Thread: The Future U.S. Invasion of Mexico

Another email bulletin from Aztlan

The Future U.S. Invasion of Mexico

by
Professor Lorenzo Cano
University of Houston

When many democratically elected governments have pursued policies
contrary to the interests of the wealthy elite in the United States, the
leaders of those countries have experienced the wrath of United States
intervention in its many forms, including an invasion and occupation by
American troops. During the early threats leading up to theU.S.
pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, a growing number of Mexicans from all levels of
society began discussing the possibility of a future invasion of their
own country by the United States. Was this an overreaction by a paranoid
sector of Mexico's population? Is a future invasion and occupation of
México by the United States a likely scenario in the foreseeable future?
Could events in México crystallize into an illegal invasion of our
southern neighbor? This may not be such a far-fetched possibility in light
of current U.S. foreign policy and the thrust towards a new world order
by certain U.S. economic and political elites and other fanatics such
as Dick Cheney.

Like George W. Bush, many presidents before him have also
overwhelmingly supported governments that were anti-democratic and in many cases
brutal dictators as long as they had generally appeased the policies of
the rich and powerful in the United States. Through a variety of means
the United States has intervened in many countries to the disadvantage of
democratic forces in power or seeking power at this time. Among some of
the countries that either of these two scenarios have occurred are:
Guatemala, Chile, Columbia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Panama, Granada,
Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and others including
Mexico. (see http://www.venezuelafoia.info)

Historical Patterns of Intervention
-----------------------------------------------

Abraham Lincoln spoke passionately as a United States congressman in
1846 accusing the newly elected President, James K. Polk, of pursuing a
policy of military aggression against the Republic of Mexico. Mexico's
refusal to sell some of its land in northwestern Mexico (now seen as
part of the U. S. Southwest) incensed Polk and his followers of Manifest
destiny. Manifest destiny was a growing racist ideology. It was a belief
in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States,
especially as advocated by southern slaveholders who wished to extend slavery
into new te rritories. Unfortunately for Mexico, as protested by Lincoln,
United States troops entered, at best, disputed territory between the
Nueces River (current day Corpus Christi) and Brownsville, Texas, and
then proceeded to establish a naval blockade of the Rio Bravo (Rio
Grande), an act of war under international law. Mexico subsequently lost half
its territory which played up to the interests of southern slave
owners. After the war economic elites in the United States saw the land as an
opportunity for commerce and new wealth.

Landscape
--------------

Today Mexico is going through a new political era. The election of
Vicente Fox as the current President of Mexico, and the shakeup of the PRI
(Partido Revolucionario Institucional) has been part of this new
political metamorphosis. With Mexico's Presidential elections to be held in
2006 it is possible that someone from the PRD (Partido Revolucionario
Democratico) could be elected. A supporter of Mexico's popular sectors
(urban working class, rural poor, indigenous, students, consumers, etc.)
the PRD currently expects to run Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador for
President. A Lopez-Obrador victory or some other populist individual could
very likely upset the supporters of the new world order as envisioned and
carried out by a minority of U.S. policymakers, such as Cheney and
Bush. Issues such as the rescinding of the NAFTA treaty by Mexico, and an
assertive stance against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, are
all potential events that could crystallize into some type of U.S.
intervention in Mexico. Think this is impossible or not very likely?

In 1914 U.S. troops invaded Mexico, again occupying Veracruz for over
six months using several minor incidents as a rationale for this
intervention, including the detention of a mail courier, the delay of an
official Department of State dispatch, and the arrest of some American
sailors. The real reason was U.S President Woodrow Wilson's disdain for
Mexican President Victoriano Huerta whom he felt did not fit the model of a
democratic leader. Although Huerta had taken power by force during the
Mexican Revolution (1910-1917) Wilson's action of sending an
occupational military force was an over-reaction. It aroused a deep hatred and
resentment against the U.S.government by Mexicans at all levels of
society, including many opponents of Huerta.


