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 (130877)	5/1/2004 6:49:12 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Merely saying you own a piece of land isn't sufficient to maintain the title. You have to use it. If someone else comes along and uses it, openly and notoriously, acting like the owner, then after a relatively brief period of years, it belongs to that person. If you use it less openly and notoriously, you can still get title via prescription/squatter's rights, but it takes longer. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. So, if I went up to the deserted Northwest Territories of Canada somewhere, and managed to log and live there for awhile, I could declare that "my" land? Or declare it property of the US?

To: Ilaine who wrote (130877)	5/2/2004 6:02:32 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The land that we took from Mexico was rather distant from Mexico City, you have to cross desert to get to it, and it was essentially unoccupied I don't think I'm willing to buy this, CB.. Texas had originally been settled by the Spanish (Mexicans) and the influx of US settlers was the casus belli for them to revolt and declare Texas to be an independent nation (which it was for 10 years). And then, of course, in 1845 Pres. Polk announced plans to annex Texas and make them a state. Which then led to border disputes between the US and Mexico... During and after the war, many in the United States placed the majority of the blame for the Mexican-American War squarely on the shoulders of Mexico. There may be a grain of truth in this ultra-patriotic view (Combs 99). President Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the region between the Rio Grande and Nueces Rivers. Texas believed that its southern boundary was represented by the Rio Grande River. The Mexicans, however, did not acknowledge this boundary and instead believed that it was the Nueces River. So, the Americans believed they were on Texan (soon to be American) soil, while the Mexicans believed that the Americans were on Mexican soil (Lavender 130). When Mexican forces attacked the Americans in this region, Polk believed that Mexico "invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil" (Richardson 442). With this information in hand, Polk proceeded to ask the Congress for a declaration of war, which he received easily. However, according to Polk's diary and other sources, he planned to ask Congress for a declaration before word of the Mexican "attack" ever reached Washington (Quaife 386). Refuting this "Mexico's Fault" theory even more is the fact that the government of Mexico at this time was in a period of chaos (Garraty and Gay 811). Still, the attack proved an effective scapegoat for not only Polk, but many other pro-war politicians. azteca.net Polk was merely acting according to the views of the time.. That expansionism was an accepted form of increasing a nation's borders. It was what the Mexican state was based upon, and it's also the prevailing belief in many parts of the current world. I don't feel like looking up the details but about that same time France and Spain were claiming Mexico for themselves,.. Yeah.. funny that.. But you know that irrelevant.. All that matters is how terrible the history of the US has been, right? Hawk