>steal half of mexican territory
>fucks up central america
>builds up panama canal by fucking up colombia
>monroe doctrine everyone
>introduces drugs to fund up anti-communists guerrilas
>overthrows republic over fruit companies
>makes Cuba their Thailand
>puppet state whole south america because why not?
>All chilean cooper goes to the US due to Pinochet
>CIA funds narcotraffic corridor of Colombia to the US
>Cocaine becomes widespread all across the Americas
>declare war on drugs as a viable path to solution on the drug problem while installing American bases in South America
>war on drugs fails (omg didnt see that) but american bases continue working in Peru and Colombia
>plummets wages in Mexico, Peru, Colombia while enforcing a minimal state for more american multinationals control
and after all of that call us subhumans shitskin inferior apes
hahahahah
USA
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
pic related
DAS RITE
this is the price of freedom
...
ayy lmao
>steal half of mexican territory
Will you then give back all the clay you took from Paraguay and Bolivia? ;)
>steal half of Mexican territory
Please don't start the american denial or ignorance of history
I'm way to tired to deal with that
nigger nigger nigger
are traps gay
fuck wh*te people
>fuck wh*Te """""people""""
Paraguay invaded us and basically wanted to conquer Brazilian territory to have access to the atlantic and be the sole hegemony country in South America. It didnt work, also the war was so hardcore that the terms were really lightly compared to the massacre that was the war. Also for Bolivia, it was amazon clay that nobody gave a fuck to the point bolivia sold it to us for a prized horse that their president wanted
>Paraguay invaded us
LIterally when did this all happen? I thought Latin American countries all got along?
Big deal, Mexico decided to go to war with us over clay and lost. Too bad, they shouldn't have started a war they couldn't win.
Unironically was Paraguay the one who declared the war against the "triple alliance".
The War of the Triple Alliance (1865-70). Paraguay got totally destroyed in a three way war with its neighbors.
1864, war of the Triple Alliance, Paraguay lost 300k people, with only like 200k surviving, 20k of which were men
Paraguay and Bolivia were at war during the 1930s
somebody's triggered
fucking white people
somebody's fat
somebody's poor
ah yes totally comparable, especially when the US clearly didnt have in mind any excuse to simple destroy any chance of Mexican power in the region, also clearly having your army reach Mexican city which is totally close to Texas and Rio Grande was clearly a part in detaining the "mexican agression". If you could you would have taken all Mexico for yourselves and that was the US intention all along
>they shouldn't have started a war
Please shut up about your stupid historical ignorance
Your fucking president admitted to have intentionally killed your own soldiers in what was there Mexican land to have an excuse to go to war
pottery
>sparsely populated deserts
>Mexican power
So why go all the way to Mexico City if they were so easy to conquer?
Usually in war, you capture the enemy's capital to put them out of business.
not that they were easy to conquer, i'm saying that mexican territory north of the Rio Grande wasn't giving them power. maybe they would've had a major immigration boom like we did if they still had that land, but it seems unlikely considering how unstable Mexico was during the 19th century
They should have accepted the loss of Texas. Instead they sent troops to the disputed area to force a showdown. The newspapers in Mexico were almost as aggressive as the American papers in calling for war.
So why didnt the UK bombard buenos aires inthe falklands war? I mean if it is common strategy as you say. I mean it is not like mexico city is that far from those territories you conquered hahaha
So if it didnt give mexico power why would you fight for it?
>exact same comments as in every one of these shit threads
Argentina gave up quickly before their mainland could be attacked. Keeping in mind that late 20th century and mid 19th century warfare were quite different things.
we wanted it? it wasn't useful to mexico because no one lived there, but we populated the areas
so in the end it all boils down to the US wanting Mexican Territory at any expense. Thanks my friend
Mexico had almost minimal control over anything north of the Rio Grande, the population of those areas was also in a state of revolt. They would have lost that clay soon anyway, probably in a few years California would declare independence or be taken by a European power.
how do you know? The same was said for Brazil in the 1500s
> lost that clay soon anyway, probably in a few years California would declare independence
Texas joined the US because it was suffering blockades from the mexican navy and the army was prepping a full invasion that Texas alone couldn't survive
Mexico did enforce it's power in the north, to a much lesser degree yes
But mexico kicked out a lot of Russian communities in California
>how do you know?
Once gold was discovered in California, everyone and their mother would have all piled in there.
It was an American War of Aggression driven by their slave owning interests, religious zealotry and imperialist aspirations.
sure, but we never wanted the populous parts of mexico. we wanted lebensraum for our colonists
>Texas joined the US because it was suffering blockades from the mexican navy
>Mexican navy
>1840s
404 not found
>and the army was prepping a full invasion that Texas alone couldn't survive
Mexico launched two invasions in 1842 and both failed.
California also had excellent natural harbors. Britain would have probably loved the place as a Pacific base for the Royal Navy.
>Under the command of Commodore Charles Edward Hawkins[3] they helped win independence by preventing a Mexican blockade of the Texas coast, seizing dozens of Mexican fishing vessels and sending their cargoes on to the Texas volunteer army.
>By October 1837, all of the ships had been lost at sea, sunk by the Mexican Navy, run aground, captured, or sold, and replacements were being procured.
en.wikipedia.org
Our navy was defeated by the USN, even our largest ship Congreso Mexicano was no match to the Constitution and other american made frigates
How fucking retarded can you be?
Can you fucking read?
Texas SEIZED those vessels to build a navy until they bought proper small warships in 1836 when the official Texas Navy was established
The US had the only indigenous armaments industry in the Western Hemisphere anyway, everyone else had to buy Europe's old rusted junk. In the battles of the Mexican War, a lot of Mexican ammunition was defective--they'd fire a musket or a cannon and it wouldn't work.
Success breeds jealousy.
Or the weapon itself was defective which is expected when you buy rusting muskets last used at Austerlitz.
i can still never understand why they use imperial...
US military deaths in the Mexican War were about 12,000 men but most of that was due to disease and only 1100 or so died in combat action. Mexican casualties are unknown due to spotty record keeping.
Probably about twice of yours with more combat deaths than desease
I guess because of the malarial subtropical Mexican climate that Americans weren't used to. BTW, the last American veteran of the war died in 1928 at the age of 98; he'd enlisted in the US Navy as a teenager. Due to bad record keeping like you mention, the last surviving Mexican veteran is unknown (many of these guys were illiterate Indians).