In 1932 the people of El Salvador rose up against the dictatorship in
that country and challenged the small wealthy elite that owned sixty
percent of all the land, yet this wealthy elite only made up two percent
of the population. Through United States intervention over 30,000
Salvadorans were massacred in that tiny Central American country. A U.S.
cruiser and two navy destroyers were present off the coast of El Salvador
while the killings were being committed by Salvadoran military forces.
The main concern of the U.S. government was that business opportunities
not be compromised by the democratic forces in rebellion. As a result
of U.S. intervention, El Salvador continued with authoritative
governments until the 1980's after another popular uprising.

Depletion of World Oil and Gas Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------

According to the American Petroleum Institute the current reserves of
oil and natural gas throughout the world are expected to become depleted
by around the year 2040. And if and when Mexico decides to cut back its
oil exports and save its reserves for its own use or charge higher
prices, it is very likely that the powers at be in the United States will
find ways of intervening in Mexico. This could come in the form of
assasinations of altruistic, populist political leaders in Mexico, the
funding of conservative, right-wing opposition leaders, or through other
means including an invasion and occupying force.

Think that this could never happen? History has shown us that such a
scenario is not out of the ordinary. It occurred in 1846, 1914 and on
numerous other occasions against Mexico. Haití is the latest Carribean
country, an island nation, to see its democratic system crumble with U.S.
assistance. Its president was taken out of office with force by
antidemocratic groups with the support of George W. Bush and U.S. soldiers
just last February while everyone's attention has been focused on the war
in Iraq.

The National Endowment for Democracy: Working
Against Democracy
------------------------------------------------------------

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a U.S. government
sponsored organization that does the opposite of what its name implies. Funded
by U.S. taxpayer's money, the NED primarily channels money to
organizations and individuals in foreign countries that are trying to dispose of
democratically elected officials. This has been the case since its
establishment during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan after the CIA was
discovered to have been involved in undermining democracy throughout the
world by causing the destabilization of democratic governments. In fact,
the NED has interfered in the domestic affairs of other countries by
funding selected groups in those societies that object to the policies of
their government, especially when those governments have passed or
supported reforms to empower workers and the poor at the expense of large
and wealthy corporations.

Critics of NED object to the U.S. intervening in the elections of other
countries. Most Americans would be opposed to other governments
intervening in U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections by sending money
to opposition groups; money that could be used for campaigns and all
the activities associated with this. As one writer put it, ...NED
uccessfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990, and was busy working
in Haiti in the late 1990's on behalf of right wing groups who were
united in their opposition to former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and
his progressive ideologia (see:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/ned.htm).

Mexico Could be Future Target
--------------------------------------------

Past illegal and historical patterns of intervention in México and
Latin America, along with Bush and Cheney's (and others like them) move
towards a new world order for the wealthy, has set the stage for a
possible future invasion of Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Mexico's changing political landscape towards a more democratic and
independent society and the likely trend towards the depletion of gas and oil
reserves throughout the world lends credence to this very possibility.
Regardless of which party controls the White House the potential threat of
a U.S. military invasion is still a likely scenario in that both
democratic and republican parties have historically shared similar views in
the area of foreign policy. Even Jimmy Carter, while he was President,
supported world regimes that engaged in arresting dissenters and that
used torture and murder such as the governments in the Philippines,
Nicaragua, Indonesia, Israel, and Iran.

The American people that believe in democracy must challenge the
current reckless foreign policy of modern-day manifest destiny and develop a
new one based on the sovereignty of nations, dialogue, and mutual
respect. Chicano and other Latino leaders at all levels of society (writers
journalists, actors, union members, college students) must play a
courageous role in this area and challenge the bellicose, inhumane, and
fundamentally racist foreign policy that has been part of the American
agenda for far too long.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lorenzo Cano is a long-time political activist and a veteran of the
Chicano Movement. He has lectured extensively on issues pertinent to the
Chicano and Chicana community in the United States and is one of the
founders and a contributing writer to La Nueva Raza. He currently teaches
at the University of Houston.

http://www.aztlan.net/future_us_invasion_of_mexico.htm

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Mexico is invading us, with the full cooperation of the US government.

