It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

mexico has no legal claim and never did, to the American SW

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
At the time of the texas revulution there were only 3,000 decendants of the spanish but, 10s of thousands of indians. In california 200 decendants of the Spanish. There were millions of indians. In the other SW States there were only a handfull of spanish decendants "mexicans" although they didn't always clain mexico. Mexico was ingaged in trying to conquer these tribes but, had not concquered one N American tribe after over 300 years! If Mexico would take it's "claim" to an internation court, it would have the weakest "claim" by all concerned. The indians all "claimed the same lands and had brutal wars over it. You can't reconquer what you never conquered to begain with!

[edit on 12/1/2007 by rockets red glare]




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Sadly, it does, in historically terms.

But this has nothing to do with the NWO



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


^-^ I wasn't sure where would be the propper place to start this thread, so I chose the NWO. If "and of course it will never happen" hispanic seperatists were to get what they want, it could fall under heading of NWO.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by rockets red glare
 

Angry American, you are mistaken. If mexico did not "own" the Southwest how is it that the U.S. forcibly bought it from them in the treaty of Guadalupe?
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Polite American
 


What we really bought was their claim. That is the same thing we fought them for was their claim to it. That that is not to say that their claim was legal. If it happened today we never could! But, this all happened in the age of conquests and empire building that all people had been doing since the dawn ow man. Includung the indians.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockets red glare
What we really bought was their claim. That is the same thing we fought them for was their claim to it. That that is not to say that their claim was legal. If it happened today we never could! But, this all happened in the age of conquests and empire building that all people had been doing since the dawn ow man. Includung the indians.


No, it was apart of Mexico.

Southwestern States, along with Mexico, were apart of New Spain. When Mexico got independence, and was recongised, those states were apart of it.

It's the same situtation with Britain and Ireland.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


When did the indians agree to reconize the mexican claim? Oh they didn't. it was an age of conquest and mexico never conquered a single north american tribe that i know of.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockets red glare
When did the indians agree to reconize the mexican claim? Oh they didn't. it was an age of conquest and mexico never conquered a single north american tribe that i know of.


You are missing the point. Mexico was apart of New Spain, so was the Southernwestern States. When it became independent of Spain, all it became Mexico. That's the claim of Mexico. When it became an independent nation, the world recognised all of the land Mexico covered.

(Polite American is right in what he/she posted.)



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by rockets red glare
 
I see how this is going..Someone shows you proof that you are wrong and you stick to your mistaken "claim" Someone else explains to you how it came to be and you still denounceit and stick to your original "claim"
well sir I denounce your "claim" as being not truly yours...it is a false "claim" and even the indians hadbetter "claims" than yours...good day.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Polite American
 


That is my point. It is the indians who had the legal claim! This is why the mexican claim is not vallid. To steal or buy something from some one who doesn't own it. As was the case of mexico's claim.

[edit on 12/1/2007 by rockets red glare]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rockets red glare
 
*Sigh*...Ok so going by your anology the U.S. is also up for grabs because we took it from the indians and we don't have a legal "claim" to it??? oy vey..



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Polite American
 

The conquest of the american SW would not be legal today. There not the sandards in place that there are today. However, that being said most of the indian tribes sign peace treaties ( forced to be sure ). Mexico nor spain ever signed treaties with them because they never conquered them. they were at war with the indians however. The indians thems selves were waring over who this territory belonged to. most of the western tribes still have their tribal "smaller" nations but, also gained a greater nation as well.We are not responsible for the acts of our fathers and the american people in the last 150+ years have invested trillions into this nation, therefore there really is nor turning back the clock. I was mearly speaking in this thread the Mexican claim to the American SW. and the reconquista movment.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockets red glare
reply to post by Polite American
 


What we really bought was their claim. That is the same thing we fought them for was their claim to it.


Well, that's all the reconquista people are doing, right? Contesting America's claim.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by The Good Reverend Roger
 


No, not in my oppinion. The very word means reconquer. you cannot reconquer untill you have conqoured. Tey were in the process of qounquering when the United States contested their cliam. We also cannot forget that it was mexico that fired the first shot along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846." of the mexican american war. War is like that. you may verywell loose. The U.S. and Mexico had dispatched all of the europeon empires in their areas ; with the exception of canda "and the U.S. took a big chunk of that". they were bound to conflict at some point. As I said it was still the age of empires everywhere.

[edit on 12/1/2007 by rockets red glare]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockets red glare
No, not in my oppinion. The very word means reconquer. you cannot reconquer untill you have conqoured. Tey were in the process of qounquering when the United States contested their cliam.


I fail to see why the distinction is important. Either they can do it, or they can't. They can't right now. They probably will do it in 20 years.


Originally posted by rockets red glare
We also cannot forget that it was mexico that fired the first shot along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846."


Who cares who fires the first shot? As the Confederate States found out, shooting FIRST means nothing. Shooting LAST means everything.

In 20 years, Hispanics will be the majority in the USA. Hell, your grandchildren will probably be brown...if you're lucky, they'll speak English. Once that is the case, the SW states will be about 75% Hispanic. Then reconquista will basically be a defacto reality, and nobody will care about legalities of claims except the losers, just like always.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I can almost assure you that it will never come to that. If the native born Americans are pissed off now just wait and see how pissed off they will be in 2020.

Like it or not, the American people will not stand to see their land stolen and many will fight to the last drop of blood to stop the "reconquista".

And one more thing, not all Hispanics support the "reconquista", I know more then a few Hispanics (mostly Puerto Ricans) that are are just as opposed to illegal immigration as I am, if not even more. The Puerto Ricans go as far as to throw rocks and shoot at the illegal immigrants and drug smugglers from the Dominican Republic.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Like it or not, the American people will not stand to see their land stolen and many will fight to the last drop of blood to stop the "reconquista".


In 20 years, "The American People" will be - in the majority - of Mexican descent.

So they didn't have to reconquer. They just have to wait. Within a generation, they can just vote themselves into power.

Birthrate always wins.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
And one more thing, not all Hispanics support the "reconquista", I know more then a few Hispanics (mostly Puerto Ricans) that are are just as opposed to illegal immigration as I am, if not even more.


They aren't significant. The fastest growing segment of the population is Hispanics of Mexican descent.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


true enough! But, it is not a U.S. v Mex v Indians. No one is responible for the acts of their fathers. there are also Now Africans, Asians new Europians, other Hispanics.All races and religions and all have liniage in the united state for generations and are now "natives'. To be angy about was has so long ago happened, is like to be angry at the wind or the the river. It just is, as it is.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rockets red glare
 


Then your great-grandchildren will have no cause to complain.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join