Was your country ever the baddies?

Australia.
Yes.

>prison colony - Lawful Evil
>Tasmanian Genocide - Chaotic Evil
>Working with Indonesia during the occupation of East Timor - Neutral Evil
>Screwing E. Timor over post independence - Lawful Evil
>Numerous assorted crimes against global sustainability and good taste, combined with a refusal to be held responsible in international courts of law - Chaotic Evil

That was clever, I liked this joke, you carry on this banter friend.

USA
Hell yes we have.

>War of 1812
>Mexican War
>Spanish American War
>Vietnam

USA has always been on the side of freedom traitor

No, never. Paraguay had it coming to them

Belgian here, and no

Wrong.

>War of 1812
We were in the right on that one tho

US were the aggressors and still lost.

Yeah, we were total dicks to the indians, and the americans, and the irish, nipped slavery in the bud though.

The stolen generation's a pretty CE act.

we deserve canada

Finland
No

Nobody can defend the US's actions in the Mexican-American war on an ethical basis. It was a cynical landgrab through and through.

> what is congo

Standard line they spit out is that it was Leo's private domain and so doesn't count

>russia
no we were always pretty cool

Spanish American War was okay, but the Philippine American War was awful. We committed mass murders, and now it isn't even taught in the history books.

Wars really are kind of neutral. Coups in Latin America and the Middle East on the other hand...

>We committed mass murders
*put down a paramilitary group totally unfit for establishing stable & broadly encompassing political & judicial institutions

>Texan

Thats a funny way to say "put down a group America didn't like".

*tips sombrero*
mi amigo

Start arguing any time. This isn't a 'mexican vs american' issue. This is a 'historical record vs "i dont like unpleasant facts"' issue. Polk ordered troops to the border for the sole purpose of inciting an incident he could use to justify an invasion & take California in particular. It's why he ordered Gen. Zachary Taylor to blockade the Rio Grande, which was technically an act of war, before any hostilities had broken out. The entire purpose of sending troops to the border was to provoke a casus belli. No Americans were in any danger until Polk himself sent troops to die so he could have his war.

What if I can defend land grabs on an ethical basis?

Fucking Dougie MacArthur, what a wild man.

Agree with Vietnam, indifferent on 1812 and SpanAm, the Mexican-American War was completely justified though. Spics need ta git ooouht.

Also, when Sec. of State Buchanan suggested that Polk make a pledge that America wouldn't take any territory in the conflict to allay the anxieties of whigs & northern democrats Polk rejected the idea out of hand because it would have defeated the entire purpose of the conflict in the first place. Polk meant to have California and he essentially killed Americans and used their corpses as a political prop to have it.

As an american, we ARE the bad guys right now. It's an odd feeling being hated by a good chunk of the world

The koreans were on the good side

I concur with my cousin, and put forth that my own people have likewise never filled this role.

It's justified solely because the Mexican state was garbage and we thought the land deserved better. We paid them for the inconvenience when we didn't really need to, it's not like we were barabaric towards them or anything.

It's like when a super cute girl wants to be with you and you know her on/off boyfriend beat her so you, beat his ass, pay for his medical bill, take her for yourself and treat her right.

So you're admitting it was a cynical land grab which was what I said in the first place. I'm glad you agree with me.

For sure. We were unironically the baddies in the Philippines.

Oh fuck off, butthurt mestizo de mierda. Your shithole of a country would have done the exact same thing to us given the opportunity. It was two brutal imperial powers going to war, plain and simple. My ancestors won, yours lost. Get the fuck over it. I'm not about to feel bad because the US screwed over a rival imperial power.

>1940s something

get the fuck out of here you imbecile know-nothing

pot smoking hippy you are

>1940's something.

I get what you're trying to say, but for fuck's sake, at least get the decade right.

>tfw you're the good guy but everyone thinks you're the bad guy but you still try your best to defend them because they have the right to their opinions and you rely on their trade
Will people miss us when China takes our place?

wrong

>Mexican War
>Spanish American War

I hate that these are taught as big bad America beating up on poor wittle Spain and Mexico. They were brutal, powerful, ruthless imperial powers in those days. We went to war with them, we won. They would have done the same to us, had they won. In fact, I am almost certain they would have done worse. At least the US had the courtesy to pay Mexico afterwards. Same goes for 1812, really, the US was just an upstart republic rebelling against the excesses of a brutal imperial power that hadn't got the message that we were independent.

>Vietnam

For sure.

bah

And America improved it in a way that the Mexicans never could or would. It's completely justified to take land that you intend on improving the standard of living for residents inside.

damn right they improved that land the Mexicans stole from Spain

they put stuff in it

Maybe, who knows. Speaking of China, the whole "china's gonna take over the world " spiel has been around since at least the 80s, will that ever happen?

Nobody will really take our place. The USA's position in the world since 1991 is completely unprecedented in human history. The sole military, political, and economic superpower, with no legitimate challengers anywhere in the world. This has never happened before.

