Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 7th, 2012, 01:46 PM   #81

okamido's Avatar
knows what the bee knows
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: land of Califia
Posts: 27,736
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsberg View Post
I don't care if we are 6, 5 or 4 millions in DK as long as the ones here are productive. To me it is not a goal to be more people. Most of ------ countries has that problem - look at Arab families. 10-12 children and they are not able to afford collage education to their families.
Carlsberg, please try not to use profanity in your posts.

Thanks.
okamido is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 7th, 2012, 01:52 PM   #82
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
It was US territory. They used the best diplomacy, a screaming bayonet charge. Mexico hasn't disputed the border since.

Did the US want a showdown. Yes. Was the US ready to take advantage of it, you betcha.
But most importantly and the defining note here: the first battles occurred on US soil. Mexico attacked US military positions in the United States.
Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you weren't so certain of the utterly absurd unhistorical nature of such statements, you wouldn't be repeating them ad infinitum.

(Not that repeating them even ad nauseam would make them any less unhistorical, of course)

This may be news, but regarding expansionism, "justice" has never been even an issue; just force. Period.

And yes, the Bayonet diplomacy has also worked wonderful in modern Tibet; the Sino-Tibetan border has not been disputed since.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 02:26 PM   #83
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 70

Quote:
Originally Posted by okamido View Post
Carlsberg, please try not to use profanity in your posts.

Thanks.
Point taken - I was just raised in a country where such things was free - but still point taken.
Carlsberg is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 04:42 PM   #84
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,133

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
If you weren't so certain of the utterly absurd unhistorical nature of such statements, you wouldn't be repeating them ad infinitum.

(Not that repeating them even ad nauseam would make them any less unhistorical, of course)

This may be news, but regarding expansionism, "justice" has never been even an issue; just force. Period.

And yes, the Bayonet diplomacy has also worked wonderful in modern Tibet; the Sino-Tibetan border has not been disputed since.

You can't deny the first battles were on US-Texas soil. if the Mexican army didn't attack there would have been no war.
zincwarrior is online now  
Old November 7th, 2012, 04:47 PM   #85
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
You can't deny the first battles were on US-Texas soil. if the Mexican army didn't attack there would have been no war.
Nope; it was History itself who denies your understandable but absolutely false apologetic excuse for an obviously expansionist invasion.

Again, perfectly equivalent to the Marco Polo bridge incident of 1937, the Gleiwitz incident of 1939 or the Mainila incident of 1939.

A close modern equivalent analogy would be the Argentina of Galtieri qualifying the Falkland Islanders as "invaders" in 1982...

Given you obvious care in selecting the critical details to be piously denied, guess there's hardly any use in explaining them again to you, right?

Last edited by sylla1; November 7th, 2012 at 04:56 PM.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 05:01 PM   #86
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,133

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
Nope; it was History itself who denies your understandable but absolutely false apologetic excuse for an obviously expansionist invasion.

Again, perfectly equivalent to the Marco Polo bridge incident of 1937, the Gleiwitz incident of 1939 or the Mainila incident of 1939.

A close modern equivalent analogy would be the Argentina of Galtieri qualifying the Falkland Islanders as "invaders" in 1982...

Given you obvious care in selecting the critical details to be piously denied, guess there's hardly any use in explaining them again to you, right?
What part of another nation's army besieging a fort in your own country am I missing?
Siege_of_Fort_Texas Siege_of_Fort_Texas
zincwarrior is online now  
Old November 7th, 2012, 05:44 PM   #87

Baltis's Avatar
Goat Whisperer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 2,994
Blog Entries: 30

The part where you deliberately built the fort in the disputed territory and defied the other nation to attack it?
Baltis is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 06:19 PM   #88

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,389
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
You can't deny the first battles were on US-Texas soil. if the Mexican army didn't attack there would have been no war.
It is simple provocation and is a simple tactic to get the 'enemy' to fire
first, that way the wounded party can always, and always does, claim
to be the 'victim'. It is a simple patriotic ploy delivered up by the press
to a shocked home crowd that then cries havoc & action. Propaganda
is a timeless trick. Besides, Taylor could have easily not advanced to
the spot he did, he could have set up camp miles north of the site he
chose. He knew and Polk knew, that if you stand in someone's face and
chest bump them, they probably will bump back.
When the US bought Louisiana, the exact borders were not defined, yet
the US did not go to war with Spain over a line in the dirt. The US could
have easily let the border with Mexico remain in situ and be negotiated with
officials, but Polk and his party came into office with a set agenda and were
looking for a fight.
tjadams is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:07 AM   #89
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 141
Blog Entries: 1

A comment about California and the Mexican/American War.

California had long been in the eyes of Americans. Trading ships often sought hides and furs, realizing just how weak the Mexican forces were there.

Americans had also entered Oregon and gazed longingly to the south. Americans DID live in Mexican California, but in very small numbers. I think most European-related people living in Mexican California expected an increased American presence for some time.

Mexico had put itself in a precarious position in California. They had secularized the missions, thus destroying productive centers throughout the state. The Indians suffered greatly and, Governor Pico didn't help things when he sold off large tracts of mission lands to American investors.

So, once again, when American forces under Fremont entered California, they found a place with little or no military presence, poor and corrupt government, and a number of Americans, Spaniards, Mestizos, Mulattoes, and others eager for their arrival.

That gold was discovered would have resulted in a massive influx of Americans even if the land had not been seized during the war. [I recently read where a Friar, in exploring the San Joaquin River had learned of the presence of gold - and kept it secret!]
lvcabbie is offline  
Old November 8th, 2012, 08:52 AM   #90
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,133

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
It is simple provocation and is a simple tactic to get the 'enemy' to fire
first, that way the wounded party can always, and always does, claim
to be the 'victim'. It is a simple patriotic ploy delivered up by the press
to a shocked home crowd that then cries havoc & action. Propaganda
is a timeless trick. Besides, Taylor could have easily not advanced to
the spot he did, he could have set up camp miles north of the site he
chose. He knew and Polk knew, that if you stand in someone's face and
chest bump them, they probably will bump back.
When the US bought Louisiana, the exact borders were not defined, yet
the US did not go to war with Spain over a line in the dirt. The US could
have easily let the border with Mexico remain in situ and be negotiated with
officials, but Polk and his party came into office with a set agenda and were
looking for a fight.
Nonsense. It was a fort in our territory. Mexico attacked it and then sent an army to siege it, again in our territory. The resulting major battle was again in our territory.
zincwarrior is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
mexicanamerican, war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What was the chance of Mexico winning the Mexican-American war? DeliciousTomatoesYay American History 36 July 1st, 2012 01:35 PM
Irish soldiers and American deserters in Mexico, 1846-1848 Salah American History 6 April 24th, 2012 07:01 AM
Mexican-American War dimmit American History 23 February 28th, 2012 05:18 PM
The Mexican Army of Santa Anna and the Mexican War Salah American History 18 September 8th, 2011 06:45 AM
Mexican-American War: Polk or Tyler tjadams American History 52 January 24th, 2011 05:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.