Ubar's point about wasn't France involved in the US War for Independence. And also to toss some light on another reason why America feels a little betrayed. In the long or short of it, the US has been there for France. What is the point of stating that the US may have come in on the side of France for whatever reasons, but it stayed longer? It sidesteps the fact that the United States came to France's aid, wheter it was a stupid reason or a good one. And my generation remembers it.

I don't see how condensing 200 years of our history into a post of less than a page regards to this argument, unless you'd rather I went into long detail about things totally irrelevant to this topic. I could however elaborate on the Mexican American War just so that barb doesn't go unanswered...

Texas achieved its independence from Mexico in 1836. It existed as a Republic for 9 years until Pres Tyler signs a reso to annex it. Mexico withdrew its diplomats (Almonte) to prepare for war. As of July 4th when Texas votes to join the United States, Mexico STILL had not recognized its independence...9 years later. In fact, General Santa Anna had just been ordered to sail into exile 3 months prior thanks to his handling of the Texas War for Independence...Yes the United States needed land (this was also the time the Oregon territory threatened war between US and Britain...and Polk himself in his diaries stated his aims to expand the US from coast to coast) But Specifically, the Mexican American War did not come about until 9 years AFTER Texas had decalred independence from Mexico.

Texas chose to join the Union...you may be able to argue that the US would have taken Texas by force, but the fact of the matter and history is that Texas asked to join the US for the benefits that a larger country could bring. Such as defending your borders from a turbulent neighbor to the south who starts building up troops. Even as late as October 1845, however, Mexico is still considering selling the land to United States, even though they had no rights to sell it since they had lost it a decade prior.

The war itself finally started in 1846 when Taylor moved troops into the noman's land between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Mexico responded by ordering its troops from Matamoros to cross the Rio Grande and engage, which they did, ambushing a scouting party.

So yes the Mexican American war was spurred by land, but not in the way you depict it. Texas had been independant of Mexico for the better part of a decade before the United States annexed it. After marching to Mexico City, the US pulled out and ended up with NM, AZ, CA. Had Mexico sold settling rights to the US of TX, or were not preparing for a forcible retake of TX in 1845, that war could possibly have been "diverted by diplomatic means". The US was actively trying to buy CA and NM before the war ever started, and I think it was the Gadsden purchase even after the war that paid Mexico some money for territory taken

At the time, not only the US was involved in "Manifest Destiny". Mexico had those same aspirations. In fact, Mexico has more of a history of taking land from its prior owners than the US does. The Aztecs conquered the Toltecs, Cortez conquered the Aztecs, Mexico freed itself of Spain, Texas freed itself of Mexico...the US came in on the end of a land swapping party that had been going on for over 300 years.

Now granted that's only really 10 years in a page:P but that's kinda what I was trying to avoid in my original posts...history tends to bore people until they get a nugget that works to their advantage in an argument..so I was attempting to address the question as broadly as possible so as not to make this discussion too long.

Fun topic tho:) Nice to read a lot of differing opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcius
1814, Vinilaa. Washington was occupied and there was a failed attempt by the British to take Baltimore, which resulted in a treaty ending the War of 1812.

Edit: Nevermind! I think you were responding to Shik, whose post I did not read :|

---

hehe Arc yeah I was :p

read my edits~
i dont understand ur posts maybe u misread me~

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gheltire
I don't see how condensing 200 years of our history into a post of less than a page regards to this argument

---

My comment wasn't intended as a barb I was merely pointing out that historians have written 1000+ page books on a single incident and still discovered that they'd only scratched the surface. I also don't see how a random textbook explanation of "what happened" in any particular historical event amounts to a true indepth analysis of the actual events by a historical scholar... but that's not even really the point... history is and always has been flawed in certain respects, especially the history you find in most American text books. This point is moot.

As for the Mexican American war... [Edit] Texas, and now the United States, claimed the border at the Rio Grande River. Mexico claimed territory as far north as the Nueces River. The so-called "independence of Texas" is not the issue, in the US people supported the war because they were under the impression that Mexico had "invaded" the US... In reality this is not what happened. The American people were lied to, congress was lied to. The US invaded Mexico for no other reason than to grab land.