The people that write this crap ought to be crawling on their hands and knees to kiss GWB's posterior in gratitude for all he's doing for them. What more could they want in a president?

Manifest destiny was a growing racist ideology. It was a belief
in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States,
especially as advocated by southern slaveholders who wished to extend slavery into new te rritories.

That is Absolute Communist Propaganda.

Lets take it appart piece by piece

Manifest destiny was a growing racist ideology

.

No, that is communist indoctrination. The facts are - as usual - totally contrary.

Manifest Destiny is the idea that God guides in the affairs of men (mankind).

The opponents of Manifest Destiny - incidentally - always spout their nonsense from the air conditioned rooms of the universities, that are themselves the result of the "manifest destiny" they claim to be against.

They can find many places where Manifest Destiny has NOT come to town quite yet.

Those would be the places in Mexico where there is no food, no jobs, no infrastructure, where the indians live in desperate poverty. Why don't those professors go and enjoy the fruits of the LACK of Manifest Destiny ?

Manifest Destiny was not an explicit doctrine, but rather an Implicit doctrine. It was simply a companion concept to the idea that God is part of our life, and we should try to Invite Him into our life and be open to what He is doing. The philosophy was an outgrowth of People-centered Christianity.

The Opponents of Manifest Destiny first must mis-characterize what it taught. The reason will usually found in having communist roots. That is not surprising, since one of the first things communists oppose is not only Freedom of Religion but Religion itself. The idea that God exists or Can Exist, or that they may someday be held accountable by God drives them nuts.

Atheism and Hatred of God are core components of Communism and Communist ideology. Anyone who thinks that communist ideas are no longer "in style" or in use has not visited a College Campus recently.

Manifest Destiny never rose to the level of an explicitly stated ideology, with a conscious intention and a conscious goal.

The opponents of Manifest Destiny make it sound like there was a manual, people held formal meetings,and agreed to officially adopt Manifest Destiny. That is absurd, and the Historical Record nowhere supports that.

Manifest Destiny was the belief in God that accompanied the settling of America. The people knew that there millions of acres of un-inhabited land, they went out, they travelled by Covered Wagon. They found the spot that they had come out to find, and there they built a Home and claimed their right of Private Property.

And that offends Communists very very deeply. The idea that people can not only OWN land, but actually think that they have a RIGHT to own land, constantly offends them.


According to Communism (and extreme environmentalism) Lands is designed to never be owned by humans, who have to allow all ownership of everything to belong to the State (which - coincidentally - is what they want to control).

Objections to Manifest Destiny are actually objections to the right of private property, and reading on that subject almost always turns up communist authors.

The other part of this is - once again - anglo guilt. The concept is that the Anglos ran the British Empire and they were oppressive, therefore anything done by Anglos must be inherently oppressive also.

THAT is where the Racism actually comes in.


The fact is that the British Empire was the result of ARISTOCRACY, the nobility in England running around and oppressing others wherever they could, including the Americans in the Colonies.

No one should feel guilty because ARISTOCRATS try to foist their crimes and their guilt on the common man.

People are endowed by their creator, with the right to life, and in order to sustain that life, have the right to own Private Property.

Once the idea of the legitimacy of GOD is dealt with, that usually puts the debate where it needs to be - because that is often the CORE objection.

But dealing with the Right to Private Property AND the ARISTOCRATIC EXCESSES plainly explains to people that it is NOT the average common man who had anything to do with the British Empire, except to RESIST it, which is what AMERICANS did, and long before anyone else did.


IF the Indians did not believe in Private Property, that was their choice, but it is Totally Illegitimate to simply walk to a Mountain, and say to someone I claim these millions and millions of acres for me and all those related to me, which is the implicit rule among Indian Tribes.

THAT is racism !

On the Contrary, Americans allowed opportunity for everyone. The trouble with the Indians first began when many of the Indian tribes made the mistake of siding WITH THE BRITISH.

