- Feb 2015
Misrepresentation of both, unfortuneately.Well, you said about outcomes and you said Mexico was weaker than USA because Mexico lost war... I only said USA Lost the war in Vietnam.... and USA was not weaker...
This is what you wrote. "Mexico was as powerful (if not more) as US in 1845.... when Mexico fought both against rebels in Texas as in USA."
1. And it is evidence of your claim, boded above, for which I asked, and you have not provided - but you did mentioned far-reaching non sequiturs that covered the globe. Remember? I asked about weaponry, naval power, generalship, schools for the science of war engineering? I did not ask for a bunch of palabre about what year each become independent. I know all that. It's the alleged Mexican "if not more" powerful that I don't know anything about.
2. Others, included you said that Europe thought that Mexico was equally formidable vs. the US, and I asked where I could read about that. No one cited anything. I could read. (Someone mentioned Weliington's opinion).
3. And what I did write is this - asking how anyone could think Mexico was the equal to the US, now for the fourth time -
If Mexico could not beat Texas alone in 1836, why would anyone think Mexico could beat Texas and its 27 new friends, ie, all of the united States.
4. And yes, because you asked, the outcome and one-sided nature of the war is probative of relative strength. Is is sine qua non evidence for anyone arguing to the contrary to overcome. Mexico did not merely fail to achieve some remote objective, they were conquered and humiliated.
5. Use the quote function, please. Don't tell me what I wrote unless you are going to get it right.
PS: Remember, I politely warned you that I would poke holes in flimsy responses.