>Wake up tomorrow >This happens What do?

>>79226452
Kill myself realizing I live in Mexico

>>79226476
Good

>>79226492
you can have my house, it's pretty nice

>>79226452
meh, nothing's changed

>>79226452
>mexicans hate their own country so much they are willing to be shot trying to escape it
>for some reason they want the USA to become Mexico just so they then have to escape to Canada

>>79226525
You'd inherit all of CA's shitlibs and CHIs. Enjoy. :^)

>>79226533
Problem?

>>79226565
Nah I just don't get why Mexicans who escape the country then want where they end up to become part of it.

AN ABSOLUT WORLD

Yeah that map is funny because Aztlan retards never seem to remember how Guatemala and whatnot were part of Mexico once. Why don't they want that clay back? Why do they only want the rich, First Wor...oh, right.

>>79226452
Cry tears of joy

>>79226592
Those people are just reclaiming their lebensraum

>>79226592
I think cause dollar$ are better than mexican pesos

*gets drafted*

File: o9cz6i-b88714382z.120160625200151000gbth13lm.10.jpg (38KB, 620x326px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 620x326px

Well I live in the Mexican side now so:
Work hard, I have a government job irl and have been promoted 3 times in the past year and a half. My work ethic and drive is strong and now I'll put it to use for my new, now massive, country.
This NEW Mexico (new Mexico was formerly a state in the US and has since been dissolved) is no longer just paisas and little brown people limited to central America, It's inherited at least a third of the population (around 100 million), major infrastructure, major airports, major ports, natural resources, agriculture, maritime industry, forests, Aerospace giants, and so many major military installations, this thread would die before I could list them all. And we know how to use all of this. I mean these idiots just HANDED us Camp Pendleton! That's about 100,000 FORMERLY US Marines, now Mexican Marines. They'll revamp the existing Mexican military. HANDED us countless missile silos housing top of the line Nuclear ICBM's, HANDED us the Edwards air force base! HANDED us the massive Naval stations in San Diego and San Francisco! HANDED us Coronado Island where half the Navy seals are. Handed us Area 51 and all research and technology being developed therein! Shit, they've even handed us Texas! They've handed us a shitload of oil!
Not only did they hand us this stuff, They included a shitload of now former Americans with it, so we know the territory.
This is my home, you think you know my state better than I do? You're fucked. Not only do we have the upper hand on the terrain and weather, but we know your mindset, because it was ours, too!
Not that I think you would, what's Oregon gonna do? Shoot hippies at us?
You clipped your own nuts and now they're ours.
All that land and conquest ou- YOUR ancestors died for in manifest destiny is now ours.
And we're gonna use every bit of it to excel and surpass you.
Remember, we used to be Americans. We know how to get under your skin and we will.
Day in, day out, we will.

>>79226452
CHIs in Texas are more loyal to Texas than they are to Mexshitco.

File: 11500.png (282KB, 375x750px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 375x750px

>>79226452
>Taking the Maritimes from us
You fucking give them back right now

>>79226709
CHIs and Mexicans loathe each other actually, they have separate gangs in prison and always start wars there.

File: Don_Frye_prediction_vice_670.jpg (139KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 650x366px

>>79226702
Shit we might start making deals with the Chinese and cutting you out of the action.
So now even our trade will be stronger.
AND I can now get Cuban cigars so I can have something to smoke while I watch my former country fucking collapse on itself.

I'm happy because my homeland has been annexed by the US and we're out of leafland.

File: Culiacán.jpg (150KB, 1021x428px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1021x428px

>>79226774
In the end they all work for the same people.

>>79226709
They'll be the first to be shot

>>79226452
celebrate

>>79226533
>>79226592
Are you that same butthurt autist that was spamming "haha DREAMERS BTFO XDDD" in that thread yesterday?

>>79226507
post pic

>>79226774
There's a difference between Cali CHIs and Texas CHIs though. California CHIs would gladly offer up their asses to Mexico and dream of uniting with them. Texas CHIs have more loyalty to the US than Mexico, but greatly identify as Texan more than anything else.

