How many wars has Mexico won,lost,and been settled with a truce with NON latin countries?
366092
Mexico fought France, and won, and with the US, and lost.
647792
Spain, after the Spanish-American War.
632512
Let's get clear some points:\n1) Mexico declare the war of independence from Spain on september 15th, 1810. Won its independence (from Spain) on september 21st, 1821.\n\n2) Mexican forces fought against the invader troops of France and won the Battle of Puebla, on May 5th, 1862. That date is celebrated since then, and nowadays it's when the mexican men, during the military service, make an oath of allegiance to the flag and country, gaining citizenship. \n\n3) Emperor Maximilian of Habsburg was overthrow and killed on 1867.
100731
The Mexican Cession is a historical name for the region of the present day southwestern United States that was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the Mexican-American War. The cession of this territory from Mexico was a condition for the end of the war. For the 38 years between 1810, when Mexico declared its independence from Spain, and 1848, the region had formed approximately one-third of the territory of Mexico; prior to that, it had been a part – albeit a remote one, largely without European settlement – of the Spanish colony of New Spain for some three centuries.\n\nIt includes all of the present-day states of California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as the portions of:\n\nArizona excluding the region later annexed in the Gadsden Purchase \nColorado west of the boundary of the former Republic of Texas \nNew Mexico west of the Rio Grande and excluding the Gadsden Purchase \nWyoming west of the former Republic of Texas boundary and south of the 42nd parallel. \nThe treaty also specified the U.S.-Mexican border as being at the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte). Previously the portion of Texas between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande had remained disputed throughout the existence of the Republic of Texas. The United States had already claimed the area as part of the Texas Annexation in 1845.
2931
Yes, from 1980 to 1992. Between the goverment and the Guerrillas, called FMLN (Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional).\n\nThe war took place in the rural areas of the country, but in 1990 there was a major attack to the capital (San Salvador), after this peace conversation started. A ceasefire was established in 1992 when the rebels of the FMLN and the government signed "Peace accords" on January 16, 1992 that assured political and military reforms and punishment for all human rights abuses during the civil war.
656290
they lost a war, and with it, any claim to the territory they run around calling "Aztlan" today, all the while waving a Mexican flag stupid logic.\n\n\nWe bought it from their  conquerors.
746801
Mexico, which had never recognized Texas's independence, claimed the Nueces River — about 150 miles (240 km) north of the Rio Grande — as the border between Texas and Mexico. The United States, however, upheld Texas' claim to the land between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. The boundary claimed by Texas was established by the defunct 1836 Treaty of Velasco that ended the Texas Revolution. Mexico argued that General Santa Anna signed the treaty under duress when he was held captive by the Texans, so it was invalid. Moreover, the Mexicans argued, Santa Anna had no authority to negotiate or sign a treaty, and the treaties were never ratified by the Mexican government. In 1846, after Texas was admitted into the Union, Polk sent troops under General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande to protect Texas from a threatened Mexican invasion (Bauer; 6, 17-18).\n\nTaylor ignored Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces and began constructing a make-shift fort (later known as Fort Brown) on the banks of the Rio Grande opposite the Mexican town of Matamoros. Mexican forces under General Mariano Arista prepared for war.\n\nOn April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that was sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors escaped and returned to Fort Brown.\n\nOn May 3, Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Brown, which replied with its own guns. The bombardment continued for five days and expanded as the Mexican forces gradually surrounded the fort. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during the bombardment, including Jacob Brown, after whom the fort was later named.
130741
here:\n\nhttp://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/mex_am/chronology.html
553878
Mexico is a country, not a religion.
476718
193 countries-it depends\n\nIf you said INDEPEDENT countries...
112732
WWI Peace Settlement\n\nhttp://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/History/WorldWars%5CWWI_Peace_Settlement.htm
55359
MMMMM... Here in Mexico, USA enter in two points in the history classes:\n- The 13 colonies, what was it, and what they decided to revolt.\n- the mexican-american war... here teachs that all the texas stuff was a stratagem of the USA's gov to get the northen states of México 'cause they needed it for build the trnascontinental railroad. \n-the IIWW, being "the good ones".\n\nalso something about the pancho villa's raid in columbus, but with reason (american army was attacking the revolutionaries in the north of mexico, crossing the border.)
