INVASION!!!!!! What country do you trust to help?

[One of Many]

Yes, Texas did belong to Mexico at one point, then they declared independence and beat the crap out of the Mexican Army. Special note, this is how Mexico got independence from Spain, only they had to do it a few times.

The Republic of Texas was recognized as an independent state by the United States, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Republic of Yucatán. The United Kingdom never gave official recognition because friendly relations with Mexico but there was (the building still stands)a embassy and Texan goods were allowed into the country.

It was American businessmen that saw the potential Texas had for a slave state, they went there and brought many American immigrant workers with them. Soon the Americans outnumbered the Mexicans and once again an American asked the Mexicans if they could make Texas an independent Mexican state, he was arrested under charges of attempting to incite a revolt and released 2 years later where he gathered 150 men at the Alamo and raised the black flag... which meant "expect no mercy" and they would not surrender, as a result they were killed and the other Americans in Texas (clearly not knowing the entire story) rose up and cowardly attacked the Mexicans while they slept driving them into a panic and causing them to retreat.

That was how Texas gained its independence... Americans took it.

Alright, before I tear apart that wrong statement, lets get to the fact that you completely left out the fact that it wasn't only American settlers fighting against Mexico. Do the native Tejanos that join in the fight mean nothing? Men like Manuel Lorenzo Justiniano de Zavala y Saenz, the first vice president of the Republic of Texas or Juan Nepomuceno Seguín, who lead a band of Tejanos at the Alamo and only escaped because he was chosen as a messenger? How about José Antonio Navarro, signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence and member of the Republic of Texas Congress? Are we to simply brush these men aside and pretend they never existed?

Now then, it took me a while to figure out just who you were talking about. First I thought it was Jim Bowie, who was part of the the Convention of 1833, which formally requested that Texas become its own state within the Mexican federation, he was almost arrested and he was one of the leaders at the Alamo. However, Jim's near arrest was not on charges of promoting rebellion but rather when President Antonio López de Santa Anna ordered the arrest of all Texans (note who was under arrest, Texans not just the Americans)doing business in Monclova.

The details just didn't add up, so I looked for someone else and picked out Stephen Fuller Austin, the father of Texas. Now, he was part of the Convention of 1833, in fact he went to Mexico City, met with Vice President Valentín Gómez Farías and got several of the reforms that the Texans want to happen, done, save for become a separate Mexican state. He left Mexico City a freeman but was arrested in Saltillo on suspicion of treason. He was jailed for all of 1834 and remained in Mexico City until July of 1835 on bond. However, Austin did go to the Alamo. He did however take temporary command of the Texan forces during the Siege of Bexar, with followed the Battle of Gonzales and was won by the Texans before the Battle of the Alamo.

And the battle The Battle of San Jacinto, I don't see how you could call that cowardly on the part of the Texans. They advance (pushing two cannons no less) across an open field, in broad daylight to attack an army that had them outnumbered. True, the Mexican army was having a siesta at the time, however, Santa Anna failed to post pickets to guard the camp.

 

[TheDrHuw]

As a Brit, id have to go with the US (we're as thick as thieves), or possabily Russia, since they are some crazy mofos

 

[Kinguendo]

*snip*

Getting awfully off track, fact of the matter is... America took Texas from Mexico and caused the tensions in the first place.

I assume you are American or you wouldnt be trying to avoid any blame as though America is without fault, America took Mexican land after tensions built because of American actions in the first place.

 

[One of Many]

*snip*

Getting awfully off track, fact of the matter is... America took Texas from Mexico and caused the tensions in the first place.

I assume you are American or you wouldnt be trying to avoid any blame as though America is without fault, America took Mexican land after tensions built because of American actions in the first place.

Well thank you for ignoring my entire post.

I said this once but I'll say it again. It wasn't only American settlers fighting against Mexico. Do the native Tejanos that join in the fight mean nothing? Men like Manuel Lorenzo Justiniano de Zavala y Saenz, the first vice president of the Republic of Texas or Juan Nepomuceno Seguín, who lead a band of Tejanos at the Alamo and only escaped because he was chosen as a messenger? How about José Antonio Navarro, signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence and member of the Republic of Texas Congress? Are we to simply brush these men aside and pretend they never existed?

You seem to have it wired in your head that there were only former Americans in Texas. This is not true. There were Tejanos, Native Americans and immigrants from nations other then the United States, like France and Prussia.

Now then, America, the country had nothing to do with the separation of Texas from Mexico. There were Americans, who had immigrated to Texas and became Mexicans, then Texans. Jim Bowie became a Mexican citizen in 1830. The Old 300, lead to Texas by Stephen Fuller Austin, all became Mexican citizens. It was Texans that took Texas from Mexico and then later applied (and gained) admittance to the United States, while the expansionist James Polk was in power.