>>79226702
>>79226841
You wanna come here and start shit and be shitty tourists? That's fine. You'll get a one way ticket to prison.
And I know what you're thinking:
>Mexican prison, big deal, I'll pay a guard off and tunnel out.
Not when we put you in one of Californias many world renowned notorious gulags.
Pelican Bay is OURS, now.
And just like it is now in Mexico, Nobody comes to feed you, you don't get fed.
Die of starvation.
We'll have no problem doing this to the people who gave us up to another country.

>>79227031
Rev up those CHI's

>>79227000
ALL Texans identify more with Texas than the US.
Tell them to pick between one or the other, they'll pick Texas.

>>79227064
That's another thing.
You're gonna have millions of Peter Johnson's who are gonna be PISSED that they got given up to Mexico.
And I'd be one of those John Brown's.
I can tell you right now, you faggots turn your back on me and give me up, i'm not gonna come crawling back, not after seeing how you fucks treat the Mexicans who try to get here, now.
I'm gonna be loyal to my new, now massively upgraded country.
My hatred for you shit heads turning your backs on me will fuel me every single day.

File: W6Ei8Of.jpg (255KB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 2048x1366px

acquire mex bf and move to californian coast

>>79226452
Finish the job.

>>79226452
Kill myself realising I live in USA

>>79226452
>Mexico
>ever having the capability to hold that much clay
The greater midwest is what gives us the insane capital-base to hold the west coast under our control. People seem to forget that up until the 90s, Mexico was a country that collapsed to the brink of civil war every few decades.

There is no conceivable timeline in which Mexico could reclaim the southwestern US or even want to. Aztlan is even more ridiculous a proposition - an entire country composed of literal desert outside the reach of major grain markets? At least Mexico has *some* grain-based agriculture. The southwest (mainly California when we're talking about agriculture) is only useful for meme crops like almonds, grapes, and cannabis.

Also, the US would glass Texas before letting Mexico have it. There's too much access to the US's internal waterways from Texas. It's much more palatable to reduce it to an uninhabitable wasteland than to see a foreign power control it.

>>79227820
What if Texas went full autism and declared independence?

>>79227820
>ever having the capability to hold that much clay

They couldn't hold it in the 19th century and they sure can't now.

>>79227820
Mexico today is way more unstable than it was before the 90s

File: Project Capture.jpg (370KB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 2400x1800px

>>79226452
Go back to sleep and stay there until this happens

>>79227820
>People seem to forget that up until the 90s, Mexico was a country that collapsed to the brink of civil war every few decades.

Wut? Mexico had no coups, no juntas and no insurrections since the establishment of the modern state at the end of the Mexican revolution. The closest to that was precissely in 1994 with the Zapatista uprising, partly a result of NAFTA.

You may be right about the situation on your side of the border but you know shit about Mexico.

>>79227857
It probably wouldn't, but in that case, the US would simply declare it a territory in rebellion and forcibly reannex it.

>>79227948
The PRI was constantly carrying out military operations against insurgent factions, man.

>>79227857
That's more likely than Aztlan, but still realistically impossible. Texas is to the US as Hong Kong is to China. So long as the US allows Texas some mild autonomy perks over most other states, they're not gonna secede because they like the idea that they are special more than actually wanting to secede.

File: mexico_ag_1978.jpg (115KB, 1043x756px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1043x756px

>>79227820
>There is no conceivable timeline in which Mexico could reclaim the southwestern US or even want to. Aztlan is even more ridiculous a proposition - an entire country composed of literal desert outside the reach of major grain markets? At least Mexico has *some* grain-based agriculture. The southwest (mainly California when we're talking about agriculture) is only useful for meme crops like almonds, grapes, and cannabis

Also if it did become part of Mexico, Mexico doesn't have enough grain production to feed a population of that size.