(Many people have forgotten about the war BEFORE the Revolutionary one, called the FRENCH and INDIAN WAR)


When then Covered Wagons then came much later, the Indians decided to kidnap women, set the wagons on fire, etc...

Then finally, after many of these events, the people woke up, just like they are now starting to do on the issue with the Invasion of the Illegals.

No one discusses the attrocities and wars committed by Indian against Indian. Of course not, because those Facts would go against the premise of supporting Anglo guilt.

The Farmers who brought the wagons did not care about doing war with the indians. They cared about plowing the land and feeding their family.

The idea that the common man was on a crusade, pumped up by an official ideology of Manifest Destiny that somehow was oppressive to others is absurd.

Time after time, the diaries and records of the American Settlement of the West shows that the Indians came out and went after peacefull settlers.

Eventually, they did wake up and demand action. I would not justify all of the actions of the U.S. Government and Yes mistakes were sometimes made. But keep harrassing and bothering the families of Americans, and eventually something is going to happen.

These professors, most of whom are communist (which they love to admit and proclaim), have no stake in the U.S., hate themselves to begin with, and know almost nothing about American History. They are Communist trained, and believe it is INHERENTLY OPPRESSIVE for ANYONE to own PRIVATE PROPERTY.

It was a belief in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States, especially as advocated by southern slaveholders

That is just rediculous and false. First of all, the U.S. made no secret of its own ambitions to control from one shore of America [East Coast] to the other shore [West Coast]. The idea that just because the Founding Fathers were up front with this, that somehow this makes them racist, is absurd.

The idea that the Indians had all of the land, and occupied it all, and that there was no vacant land is also absurd. IT is Part of the Myth that if Anglo people came and settled, they MUST have displaced someone else.

I am truly sorry that the Indians did not know how to Domesticate Buffalo and settle down. But we don't allow that kind of behavior now.

No farmer can simply let his cows and his bulls run everywhere, and run over others, and then kill the animal on the spot and then say that this means he is therefore entitled to all of the land that his cattle runs on, when that cattle could go anywhere...

The Indians did not know how to sufficiently domesticate Buffalo. Fine.

That does not mean that no settlement could take place, because the Indians did not know how to control their pets or the food supply.

The Fathers of the Constitution and many others wrote against Slavery and took many steps against slavery. The idea that because Settlement was advocated that somehow settlement could only be advocated "by those who owned slaves" is once again - a lie.

California was not settled by those who wanted Slaves to do anything. California was settled by a Gold Rush. The activities in California and the West were funded by Northern Mercantile East Coast Interests, and NOT southern Slaveholders.

These lies are also part of the Aztlan myth. If the anglos came, it "must have been" to displace Mexicans. That is nonsense. There were less than 9000 Mexicans on the millions and millions of acres in Texas. Those that has border around their property were treated as lawful landowners.

It was a belief in the inevitable territorial expansion of the United States, especially as advocated by southern slaveholders who wished to extend slavery into new te rritories.

This quote would have us believe that the Southern Slaveholders had an explicit ideology of spreading Slavery. Perhaps they would have wanted to , but those kinds of statements totally disregard the limitations on the Media of the day.

What southern Slaveholders wanted, was economic prosperity for themselves on their own plantations. That does at all suggest that they were going into other states. Most of them not only were local, but had already been in the same spot for several generations.

Whatever it shows, it shows that their ambition (wrong as it was) was for the success of their plantations and they did not have time to go around and worry about whether others, hundreds of miles away were going to be using slaves or not.

These communists simply read the power of communication (phones, etc) and media BACK into the Old Time Periods, and then extrapolate to all sorts of wrong and innacurate conclusions.

These professors have to teach the concept of American as the land of Abusive people, the land of Victimizers, rather than the actual land of the Family Farmer, because it is those communist professors who hate God, hate the common man, and has a profound disrespect both for America and the Free Enterprise system.


Don't Believe the Lies. Defend true History. And when exposed and the myths are taken appart, the professors usually refuse to debate, because they know the facts of history are NOT on their side.

American and its heritage is not always perfect, but it Still is something to be proud of, and its history is better and more successfull than the history of almost any other nation.

