Why doesn’t the United States invade and conquer Mexico?

[SLD]

Why doesn’t the United States invade and conquer Mexico?

Not that there’s any moral reason to do so, but simply because it can. Mexico could be quickly and easily conquered by the US military machine. Mexico has no serious allies that could stop us or even punish us for doing so.

Conquering Mexico could allow us cheaper access to its oil and other natural resources. We could enslave its population and use them as agricultural workers or other cheap sources of labor. Their women could be used as comfort women for our soldiers.

So why don’t we?

 

[Politesse]

Why doesn’t the United States invade and conquer Mexico?

Not that there’s any moral reason to do so, but simply because it can. Mexico could be quickly and easily conquered by the US military machine. Mexico has no serious allies that could stop us or even punish us for doing so.

Conquering Mexico could allow us cheaper access to its oil and other natural resources. We could enslave its population and use them as agricultural workers or other cheap sources of labor. Their women could be used as comfort women for our soldiers.

So why don’t we?

We did. In 1846. We invaded them without cause, annexed nearly half their territory, and only stopped where we did out of fear of a future Hispanic majority in the Legislative. We turned the ethnically mestizo population north of the border into an oppressed underclass with few civil rights and continue to villify their great-grandchildren as racially inferior foreign invaders so rich assholes from New York can line their wallets and stump for votes in the paranoid South and Midwest.

 

[SLD]

Why doesn’t the United States invade and conquer Mexico?

Not that there’s any moral reason to do so, but simply because it can. Mexico could be quickly and easily conquered by the US military machine. Mexico has no serious allies that could stop us or even punish us for doing so.

Conquering Mexico could allow us cheaper access to its oil and other natural resources. We could enslave its population and use them as agricultural workers or other cheap sources of labor. Their women could be used as comfort women for our soldiers.

So why don’t we?

We did. In 1846. We invaded them without cause, annexed nearly half their territory, and only stopped where we did out of fear of a future Hispanic majority in the Legislative. We turned the ethnically mestizo population north of the border into an oppressed underclass with few civil rights and continue to villify their great-grandchildren as racially inferior foreign invaders so rich assholes from New York can line their wallets and stump for votes in the paranoid South and Midwest.

True. We took half their country, but it was less populated than the rest of it at the time. But if we enslaved their population this time, we wouldn’t have to give them the vote.

SLD

 

[laughing dog]

I think the reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Mexico are the same reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Canada: there is no real net benefit considering the costs.

 

[Trausti]

There were hardly any Mexicans in the land acquired after the US-Mexico war. Most of the inhabitants were Indian tribes who didn’t consider themselves Mexican. See Geronimo. And that land had been Mexican for only a few decades; having before been the undeveloped and sparsely populated badlands of the Viceroy of New Spain.

 

[Politesse]

There were hardly any Mexicans in the land acquired after the US-Mexico war. Most of the inhabitants were Indian tribes who didn’t consider themselves Mexican. See Geronimo. And that land had been Mexican for only a few decades; having before been the undeveloped and sparsely populated badlands of the Viceroy of New Spain.

The population of the provincias acquired was about 80,000 known citizens, with an unknown additional population of autonomous indigenous nations technically within the boundaries of the treaty but beyond practical Mexican rule, somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000-300,000. By comparison, the total population of the US at that time was around 12 million, and there were about 5 million Mexicans though this estimate is much less clear as there was no reliable census post-Revolution.

On the other hand, despite the war thr population of the Southwest was booming during these years, and many of its current citizens have at least partial ancestry from this founder population, especislly true outside of the major metropolitan areas.

 

[SLD]

I think the reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Mexico are the same reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Canada: there is no real net benefit considering the costs.

But Canada has lots of strong allies. Like all of Europe. Some of those European allies have nukes and could stand up to us. I think that makes a difference.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think the reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Mexico are the same reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Canada: there is no real net benefit considering the costs.

But Canada has lots of strong allies. Like all of Europe. Some of those European allies have nukes and could stand up to us. I think that makes a difference.

Buddy: I think that you've been watching too much TV!

 

[Tammuz]

I think the reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Mexico are the same reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Canada: there is no real net benefit considering the costs.

But Canada has lots of strong allies. Like all of Europe. Some of those European allies have nukes and could stand up to us. I think that makes a difference.

Those European allies of Canada are also allies of the US. Geopolitically, the US and Canada are really close.

The entire premise of this thread is silly.

 

[Trausti]

I think the reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Mexico are the same reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Canada: there is no real net benefit considering the costs.

But Canada has lots of strong allies. Like all of Europe. Some of those European allies have nukes and could stand up to us. I think that makes a difference.

Those European allies of Canada are also allies of the US. Geopolitically, the US and Canada are really close.

The entire premise of this thread is silly.

+ 1 Grenada makes more sense. We’ve done it before and it’d secure the supply of nutmeg for our eggnog.

 

[Bronzeage]

A few years ago, I read a book on the history of the Mexican American War. It was a pretty shameful affair. The US Army kept driving south long after any reasonable objective was met because no one in the Mexican government would meet with any American representative to discuss terms of a settlement. The Mexicans knew it would mean the loss of their Northwest territories, which are now our Southwest states.

I remember a quote from an officer's journal, in which he questions the march because they were crossing land "so worthless no man would pay a dollar's tax on the entirety of it".