891073
Nothing New About It\n\nhttp://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html\n\nIn 1997, then-President Zedillo proclaimed that \n“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation \nextends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders.” \n\n\n\n\n\n\nDuring the ''conquista,'' \nSpain tried to impose on Mexico \na common western language, religion, and culture, \nand to the degree it was successful.  \nIt was also anti-American.  \nWe should remember \nthat the Spaniards were building the great cathedral \nat the Zocolo in Mexico City \na hundred years before George Washington \ntook control of the Continental Army \nat Cambridge, Massachusetts.  \nHere are two different world views, sharing the same continent.\n\nIn his article, Clash of Civilizations?, \nSamuel P. Huntington reminds us \nthat cultural differences may cause future wars, \nand that these wars will be along cultural ''fault lines.''  \n\nThe U. S.--Mexican border is one of those fault lines.  \n\nHuntington writes, \n''Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future,\nand the world will be shaped in large measure \nby the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations \n\nThe most important conflicts of the future \nwill occur along the cultural fault lines \nseparating these civilizations from one another.'' \n\nIn regard to Mexico, Huntington writes, \n''During the past decade, \nMexico has assumed a position \nsomewhat similar to that of Turkey. \nJust as Turkey abandoned its historic opposition to Europe \nand attempted to join Europe, \nMexico has stopped defining itself \nby its opposition to the United States \nand is instead attempting to imitate the United States.''  \nHowever, \nunlike Canada, \nMexico has a large, nonwestern, indigenous population \nthat has not yet been integrated into modernity.  \nThis native population also carries \nan unconscious weight of resentment \ntowards the Spanish conquest, \nwhich it now mistakenly displaces onto the U. S. \n\nMexico's indigenous population \nis one of the contemporary strains in that society.  \nSub-Comandante Marcos \nand the uprising in Chiapas of indigenous people \nis a prediction of what is to come in Mexico \nif that strain cannot be relieved.\n  \nThe Mexican elites have decided, therefore, \nto reduce this strain by sending north \nas many poor and jobless Mexicans as they can.  \nInstead of solving their own problems, \nwhich might entail a reduction of their status, \nthe ruling Mexican elites have decided to keep the fiesta going\nand let the U. S. handle the cleanup. \n\nA top adviser \nto past Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari \ndescribed to Huntington all the changes \nthe Salinas government was making.  \nWhen the advisor finished, Huntington remarked: \n''That's most impressive.  \nIt seems to me that basically you want to change Mexico \nfrom a Latin American country into a North American country.''\nHe looked at me with surprise and exclaimed: \n''Exactly!  \nThat's precisely what we are trying to do, \nbut of course we could never say so publicly.'' \n \nWhat also could not be said publicly \nis that Mexico wants to reclaim its ''lost'' territory.  \nIt will use economics and illegal immigrants to do this.\n\nMany Mexican elites believe that to become a modern nation,\nMexico has to restructure its economy \nand regain the territory it lost during the first Mexican war.  \nFor over a century, \nMexican nationalists have used the myths and symbols \nof a lost but glorious indigenous past \nto motivate its plans for expansion. \n \nD. H. Lawrence wrote about this myth building in his novel, \nThe Plumed Serpent. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nIf the ''reconquista'' continues unchecked \nfor the next twenty years, \nthe U. S. will be a fundamentally different society than it is today.\n\nThere will be more poverty and low-wage jo
808030
you'll get more info at\n\nThe U.S.-Mexican War: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo\nhttp://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/war/wars_end_guadalupe.html\n\nTreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo
1154698
Seven.  \n\nEngland, France, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, and Uraguay.
260155
There is a historical president in the The US taking over Latin American countries for other purposes than just to rule them. The best example is the Mexican American war. It was mainly a war over the border of Texas. US said it was the Rio Grand, Mexico said it was the Brazos river. So we fought a war all the way to Mexico City. We took over Mexico. But we didn't want Mexico we just want Texas and the other half of the nation. And that's what we got. Plus puppet governments are easy to run than local state government. Hope this helps.
576026
I would say that yes, Mexico is passive aggressive towards America. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Mexico is "expanding", there is however a huge amount of the population that doesn't want to be there.