I've also read that the so-called attack across the border that supposedly started the war, was actually a historic example of 'fake news' being used to start a war by the yellow press of the day. Polk wanted a war, and seized on 'fake news' to start one, in the same way the Trump wants a war in Syria and seized on 'fake news' blaming Assad for jihadist storing chem weapons to launch missile strikes.

I'd have to search for a link, because this is not the Deep State/CNN approved version. But its one that I've read before.

All kinds of left/right sites suggest a different scenario.

The Liefare-Warfare State
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/thomas-dilorenzo/the-liefare-warfare-state/

.... LYING AMERICANS INTO WAR
As this is being written the U.S. government is spreading the tall tale that the Syrian government allegedly killed some 100 of its own citizens with poison gas. .....

The Mexican-American War
When James K. Polk became president in 1845 he announced to his cabinet that one of his chief objectives was to acquire California, which was then a part of Mexico. As he wrote in his diary (online as “The Diary of James K. Polk”), “I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”...
..... None other than Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs that, as a young soldier serving under the command of General Zachary Taylor during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, he understood that he had been sent there to provoke a fight:
“The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive [President Polk] could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”....


Anatomy Of A False Flag
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/anatomy-of-false-flag.html
False flags are an American tradition. They go way back.....

Replies: @MarkinLA

Great post!
An excellent history of the Mexican-American War and other events of that time is still Bernard DeVoto's The Year of Decision: 1846. It's a pre-PC, solidly researched and scholarly, highly readable and entertaining history. That it has been allowed to drop out of copyright says a lot about the era we live in. Highly recommended!

I learnt from your posts, so thank you.

You seem to have a good idea of the history behind that war.

You are not making yourself look good with some points in your writing. I make some mistakes, but would not these.

'Must of' means nothing. It is a misinterpretation of 'must've', a contraction of 'must have'.

The past tense of 'lead' is 'led'. 'Lead', when it has the same pronunciation as 'led', is the name of a heavy metal and the element of which it is made.

In your next post, you misused 'its'. 'Its' is a posessive pronoun. The contraction of 'it is' is 'it's'.

I am sure they must grate on others who read your informative posts.

variety of points not mentioned:

So called "Mexicans" in the region were all offered US citizenship after the war.

USA paid Mexico $15 million for land that Mexico had ZERO interest in.

Most ‘Mexicans’ are descendants of the Aztecs, Mayans and Zapotecs (among others), they never set foot north of the Rio Grande.
Today’s dark-skinned, Mexican nationals who are now swamping America are late-comers, fleeing a poor, corrupt, and disorganized country that was invented by (and is still dominated by) people whose ancestors hail from Western Europe (Spain).
See photo of Mexican Congress.

Much of the SW, though curiously claimed by Mexico, was controlled by either the Comanche or the Apache.

Mexico lost Texas because Santa Anna made himself a dictator and caused revolts all around Mexico.

The 19th century war between Mexico and the US was an all Euro-white tussle between imperial powers.

The Mexican-American war (that ‘stole’ Mexico) was a fight between two imperial, European-derived powers. Euro-White ruled Mexico didn’t have any more right to this land than the Euro-Whites who created the US.
The Mexican-American War was provoked by Mexico, which refused to recognize the independence and annexation of Texas, even though the rest of the world and the vast majority of Texans were English speakers who supported joining the USA.
Not only did it provoke the war generally, it fired the first shots, killing 11 of 70 American in a surprise attack with 2000 Mexican soldiers.

Interestingly, these ‘undocumented immigrants’ still want desperately to live near the gringo. Why? They get richer that way.

And why do some Mexicans want to turn California into Mexico? After all, it's Mexico they all want to leave.

Replies: @nsa

Nothing in Asia is worth one drop of American blood. PERIOD.

I agree. Declare victory & leave. The biggest argument against staying is that the troops stationed there are tripwire soldiers. If the NORKs decided to go ahead and attack I would expect large casualities which or course are causus belli for more of the same. This shows no respect for these men's lives, none at all. It reminds me of Foch in WW One where he was asked by an American ambassador, "How many American troops do you need?" Foch replied, "One, and I will make sure he is killed."

DanF says:     
July 11, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT

" Because as I said negotiations have no track record of success, so even if we leave the problem does not go away. "

These "negotiations" had no chance of success because the US was not willing to take its nukes out of the region. It was never a serious negotiating partner. The reason is that it wants to surround China and Russia and Korea is right hard up against both.