We let these statements go by, and we do not refute them.

Then because we do not refute them, younger people falsely think that they must be true.

No the truth is that the statements were so absurd, that it often takes a long time to refute, because they are built on so many falsehoods.

But we have to start actively refuting these lies, so that others will know. Thankfully, for the most part, those who came before us made many many good decisions. Those decisions and their policies are something to be proud of, and grateful for.

Only by taking those myths on, and exposing them, can we begin to lay the groundwork to take back the Legitimacy that the self-loathing anti-Private-Property communists have taken.

Long Live the USA !

GH

The Panama Canal was a boon to humanity. Increased trade among all nations at a great cost savings.

Immense amounts of fuel oil are saved, extending the time such a vital resource is available to all humanity.

And, the USA handed over the canal allowing Panama to employ many of its citizens and for Panama to obtain much revenue.

No country is perfect. But, when weighed in the balance, I believe the USA can be shown as having been a leader in assisting people across the world.

Americans are generally a kind-hearted people. Sure, our "fearless leaders" have made mistakes but, when viewing the past, one MUST use the standards and mores of past era before being too judgemental.

Sadly, we have become too soft, too weak, to the point our kindness (and white guilt among so many brainwashed Americans) is destroying our country.

We need a "General Patton" to take the reigns of power. Whether it be an elected leader/warrior or someone temporarily emplaced to save our country/culture before returning power to civilian control, if we, the people, do not toughen up and act in OUR best interests I fear our future will be horrible. Perhaps even the start of a new Dark Age in the western Hemisphere.

Could events in México crystallize into an illegal invasion of our
southern neighbor? This may not be such a far-fetched possibility in light
of current U.S. foreign policy and the thrust towards a new world order
by certain U.S. economic and political elites and other fanatics such
as Dick Cheney . . .

Past illegal and historical patterns of intervention in México and
Latin America, along with Bush and Cheney's (and others like them) move
towards a new world order for the wealthy, has set the stage for a
possible future invasion of Mexico and other Latin American countries.
...

it's Mexico that is invading it's neighbor to the north. If these people were concerned about the "new world order" they would be fighting for the national soveriegnty of both nations and not for open borders.

The American people that believe in democracy must challenge the
current reckless foreign policy of modern-day manifest destiny and develop a new one based on the sovereignty of nations, dialogue, and mutual respect. Chicano and other Latino leaders at all levels of society

we are "challenging" the "current reckless" policy of Mexico and the U.S. governments that allows for a relentless invasion by the citizens of Mexico and others -- but these American people are called 'racists'

All misapplications of 'Manifest Destiny' aside, I personally have witnessed the clandestine intervenion in elections and support by the USA for coups of foreign governments. It's outwardly called 'Protecting our national interests'.

A Lopez-Obrador victory or some other populist individual could
very likely upset the supporters of the new world order as envisioned and
carried out by a minority of U.S. policymakers, such as Cheney and
Bush. Issues such as the rescinding of the NAFTA treaty by Mexico, and an assertive stance against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, are all potential events that could crystallize into some type of U.S.
intervention in Mexico. Think this is impossible or not very likely?

Not gonna happen.
I think Fox over the past few years has pretty much killed the possiblility of a populist president through the weakening of Unions in the agricultural and rural areas, which is where Populism has its' greatest support.
Short of a revolution, I seriously believe that the Mexican gov't will continue its 'business as usual' policies in Mexico.

Fortunatly LunaLun we have Jimmy Carter to monitor elections world wide. I don't understand your reference to Manifest Destiny.

Andyt

Fortunatly LunaLun we have Jimmy Carter to monitor elections world wide. I don't understand your reference to Manifest Destiny.

I am not touching that comment about Jimmy Carter ,
but I'll respond to your second sentence. Probably the most succinct explanation I have come across is what Ernest Lee Tuveson wrote : "A vast complex of ideas, policies, and actions is comprehended under the phrase 'Manifest Destiny.' They are not, as we should expect, all compatible, nor do they come from any one source."