This war was the first which reflected America’s expansionist policy. It relates a lot to today because we jumped to war on flimsy evidence similar to what we did in modern times. In 1898 it was the explosion and supposed espionage of the USS Maine. In 2003 we entered Iraq to find supposed weapons of mass destruction, none of which were mysteriously ever found. Then yellow journalism spurred American support of the war. In modern day we faced the media feeding stories to us that we can not confirm as the whole truth. The Spanish-American war was an important moment to me because define America’s policies during the 20th century and also show how events re-occur today.

Eh...America was busy enough with expansionism with the Annexation of Texas, Mexican-American War, and Oregon boundary dispute with Great Britain. This war wasn't the first nor last of that.

I wouldn't exactly call the Spanish-American War the same as Iraq, though it was sort of egged on by 'Yellow Journalism'. There were upsides to the war, as it healed a lot of leftover wounds from the Civil War (North, South, Whites, Blacks all fought on the same side). It also hurried up the fall of the Spanish Empire, which was really just waiting to happen.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

The Spanish Empire was the weakest of Empires, so it's not surprising that America went for it's colonies in order to build it's own Empire: Cuba, Mexico, the Philippines, etc.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Well, Mexico wasn't a part of the Spanish empire when we warred with them. And I would argue that the expansionism WRT Mexicos old territories was really brought on by Mexico if anything. We were in fact very ambivalent about statehood for Texas due to the very response Mexico would give. If anything we avoided war with them than asking for it. Texas was already independent and Mexico drew the first blood in the Mx/Amer War, ending up in the exchange of their land and our money.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

That's true, I more meant that it was part of the remnants of the decaying Spanish empire.

__________________
... I am surprised at your insolence in writing to me at all. You know, as I know, that I bought this constituency... may God's curse light upon you and may it make your women as open and as free to the excise officers as your wives and daughters have always been to me while I have represented your scoundrel corporation.
I have the honour to be... your obliged humble servant, Anthony Henley
- MPs reply to constituent, mid 1700s

Yeah, I can agree with that. At that time the U.S. was still in a Britain centered world order, and I think we were just trying to get what we could in order to ensure stability if the tides ever changed (which they eventually did). I think the U.S. just forsaw this coming and it sort of explains our involvement in the Oregon territory dispute, Mx/Am war, Span/Am war, and to a degree our own civil war (though I don't think regional power was the driving force behind the war, but the North's victory did ensure a stronger nation for the 'changing tides').

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Interesting interpretation of history. The United States bullied Mexico into war. And the creation of the so called Republic of Texas was a part of that strategy. The American settlers who came to Texas were almost all in favor of US statehood. Even before Texan independence. There was a long range stategy to undermine Mexican sovereignty from the beginning. The ethics of President Polk can easily be called into question here as well. Abraham Lincoln openly accused the president of manufacturing the Thornton incident as a pretext for war. The Mexicans didn't want to sell. So we beat them up and robbed them. That about sums it up.

The start of it would be border disputes, and it really it was all about border disputes. The borders were rougly outlined, but they weren't settled. Americans were moving into Texas, and Texas seceded from Mexico. Texas wanted to become a state, Americans wanted it to become a state. Mexico, obviously, did not. When tensions were already high and the wheels in motion for Texas to become a state the American Army went to what it thought was the border of Texas, the Rio Grande. The Texans maintained that the border was the Rio Grande, the Mexicans did not. The Americans thought that they were on Texan soil or, more or less, American soil, the Mexicans thought that the Americans were on Mexican soil, signifying an invasion.

I think that's the general jist of it: border disputes. Ultimately, we won by might of arms, which is generally what would happen in such a border dispute. Both Mexico and Texas/America thought that the land in question was their own and so they fought over it. When we overran them and took their capital, they ceded their barely settled western territory, which Americans had long wanted.

Interesting outlook yourself. Show me from what sources or books you derive this outlook of some 'conspiracy' to create the Republic and shape it into a State via war. I'd much like to read them.

You act as if The United States had some grandstanding plan which focused almost mal-intently on Mexico from the get go. The fact is that for the first half of the 19th century, we were very out of our element and skated by with good luck in many areas (so it seems to me). Most 'plans' our government involved itself in at a grand scale were economic ones, for that is how we played our hand in keeping our spot in the then British hegemony.

That being said, Mexico was not some little kid at the center of a conspiracy of a mean bully. The United States for much of the 19th century was tied up in disputes with many countries WRT boundaries. I think you are overreaching in your interpretation of things.

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Oh. Of course. It was just a little border dispute that caused the United States to invade Mexico and take Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada and parts of other states as well. Not the result of a well documented, long range strategy. Thanks for clearing that up. Inspired with claims of manifest destiny, this country took what it wanted in a blatant war of aggression and conquest. End of story.