1. On Relevance: The War with Mexico was based around the legal Texas annexation, which directly relates to my point that the US wasn't initiating conflicts as a means of global dominance at the expense of the Russkis, since Texas was legally (see below) part of the US. Was Freud particularly involved in the premise-conclusion format of logic?
Technically, neither the Spanish or Mexican wars change the isolationist stance of the US, anyways, but I thought it would be nice if I put them in perspective. Relative isolationism was pursued as a policy until Theodore Roosevelt became president.
2. On Legality of the Texas Annexation: Actually, the Texas Annexation was completely legal, as far as I understand. Texas, by that time a legally independent state following the Velasco Treaties, voted to join the United States. The United States, also an independent state, voted to peacefully annex Texas. War was legally declared by both sides.
Oxymorons are inherently opposite concepts. Annexation can occur legally-- it's just rare.
Note the order of events and the status of the parties. If a country were to, say, act unilaterally to force a vote within the borders of another state via the use of arms to legitimize an annexation, THAT would be illegal. See the difference? Mexico had already signed a treaty which guaranteed Texian independence. Your analogy would only work if Donetsk had already signed a treaty with Ukraine establishing Donetsk as an independent state prior to the Russian invasion.
Perhaps more importantly, if you're forced to use misconstrued legal precedent from 1840s American foreign policy to justify a 21st century invasion, you need to reevaluate your stance. In the 1840s, black slaves were legally counted as 3/5ths of a whole person.
Heck, what if you were right about the Mexican War being illegal? You might have just admitted Russia's guilt.
3: See above. I note with interest your omission of Mexico's recognition of Texian independence.
4: "Annexation" was the term used in the legal documents of the time. In this case, it is not used with a derogatory connotation
As for Mexico's recognition of Texas, I would again point to the Treaties of Velasco.
As for the "world dominance" bit, that was related to discussion of isolationism.
My advice: spend less time failing at psychoanalyzing the posts of others and more time trying understand the surface-level meaning.
Technically, neither the Spanish or Mexican wars change the isolationist stance of the US, anyways, but I thought it would be nice if I put them in perspective. Relative isolationism was pursued as a policy until Theodore Roosevelt became president.
2. On Legality of the Texas Annexation: Actually, the Texas Annexation was completely legal, as far as I understand. Texas, by that time a legally independent state following the Velasco Treaties, voted to join the United States. The United States, also an independent state, voted to peacefully annex Texas. War was legally declared by both sides.
Oxymorons are inherently opposite concepts. Annexation can occur legally-- it's just rare.
Note the order of events and the status of the parties. If a country were to, say, act unilaterally to force a vote within the borders of another state via the use of arms to legitimize an annexation, THAT would be illegal. See the difference? Mexico had already signed a treaty which guaranteed Texian independence. Your analogy would only work if Donetsk had already signed a treaty with Ukraine establishing Donetsk as an independent state prior to the Russian invasion.
Perhaps more importantly, if you're forced to use misconstrued legal precedent from 1840s American foreign policy to justify a 21st century invasion, you need to reevaluate your stance. In the 1840s, black slaves were legally counted as 3/5ths of a whole person.
Heck, what if you were right about the Mexican War being illegal? You might have just admitted Russia's guilt.
3: See above. I note with interest your omission of Mexico's recognition of Texian independence.
4: "Annexation" was the term used in the legal documents of the time. In this case, it is not used with a derogatory connotation
As for Mexico's recognition of Texas, I would again point to the Treaties of Velasco.
As for the "world dominance" bit, that was related to discussion of isolationism.
My advice: spend less time failing at psychoanalyzing the posts of others and more time trying understand the surface-level meaning.