Was America the villain in the Mexican-American War?

Was America the villain in the Mexican-American War?
My sources say yes

Mexico will give up their land to the Big Anglo Cock and they can be fucking PLEASED about it

Gee, I wonder which Kremlin is behind this post

It was less America being a villain and more Mexico just being dumb as shit.

No more so than Brazil were the villain in the WOTA because Paraguay was ruled by a dumbass who started a war he could't win.

But America started the war

Oh boy

>tfw no native to spawn mutts with

Lol no we didn’t. Mexico committed the first act of aggression by firing on a US navel ship parked in the Rio Grande, territory being disputed by both countries. That gave the US a proper justification to go to war.

Mexico could have let international arbitration to sort out the land dispute, but they were impatient dipshits and took the bait the US dangled in front of them to go to war.

> but they were impatient dipshits and took the bait the US dangled in front of them to go to war.
So you're saying America provoked Mexico, thus being the bad guy

Half of those are completely valid arguments, especially “We won fair and square”.

Mexico should have just accepted that they lost Texas, instead they decided to make a fight over it and got spanked hard.

This

How spics manage to be this butthurt is beyond me. No wonder their country is such a shithole, clearly their priorities are all wrong.

We provoked the Japs in to attacking us by putting a squeeze on their oil supply. Would you say the US was the bad guy in the pacific theater?

Like half of the major wars in US history happened as a result of us provoking somebody to attack us.

The US was only a villain in the sense that they were effectively taking advantage of a retarded opponent, but they never did anything at the time that the international community would view as an egregious breach of etiquette for going to war and taking land.

The US played totally by the rules, and the simple act of taking land was not an immoral concept. Everyone in the world was doing the exact same thing in the same exact way as the US did. What the US did to Mexico was in fact relatively tame compared to what some of the European powers were doing elsewhere.

my sources say manifest destiny and those cocksuckers were in the way

why does she have leaf earrings?

The US loses a lot of strategic depth without Texas, since any would-be enemy can just park right outside the entrance to the Mississippi River and fuck with our commerce. And once Texas is taken, the rest of the southwest naturally falls into US orbit.

It's not really about good or evil, it's about grand strategy.

t.gomez

If someone is provoking you and you punch them in the face then they punch you back who's the bad guy?

>Invade texas
>cry when you get your ass beat.
play stupid games win retarded prizes.

We really should had just annexed Mexico.

>Invade texas
>cry when you get your ass beat
But the invaders won

...

Why doesnt mexico just take all the lost clay it then?

Because we're neutral.

Depends on who or why I’m provoking them. In the case of the Mexican-American war, it was a time where right of conquest was still the primary factor of determining ownership of land. There weren’t good guys and bad guys.

Mexico’s claim to their territory was acquired in the same way. They beat Spain, said, “we’re taking all your territory in North America including the parts where Mexicans don’t even live, if you don’t like it try and stop us”. That’s just how it is. Nothing villainous about it.

True, but there was opposition to the war. It was just that the movement had no real power, alot of politicians (like Lincoln, Douglass, Freeman) and citizens thought it was unjust.
I wouldn't say Mexico was a retarded opponent at the time either. Just not as good as the US.

>But the invaders won

Nobody except a few nomadic tribes of Indians lived in the parts of Texas that Americans wanted to settle in. They properly asked permission beforehand from Mexico if they could settle there, and the Mexican government said, “Yeah sure bruhs, knock yourself out”. Only later when Santa Anna took power did Mexico start taking offense to Anglos settling in the area.

If you want to blame somebody, blame your retarded dictator.

>be Mexico
>allow Americans to immigrate to Mexico
>americans refuse to assimilate, try to steal mexican land and declare it their own
>declare independence, kill mexicans, ask uncle sam to intervene
>america assists the illegal invaders, invades Mexico and takes away mexico's sovereign territory, annexes it
And yet somehow gringos get mad when mexicans come to nuevo mexico without papers. Living on stolen ground.

>blame the abolition of slavery in Mexico*
Fixed that for you, without that, illegal Americans in Texas wouldn't had gotten mad.

Hmmmm

...

Buddy, even the Tejanos had joined the rebellion by the end of the war. Mexico had hardly any loyalists actually living in the territory that seceded. Mexico saying Texas was there’s was literally no different than Argentina laying claim to the Falklands.

It was their sovereign territory, this is Westphalia 101. It's against the rules to take territory belonging to another country. It was an internal problem of Mexico that we took advantage of for our own gain.

>tfw no tsundere mexican gf to berate me over the war

>It was their sovereign territory

Remind me again how Mexico came to call that their sovereign territory? A war of independence or something?

Yes just like the United States did too

>In the case of the Mexican-American war, it was a time where right of conquest was still the primary factor of determining ownership of land.
Then why try to cover it up? Americans have argued everything from Texas' right to self determination to it being a purchase. If this is true why don't you put it that way in plain words in your history texts?

The US recognized Mexican independence and formally acknowledged its territorial claims, it was legally Mexico's land by US standards.

That’s kind of my point. The comment I quoted was claiming revolutions are “against the rules to take territory” which is utterly stupid.

>The US recognized Mexican independence and formally acknowledged its territorial claims, it was legally Mexico's land by US standards.

And the US literally never actively participated in the Texas Revolution, so what’s your point?

>Then why try to cover it up? Americans have argued everything from Texas' right to self determination to it being a purchase. If this is true why don't you put it that way in plain words in your history texts?

The Texas Revolution and Mexican-American War were 2 different conflicts. You’re not gonna find Americans say “we were the good guys” in the Mexican-American war. We simply wanted land we had claims on and took it, while following international rules in doing so.