>>79227868
The fact remains Samuel Houston conspired with US congressmen and that the American southwest was taken by force in a war of conquest. Mexico didn't lose the territory because "it couldn't hold it" but because a foreign power unlawfully intervened. Had the gold rush taken place while California was still a part of Mexico and had Mexico taken in migration from Catholic Europe (Irish, Italian) to settle those territories things would have worked out quite differently.

It's all just this bs propaganda you guys still do for whatever reason to try and justify "manifest destiny" I think we should be at the point of looking at history objectively without you trying to whitewash or justify history. The United States took those lands on the basis of military strenght alone, there was absolutely no moral justification, your president Lincoln was honorable enough to go down in history saying so plainly. It was an act of theft, and as far as Texians are concerned, treason.

File: New America.png (39KB, 896x900px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 896x900px

You can have commiefornia. The rest we'll invade.

>>79228160
>LE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
This meme needs to end

>>79228140
>Catholic Europe (Irish, Italian) to settle those territories things would have worked out quite differently.
cuck

>>79228105
I hate maps like this because it doesn't show yields or inputs. Much of the area that produces grains on that map is horribly inefficient to farm, so production is significantly less than an equivalent area of farmland in the US.

>>79228140
The Gold Rush didn't make the US rich, my friend. That's your inner Spaniard talking. We got rich by selling grain for hard currency during the early 1800s when wars were disrupting food production all over Europe.

>>79228140
>The United States took those lands on the basis of military strenght alone, there was absolutely no moral justification

Right of conquest was accepted practice in the 19th century. It may not be today (cf. Crimea) but it was a different time. The borders in North and South America shifted all over the map before reaching their present condition and there were quite a few wars.

For example, Bolivia are still butthurt their coastline to Chile in a war. That was unfortunate, but how things worked in those days.

>>79228034
You mean the dirty war in the 70's? That wasn't about that and it wasn't popular uprisings, I'm by no means justifying PRI but you're being disngenous here if you do know about that part of our history.

Aztlan is a retarded circlejerk fantasy. The one state with enough people who might want to join Mexico is New Mexico and it's a shitty irrelevant state and any rebellion would get put down in a second.

Both Texas and California, the two states that could possibly have some real leverage of seceding would rather be independent than join Mexico.

File: pink line should be ours.png (545KB, 2000x1834px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 2000x1834px

>>79228140
not the other american, but if the telephone had been invented when we ended the mexican american war we would have had more of your land

the american diplomat decided to take less than what the president and congress ordered him to
but its kinda hard to renege on a peace treaty

>>79228210
>Much of the area that produces grains on that map is horribly inefficient to farm, so production is significantly less than an equivalent area of farmland in the US
Some of it has to do with the terrain not being as optimal as the Midwest, but of course Mexican agriculture also isn't as technologically advanced as the US. Either way, the point still stands that Mexico couldn't feed the entire population of California by itself.

>>79228273
Isn't most of that land just arid shit?

>>79228273
Not exactly. The American negotiators wanted Baja California, which was useless desert but the Mexicans argued they still needed it to control smugglers.

>>79227820
Californian farmers produce those crops because they bring in the money. Also corn pretty much grows everywhere on earth.

>>79228183
The South won't rise again, it will stand firm as the rest of the country crumbles around it.

File: drug-gang-map-mexico[1].jpg (52KB, 620x424px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 620x424px

>>79228311
and the drug cartel's homes/battlegrounds

>>79228374
yeah okay buddy whatever you say

>>79228352
Sure, but there's a difference between 'we can grow corn here' and 'we can grow corn here efficiently'. California is notably quite water-poor and lacks many inland waterways to move grain around cheaply. There's a reason why California's agricultural niche is all in products that are suited specifically for California's climate.

>>79228352
California farms depend on extensive artificial irrigation because the state is a desert climate, especially south of San Francisco; in fact climatologists have shown that the 20th century, when most infrastructure was built, was unusually wet.

>>79228391
sounds like you dodged quite the bullet there

>>79228396
California agriculture is not efficient. The crops produced gobble up water, but that's entirely the point. The farmers aren't going to grow more water-efficient crops because their profits will decrease.

