09-15-2009, 01:02 AM
Quote:If I recall correctly the US' territorial ambitions were aided mostly by a duplicitous (if not traitorous) Antonio López de Santa Anna.No argument there. But just because you took it from a nation led by an idiot doesn't mean you didn't take it by force. From the perspective of the 1840s, California was not "American" for any reason other than outright conquest.
Quote:True. Although, it was our interest in "liberating" Cuba that led to the Spanish-American war. If just happened that the Philippines got in the way, and then on the path to independance, WWII upset those plans. The US ended up staying much, much longer than expected due to wars, financial and political instability.Yeah. Whoopsie daisy, we somehow ended up with an empire. Funny, it's exactly the story the British tell about themselves too. Just somehow woke up one morning in possession of colonies halfway around the globe populated by people who don't speak their language. Strange how it just seems to happen, between "liberating" people, and putting them "on the path to independence" when countries inhabited by tens of millions of people halfway around the world "get in the way" (of what, pray tell, other than manifest destiny?)
-Jester