why didnt we invade mexico in 1916?
93212
We were already occupying Vera Cruz in 1914.  I have the photos from a family diary of US Naval landing parties there. I think Back Jack Pershing was already in persuit of Villa on both sides of the border.  Remeber the Mexican Civil War was in full swing at that time.
1120866
Has nothing to do with the war, and very little to do with stopping Mexicans because it won't!\n\nIt was a great diversion while it lasted.\n\nI noticed they didn't emplement the fines agains't thosw who hire them!!
384554
MEXICO provoked the US into war by sending troops across the border to rape, pillage and kill innocent Texans. They did this by digging tunnels and by cover of darkness.  After the US defeated Mexico it decided to purchase the southwest states to maintain continuity in the continent. Yes it purchased at fair value after Texas had already been declared independent of the ruthless dicator Antonio Vicente Lopez Fox de Santa Ana.  Viva Max!!!
927405
Don't be silly silly person.  Mexico never owned it to began with. Just how dam old do you think mexico is. the entire place was a spainish colony(rememeber your language ? spainish? or do you think the gods spoke spainish when they made you?
679343
Actually, you are misunderstanding the relevance of the Zimmerman Telegram, an attempt at wartime diplomacy between Germany and Mexico in 1916 during the First World War. Germany had suggested that, if the United States entered the First World War in Europe, the American army would be sent to Europe and the Rio Grande would be almost completely unguarded. Germany felt that if Mexico could be enticed into joining the Central Powers, it would act as a 'force in being' and that the United States would then have to retain large military forces to watch their southern flank.\n\nGermany did not, in fact, offer to send substantial military forces to Mexico and thus eventually assume power, as you are implying. Germany was not able to send reinforcements to any of their existing colonies in Africa or China or the Pacific because of British naval superiority and the German squadron at Singapore had been destroyed at Port Stanley in 1915.\n\nSorry to rain on your parade, but your statement really is without merit.
1026562
We had a chance at annexing Mexico once, but the issue at the time was slavery and the Northern Free States were afraid of being superceded by the Southern Slave States in the Congress. So, we left the country alone and only took the land we believe we were entitled to, which was the South West including California. To take over Mexico now would be a very bad idea. Best to settle our own affairs and help Mexico in a better fashion.
601949
Actually, it was in 1862.  Mexico owed a lot of money to Britain, France and Spain, so they agreed to invade to collect the debt.  Actually, France wanted to conquer and rule Mexico for its mineral wealth.  They invaded at Veracruz.\n\nThe Mexican forces won one of the early battles in this war on May 5, 1862, at Puebla, and that victory is celebrated to this day as Cinco de Mayo.
366092
Mexico fought France, and won, and with the US, and lost.
463552
"In late 1861, Napoleon III of France sent his troops to Mexico, supposedly to collect debts owed by a previous Mexican government. President Benito Juárez had agreed to pay these debts, but only in installments. The true goal of Napoleon III was to dispose of the Mexican Constitutional Government, set up a monarchy favorable to France, and then expand control to Central and South America.\n\nNapoleon III's troops occupied the port city of Veracruz on December 8, 1861. The expedition's true goal soon became apparent."\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Puebla\n\nhttp://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?category=general&month=10272957&day=10272970
127737
Where do all the crazies come from.  I think that you will find that the U.S. is under obligation both written and impied to defend Mexico and all the other counries through Central America and South America from invasion of an outside source.  While this does not necessarily mean that we are under no obligation not to be the invading force, I think that we have other things to work on.
518145
May 5th, the battle of Puebla, you can think of that day as the equivalent of El Alamo to the US.\n\nIn May 5th of 1862, general Ignacio Zaragoza beat the frenchs in Puebla. It's considered a great victory because the mexican army was smaller in number. Even though Zaragoza won the battle, the frenchs won the war. The archduke Maximiliano de Habsburgo took the throne in 1864. Later another civil war started and Maximiliano was executed.\n\nThere is no way it's the mexican independence day. Mexican independence was fully recognized in 1821, 41 years before the battle of Puebla. Mexican independence is celebrated in September 16th.