File: California agriculture.jpg (94KB, 620x486px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 620x486px

>>79228408
The state is not a desert climate.

File: IMG_0672.jpg (23KB, 299x168px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 299x168px

>>79228140
Lel, are you serious? Mexico lost any sort of moral argument in claiming ownership of Texas when the Alamo happened you dipshit. Good luck getting the UN to say Texas is rightful Mexican clay after your dictator decided to slaughter innocent woman and children.

>>79228481
The map shows right there how much artificial irrigation is used, plus my other point about how the 20th century was wetter than normal.

File: Mexican-American war Bingo.png (252KB, 1145x1288px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1145x1288px

Is it time for the game yet?

How many are already ITT

>>79228197
No man, just working out of 19th century logic.

>>79228210
Never claimed the Gold Rush made the US wealthy but it did populate California. In terms of logistics and suplies by far it was supported by Mexico, the 49ers made their way to California via Veracruz to Mexico City to Mazatlán to San Francisco, they didn't for the most part cross the US which was at the time a very long journey through dangerous wilderness and with hostile native American tribes in much of the way.

>>79228237
Right of conquest was not accepted, it's part of the reason the US went through the trouble of paying the Mexican government for the territory, they wanted to whitewash what was seen as a heinous crime at the time. Bolivia was a very different thing, Chile was attacked for starters, there's a lot of nuances involved here. More importantly, as I pointed out, many Americans themselves considered what had been done to Mexico to be a crime. I'll be the first one to grant there were honorable men on your side trying to make do in bad circumstances but the bottom line is the act was immoral and unjustifiable. Mexico attempted to plead for its former territories to at least be made free from American slavery which the US refused, this was in fact seen as barbaric in Europe, it was literally the bad guys and the wrong cause winning.

File: wugw-map[1].gif (42KB, 754x487px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 754x487px

>>79228396
california's south is naturally neveda desert, climate like the levant coast

without water from a dozen or so states out west california's farming industry would collapse

It probably will in a few decades anyways because of population growth

>>79228481
>Most of the farmland is irrigated
That's the point. In order to make California agriculture profitable, you need crops with large profit margins in order to justify the capital investment necessary to make it operate in the first place. California outside of the US simply does not have access to the capital necessary to maintain its current agricultural production.

>>79228509
What the fuck kind of agricultural region is "Megalopolis"?

File: MapofEmergingUSMegaregions[1].png (726KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 1200x800px

>>79228572
its not, its housing/suburbs/city

>>79228636
Well then why the hell does his map have it as an 'agricultural' region?

>>79228543
>Right of conquest was not accepted it's part of the reason the US went through the trouble of paying the Mexican government for the territory, they wanted to whitewash what was seen as a heinous crime at the time. Bolivia was a very different thing, Chile was attacked for starters
In the 19th century, yeah it was accepted. As for the other example, note that Israel acquired most of its clay after being attacked by the Arab states in a couple of wars but that still hasn't prevented extreme butthurt over the West Bank for decades since and refusal to accept that territory as part of Israel.

>>79228311
>>79228334
No, they wanted a railroad running from Tampico to Mazatlán, back then it was the best way to communicate the East and West coasts but ultimately that territory had too large a population which would have been difficult to asimilate.

It is true tho that the Americans in charge were in the end a bit more generous than Washington would have liked, while conscience may have played a part there were also practical considertaions to occupation, the Mexican government collapsing and imposing conditions too severe as to lead to an eventual war of revenge. In the real world military victories aren't as easy to mantain as it may seem.

>>79228542
All of them are true. Making a bingo board of valid arguments doesn't invalidate things that are true.

>>79226452

i would probably go to california to visit all my "dreamers" family

>>79228543
>Mexico attempted to plead for its former territories to at least be made free from American slavery which the US refused, this was in fact seen as barbaric in Europe, it was literally the bad guys and the wrong cause winning
None of the Mexican cession became slave territory except Texas, and that lasted all of 16 years. In fact the Southern states were gravely worried because most of the territory was desert that they couldn't do plantation agriculture on. This led to various hairbrained schemes to take Caribbean islands and things like that.

