Mexico threatens to cancel treaty that ceded Tex & Calif to US if Trump gets elected

Right said:
I say let them break the treaty, and let each state decide to join Mexico, or tell them to pound sand. If Mexico then turns hostile, let each State fight their own battle.

Regarding Texas, I feel sorry for all those soon-to-be-dead Mexican soldiers.

California, on the other hand, would be be taken easily. At least the Southern part. Without that festering boil (politically speaking) part of the US, we won't have another Democrat in the White House for the next 100 years.
Click to expand...


California liberals would all stick their heads in the sand, upon hearing they were coming, and the Mexican army would be amazed at seeing all those assholes just surrendering. :D
 
Bill said:
Are you in South Calif??
Click to expand...

Nope. But these are.

Beale Air Force Base Air Force Base | Beale AFB, CA 95903. ...
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base | Camp Pendleton, CA 92055. ...
Edwards Air Force Base Air Force Base | Edwards AFB, CA 93524. ...
Fort Irwin Army Base | Fort Irwin, CA 92310. ...
March Air Reserve Base Air Force Base | March ARB, CA 92518.
 
Great. If we cancel the treaty that means the war will continue. Let us take the entire thing this time and turn it into a colony.
 
Celticguy said:
Nope. But these are.

Beale Air Force Base Air Force Base | Beale AFB, CA 95903. ...
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base | Camp Pendleton, CA 92055. ...
Edwards Air Force Base Air Force Base | Edwards AFB, CA 93524. ...
Fort Irwin Army Base | Fort Irwin, CA 92310. ...
March Air Reserve Base Air Force Base | March ARB, CA 92518.
Click to expand...

They are all mobile forces...
 
Mexico threatens to cancel treaty that ceded Tex & Calif to US if Trump gets elected

I would love to give commiefornia back. Nothing but spics there anyway
 
iolo said:
Give it all back to those you've stolen it from - just as long as you don't convince yourselves you'd be welcome 'back' here! :)
Click to expand...

Then Wales should discontinue to refer to itself as being a country unto itself; because your British masters bred any true Welsh out of existence, long ago, and today the "Welsh" are really only British offspring.
 
Right said:
We didn't steal it; we conquered it. Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...

Yes - you mean your gangsters had heavier armament. Have you ever come across the expression 'frozen violence'? Make it into a sampler, kid - it will remind you those you steal from remember and wait their time.
 
iolo said:
Yes - you mean your gangsters had heavier armament. Have you ever come across the expression 'frozen violence'? Make it into a sampler, kid - it will remind you those you steal from remember and wait their time.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if we had tanks against their donkeys:
Conquest, in international law, the acquisition of territory through force, especially by a victorious state in a war at the expense of a defeated state. An effective conquest takes place when physical appropriation of territory (annexation) is followed by “subjugation” (i.e., the legal process of transferring title).

Conquest is associated with the traditional principle that sovereign states may resort to war at their discretion and that territorial and other gains achieved by military victory will be recognized as legally valid. The doctrine of conquest and its derivative rules were challenged in the 20th century by the development of the principle that aggressive war is contrary to international law, a view that is expressed in the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, the charters and judgments of the international military tribunals created at the end of World War II to try those accused of war crimes, the Charter of the United Nations, and numerous other multipartite treaties, declarations, and resolutions. The logical corollary to the outlawry of aggressive war is the denial of legal recognition to the fruits of such war. This implication was contained in what became known as the Stimson Doctrine, enunciated in January 1932 by U.S. Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson and subsequently affirmed by the assembly of the League of Nations and by several conferences of the American republics.
Click to expand...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conquest-international-law

Mexico can stomp its feet, scream and cry all it wants but the land that we fought for, prior to January 1932, is ours by recognized international doctrine at the time.

What's really amusing is that because of the Stimson Doctrine if Mexico could take the land back by force, that would then not be recognized by current international law.

Just like the English conquered Wales, making you their subject, The US conquered all of Mexico above the Rio Grande.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top