Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (36037)	8/5/2002 8:30:51 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

OK, so moving right along, the new Mexican government wants settlers tout suite but nobody whom we'd call Mexican at this far remove wants to settle in Texas (too arid). So they let Kaintucks, Yankees, Cajuns, and other riff-raff (Sam Houston, Jim Bowie, Davie Crockett and other such white trash, with slaves) move into Texas. Western border of Texas remains nebulous. Yes there were settlers that rebelled from Mexico and formed the Lone Star Republic. They mostly lived around Austin and to the north and east of Austin. Perhaps a few of them even lived as far south as the Houston area of Texas. Same white trash seceded from Mexico in 1835 and established the nation of Texas. Which, in 1845, was admitted as a state. Question was, where did Texas end? (Everyone knew where it began, based on that same sharp demarcation that the Bourbon cousin-kings worked out prior to the Seven Years War (War of Jenkins' Ear, French and Indian War). Did it go all the way to the Pacific? Or end somewhere in the desert? When the Bourbon cousins were making the maps, it went all the way to the Pacific. The bigger question at the time was: Where did it end in the South? The Texans claimed that their borders ran all the way south to the Rio Grande. Where as the people that lived along the Rio Grande thought that Mexico was their government. Mexico delivered their mail, collected the taxes and administered the land titles for the Rio Grande area. After having mixed results in pursuing the rebellious Texans around the Austin area (Remember the Alamo?), General Santa Ana kept the Mexican Army just north of the Rio Grande in what was friendly territory for him and pretty much ignored the new nation of Texas. How to resolve? Yes, there was a battle, but who invaded whom? Did the Mexicans invade America or vice versa? I suppose that the Americans back then, claimed that Texas was invaded by Mexico when Santa Ana's army crossed the Rio Grande river. And so the counter attack was the landing of American Marines in Vera Cruz and the march onward to Mexico City where we captured the President of Mexico and offered him terms that he couldn't refuse (if he knew what was best for his health) I also referred to Panama where in the 1980's we removed the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noregia after we could no longer trust him. Which to me seems to be the closest parallel to what we paln for Iraq. It is obviously a much more difficult operation, but the stated goal of regime change is the same.