>>79228391
That map is old. Templars don't exist anymore.

>>79228543
>many Americans themselves considered what had been done to Mexico to be a crime.

Both the Mexican-American War and the Texas Revolution had acceptable Casus Belli's. In both cases, Mexico gave them reasonable justification for war even if the US was trying to bait them in to it. Mexico has nobody to blame but their own retarded leadership.

>>79228334
As far as I know, James Polk did not want anything below the Rio Grande. Some Southerners fantasized about taking Tamaulipas as it was suitable for growing cotton but the place was fairly heavily populated and they wanted the land, not the people in it.

>>79228843
The thing is, if Mexico were on the winning side of the war, they would have almost certainly demanded territorial concessions from the US because that was what you did in a war in those days.

>In both cases, Mexico gave them reasonable justification for war even if the US was trying to bait them in to it
That is kind of like the Franco-Prussian War. The French declared war first, although Bismarck baited them into it.

>>79228877
wasn't there also some retards that wanted the Yucatan peninsula?

>>79228690
Israel is a bad example, the international community as a whole considers the gains made in the six day war to be illegal, This is black and white no exceptions except for the United States who couldn't care less and is certainly far from being considered a country that respects or upholds international law.

Right of conquest generally required a justification and was not carried out amongst civilized nations. And either way the discussion is moot because the United States never made a claim on those principles. Let's say I walk into your home point a gun to the heads of your wife and children then force you to sell me your property. That wasn't acceptable or legal in the 19th century.

>>79226452
>Costa Rica with Nicaragua
Start a War! Nicas fuck off of my country REEEEEEE!

>>79228928
>Israel is a bad example, the international community as a whole considers the gains made in the six day war to be illegal

Uh...yeah, that's because Six Day War happened after WWII when right of conquest wasn't considered acceptable anymore.

>>79226452
Wake up again

>>79228924
Don't think so. Some people wanted the northern states of Mexico, a few cranks wanted the whole country, but Yucatan itself...no. The Mayans waged an independence war against Mexico that lasted 70 years and involved horrendous atrocities by both sides.

Actually, half of Mexico was trying to secede during the war, the country was in a state of near-anarchy.

>>79228843
The Texas "revolution" was an act of sedition, Texians were Mexicans and had no rights under international law. As for the Mexican American war that was annexation of another country's territory,

In neither case was there casus belli on the part of Mexico, just American aggression, covert in the first case.

>>79228542
kek

File: pwXoy.jpg (56KB, 964x740px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 964x740px

>>79229036
huh, so then what's the deal with this image? Is it just a crock of shit?

>>79229058
>Texans were Mexicans and had no rights under international law.

International law didn't exist back then though.

>>79229121
I think it is. I definitely recall reading that Polk didn't want anything south of the Rio Grande. Some expansionist Democrats may however have wanted more clay.

>>79228992
War of conquest was always ambiguous, again, you needed some justification (eg the Spaniards evangelizing Native Americans) and it wasn't done amongst civilized nations, no ethnostates would have been possible in Europe otherwise. You're oversimplifying this and like I mentioned earlier the US never claimed rights of conquest, they went through the trouble of paying Mexico what was a rather large sum of money for the time, not that it wasn't self serving, had Mexico's government collapsed they would have signed a treaty with a non existing entity inviting claims by later succesors.

>>79228374
>implying that it could survive without gibs from states that matter.

>>79228928
Uhh, the US absolutely had a claim which was the treaty Santa Anna signed after losing a war to Texas. The UN maintains today that self-determination is a basic human right, which Mexico withheld from provinces which wanted to secede. One of the provinces (Texas) won their rebellion against Mexico had their leader sign the terms of surrender which the Mexico later refused to honor arguing "That's not fair, you weren't supposed to beat us".

Mexico has no argument. If they argue that the terms of Surrender in the Texas Revolution aren't fair, than neither are their claims to regions in Mexico which tried to secede to continue to be Mexican territory.

