yep my bad kinda got my history mixed up there. Its all good though because we have nachosGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
youre talking about the war for Texas independence, not the mexican-american war. look up manifest destiny.Pernicious544 wrote:
It they would have won the war....the was was started bassically by American settlers moving into Mexican territory, the mexicans sent an army and the Americans were killed (Alamo) Americans sent an army and mexicans were killed...If mexico would have won then there would have been a second war with mexico. really though, i dont care because my white ass wants to give the dude that invented the taco and margarita a fuckin hug...those things are bitchen
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- The balance of world power: What if Mexico had won in 1846?
Los Angeles would have a Mexican name, Cinco de Mayo celebrations would happen, and there would be 10 million Mexican living there...oh wait that already happens.
-Shack
-Shack
A few points.tangoxmas44 wrote:
California is the world's 3rd strongest economy,as of 2005.Bubbalo wrote:
Not very. The US is powerful due to it's size and economy, and I don't think that Texas/California contributed greatly to either of these. Having said that, my knowledge of US economic history isn't great, and I could well be wrong.
1. The Gold Rush.
2. To the best of my knowledge, California retains that position due to the overwhelming populations there, and Hollywood. The economy is strong because of the people that live there, not because of the land itself. It's not an oil rich area, and it's not overly well suited for large-scale farming. It's the hub of the American film industry, which is enormous. Had Mexico taken California, it would just be a different city where this took place. The gold that was there during the rush was the only major resource California provided in terms of quick profitability. If my city in Minnesota was where the big time producers, actors/actresses, and social elite decided to populate and set up their careers, I'd be seeing LA in Duluth. Also, the largest entertainment industry on the planet...PORN...has its roots in Cali as well.
Texas on the other hand has quite a lot of oil, and may have well made a big difference in the balance of wealth between Mexico and the US. However, our manufacturing processes became so far ahead of our time during the Industrial Revolution that the US would still likely have nearly the same advantages as it does now, even without that land.
Last edited by Not (2006-06-24 00:01:55)
actually,thx,u just made my caseNot wrote:
A few points.tangoxmas44 wrote:
California is the world's 3rd strongest economy,as of 2005.Bubbalo wrote:
Not very. The US is powerful due to it's size and economy, and I don't think that Texas/California contributed greatly to either of these. Having said that, my knowledge of US economic history isn't great, and I could well be wrong.
1. The Gold Rush.
2. To the best of my knowledge, California retains that position due to the overwhelming populations there, and Hollywood. The economy is strong because of the people that live there, not because of the land itself. It's not an oil rich area, and it's not overly well suited for large-scale farming. It's the hub of the American film industry, which is enormous. Had Mexico taken California, it would just be a different city where this took place. The gold that was there during the rush was the only major resource California provided in terms of quick profitability. If my city in Minnesota was where the big time producers, actors/actresses, and social elite decided to populate and set up their careers, I'd be seeing LA in Duluth. Also, the largest entertainment industry on the planet...PORN...has its roots in Cali as well.
Texas on the other hand has quite a lot of oil, and may have well made a big difference in the balance of wealth between Mexico and the US. However, our manufacturing processes became so far ahead of our time during the Industrial Revolution that the US would still likely have nearly the same advantages as it does now, even without that land.
The USA would be a tad smaller, all would be the same otherwise
i dont know if this is correct i think that the usa would just have reclaimed the land at a later date, but then again what do i know at 1 o'clock in the morningHorseman 77 wrote:
The USA would be a tad smaller, all would be the same otherwise
Id own a Taco bell!!
very trueCold Fussion wrote:
There wouldn't be hollywood.
bubbalo is still no where to be find on this thread after proving his world knowldge (sarcasm)
It depends on how long Mexico could retain their land before the US decided to have another go at it. A loss would have irked us greatly, and it would have shown in military buildup.
If Mexico had won L.A. would still be a desert.
There were no fucking Mexicans here until whitely built a city and roads and pipes to carry water.
Thats a fact, I should know I live here and have studied California mining and Spanish Missions.
There were no fucking Mexicans here until whitely built a city and roads and pipes to carry water.
Thats a fact, I should know I live here and have studied California mining and Spanish Missions.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- The balance of world power: What if Mexico had won in 1846?