*These facts have been documented by historians and political scientists whose studies appear in respected scholarly journals.

http://www.axg.net/rebellion/kk/productoffrance.jpg

Export that shit~~

"The "so-called" independence of Texas"????

Ohhhh now ya dun it...those are fightin' words if ever I heard 'um!!!!!!!

if that were also completely true then why was the first engagement on the US side of the Rio Grande? And not the Mexican side?

The US built Ft Texas south of the Nueces specifically to prevent Mexican forces from entering Texas to reclaim it. The Mexican army ambushed a scout force still on the US side of the Rio Grande.

CA had actually already thrown off Mexican leadership as of 1846. When the US Navy arrived to take Monterey, it was actually the Bear Flag Republic (which was US settlers led by John Fremont).

Again, we were trying to buy this land prior, but considering that the US Army did not arrive until 1847 to "steal" it, and it had already freed itself from Mexico's control, how exactly did the US take it from Mexico?

It was ceded in 1848, but it had been lost in 1846.

Truth be told, the REAL reason for the annexation of TX was as much political as it was manifest destiny...TX was a slave state...it was needed to bring the House into some form of balance between free and slave states, so while the land was a factor, its population of slave holders was as big of one.

So scholars have ample room to argue about the validity of the US Mexican war...and yes you are right about the skewing of facts in American history books...which is why its good to read sources from both sides, as I have in many American/British and Mexican/Spanish topics concerning revolution.

A timeline may be simplistic, but it avoids things like claiming people were lied to (Polk and Herrera were both accused of this) and proposing to know the motives of men dead 150+ years, even once some of their journals and diaries have been found.

When two of the territories have already declared independence from one country and are annexed by another, in one case a decade later, the landgrabbing nature of the US has to be viewed in both lights...Texas stood alone for 9 years until the US moved in...CA for 1 year. If the US had moved in in 1836, after the Mexicans threw down the revolts at Alamo and Goliad, I would be more ready to say that the US was there soley to take land from Mexico...but the fact of the timeline is that it was 9 years later. So the independence is relevant since it is hard to steal something from Mexico that they did not own.

And we havent even gotten to the Mexican civil war, German backing of Pancho Villa's raids into NM, and the Zimmerman note which explained how Germany would be glad to split American territories with Mexico if they allied themselves against us in the early 1900s:) Or the fact that before invading Cuba to free it from Spain (the war that coined the phrase "you provide the pictures, I'll provide the war") the US even passed a reso that it in no way was invading Cuba to annex it, which it still has not...

so we do have a history of grabbing some land from neighbors whether they have solicited aid or not, but we also have a history of entering lands just long enough to free the populace, and head out...one gains emnity and envy from others, one gets you the Donkey's ass award for helping out in countries that seem to be ok with how it was before the US came to help...compare Grenada to Bosnia...we move in to save students and are lambasted, but find mass graves in Bosnia and everyone is so glad we're there to help...I don't really forsee either being a state anytime soon, however

So it's ok to kill and invade as long as it protects YOUR national rights and economic ventures? but when it's deemed soley ours it's wrong? I just don't see it that way...any smart person would want NOTHING to do with the politics of running a country thousands of miles away that has been involved in regional warfare for thousands or years...oil or no:)

We helped out France and Britain, didn't build any New Washingtons there, haven't controlled any towns for the past 50 years since WW2 (HK), but we're building an Empire...

and one of these days in one of these threads somewhere out on this damned internet....

I'll post something that is 2 sentences



It will happen...and my PMs will fill up with "are you ok?" emails;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gheltire
if that were also completely true then why was the first engagement on the US side of the Rio Grande? And not the Mexican side? The US built Ft Texas south of the Nueces specifically to prevent Mexican forces from entering Texas to reclaim it. The Mexican army ambushed a scout force still on the US side of the Rio Grande.