Mexican butthurt over the war really has less to do with clay they never really controlled in the first place and more to do with the humiliation of having their heartland invaded and their capital occupied by a foreign army.

>>79229146
That's an entirely different discussion, aren't you claiming right of conquest was accepted? that'sb two contradictory statements. In any case, they would have been considered Mexicans by all other nations.

>>79229215
Then why aren't they butthurt about the empire of Mexico where France literally did the same thing?

>>79229215
No. It has much more to do with you making ludicrous claims, spreading propaganda for more than a century and not owning up to your actions.

>>79226452

Fix it by restoring the borders to their proper order, building a wall, and making Mexico pay for it.

>>79229241
I've never seen a French pretending that the invasions to Mexico weren't invasions.

>>79229247

Winners don't have to "own up to their actions". That is why it is so important to win.

>>79229121
>>79229167
I made a school research paper about this during high school. Yucatan declared independence in 1847 and sent an ambassador to the USA in order to gain statehood within the USA or, at least, some international recognition and protection from Santa Anna. James Polk liked the idea and put it forward to Congress. Unfortunately for the Yucatan government, there was a standing rivalry between Campeche and Mérida and a coup took place; during the same time, the Mayans rebelled and started taking territory. Congress didn't like the idea of annexing more natives, considering how troublesome the ones within the US already were; also, annexing Catholics was a big no-no. So of course the bill flopped and after the Mexican-American War, the Yucatan asked to be re-annexed by Mexico if Mexico promised to deal with the "Mayan problem".

>>79229215
Just admit it was a massive dick move.
>>79229241
They were invasions and everyone knows it, they dont try to justify it.
>>79229280
Then why dont you own up for your actions in Vietnam if you lost.

>>79229209
Santa Anna was a prisoner, anything he signed was technically void as you cannot consent to an act under duress, also he was no longer president at that point. As for self determination that certainly wwasn't a right acknowledged in the 19th century, case in point your civil war.

And no, Texians did technically have a choice to fight the central government and seek to reform Mexico, secession is treason. Of course they did conspire with the US goivernment which makes their whole case bullshit, that was considered straight up treason much the same as today.

The Texians broke their oaths, they swore allegiance to Mexico and they broke it with the clear intent of surrendering their territory to the USA, there's no case to be made for their being in any way pursuing a fair cause. These were dishonorable men through and through.

>>79229299
Given that 70 year bloodbath, I am very grateful we didn't go anywhere near that clusterfuck.

Almost. There was one time later in the 19th century when US Marines landed in Yucatan for some reason or another and quickly skedaddled out of there. Aside from the bloodthirsty locals, there was the whole yellow fever thing...

>>79229146
International law exists now and that doesn't stop Israel and their western allies or Russia.

>>79229391
Yes. The Mexican government later hired some American war veterans as mercenaries to go hunt some Mayans. The descriptions I found paint them as overconfident in their capabilities and arrogant towards the Mexican officers. They didn't last very long because of these attitudes. The Mayans were good setting traps, ambushing and poisoning food and water. The Americans wouldn't listen to the Mexicans telling them "don't touch that, don't go there".

>>79229304
>Just admit it was a massive dick move

It was a completely legal dick move which multiple countries throughout history have used to gain territory, and could have been prevented if Mexico wasn't so horribly stupidly run.

>The US asked permission for settlers to live in Texas which Mexico granted.

>Then Mexico's dictator denied regions it had claim to (One of them being Texas) fair political representation giving reasonable justification for secession.

>Then Texas won, captured Mexico's dictator who then signed a treaty of surrender.

>Mexico later objected to the legal terms of surrender, so the US sent its Navy to occupy the Rio Grande which was rightfully Texas territory in the treaty.

>Mexico fired o! the US navy giving the US an even more solid justification for war.

>Mexico the lost to the US, signed another treaty giving up even more territory which was a completely standard practice during the time

The US has a completely airtight case in arguing the land they acquired was done so legally.

