Which wars involving the United States would you have supported?

[Deus Naturae]

Not counting the innumerable interventions and Indian wars:
American Revolution
Mexican-American War
Civil War
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Persian Gulf War
Afghan War

You're aware this was basically just a brutal imperialistic land grab? The Mexican-American War is more or less on par with the various Indian wars in terms of shamefulness.

[Deus Naturae]

Revolutionary War, none else

This is my view as well.

To go over the major and recent ones:

War of 1812 - Merchant ships should pay for their own defense IMO, but even if you wanted to use military force to protect American shipping letters of marque are still an option. The War of 1812 was just an excuse to invade Canada and revive the corrupt Bank of the United States.

Mexican-American War - see above

Civil War - Support neither side. The war was never about abolishing slavery, but rather about transforming the United States from a constitutional republic to a mercantilist empire. The Lower South should've been allowed to secede (as was its right under the Tenth Amendment) and remain a slavery-dependent dump. The Upper South, where slavery was on the decline and industrialization was making gains, would've remained in the Union. The Lower South would've eventually succumbed to a slave revolt or industrialization. This would've been much preferable to the massive death tolls, centralization, protectionism, corporate cronyism, militarism, and inflationism that resulted from the Civil War.

Indian Wars - Normal etc. Worth pointing out that the slaughter of the Plains Indians by former Union commanders like Sherman and Custer would've been impossible without the war machine that Lincoln created to crush the South.

Spanish-American War - America had engaged in brutal wars of expansion before, but this was really the start of American global imperialism. The war was based on lies and propaganda, and was pushed by tobacco and sugar interests who wanted abundant Cuban plantations.

World War I - Both sides were pretty bad, and the Lusitania was carrying arms. The war gave us a bunch of terrible domestic policies, and led to the rise of the Nazis.

World War II - It made sense to fight the Japanese since we were attacked, but it's worth pointing out that FDR deliberately put a ton of ships at Pearl Harbor hoping that they would be attacked so that he could send Americans off to war to fix the massive unemployment problem his New Deal couldn't fix. High-ranking officers who protested the insanity of putting so many resources in one vulnerable place were dismissed and replaced with yes-men, and a soldier who served at Pearl Harbor later wrote a book about how the whole thing was a plot to have the ships be destroyed by the Japanese (the book is called Day of Deceit). As far as Europe goes, let the Nazis and Soviets destroy each other.

Korean War - Set the precedent for unconstitutional "police actions" around the globe.

Vietnam War - Normal etc.

Afghanistan War - Issue letters of marque and reprisal against Osama and other terrorists.

Iraq War - Anti-ISIS etc.

Libyan War - Libya is in chaos right now so it's hardly the massive success it supporters pretend it is. This was motivated by oil and preserving American monetary hegemony (Gaddafi was a longtime advocate of return to the gold-backed Islamic dinar currency).

[Deus Naturae]

Actually this is one of my more cynical positions, but I believe that the Mexican-American was necessary to round out the continental territory of the United States, especially considering the strategic position of California. Considering the instability of the Mexican government and the American settlers filling up the region (especially once gold was discovered), matters would have had come to a head sooner or later unless the British or some other foreign power decided to seize it (which is admittedly less likely due to the Monroe doctrine). Finally, Polk wasn't a fire-eater-he was expansionist but was driven more by nationalistic/strategic reasons than solely by the desire to expand slavery and additionally it has to be remembered none of the Mexican cession ever became slave states.

And who's to say that those settlers would be in the right if such a conflict were to occur? Regardless, they could've settled the matter themselves, as occurred in Texas. Invading a sovereign country for strategic or "nationalistic" reasons is the work of a murderous bully, not a great leader. The reason that the none of the cession became slave States was because much of it was not elevated to State status until after the Civil War. Slavery was allowed in the New Mexico territory (modern-day Southwest) until the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment.

[Deus Naturae]

Who then promptly applied for annexation to the United States, and the annexation of which angered Mexico, ending up becoming one of the major causes of the Mexican-American War.

Alright? If Mexico ended up directly attacking an American State, that would be one thing. But, you can't just assume that's going to happen eventually before any American government even exists in the area you think this attack will occur in. Anyway, Texas was a source of tension between Mexico and the US, but there never would have been any bloodshed in the area if Polk hadn't sent an army to the border, which he did with the deliberate intent of provoking a fight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jockeying for territory =/= declaring an outright invasion of a sovereign nation and stealing half of its land. You may not mean it in that way, but Polk certainly did, which is why he invaded Mexico and took a huge portion of its territory (which was actually less than he wanted). How can you justify the roughly 40,000 combined American and Mexican casualties in the name of "jockeying for territory?"

[Deus Naturae]

The main problem, I suppose is that, such a settler revolt might have had additional complications-ie the British might have decided to intervene and spurn off California as a puppet state for example.

In order for the British to intervene they would have to go through the US-controlled Oregon territory, which would amount to an act of war. They never would've risked open war with the United States in an attempt to establish a puppet state in an area with no British settlers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Polk could've fought specifically to defend that territory if that was really his intent. Instead, his aim was to provoke a Mexican attack so that he would have an excuse for all-out war. This motive was realized by a young Ulysses S. Grant, then serving in Taylor's army:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mexico didn't want to sell though. If I offered to sell you a box of chocolate bars, but you refused because you were allergic to candy, and I then pull a gun on you and force you to buy from me, is that justified? Would you say I was "not particularly eager to shoot you?" It might've turned the US into a "great" power, but you could just as easily justify the genocide of the Indians or any number of atrocities committed throughout history.