 

[Kinguendo]

*snip*

No, it is YOU that is missing the point.

They arent forgotten... its just they dont matter. Their involvement wasnt as big as the Americans involvement, and actually the tensions were initially started thanks to Americans going into Mexico illegally.

And while we are outting you as a revisionist I have another question to ask which should shine a bit more light on the situation. Did America lose against Vietnam?

 

[One of Many]

*snip*

No, it is YOU that is missing the point.

They arent forgotten... its just they dont matter. Their involvement wasnt as big as the Americans involvement, and actually the tensions were initially started thanks to Americans going into Mexico illegally.

And while we are outting you as a revisionist I have another question to ask which should shine a bit more light on the situation. Did America lose against Vietnam?

Really? A smaller, native population doesn't matter because there were less of them? if anything, the involvement of the local, native none American population should matter more.

Now then, I don't think you've ever heard of the empresarios, have you? Under Mexican law, they were grant huge sections of land in Texas and then tasked with recruiting settlers from the United States, the Mexican interior and Europe, to booster the colony's growth and to help prevent Comanche raids. Most of the successful empresarios recruited setters from the United States. It only became illegal for immigrants from the United States to enter Texas after 1830.

Your last question is idiotic. Of course the United States lost the Vietnam war.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

From America, and I hope we would get help from the UK. Rule Britannia!

 

[DefunctTheory]

From America. I pick Israel.

I mean, seriously, have you seen those guys in action? Holy crap!

 

[Kinguendo]

*snip*

Oooh, someone is on the defensive. Admitting you lost against Vietnam hurt, did it?

Also, no. As I said their involvement DOESNT matter because we are talking about how America took Texas... which they did. Americans outnumbered Mexicans in Texas and they had caused the tension which led to the revolution, the tension was caused by Americans who then got illegal workers in and outnumbered Mexicans then continued doing more things to strain relations between Mexico and America and then when some of the Americans got killed after pushing the Mexicans everyone in Texas goes crazy because (and this is a trend that seems to have continued to this day) they were stupid and/or misinformed... thats why the minority of people in Texas dont matter, because they were idiots who were going with the mob mentality rather than looking at who caused the mess in the first place!

Basically this: "We wanted your land, you wouldnt sell us your land... so we took it."

 

[Withall]

I've not checked recently, but seeing as Russia wasn't an option in this case, I had to pick What I knew about China.

 

[Thee Prisoner]

Their is a reason the early immigrant settlers from many different countries called themselves "Texicans or Texian".

Btw. The people of Mexico are Americans.

 

[r3lix]

I would go for Russia or Germany. Or maybe both. It's quality not quantity.

 

[blaze96]

Basically this: "We wanted your land, you wouldnt sell us your land... so we took it."

I myself will not argue that point, as it is perfectly valid and true. I will say this though, what if the natives and non-Americans weren't stupid but actually hated the Mexicans? The native perhaps weren't swept up in mob mentality but hated the Mexicans and saw the revolution started by men like Austin as a chance to gain their independence and got screwed over in the end. Thinking they could get land for themselves out of the deal.

I'm also going to follow your train of logic and say it may have been American land in the end, but it was native land before that. Native land that was taken by the Aztecs, that was then taken by the Spanish, that was then taken by the Mexicans when they revolted, that was then taken by Austin and his republic, and was then finally taken by the US. History is a long series of assholes who stole land from other assholes to expand their power basically. The US isn't better or worse, just a different asshole, but I'm not about to apologize for it.

On topic: I would trust the UK or one of the multinational treaty organizations to step in.

 

[Kinguendo]

Basically this: "We wanted your land, you wouldnt sell us your land... so we took it."

I myself will not argue that point, as it is perfectly valid and true. I will say this though, what if the natives and non-Americans weren't stupid but actually hated the Mexicans? The native perhaps weren't swept up in mob mentality but hated the Mexicans and saw the revolution started by men like Austin as a chance to gain their independence and got screwed over in the end. Thinking they could get land for themselves out of the deal.

I'm also going to follow your train of logic and say it may have been American land in the end, but it was native land before that. Native land that was taken by the Aztecs, that was then taken by the Spanish, that was then taken by the Mexicans when they revolted, that was then taken by Austin and his republic, and was then finally taken by the US. History is a long series of assholes who stole land from other assholes to expand their power basically. The US isn't better or worse, just a different asshole, but I'm not about to apologize for it.

On topic: I would trust the UK or one of the multinational treaty organizations to step in.