>>79226452
Why in the fuck do we lose the Eastern Townships and the Maritime? Neck yourself, amerilard.

>>79229627
Just read 4 posts above you

>>79229775
And you should read

>Mexico fired on the US navy giving the US an even more solid justification for war

Mexico drew first blood in an international border dispute. Had they not done that, the US's legal case would have been far more messy, but Mexico gave the US proper justification the moment they fired on a US ship.

>>79229627
>The US asked permission for settlers to live in Texas which Mexico granted.
Good faith is a requisite in all contracts, the settlers did not abide by the conditions they agreed to and some of their leaders meant to betray Mexico.

>Then Mexico's dictator denied regions it had claim to (One of them being Texas) fair political representation giving reasonable justification for secession.
No, it gave reasonable justification for fighting the central government, not secession aka treason.

>Then Texas won, captured Mexico's dictator who then signed a treaty of surrender.
You cannot sign treaties under duress.

>Mexico later objected to the legal terms of surrender, so the US sent its Navy to occupy the Rio Grande which was rightfully Texas territory in the treaty.
The surrender was never legal, Santa Anna lost all authority the second he allowed himself to be captured, nevermind all sense of personal honor, the US occupied Mexican territory.

>Mexico fired o! the US navy giving the US an even more solid justification for war.
Even this is disputable, it remains a moot point however as the US had invaded Mexican territory.

>>Mexico the lost to the US, signed another treaty giving up even more territory which was a completely standard practice during the time.
No, this wasn't standard practice and AGAIN, the US paid for that territory to try and whitewash its own crime. You can't answer for that can you? Why pay Mexico then? Why not demand reparations instead? It was a fucking farce and all involved were perfectly aware.

Look man, we can discuss this all night long, it isn't going to change a damn thing, Mexico makes no claims on current US territory and admitting the truth isn't going to return the Southwest to Mexico nor do any Mexicans mean it to accomplish that. But there is such a thing as facts and history and reality is the US was in the wrong and acted with dishonesty, it STOLE Mexico's territory through a war it deliberately engineered.

>>79226709
Because shitcanos are subhuman

>>79229967
>Good faith is a requisite in all contracts, the settlers did not abide by the conditions they agreed to and some of their leaders meant to betray Mexico

And then Santa Anna cleared up another vague legal argument by killing innocent civilians at the Alamo which made the rebellion not just an Anglo insurrection, but also a Tejano insurrection. Again Mexico gave the US/Texas a free gift with their retarded actions.

>>79226551
Nah we should keep them here tbqh.

>>79228160
Where's that? Birmingham?

>>79229967
> It was a fucking farce
The Mexican army and navy were chasing back Texans, moving guns from the USA to Texas
Ships like Correo Mexicano and our flagship Congreso Mexicano attacked several Texan ships
The US knew of this operations and that the army was stationed at the disputed territory, they tried sending in ships so the Mexican navy would attack them but they left them pass
At the end US troops were the ones to set off a skirmish between them and some Mexican garrison, getting captured and killed by the Mexican troops in the disputed territory was the excuse James Polk needed

>>79230188
There was no justification, many of those who died in the Alamo were neither settlers nor Tejanos but Americans, foreigners specifically there to fight Mexico.

Also Santa Anna doesn't equal Mexico.

What's the problem with admiting the truth? From the moment Samuel Houston's intentions were to break his allegiance to Mexico in order to deliver texas to the United States he, and his followers, became traitors. That took place before the Alamo, are you denying that?

>>79226606
They do want that clay back too. Mexican nationalists are fucking crazy.

>>79230528
No one wants ANY clay back, I dare you to find any political party, or credible group or individual in Mexico arguing for that.

>>79230528
It's a feelings shit
And I get your conquest shit
If Santa Anna would have not won but at least ended our war in a white peace he would have invaded all of central america, Belize and Cuba

Mexico immediately surrenders since we have uncontested dominance over them.

File: machete.jpg (25KB, 600x281px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x281px

>>79230880
In your dreams gringo