The truth, or falsehood of this statement about American History...?

Question

This was a statement by Pres. Candidate Mitt Romney. He essentially said:" OUT OF ALL THE NATIONS IN THE WORLD, THERE HAS BEEN ONLY ONE NATION THAT HAS NEVER TAKEN LAND FROM ANOTHER NATION AFTER A WAR. THAT NATION IS AMERICA. WE DID NOT TAKE LAND FROM THE GERMANS, THE JAPENESE, WE ARE THE ONLY NATION TO LOSE MANY LIVES AND NEVER TAKE LAND. THIS MAKES AMERICA UNIQUE IN THE WORLD" - mitt romney
So basically you get the gist of what he was saying. This statement naturally caused me to think - as I have the questioning nature of an ameture history buff. Of course you first think about the American Indians, but thats maybe different for the obvious reasons. However, I then think about the state of Texas,and or California. Were these lands taken from Mexico after a war? And overall I want to know what objective insights you all can give me. Whether you agree, or disagree with Mitts statement etc.? Why? or Why not?

To the first responder, I would say that the Indian thing may be a little different because, when europeons first arrived here the were not considered "american" but brittish, or dutch etc. Furthermore, Indians land was lost , I think by making stupid deals etc.. Im asking more about other possible wars.

To the second guy : No, he was consise and said NEVER TAKEN LAND AFTER A WAR

Answer 1

The opening statement was bogus Ask any American Indian Oh yeah I am one

Answer 2

You are right that the Indian situation is different, in that America wasn't a nation when the practice started, and the Indian's didn't have a recognized nation or national identity, only a tribal identity. And you are also right that Texas, New Mexico, California, etc. were taken from Mexico after the war, and in fact the war began as a way to acquire those states from Mexico. And if I'm not mistaken, I believe we did take control of several islands from Japan after the second world war. And of coarse the occupation of Germany and Japan after the war. So no, there is no truth to Romney's statement at all.

Answer 3

Yes we took half of Mexico and ironically after Mexico was forced to sell the land to us, gold was discovered in California. Later president Teddy Roosevelt said that we were in the wrong in the Mexican American War. After WW2 America was the only country with atomic weapons. We could have taken the entire planet. Instead we rebuilt europe with the Marshal Plan. We sent McAurthor to run Japan for a few years and get them on the right road.

Answer 4

I'm afraid it's the usual "we're better than anybody else" rhetoric that we tend to get from Americans generally.

Wouldn't be so bad if it was true.

Everybody has mentioned the theft of land from the Native Indians after the Indian Wars. There is also :

the gains after after the Mexican-American War;
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and Cuba after the Spanish-American War;
Wake Island which you annexed;
Hawaii, annexed after the government was ousted by US and European businessmen;
Samoa;
Marshall Islands and other islands which the US occupied during WW2 and then were awarded "trusteeship" of afterwards

I'm not saying that any other major imperialist state was any better (Britain does not fare too well here for instance) but I find it irritating when the US holds up this "holier-than-thou" attitude and claims not to be imperialist, which is plainly just wrong.

Answer 5

The U.S. took a great deal of land from Mexico after the Mexican-American war. The various wars against native Americans has already been mentioned.

"Only one nation.." is bogus
Switzerland
Philippines
Cuba
Vietnam
Jamaica
Panama
Iceland
Are some that come to mind that have not taken land from another country after a war.

Answer 6

the USA HAS taken land, just did it on the SNEAK. Instead of planting a Flag and saying it's OURS. We put up BASES. like the ones in germany, japan, Korea etc.

In the case of US Skins, the term "WAR" means "fought by militaries"
The CAVALRY rode against camps that were under the red white and blue flag, as well as the white flag. They MURDERED women, children and old men" wrote them off as "civilian casualties.
Since it was not against an "ARMY" it's not considered 'WAR"

The ONLY reason they stopped is because of Little big horn. They realized we were starting to ban together and NOW we had GUNS.

We began to make them pay DEARLY.

Just 10 years ago or so up in canada they tried to take over a reserve, the canadian officials, military were met at the fence by indians with M209's and more on the way. Out numbered and out gunned they backed off and the Indians up there kept thier lands.
http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9212/0021.html

So 'technically' he's right. Politicians ALWAYS get off on the technicality of things. All the treaties they broke were because "you signed that deal with a different president" even though it's the OFFICE that signs, not the man.

Answer 7

The plains indians had land taken from them. This happened after the civil war, so Americans did the taking.

Answer 8

Mitt Romney is an IDIOT.

Polititians are infamous for misquoting facts,so much so that most people do not even question their intelligence.


As far as taking land,if one considers the modern era of warefare (Post WWI),American does not make a habit of conquering a nation and keeping their land.

His answer is fairly vague and leaves out such details.

Imagine that a polititian being vague!

Answer 9

True, he's thinking about WWI and WWII, but if he says "never," he should mean "never." There have been a lot of times we took land, made war for land, grabbed land.

Besides which, what does he mean, "all the nations in the world"? Has he checked them all out? Barbados? Haiti? If we hadn't ever taken land, we still wouldn't be the only ones who hadn't.

Answer 10

I would have to say the American Indians is part of it. We were very much a country when we took the land and made them move to reservations. This was in the 1800s

Answer 11

The observe 'twist of destiny' isn't comparable to the word 'vehicle crash'. Evolution isn't inconsistent with non secular concept. Many evolutionary scientists are non secular. human beings make computers, that does no longer mean that somebody makes bananas. Order CAN take place with out intelligence. happens each and every of the time. injuries produce clouds, crystals, lotsa desirable issues. previously rejecting evolution, you need to first know it. the certainty the the Bible includes some good regulations, consisting of do no longer kill, does no longer mean each and everything it says is nice. people who say that technology is subtle consumer-friendly experience are incorrect. consumer-friendly experience says the solar revolves around the Earth. That seems to be incorrect; the Earth spins. In technology instructions, scholars ought to study technology, no longer theology. Your "question" is far too long. in case you have been clearly interested in those themes, the writings of Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould (between others) could help, yet from the tenor of your "question" I doubt you're.