No.... Laga, come on now. Stop being dense.

It was the fact that, as you've done again, you referred to Messi/ footballers in general as being overpaid. And you know that.

_________________

Surely Mexico's claim on Texas and California is far stronger than Argentina's claim on the the Falkland islands.

_________________

Lexus Manson - The Worst Blog on the Internet or your money back!!!

And there are quite large areas of France that we could take back.

_________________
The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

Immigration over the next few generations will see the Mexican populations of the south-western states explode, and with that and its already growing economic power (isn't it in the world's Top #20?), the already strong Mexican cultural influence will really begin to dominate. As the home country is just a short jaunt cross-country from those south-western states, and not a long way over the ocean as is the case for other large populations of ethnic migrants in America, the case for Mexican repossession of these regions can only get stronger.

But none of that will have any effect on anything unless Mexico sorts its gooseberry fool out in regards to the endless cycles of drug wars and whatnot. If it can beat them (probably by legalising and regulating them, rather than a genocidal utter annihilation scenario), if it can tame itself, it'll be on the path to a confrontation with a US already reliant on migrant workers to counterbalance falling birth rates, which may well decide the future balance of power on the North American continent.

Alaska is closer to Russia/Canada than mainline USA.

_________________
http://www.phantomgoal.com

Football Betting Analysis and other related topics.

#boycottSeanPenn

I wouldn't think so - weren't they ceded to America after a war?

In contrast, Argentina went to what was empty (albeit previously claimed) land. The British then came along and booted them out.

A war America provoked via James K. Polk's belligerence.

The Falkland Islanders celebrate Margret Thatcher Day on the 10th January every year.

_________________
http://www.phantomgoal.com

Football Betting Analysis and other related topics.

#boycottSeanPenn

That's it, hand 'em over to Argentina.

I don't know anything about it tbh, but I thought it was started when Texas wanted to become independent from Mexico and join the US?

Texas fought for its own independence, and later joined the US. California was won during the Mexican-American War, to which I was referring.

I was unaware of this. I concur, if they won't to be like that about it.

I know.

I thought that started because Mexico never recognised Texas as being independent, not really. I'll need to read about it one time. In my head right now Mexico were at fault.

A professor of US History at Oxford said that Penn should really be more concerned about Malibu's plight (where he has a home), than the Falkland's. Malibu being a territory that should, by right, belong to Mexico than the USA.

That's before we even consider what "Americans" did to the natives over there or, indeed, some of the films Penn himself has inflicted on mankind.

Mexico aren't going to absorb those states the explanation above about the explosion of the population in those areas is akin to saying "there's a lot of Scottish people living past the border in England... soon they will overtake England"

_________________

For some reason I've always though Malibu was in Florida.

_________________
http://www.phantomgoal.com

Football Betting Analysis and other related topics.

#boycottSeanPenn

Say you have two countries next to one another, and one conquers significant parts of the others' territory, but over the next couple of hundred years, due to much internal strife, citizens of the second country flood the border regions of the wealthier first (former territories of the second). Eventually, after around 250 years or so, the migration and such gets to the point where the aforementioned border provinces of the first nation are effectively territories of the second in all but name. Provided the second country sorts out its crippling internal conflicts and its economy improves to the extent that it can be improved in stable conditions (allowing for a much more confident, assertive role on the world stage)... then the chances of there being a confrontation over territories once lost in an unprovoked war, later reclaimed in all but name, are high.

But yeah whatever, it's exactly like the English-Scottish border, somehow.

Your point about gradual migration is a valid one Alvin, the state of US border demographics is a very interesting one indeed, and not entirely dissimilar to factors that contributed to Texan independence in the 1840s, ie. a large migration of non-natives (in this case I merely mean non-Mexican, not specifically Tex-Mex), that eventually led to US settlers becoming the majority population in Texas.

I do, however, think you overestimate States' abilities to 'reclaim' territory. It's very true that Mexico is a fast growing nation (I think it's around 15th in the world? - can't be bothered to wikipedia) and that in the next few decades it will likely become a major world power (though, as you rightly say, not until it gets its act together over organised crime). However, times have changed since the mid-19th Century; whilst the acquisition of territory is now illegal under international law, the US has occupied and administered California/Texas for over 150 years, administration/effective occupation being one of the strongest determinants of territorial possession, however that administration might have first come about. It's comparative military, economic and diplomatic weakness compared to the US aside, Mexico has no chance of ever reclaiming said territories. Nor, I would argue, would it ever try to. Whatever Jeremy Clarkson would have one believe, the Mexican Government aren't idiots.

Like you said though, Alvin. Give it another 30 years or so and Mexico won't really have to 'reclaim' this territory. By that time, the majority of US-Mexican border regions (any many others) will be majority Mexican, and will have the voting power to elect pro-Mexican officials. As time goes on, who knows what could happen.

_________________
Continually hangin'.

Good post, I enjoyed reading that.

When the border states become so saturated with migrants that they are Mexican in all but name, do you not think that the cultural influence might be so overwhelming that, beyond just electing pro-Mexican officials, perhaps at least elements of the Mexican political system itself might bleed into these states? It would largely be a by-product of ongoing demographic trends, the long-term movements of people, with migrants who feel that they are Mexican despite living in another country across the border gradually importing their own political and other societal structures as the density of the migrant population increases.

Could that happen? It would greatly strengthen the arguments of Mexican territorial reclamation groups, which are sure to grow larger and more vocal over the course of the century.

All that said though, no maps will have a chance of being re-drawn until Mexico's internal struggles are put to bed. How that can happen without the USA and Mexico legalising and regulating at least some of those presently-illegal drugs, though, I just don't know.

Would US immigration policy ever actually let this happen?

_________________
strawberry floating bitches left and right my dick is ambidextrous