467326
The 5th of May is not Mexican Independence Day, but it should be!  And Cinco de Mayo is not an American holiday, but it should be.  Mexico declared its independence from mother Spain on midnight, the 15th of September, 1810.  And it took 11 years before the first Spanish soldiers were told and forced to leave Mexico.\n\nSo, why Cinco de Mayo?  And why should Americans savor this day as well?  Because 4,000 Mexican soldiers smashed the French and traitor Mexican army of 8,000 at Puebla, Mexico, 100 miles east of Mexico City on the morning of May 5, 1862.\n\nThe French had landed in Mexico (along with Spanish and English troops) five months earlier on the pretext of collecting Mexican debts from the newly elected government of democratic President (and Indian) Benito Juarez.  The English and Spanish quickly made deals and left.  The French, however, had different ideas.\n\nUnder Emperor Napoleon III, who detested the United States, the French came to stay.  They brought a Hapsburg prince with them to rule the new Mexican empire.  His name was Maximilian; his wife, Carolota.  Napoleon's French Army had not been defeated in 50 years, and it invaded Mexico with the finest modern equipment and with a newly reconstituted Foreign Legion.  The French were not afraid of anyone, especially since the United States was embroiled in its own Civil War.\n\nThe French Army left the port of Vera Cruz to attack Mexico City to the west, as the French assumed that the Mexicans would give up should their capital fall to the enemy -- as European countries traditionally did.\n\nUnder the command of Texas-born General Zaragosa, (and the cavalry under the command of Colonel Porfirio Diaz, later to be Mexico's president and dictator), the Mexicans awaited.  Brightly dressed French Dragoons led the enemy columns.  The Mexican Army was less stylish.\n\nGeneral Zaragosa ordered Colonel Diaz to take his cavalry, the best in the world, out to the French flanks.  In response, the French did a most stupid thing; they sent their cavalry off to chase Diaz and his men, who proceeded to butcher them.  The remaining French infantrymen charged the Mexican defenders through sloppy mud from a thunderstorm and through hundreds of head of stampeding cattle stirred up by Indians armed only with machetes.\n\nWhen the battle was over, many French were killed or wounded and their cavalry was being chased by Diaz' superb horsemen miles away.  The Mexicans had won a great victory that kept Napoleon III from supplying the confederate rebels for another year, allowing the United States to build the greatest army the world had ever seen.  This grand army smashed the Confederates at Gettysburg just 14 months after the battle of Puebla, essentially ending the Civil War.\n\nUnion forces were then rushed to the Texas/Mexican border under General Phil Sheridan, who made sure that the Mexicans got all the weapons and ammunition they needed to expel the French.  American soldiers were discharged with their uniforms and rifles if they promised to join the Mexican Army to fight the French.  The American Legion of Honor marched in the Victory Parade in Mexico, City.\n\nIt might be a historical stretch to credit the survival of the United States to those brave 4,000 Mexicans who faced an army twice as large in 1862.  But who knows?\n\nIn gratitude, thousands of Mexicans crossed the border after Pearl Harbor to join the U.S. Armed Forces.  As recently as the Persian Gulf War, Mexicans flooded American consulates with phone calls, trying to join up and fight another war for America.\n\nMexicans, you see, never forget who their friends are, and neither do Americans.  That's why Cinco de Mayo is such a party -- A party that celebrates freedom and liberty.  There are two ideals which Mexicans and Americans have fought shoulder to shoulder to protect, ever since the 5th of May, 1862.  VIVA! el CINCO DE MAYO!!
1071277
To say we stole California, Texas and Arizona I think is wrong. These states were given a chose to be apart of the u.s. . They chose to become part of the us.because they wanted freedom from the mexican goverment.
511010
To wage a war against mexico would be in Americas best interest. All mexico has been doing for the past few years is make things more difficult for True Americans. their illegal immigrants are coming to America by the millions, stealing jobs, committing crimes , and possibly spying on America for a future war they plan on committing. Mexico has caused enough damage to America, and war would be completely necessary. Mexico would not have a chance of winning.
107068
If it was it was stolen by Texans.  Texas won it's independence in 1836 and was the Texas Republic until 1845 when it joined the Union.  The Mexican-American War was not until after that.  Lincoln's single term in the U.S. Congress was from 1847-1849.  If it can be said that we stole any lands from Mexico as a result of the settlement of a war, could it not be said that Mexico had itself stolen these lands from Spain?  Then of course we all know who had them before that and had it stole from them as well.  Are we now trying to rewrite history books to make them politically correct without stepping on anyone's toes?
643995
First of all, you have several different events mixed together here.  The United States did not take Texas from Mexico in a war (just or otherwise).  A number of settlers in Texas (primarily Americans who had immigrated to Mexico) staged a rebellion in 1836 to break away from Mexico and form their own independant country (The Republic of Texas).  Although the United States did provide some support for the rebels, it was not a war between the US and Mexico and no US troops were directly involved.  Texas was an independant country separate from the US for almost 10 years before it decided to join the US as a state in 1845.\n\nOn the other hand, much of New Mexico was taken from Mexico following the Mexican-American War of 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago.  In this war, there is little doubt that the US was looking to start a fight as a pretext for getting land (the reason for the war - Mexican troops supposedly crossing the Rio Grande River - was dubious at best).  \n\nHowever, the lower one third of New Mexico did not become part of the US until it was purchased (along with southern Arizona) in 1856 at a cost of $10 million dollars.  It is true that Mexico was ruled by a dictator at the time, but then it was for most of the 19th century and $10 million was probably a pretty fair price for that time period considering how remote and undeveloped the area was.\n\nAs for if the Mexican-American War (and to a lesser degree the Gadsden Purchase) were just... that is largely a matter of opinion.  The answer is probably 'No' by most peoples standards since the US started the war under somewhat false pretenses.  However, it is worth noting that the Spanish/Mexicans themselves had originally taken the land away from the Native Americans in the first place under even less just pretenses.    \n\nIs one thief stealing from another unjust?  There are very few cultures on this planet (including many Native American tribes for that matter) who did not get their land by displacing or forcing away some other group that was there before.  That does not make it right (and has caused much of the hardship and suffering over the history of the world), but neither is it fair to single out just one group and ignore similar offenses by others.  \n\nLastly, it is worth noting that while New Mexico was heavily populated, most of the land taken following the Mexican-American War (including large parts of Colorado and Utah) had NO Mexican settlements at all, was rarely visited, and really did not belong to Mexico (or any other country) any more than saying the entire moon 'belongs' to the US because a few American astronauts briefly walked on one small part of it 30 years ago.
500653
The Mexican military at its best would not have been a match for either the CSA or the USA and when the Civil War ended there would have been hell to pay.  The Mexican Army though very proud and brave was poorly armed throughout the 18th century and relied on obsolete tactics.  Though they outnumbered their foe in the Mexican War, the Americans made short brutal work of them and they really did not have the energy or resources to devote to another war with the US.  Add to this the fact that until 1910, Mexican governments still more or less fell into the old Spanish imperial style being undemocratic and opressive making popular support for any war a virtual impossibility.  Also during most of the period the mexicans were occupied fighting the French who sought to establish an empire for themselves there.