Even in the wildest dreams of Chinese nationalists, they'll occupy a "first among equals" position, the way the British did from 1815 to 1900. Not a true "hyerpower" situation. China will almost certainly overtake us one day, but they will almost certainly never the same global position America has for the past 26 years. America's position really was exceptional, although that's really thanks to the rest of the world fucking up more than any kind of special cleverness on our part.

>mexico
>an imperial power

lol.

Anyway I'm not hispanic, and you essentially just agreed with my main point in that it was a cynical ploy to wrest land from a weaker power. I think that hardly qualifies the US as the 'good guys' in that conflict. You're obviously taking this personally so there's no point in discussing this with you, but I encourage you to do more reading on the subject and you might have a better understanding of the historical fact instead of a gut-reaction "US vs THEM" attitude towards something that happened 150 years ago.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution
>conveniently ignoring this entire thing just so he can shit all over Polk

ITT we pretend the battle of Gonzales was just Mexico saying "howdy neighbor, heres a fucking fruit basket"

>>mexico
>>an imperial power
>lol.

If you don't think Mexico was an imperial power, you're either delusional or ignorant. It certainly was. It was literally founded as the Mexican Empire, and even later on when Santa Anna was in charge it was ruled as an Empire in all but name. It was an expansionist, militaristic, imperial power. It just happened to run into an expansionist imperial power stronger than itself.

>Anyway I'm not hispanic

Ok, but I am. I've got nothing against hispanics, just against ignorant chicanos and idiotic left-wing gringos who think poor little Mexico was just minding its own business.

>You're obviously taking this personally so there's no point in discussing this with you, but I encourage you to do more reading on the subject and you might have a better understanding of the historical fact instead of a gut-reaction "US vs THEM" attitude towards something that happened 150 years ago.

I have done a ton of research. I have no sympathy towards the USA's imperialist adventures. The US government destroyed the country of my ancestors, installed a brutal regime, then stood by and watched as an even more brutal regime took its place. But Mexico was far from some little innocent victim. It was itself a brutal imperialist state ruled by an egomaniacal dictator, who is the main reason that the country lost half of its territory.

Not that guy but Mexico wasn't a pushover during that war and the US wasn't a superpower.

stay strong and remember the alamo brother

The simply fact is we waged those wars unprovoked for the simple sake of establishing dominance in the western hemisphere.

If France and Germany are entitled to war over what they consider native lands, then southern texas, southern new mexico, and southern california are occupying what is rightfully mexican land.

no

because that land was empty, and spain had claimed it first anyway

learn how to new world retard

>The simply fact is we waged those wars unprovoked for the simple sake of establishing dominance in the western hemisphere.

As did the Mexicans, with us. I have no sympathy for another expansionist imperial power that happened to lose.

>If France and Germany are entitled to war over what they consider native lands, then southern texas, southern new mexico, and southern california are occupying what is rightfully mexican land.

Bullshit. The issue of Alsace-Lorraine was settled a century ago. The issue of the California territory was settled 150 years ago. If we pursue every little territorial claim that has long since been settled by treaty, then the US would be sending troops into Vancouver, the British would be invading Normandy again, the Germans would be fighting to retake Danzig....these disputes were all settled by treaties long before any of us were born.

>the massacre at Alamo
MUH TRAVIS

This thread is about "have you ever been the baddies" and the US was indisputably the "baddies" in the Mexican-American War. Polk STARTED the war to take land from a weaker neighbor on the pretext that they killed American soldiers AFTER Polk sent troops into Mexican territory. Not exactly the conduct of high-minded liberal values.

Explain to me in your own words,how the Texas Revolution absolves the Polk administration of bringing about the Mexican-American war. It wasn't Mexico that sent troops into America in 1846, and no Texans lived in the disputed territory between the Nueces & the Rio Grande that Texas claimed as their land.

a lot of hot air that

What territorial expansions did Mexico undertake after their independence in 1821 to the start of the Mexican-American war in 1846?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican–American_War

>tfw its right in the fucking introduction

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation

>tfw Mexico annexed half of the state that "no texans lived in"
>tfw Texans died by the thousands for no fucking reason

Practically none, mainly because they were so extraordinarily incompetent. They tried to conquer Central America, failed miserably. They tried to claim the Philippines, everyone ignored them. Their leader was happy to go to war with the US over a border skirmish, and he lost miserably. Again, zero sympathy. Just another would-be great power of the 19th century that reached too far and got crushed.

Mexico is actually the only Latin American nation the USA crushed that I feel zero sympathy for. Those mestizo faggots sealed their own graves. Given the chance, they would have happily subjugated the rest of us.

Half of Tejas, you fucking Santa Ana apologist.

We kinda destroyed Paraguay and it's male population once.
So no , we've never been the baddies

"In 1836 Mexico was relatively united in refusing to recognize the independence of Texas. Mexico threatened war with the United States if it annexed the Republic of Texas.[15] Meanwhile, U.S. President Polk's assertion of Manifest Destiny was focusing United States interest on westward expansion beyond its existing national borders."

