Texas itself voted to be annexed by the US shortly after breaking from Mexico. They certainly were not hostile or forcibly annexed.
I referred to the annexation of the Confederacy, I thought the reference to 1865 would have made this clear to the casual observer, as Texas joined the union in 1845.
All of them, actually, but in college. They are not here because of the job market. I go to a top tier college that provides an education unavailable in most countries. That absolutely does not mean that the foreign students I know want to be American.
Then one would suggest that you meet a wider spectrum of individuals.
I'm not going to comment on this because I find the hypothetical situation unamusing to contemplate, sorry :mrgreen:
I didn't write it to be amusing.
America has absolutely no right to criticize any nation in the world for this. If that's your standard by which the invasion of a nation is justified you must not think that America has a very good claim to its sovereignty.
Sovereignty is maintained through power. Nowhere is the old adage more true that "might makes right," than in the affairs between nations. Besides I do not "justify," I present a course of action that would produce a more humane outcome over time.
If you seek justification, then recognize that a country continues to exist because it has either the power internally, or provided externally to resist conquest, or it has so little value that conquest is not tempting to other nations. And then strive to make the fact that your country is free a boon to the rest of the world.
In other words, "justification" is something that nations usually add as an outer covering to deeds they do in their own interest.
There are glorious exceptions, but they are rather rare.
It is possible that if the world were populated entirely by countries such as ourselves and those found in Western Europe, and a few other places, freedom could prevail without recourse to might. But that is not the world we live in.
In situations pertaining to immigration and drug policy, sure. The US has reciprocated many times. Both nations are aware that we are allies, and that any such incursions are not acts of aggression in any way shape or form. If you have any counter examples please post them
Report: Border Patrol Confirms 29 Incursions by Mexican Officials Into U.S.
Police face Mexican military, smugglers
Mexican incursions inflame border situation
Officers fear Mexican military encounters will turn violent
Another armed incursion on U.S.-Mexico border
Why Mexican and US Officials Downplay Border Incursions
Washington Times investigator exposes mayhem on the southern border
Why do we Tolerate Mexican Troop Incursions?
by Rep. Duncan Hunter
Alleged Mexican Military Incursion Creates Tension on US-Mexico Border
Reports Cite Incursions on U.S. Border
Well
that was easy!
I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean
This is a sad admission, but you are to be commended for making it.
And the result of the extreme imperialism exhibited by Rome (childs play compared to the massive list of nations we would invade if adhering to your ridiculously aggressive policies) was the Dark Ages when Rome's massive, overblown empire collapsed. Do you really advocate titanic, global empires?
As I have taken pains to point out, I only advise annexing two classes of country, those for which we are to be held responsible, and those which are
a material threat. I can guarantee that if such a policy were initiated, considerably fewer nations would cause us such problems.
You also have distorted history. The
Fall of Rome produced the dark ages, not Rome itself. Rome itself produced things like the
Pax Romana. Your perspective is inverted.
You might say that, although crystal-gazing is always a doubtful enterprise. I personally think that the World Wars we've seen would be replaced by dozens or hundreds of crippling civil wars in such a hypothetical scenario.
Apparently then, you can indeed find justification for wars, if they prevent greater tragedy? This show maturing thought on your part, bravo!
Your conclusions though cannot be tested, and Ii disagree with them
. . . If you had your way, war would be constant for every nation on earth. If China invaded every nation that said something about its immigration policy its 2 million man active military would be woefully undermanned.
China, following my prescription, would not invade a nation for what it said, but for what it did, and if China were to be held accountable for the welfare of a foreign state. I am repeating myself here. Perhaps you should take notes?
This is the germ of my position as it relates to hostile, determined foreign countries. War is averted by most nations not because it is costly, but
because it is unthinkable. Anything less, and war likely will occur at some point.
As for Mexico. The situation is untenable between this country and that.
Remember that countries are artificial constructs and exist mostly as ideas. They fracture and merge frequently in history, peacefully and violently by turns. To an outside observer, the process of merger might appear to be well under way. I wish for the finished product to resemble the current United States much more than I wish it to resemble the current Mexico, for a variety of reasons that I will not explain at the moment.
I don't see how this addresses any of what you quoted
It is a pity that you don't. I hope though that other will.
I said nothing of the sort. I said that nobody would advocate America engaging in genocide. I've never encountered anybody who thought the Genocide of the Native Americans is anything short of deplorable.
Obviously, had you grasped the flavor of my posts, you would understand that I propose the use of decisive force in the form of annexation specifically to avoid eventual total war, or our destruction.
So which of these justifies the invasion and annexation of Mexico?
Well, I illustrated quite definitively that people did in fact advocate genocide in America. Some small number of people still do, to our shame.
As for justification of annexing Mexico, I address that above.
I can only hope (like that better?) that we never invade Mexico because they dislike our immigration policy. Your advice would make the nuclear era the single most violent in all of history. I don't think humanity would survive your leadership
As I have gone to such lengths to explain, in some futility I suppose, it is not the opinions or even the statements of the Mexican Government that motivates my opinion, it is their actions, and manifest demands.
What is an anhumanist? Google comes up blank
And you're in college? Oh very well. the term is an obvious construct using the Greek prefix an- or a- which is a negation. thus we have
athiest, and
anhydrous (without water). From
this site we read:"[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]The Greek prefix a/an means 'not' (it's referred to as an alpha-privative), so many words beginning with a or an have a negative connotation. Annihilate, which may sound negative, comes from ad and nihil. Notice the double n. The prefix for the Greek negation has the /n/ only before a vowel, so the an- can not come from the negation. The reason the /d/ in ad is manifest as an /n/ is because the alveolar voiced stop consonant /d/ is assimilated to the alveolar nasal /n/ for ease of pronunciation.[/FONT]"
The rile of course, calls for the an- to be used only before a vowel. But as I cite in the example of "anhydrous" we see this version being used before an "h." This reflects the occasional confusion we find in English as to whether to employ the article "a" or "an before a word beginning with "h."
So my term "anhumanist" is the counterpart to atheist, referring to the strange notion of God not believing in the existence of Man.