 

[Politesse]

Why doesn’t the United States invade and conquer Mexico?

Not that there’s any moral reason to do so, but simply because it can. Mexico could be quickly and easily conquered by the US military machine. Mexico has no serious allies that could stop us or even punish us for doing so.

Conquering Mexico could allow us cheaper access to its oil and other natural resources. We could enslave its population and use them as agricultural workers or other cheap sources of labor. Their women could be used as comfort women for our soldiers.

So why don’t we?

We did. In 1846. We invaded them without cause, annexed nearly half their territory, and only stopped where we did out of fear of a future Hispanic majority in the Legislative. We turned the ethnically mestizo population north of the border into an oppressed underclass with few civil rights and continue to villify their great-grandchildren as racially inferior foreign invaders so rich assholes from New York can line their wallets and stump for votes in the paranoid South and Midwest.

True. We took half their country, but it was less populated than the rest of it at the time. But if we enslaved their population this time, we wouldn’t have to give them the vote.

SLD

Slavery, though legal at the time of the original conquest of Mexico, is now explicitly illegal under American law, and moreover anyone born into a U.S. territory is a citizen with all of the rights under the law as any other citizen. This is true even if the territory was acquired in war, as is for instance true of Guam.

 

[SLD]

I think the reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Mexico are the same reasons the USA does not invade and conquer Canada: there is no real net benefit considering the costs.

But Canada has lots of strong allies. Like all of Europe. Some of those European allies have nukes and could stand up to us. I think that makes a difference.

Those European allies of Canada are also allies of the US. Geopolitically, the US and Canada are really close.

The entire premise of this thread is silly.

True to an extent. But I’m reading a book right now on the theory of international relations, and the author's premise is that great powers will constantly try to expand their power as far as they can. Rome conquered Europe as much as it could and enslaved the population or otherwise co-opted them into the empire. The US acted as a classical great power throughout the 19th century until it had conquered a large portion of the continent from sea to sea. It tried to take Canada in 1812 and coveted it throughout the century. It “liberated” Cuba and other Caribbean islands at the end of the century. But in the 20th century it seems to have stopped expanding. For the most part. Why?

Some scholars argue that there is a certain morality operating in international affairs that stops countries from invading each other Willy nilly. Obviously not this author. But I don’t think such arguments can be dismissed. An invasion of such a nature would be met with utter outrage amongst 90% of the US population. Even Hitler felt the need to justify launching Germany into WWII as a self defense measure. Jewish Bolshevism was a mortal threat. Supposedly.

The US and the UN justified their objection to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait on moral grounds and sent an international force to throw it back.

It seems to me that the real reason we don’t invade and take over Mexico are simple moral ones. And this undermines the author’s premise. The author also predicts a conflict between the US and China at some point.

SLD

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Outright conquest isn't the way it is done anymore. If you invade, it is for "regime change".

 

[hyzer]

Reasons not to invade Mexico: if we did we'd lose the illegal immigrant boogie man. Let's face it, the republican party would be nothing without its boogie men: abortionists, illegal immigrants, advocates for restrictive gun laws, Muslims, atheists, socialists and communists.

 

[Half-Life]

Why do you guys think it's only white countries who have the power to enslave other countries?

How come for example, you don't see Africans coming to the U.S. and taking over us for our resources?

Even the African countries that were 100% untouched by colonization (such as Ethiopia & Liberia) are still not prosperous countries.

Why do you suppose it's only white people who are powerful enough to do this to other races?

My reasoning is that evolution did not stop at the neck like some people believe.

 

[Half-Life]

Reasons not to invade Mexico: if we did we'd lose the illegal immigrant boogie man. Let's face it, the republican party would be nothing without its boogie men: abortionists, illegal immigrants, advocates for restrictive gun laws, Muslims, atheists, socialists and communists.

But one can say the same about the Democrats needing boogeymen: fascists, Nazis, racists, sexists, transphobes, homophobes.

(On a side note I always found the "phobe" insult to be stupid. For example, if people disagree with Muslims, we are called "Islamaphobes." But if atheists disagree with Chritians, we do not call them "Christphobes." Perhaps we should. But, we can see that it is clearly not a phobia just to disagree with a religion. I'm sure the atheists can see how silly it is to say "Christphobes" so they shld stop with the "Islamaphobe!")

 

[Patooka]

Why do you guys think it's only white countries who have the power to enslave other countries?

How come for example, you don't see Africans coming to the U.S. and taking over us for our resources?

Even the African countries that were 100% untouched by colonization (such as Ethiopia & Liberia) are still not prosperous countries.

Why do you suppose it's only white people who are powerful enough to do this to other races?

My reasoning is that evolution did not stop at the neck like some people believe.

What the fuck does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Angry Floof]

A lot of good reasons have been mentioned here, but those are reasons the U.S. hasn't tried to conquer Mexico, none of which matter much to our current administration because they're not really into reality and facts and stuff. They simply haven't thought of it yet. So, SLD, stop giving them ideas, please.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why do you guys think it's only white countries who have the power to enslave other countries?

How come for example, you don't see Africans coming to the U.S. and taking over us for our resources?

Even the African countries that were 100% untouched by colonization (such as Ethiopia & Liberia) are still not prosperous countries.

Why do you suppose it's only white people who are powerful enough to do this to other races?

My reasoning is that evolution did not stop at the neck like some people believe.

This doesn't make any sense at all.