Certainly. How do you think we got California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Colorado? The short answer is that we bought those territories for $18,500,000 in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but the full answer is that we invaded Mexico in a two year war, militarily occupied the capital of Mexico City, and dictated the treaty's terms to the vanquished Mexican government.
Well there you have it, the La Raza, MALDEF, MEChLA, history of the Western United States.Funny how you didn't mention the fact that the territory that later became Mexico, was itself occupied by Spain. Did Spain have a right to that land? No. Did an entity known as Mexico ever occupy and own the lands you addressed? Ah no.
The nation of Mexico didn't even exist unil 1823. Did it occupy and administer the lands North of where our souther border is today? No. When it tried, it got it's ass handed to it. It wasn't as if these were tradional lands owned by Mexico. The army of the region rebelled against Spain and having previaled formed a new government, a soverign nation in 1823. That is when the entity Mexico came into being. Other territories that had been occupied buy Spain did essentially the same thing when they rebelled against the new entity Mexico. Texans sure didn't buy into the idea that all of a sudden Mexico was going to rule them. Arizona, New Mexico, and California felt the same way. Does that somehow make them evil for rebelling against Mexico, when Mexico itself rebelled to cast off it's colonial master?
Fifty years later, in a war declared against Spain to end its colonial influence, we captured and annexed Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Samoa, Guam, and Wake Island. Today, all but the Philippines remain sovereign US territory.
I haven't studied the history of these islands. I suspect there was more to this than your short synopsis. Whatever the real story is, it took place by your account almost 150 years ago. Since that time the United States has participated in a number of wars. At then end of them the United States did not hold and occupy the land. The land generally reverted to it's former government. Japan, Germany, Italy, Iraq, Afghanistan..., to mention just a few.
Let's look at Germany. The United States didn't claim German land. Russia did. Do you see a difference? Russia also claimed the land of a number of nations after World War II. It administered those nations with an iron fist, hense the term "The Iron Curtain."
Is there any doubt in your mind that Russia would hesitate to invade the U. S. if it had an opening? Do you think Russia would then allow the U. S. to reform a government here and live i a sovereign state?
Invade the U.S. with what? With the exception of its huge nuclear arsenal, Russia's military power is a mere shadow of the old Soviet Union's military machine. In conventional terms, Russia is a major regional power and is not economically or militarily capable of projecting overwhelming conventional force on a global scale.
There was talk this last week about Russia possibly getting the Guantanamo base in Cuba. If you think Russia couldn't cause serious havok with that base, you're not firing on all cylinders.
Byond that it still has it bomber force. It still has it's nukes. Vladimir Putin has made costic remarks about nuclear weapons and his use of them. If that doesn't rank him right up there with the top nutters of all time, I don't know what would.
NATO is not going to invade Russia. Neither is Poland, the Ukraine, and a number of other nations. Russia’s main problem today is that it has a paranoid psychotic on it’s hands. He is fast becoming a global threat and problem. This guy is taking the one route certain to involve his nation in a global war. Other than that, Russia had no worry whatsoever. And you know damn well this is true.
No sane leader believes that a hostile alliance that has outlived its defensive charter poses no threat, especially when that hostile alliance aggressively expands to your own border and has recently engaged in offensive military operations elsewhere. Perhaps NATO's motives are pure as snow, but what fool bets his survival on mere perception of a hostile alliance's motives?
Hostile alliance? Please name one hostile thing this alliance has done against Russia. Name on incident on Russia's border where NATO was an aggressor. You wax rhapsodic about there being no need for NATO, and completely miss the fact that Russia has invaded one of it's neighbor nations, has annexed land, and appears to be considering taking more. No need for NATO? Wow. Really?
Suppose my gang signs a binding pact with your surrounding neighbors that we will all attack you if any one of us comes to blows with you. To prove that were are serious, we regularly assemble along your property line with all of our weapons and armored vehicles and with our aircraft buzzing overhead, and practice how we would "defend" each other against you. But since we insist that we have no hostile intent toward you or your surrounded property, you must believe us. Never you mind that our defensive alliance attacked Serbia in 1999, or that our alliance's command structure is presently on expedition in Afghanistan. We assure you that we are not threatening you in any way, so you must believe us.
Nations have war games all the time. Russia has them. Are we supposed to attack Russia because it has them? Should we annex part of Russia because of it? Should we send in proxy troops and occupy part of it's soverign territory, then claim it was because of some war games? You're arguments are silly.
Russia's alarm is anything but psychotic. It is rational.
It's as irrational as your comments here.
Whose nuclear armed bombers are infringing on other nation's air space these days? NATO?We fought a Cold War with the U. S. S. R., and as a people were almost universally against that entity. Now Putin signals he may in fact be headed back into a cold war with an Iron Curtain all to boot, and some of you folks can't wait to carry water for him, and explain how the West is the Evil Empire. That is a Conservative stance? Wow...
FAIL!
To me as an American, the question is not whether Russia has any "right" to exercise hegemony on its border. I want to know what national interest we have in whatever happens on Russia's border. That is the question we must answer before we sanction and embargo and blunder our way into an unintended war.