You should most certainly apologize for Texas... that whole place is a cluster f*ck... and Arizona now too.

 

[Rafe]

I'm English and I'd say... USA and Canada because I love them so much.

 

[blaze96]

You should most certainly apologize for Texas... that whole place is a cluster f*ck... and Arizona now too.

And you are basing this on what now? If you mean the recent law in Arizona, it's actually based on a federal law far older. Illegal immigration is already a federal crime, Arizona just made it a state crime. I also don't see how Texas is anymore of a cluster fuck now than it would be under Mexico. Actually, Mexico is more of a cluster fuck than Texas. Through a series of issues that are no fault of the Mexican people, their nation is a hell hole. The government and police are notoriously corrupt, the economy is complete crap, and crime is through the roof to the point where you can't even walk the streets at night because it is likely you will get shot. Oh yea, and did I mention the Mexican military actually patrols their borders with an iron fist, and have actually been known to kill people who try to cross their southern border illegally.

 

[Kinguendo]

You should most certainly apologize for Texas... that whole place is a cluster f*ck... and Arizona now too.

And you are basing this on what now? If you mean the recent law in Arizona, it's actually based on a federal law far older. Illegal immigration is already a federal crime, Arizona just made it a state crime. I also don't see how Texas is anymore of a cluster fuck now than it would be under Mexico. Actually, Mexico is more of a cluster fuck than Texas. Through a series of issues that are no fault of the Mexican people, their nation is a hell hole. The government and police are notoriously corrupt, the economy is complete crap, and crime is through the roof to the point where you can't even walk the streets at night because it is likely you will get shot. Oh yea, and did I mention the Mexican military actually patrols their borders with an iron fist, and have actually been known to kill people who try to cross their southern border illegally.

Texas has started removing VERY important historical figures from their history books.

And actually, all I have heard people say about Arizona is that it is an unconstitutional law (the constitution trumps everything for you guys, right?) as it not only creates racial profiling but forces people to supply proof for the police officers of their citizenship.

EDIT: And you wonder why Mexicans want to leave Mexico? And yeah, Mexico isnt the only one with a corrupt government. *hint*

 

[Valiant The Gamer]

If the Netherlands WAS invaded(Mine country),We would get help from every EU country/Nation.
But i would like the UK cause good military and It's a neighbour nation.

 

[blaze96]

Texas has started removing VERY important historical figures from their history books.

And actually, all I have heard people say about Arizona is that it is an unconstitutional law (the constitution trumps everything for you guys, right?) as it not only creates racial profiling but forces people to supply proof for the police officers of their citizenship.

EDIT: And you wonder why Mexicans want to leave Mexico? And yeah, Mexico isnt the only one with a corrupt government. *hint*

Never said our government wasn't corrupt, Mexico is just far worse in their corruption (politicians and police have actually taken kickbacks from the Mexican Cartels that cart drugs over the border and are known to murder all who speak out against them.). The people saying the law in Arizona is unconstitutional are pointing to two parts (all legal immigrants must carry identification indicating that they are, and the police may ask anyone to prove their citizenship), these parts may be unconstitutional. (it hasn't been decided and hasn't been taken to the courts so nobody can definitely say it is or isn't. Though you can argue for either side.) The wording may be vague enough that it isn't discrimination and thus does not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, I can't say for sure though as I'm not a lawyer or court justice. We will find out if and when it reaches the Supreme Court of the United States if the law is or isn't, and any argument before that is pure speculation.

On the Texas point, that is a shame I will admit, but it is the choice of the Texas School Board what is included in text books. The sad truth of it is that history books can never truly include everyone who is of significant historical importance, the only reason this one is getting any play is because they are leaving out certain founding fathers who were anti-church. It doesn't make Texas a cluster fuck, it just makes the Texas School Board one sided and biased. Which, when you think about, is all of history really. As the saying goes, "history is written by the victor", and in the case of content of school books in Texas the religious have won against the non-religious. It is also completely plausible that a new school board will change the content again, as it isn't set in stone obviously. The same thing happened when certain states mandated the teaching of creationism alongside evolution (remember how much chaos that caused and how quickly it died down?). I don't pay attention to Texas for the same reason, in time, nobody will give a shit. Everyone gets up in arms for a little while, then they realize how retarded the whole argument is as it has no affect on anyone other than Texans. Besides, would you take away the Texan's right to choose what they teach just because you don't like it or think it is wrong? I say let Texas do as they please and everyone should keep heir mouth shut if it doesn't affect them. This is an argument for Texans and it is up to Texans to decide what is right and wrong, not a Californian and a citizen of the UK. We both know nothing of Texas culture and thus cannot accurately say what is right for them.