Yes, Korea is sitting on some interesting mineral deposits and its banks do not conform to what the IMF and the Fed want but these are minor details. The major purpose of the US being in South Korea has nothing to do with North Korea.

Why would the NORKs change when they have 10's of thousands of US troops on their border?

It's prophetic. In Europe, the pinnacle of Western Civilization, normal people are undergoing "intervention" for not understanding the value of homosexuality and men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men and humans pretending to be animals. Bestiality and pedophilia are just around the corner. Normal social behavior and normal family life are now anti-social, deviant behaviors.

I always thought that America was the world's leader for "pop" culture. No, Europe bested us on this one. But that's the point. See it happen in Europe and we'll shortly see it on the East Coast and the Left Coast. As for the Great Flyover, who cares? Facebook now has 58 gender identities from a dropdown list with the option of inputting even more.

The import is that these 58+ distinct gender identities are certain to apply for protected status under civil rights laws and other government social re-engineering programs. This gets too complex to understand or manage as they stand in line for affirmative action handouts. I'm not too happy about this, knowing that the White male will have to take the blame and foot the bill.

And we worry about the impact of the national debt on our children and grandchildren. We ain't seen nothing yet!

Yeah, but it's all easily answerable and disarmable with reference to evolutionary biology and genetics/cladistics.

Problem is, neither our madwomen/madmen or our gatekeepers, including those in the Chattering Classes, care about that. Science, like math, is hard, and science based on math harder still.

All's fair in the pursuit of power, mates, and food, and pushback from the ramparts has been replaced with surrender to the noisiest dolt in the room.

Especially in this era where dolt-wrangling supplies more lucrative careers than building and sustaining ramparts.

But then why would the company pay for the visa if the worker can leave?

Replies: @jimmyriddle

Neither the worker nor the company should own the visa. Since the government issues the visa, the people should own it. The visa is good for one year at most. Every year the job has to be re-advertised, and if a qualified American is available (not necessarily as good as the visa holder -- this is enforced by requiring the standards to be the same as they were at the beginning of the year), the visa holder is fired with one month or so notice and sent home, and the American gets the job. This provides "practical training" (the ostensible purpose of the H1B visa) to the foreigner, and it allows the company to fill the job even if a qualified American is not available.

The company receives a series of one-year options that if an American cannot be found for a position, a foreigner can be hired for practical training. The foreigner receives a one-year job if no American is available. A qualified American is never shut out in favor of a foreigner, if this is enforced correctly.

I worked for two years in an H-1B sweatshop. The owner squeezed out onerous amounts of work from her H-1b employees by implicitly threatening to fire them if they were not utterly obedient. This meant immediate loss of the visa and immediate illegal status in the country. Essentially the H-1Bs were indentured servants. Assigning the visa to the worker rather than the employer would solve this problem. But, as another commenter noted, it always the new H-1B to use the visa for his own purposes once he enters the country. That's not a good idea.

However, I have a simpler solution that is in the spirit of the H-1B, incorporates Mr. Unz's auction system, and resolves these problems. Let's adopt Mr. Unz's auction plan but with a reserve bid of $100,000.

H-1B was intended to allow American employers to temporarily (or permanently) bring foreign talent with unique and exceptional skills into the country. The program was intended to allow employers to hire foreign employees to fill positions with such unique requirements that no available American worker was qualified. My one addition ensures that the employer bidding for an H-1B desperately needs the person for whom he is obtaining the visa.

It also ensures that the employer will do everything in his power to retain that employee until there is no longer a need or the employee becomes a free agent with a green card. Employers will have a strong incentive to treat their H-1Bs well and not to acquire a viusa unless there is a critical need.

The PROPER compromise with a high minimum wage for American workers would necessarily be Richard Nixon's proposal for a guaranteed annual income. Currently, Switzerland has enacted such legislation and if memory serves, their GAW is set at something like $2,600, which is more than three times my personal retirement income.

Together, a high minimum wage for those who do work and a GAW for everyone else, would obviate the need for employers to set up all those alphabetsouper retirement plans as well as a huge amount of governmental bureaucracy and corporate parasitism. These moves would segue beautifully with a single-payer healthcare system. A necessity for establishing these social basics would be taxation of all stock transfer transactions; a foolproof inheritance tax on fortunes of, say, more than $10 M and a repatriation of all excess monies secretly sequestered in mostly British colonial overseas habitats.

Replies: @Dave Pinsen