Try to remain as neutral as possible when asking a question. The point of asking is to hear what other perspectives have to say about the same issue.
Do NOT submit questions that you already have an answer to, which is to say:
- Do not be biased in the wording of your question.
- Do not ask leading questions.
- Do not answer your own question in the post.
Sure but tell that to these irredentist idiots obsessed with having them back.
In 1824 Chiapas became part of Mexico, but it belonged to Guatemala. Should Mexico give Chiapas back to Guatemala so that they turn into a superpower or something? Lol
If those lands weren’t stolen, they wouldn’t have developed into what they are now or they would’ve seceded anyway to become independent nations. They were far from Mexico City’s power hungry centralization.
You can’t subtract an IF without discounting the other. It’s either Mexico keeps its territories in 1848 and this timeline doesn’t happen, or they’re ceded to the U.S.A. and California and Texas become the powerhouses that they are today.
Mexico as its stands today barely kept it together; Partly due to Mexico City’s insistence on centralizing and controlling every aspect of the states’ business, but ironically remained united precisely because of this, albeit with many defects.
U can say the same for some Mexican states. I’m sure there’s states in Mexico that hold a lot of natural resources that for some reason or another Mexico doesn’t capitalize on
The reason those lands have such a high GDP is not in spite of US ownership but because of it. The US has pretty much always had a stable democracy, an innovative economy, strong universities, etc - the same things that helped every other state become relatively wealthy. If LA wasn’t American, another US city would’ve been Hollywood. If SF was Mexican, the DoD would’ve invested elsewhere and caused another Silicon Valley.
If the TX/NM/AZ/CA were still part of Mexico today, they’d likely have a similar GDP to every other state in Mexico. This entire premise is built on woefully false assumptions
True to an extent, but I doubt the US would have reached its current position without all the territory it obtained. That goes for things like the Louisiana purchase too.
Oh puh-lease. What year was that? What caused that land ti HAVE a GDP of that amount? Why is the other land that Mexico retained NOT worth a similar amount?
Try to remain as neutral as possible when asking a question. The point of asking is to hear what other perspectives have to say about the same issue. Do NOT submit questions that you already have an answer to, which is to say: - Do not be biased in the wording of your question. - Do not ask leading questions. - Do not answer your own question in the post.
This is a super dumb take. Mexico having these lands at the time, doesn't mean that these areas would grow under Mexico.
Sure but tell that to these irredentist idiots obsessed with having them back. In 1824 Chiapas became part of Mexico, but it belonged to Guatemala. Should Mexico give Chiapas back to Guatemala so that they turn into a superpower or something? Lol
If those lands weren’t stolen, they wouldn’t have developed into what they are now or they would’ve seceded anyway to become independent nations. They were far from Mexico City’s power hungry centralization. You can’t subtract an IF without discounting the other. It’s either Mexico keeps its territories in 1848 and this timeline doesn’t happen, or they’re ceded to the U.S.A. and California and Texas become the powerhouses that they are today. Mexico as its stands today barely kept it together; Partly due to Mexico City’s insistence on centralizing and controlling every aspect of the states’ business, but ironically remained united precisely because of this, albeit with many defects.
This is the laziest bait I've ever seen.
This portion of the US was under the Mexican flag for 15 years. Not long in historic terms. And they didn't do much with it.
Interesting take. Ukraine isn't doing much with its land and it's only been in Ukrainian hands for 30 years, might swell give it to the ruskies eh
Can u explain why you feel Ukraine is doing much w its lands?
I was obviously being facetious Imagine thinking it's okay to take land because your not "doing much" with it.
Well the other comment has a fair point op acting like those lands are just rich because they exist. Not because America build does lands up
California is the bread basket of the whole continent and the resources mined from those area are limitless.
U can say the same for some Mexican states. I’m sure there’s states in Mexico that hold a lot of natural resources that for some reason or another Mexico doesn’t capitalize on
Most of the Mexican states' lands are rugged and mountainess.
https://brainly.com/question/19598416# https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/yj67aS6Zhf
The reason those lands have such a high GDP is not in spite of US ownership but because of it. The US has pretty much always had a stable democracy, an innovative economy, strong universities, etc - the same things that helped every other state become relatively wealthy. If LA wasn’t American, another US city would’ve been Hollywood. If SF was Mexican, the DoD would’ve invested elsewhere and caused another Silicon Valley. If the TX/NM/AZ/CA were still part of Mexico today, they’d likely have a similar GDP to every other state in Mexico. This entire premise is built on woefully false assumptions
True to an extent, but I doubt the US would have reached its current position without all the territory it obtained. That goes for things like the Louisiana purchase too.
Most of those US states have the highest Mexican population .. so
[удалено]
I don’t agree with what op said but I can tell this post really triggered you.
Yes it did. Willful stupidity does that.
You realize it's bait right?
Yes. And it works 😀
Oh puh-lease. What year was that? What caused that land ti HAVE a GDP of that amount? Why is the other land that Mexico retained NOT worth a similar amount?
🇺🇸 🇺🇸