Are the people who are descendants of the Mexican citizens who survived the ordeal and now are US citizens better off than current Mexican citizens or not?
As for Poland and Baltic states it has nothing to do with any principles. It's about US weakening Russia. If US didn't have a business in that those countries would have zero support for their aspirations for independence. And they wouldn't be better off under the Russian rule because I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case. And only when you are subdued by more civisationally advanced country.
> I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case
Lol, that's a solid foundation for a logical argument. "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
In the end, if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species? If might makes right, sooner or later we'll just nuke each other.
Oh and btw, your lovely american-mexican war reintroduced slavery to slavery-free territories, and was a great success for non-native populations. Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly. Obviously this is great, if one is among the colons.
> if we cannot build a coherent foreign policy based on solid humanitarian principles in the third millennium, what hope do we have to survive as a species?
Apparently we can't do that since we are keeping protected a group of people that want to have specific ethnicity dead so much that they put it into their constitution. I'm all for harmonic and humanitarian future, but to ever hope achieving that sworn murderers must be subdued.
> "Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit", is a football-manager level of philosophy...
But notice it's a practical philosophy that reflects reality. Wishing very hard that it wasn't exactly true won't change it.
> Colonization tends to be good for colonizers rather than the colonized, unsurprisingly.
Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British? Why the British are now a minority in their own capital? Could it ever have happened if UK didn't go on a colonization spree a while ago? In the long run being conquered sometimes brings insane benefits. Circling back to the topic I believe Palestinians would get immense benefits in the long run for laying down arms and joining the Israelis on their terms.
Those "sworn murderers" would be a tiny minority with no support, like any openly-racist group in most societies, if the mainstream wasn't so openly discriminated against by the same folks the "murderers" purposely hate.
Most armed movements in contested territories are historically overcome not by "subduing", but by actually addressing the grievances of the mainstream population who helps them. Look at Northern Ireland: the IRA was never defeated by military means, but they were engaged politically to solve the mainstream grievances that were well-founded: removing most anti-catholic discrimination across society, allowing free movement across the Irish border, and allowing each person to define themselves as Irish if they wanted to (rather than British). Until Israel takes a serious integrationist approach that removes its apartheid-style structures, the mainstream in Gaza will continue to support armed resistance, because they have nothing to lose from doing so and nothing to gain from not doing so.
> notice it's a practical philosophy
No, it's just fatalistic shortsightedness. If you can't imagine a better world, obviously you can't build it.
> Why do the Indians own more property in London than the British?
Because they resisted their occupation, reclaimed their immense land and resources, and fought to get back on a level playing-field. Definitely not because they accepted white-man rule!
(And if you claim that living in London is something to crave, man, you've probably never been there for more than a week :)
Are the people who are descendants of the Mexican citizens who survived the ordeal and now are US citizens better off than current Mexican citizens or not?
As for Poland and Baltic states it has nothing to do with any principles. It's about US weakening Russia. If US didn't have a business in that those countries would have zero support for their aspirations for independence. And they wouldn't be better off under the Russian rule because I'm not claiming it's always the case just it's sometimes the case. And only when you are subdued by more civisationally advanced country.