---

I'm sorry my post reflects the border dispute inaccurately. I was rushing to a class, this is what I meant to type:

Texas, and now the United States, claimed the border at the Rio Grande River. Mexico claimed territory as far north as the Nueces River. Both nations sent troops to enforce the competing claims, and a tense standoff ensued. On April 25, 1846, a clash occurred between Mexican and American troops on soil claimed by both countries. The war had begun.

PREDECESSOR: The Texas War of Independence (1835-1836), Texas-Mexico Border Conflict (1837-1845?), U.S. Seizure of Monterey (1842)
CONCURRENT: The Bear Flag Revolt in California (1846), Apache War in New Mexico (1847), Taos Rebellion (1847)

April 25, 1846 President Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the region between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. Texas believed that its southern boundary was represented by the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, did not acknowledge this boundary and instead believed that it was the Nueces River. So, the Americans believed they were on Texan (soon to be American) soil, while the Mexicans believed that the Americans were on Mexican soil. When Mexican forces attacked the Americans in this region, Polk believed that Mexico "invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil." With this information in hand, Polk proceeded to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, which he received easily. However, according to Polk's diary and other sources, he planned to ask Congress for a declaration before word of the Mexican "attack" ever reached Washington. Refuting this "Mexico's Fault" theory even more is the fact that the government of Mexico at this time was in a period of chaos. Still, the attack proved an effective scapegoat for not only Polk, but many other pro-war politicians.

The Mexicans can not be totally blamed for this war. The attack that many patriots were so fond of using as justification for the war was simply an attempt by Mexico to defend land that it believed belonged to Mexico. Of course, Mexico could have responded in a more peaceful manner to the idea of Texas annexation. And Mexico could have responded better to American desires to purchase California and other areas of the Southwest.


We agree on this part: ;)

The Mexican-American War was the first major conflict driven by the idea of "Manifest Destiny;" the belief that America had a God-given right, or destiny, to expand the country's borders from 'sea to shining sea'. This belief would eventually cause a great deal of suffering for many Mexicans, Native Americans and United States citizens. Following the earlier Texas War of Independence from Mexico, tensions between the two largest independent nations on the North American continent grew as Texas eventually became a U.S. state. Disputes over the border lines sparked military confrontation, helped by the fact that President Polk eagerly sought a war in order to seize large tracts of land from Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gheltire
So it's ok to kill and invade as long as it protects YOUR national rights and economic ventures?

---

I'm not sure how this applies to me exactly... When did I advocate killing? My national rights? Economic interest? I'm not sure what this means.

I'm an American born poet... I'm pretty sure most of us (poets I mean) don't have any national economic interests. :p I was born in Phoenix, AZ and as a native Southwesterner (who happens to be 1/4 Chiricahua Apache), I think I know a thing or two about the Mexican American war. ;)

FORTY LOL! I lub! I merely meant that Texas didn't become an "Independent Nation" (even though most Texans felt that was the way to go) instead it became part of the US. ;)

not a YOUR as in you just the rhetorical YOU:) Only bad thing about text debate:)


And believe it or not, Texas was a nation:)

Quote:

---

For almost a decade Texas existed as a sovereign nation. It exchanged foreign ministers with other countries; it had a national army and navy (though neither was especially effective); it maintained a national currency (though, to be sure, the money was never worth much). When Texas joined the Union in 1845, it did so as a nation and thus demanded rights not accorded to mere territories. By order of Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress, Texas retained possession of its public lands. So large was the landmass of Texas, the same resolution allowed Texas to divide into as many a five states. In 1850 Texans did, in fact, sell a portion part their western holdings to pay off the debt incurred during the Republic period. Since then, however, they have been reluctant to part with even so much as an inch of their sacred soil - the resolution notwithstanding. Texas nationalism has proved stronger that political expediency.

---

texian historical link

Kindof an interesting read, although it appears to be a speech:) Don't think I would have made it very far into this one;)

Grew up in TX, History degree from UT, so I also have some vested interest in knowing the history of this state:)