>its enough to get me to the boiling point

it's sad how that isn't even an exaggeration

that country arguably got annihilated worse than any in the last couple hundred years

That's the AMERICAN annexation of Texas you twit. Mexico still claimed had claims on part of the land (and they had a stronger case than the American did since Mexican citizens actually lived there and Texans didnt) but the dispute was ultimately settled when Polk forced them to accept the border in the conclusion of the war that he brought out. There wasn't 1000 'Texans in all of the disputed territory.

>Their leader was happy to go to war with the US over a border skirmish
Didn't have much of a choice once the US declared war.

>"In 1836 Mexico was relatively united in refusing to recognize the independence of Texas.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT

"Mexico was relatively united" if you ignore the Rio Grande region, Guadalajara, and the Yucatan, you fucking criollo apologist faggot. Don't trust wikipedia, it's written by stupid left-wing gringos who hate their own government. Would you trust historical articles and books about Mexico if they were all written by indios?

t. a fucking Mexican.

>US declared war
Didn't have much of a choice when another country was literally trying to redraw map lines, and killing the Texans who refused to leave. We may have formally declared war, but we were responding to years worth of conflict between the two nations.

Australians, and only against the aboriginals as the media would have you believe.

>detention facilities for immigrants
>only against aborginals
pick one m8.

Oh yeah. But that's Americas problem now. They're taking em'.

>Americas taking in refugees or immigrants

I don't even think we have a single aboriginal here

There's a reason why the Mexican-American war has the closest vote between Yea & Nay of any declaration of war in US history. The Texas land dispute was a minor issue that affected only a tiny minority of Americans and probably could have been resolved diplomatically without any loss of life to either side. Polk forced the issue for the purpose of bringing about a war so he could take California by force when his overtures to buy it fell through.

>Didn't have much of a choice when another country was literally trying to redraw map lines, and killing the Texans who refused to leave
This is fantasy. No Texans lived there and Mexico wasn't trying to 'redraw map lines'. The Mexican claim rested on the fact that the original 'Texas' where Americans were invited to settle never went south of the Neuces river. The Mexican congress never ratified the treaty Santa Anna made with the Texans at the Battle of San Jacinto which was the Texas government's entire claim to the disputed territory. It rested on a treaty made with a generalissimo at gunpoint who was immediately deposed.

No, the Obama administration made a deal with our PM to take some of the detainees, and Trump has agreed to honour the deal. Don't you read the news?

>Obama

Scoff all you want, Trump has agreed.

except that california wanted to rebel anyhow

>ethical basis

The land belongs to the man that can defend it user

>This is fantasy
This is Mexican propaganda. Texas wasn't comprised of purely Mexicans vs purely Americans. Tejanos were and still are totally a thing that exists.
>The Mexican congress never ratified the treaty Santa Ana made with the Texans at the Battle of San Jacinto
>how could Americans POSSIBLY think they owned that land?
This is Mexican delusion. Just because their government never ratified the treaty doesn't mean it didn't exist, and just because Polk was the one to officially say "ill fight you" doesn't mean that Texans weren't being persecuted whatsoever. Mexicans were pissed that their ranchers had no fucking idea what to do with the land they had, but when someone else stepped in and said "I know what to do with it" they pitched a fit and started murdering people who had it IN WRITING that the land was theirs.

Trump just banned US citizens from entering this country.
>like he gives a flying fuck about refugees from Australia

>Canada

I guess we fucked up the Injuns, but otherwise no never

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguayan_War
Basically destroyed paraguay, wiping almost all their male adult population, for no reason.

>Vietnam
Has no one said this yet?

This is indian giving, but for Mexicans.

I think he does care about having a relationship with Malcolm Turncoat.

well north vietnam was the aggressor in the later stage of that series of conflicts

I truly hope so, because right now he's acting like he doesn't give a shit who he pisses off.

That's right

>This is Mexican propaganda. Texas wasn't comprised of purely Mexicans vs purely Americans. Tejanos were and still are totally a thing that exists
lol. MEXICAN PROPAGANDA. Yeah dude, all the historians have drunk the MEXICAN KOOL-AID. Even POLKS OWN BIOGRAPHER wrote that his insistence on the Rio Grande boundary rested on a flimsy legal foundation (actually the word he used was indefensible) , but I'm sure he's just another 'Mexican apologist' like me lmao.

>This is Mexican delusion. Just because their government never ratified the treaty doesn't mean it didn't exist
That's LITERALLY what it means. If James Madison was captured during the war of 1812 and forced to sign a treaty that gave everything west of the Appalachians back to Britain do you think Congress would honor that agreement? FUCK NO LOL. Mexico had a constitution too you know. You don't have to honor a contract that somebody ELSE who had no right signed in your name.

>Mexicans were pissed that their ranchers had no fucking idea what to do with the land they had
No Mexico was pretty justifiably perturbed that Texas was insisting on a frankly ridiculous territorial claim that, again I can't stress this enough, no TEXANS actually lived. The ORIGINAL colony of Texas that was set up by Stephen Austin included NO LAND south of the Neuces that Texas was insisting was theirs.