A question isolationism vs intervention?

I think it's regional. But I'm no expert on Spanishland, don't ask me.

About 20% of he population is impoverished, with 7% being impoverished enough to not afford food.

It also heavily influenced the EZLN ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation ) and there war on the government, i used country wide statistics.

Ok Rom, 20% is a HUGE number of people.

I know, the country has a high monetary gap between poor and middle class.

Right Mr Moshy, I return.

The biggest flaw in your plan to help Mexico by occupying it, is that you assume the culture and structure of the US, and indeed the western world, is the right one, that all nations should aspire to.
This is simply not the case, and one of my fundamental beliefs is that each country should be allowed to develop on its own, and not fall into the same mould as most other industrialised countries.

Your intentions might be honourable, but by trying to 'improve' Mexico, you would inevitably impose your culture upon the Mexican people, and this would not go down well at all, and would be met with anger and violence.

I simply do not believe Mexico would allow itself to be occupied by the USA, whether they oppressing them, or simply trying to help.

While this is just objectively true, Mosh also advocates old school imperialism with the same ethnocentric, holier-than-thou "White Man's Burden" attitude that makes me side more with you than with him.

Of course, it's important to note that multiculturalism is inherently bad, and that the values of the modern, secular, democratic, Western civilization are plainly superior to those of any other civilization. Non-Western value systems place extreme emphasis on religion, race, caste, and/or honor, and all of those things are completely worthless standards.

I disagree with your reasoning, but I also find the kind of behavior Mosh advocates to be horrifying, so I'll let this slide.

Its not the white man's burden. Its the rich man's burden. The rich and powerful countries of the world have, in my opinion, an obligation to help the poorer smaller countries of the world.

What the hell are you talking about? Western civilization used to put a bigger value on race than ANYONE else. Western civilization is not necessarily democratic or secular, that's just the US. And unlike you seem to think Kali, the US is not the West, it is but a part of it. Caste still has value in the West, ever heard of social classes? And you do realize you just called the culture of around half the world absolutely worthless right? You, Kali, are a horrible human being.

I don't assume that. I don't really know what western culture might be. And as opposed to other cultures, it is certainly not the best.

I disagree. I think the culture should be allowed to develop on its own, but other countries should help industrialization along a little if it is not happening by itself. Unless it is an area where industrialization is not happening just because there is mainly nomadic or agriculture based peoples.

Well, again, I wouldn't say the US has that much culture. In my opinion, the US would be best for preserving culture because it has been so highly influenced by other cultures. The Southwest is influenced by Mexico already, and an annexation of Mexico would just do that more. And, let's face it, industrialization and urbanization tends to destroy a national culture. The Mexican culture will slowly become less and less important in the lives of Mexicans. But it will never really go away. I mean, compare the Southwest US and the Northeast US. They are both part of the same country, obviously, but their culture is very different. The Southwest has different building styles, and different cuisine from the Northeast. In the Southwest, it is common to hear Spanish spoken. In the Northeast, fishing and farming are still a big part of life. They eat differently, there is more history there and buildings tend to be built in an older style. In the Northernmost parts, it is not too uncommon to hear french spoken. Not to mention the difference in accents, even within the region themselves.

Why are we talking about occupation in the first place? I thought this was about military intervention, not a full fledged invasion and annexation.

You're a disgusting faggot.

Where's that gay-becan gotten to?

Why would you say that? America is built on multiculturalism. Isn't it?

I think he meant when the government tries to specifically accommodate different cultures it's bad.

Please explain if I understood this wrong. In 1800 when lots of Chinese came to US. government didn't accommodate them?

Well, we aren't speaking in a historical context, but in the second half of the 19th century, when immigration from China into America began significantly, the government's reaction was racist, and up until the cold war era, the government was constantly trying to restrict immigration to the US from Asia. So no, they didn't accommodate them. But again, we aren't really talking from a historical perspective.

I of course do support those values of the west, but I don't think we have by any means perfected our society, and it is for that reason I would rather see developing countries make their own way forwards, and try to create as good a society as they can, but natrually.

A military inervention is, in my book, even worse that an occupation. It means you think you need the troops to control the population, even if you also fight the drug cartels.
People value their national sovereignity too much for this ever to work properly.

Here is one of your assumptions. You assume industrialisation in the American sense is the right way. If the US interfered with Mexican industrialisation, their industry would end up very similar, if not the same, to what you have. If however, you left them to their own devices, they could come up with a new way of doing things, which might work better for them, or they might choose not to industrialise on the same scale as the US, and there is nothing wrong with this, although you assume there is.

This is true, to an extent. However, if the Mexican culture is eroded while they are being occupied, they their people will assume it is the fault of America their culture is being eroded, which is yet another reason why they would not tolerate occupation for long.
Also, just because industrialisation has eroded some culture in the west, although I'm not sure this is the case in European contries so much, it does not mean the same would happen in Mexico.

My point is, nobody should interfere becuase nobody knows what might happen without interference, be it good or bad.

Now I understand what he meant, thanks brah

Communist Europeans will never understand the United States in all it's glory.