Which wars involving the United States would you have supported?

[H. Ross Peron]

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

[H. Ross Peron]

American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
Northwest Indian War (1785-1793)
Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794)
Quasi War (1798-1800)
First Barbary War (1801-1805)
Tecumseh's War (1811)
War of 1812 (1812-1815)
Creek War (1813-1814)
Second Barbary War (1815)
First Seminole War (1817-1818)
Arikara War (1823)
Winnebago War (1827)
First Sumatran expedition (1832)
Black Hawk War (1832)
Second Seminole War (1835-1842)
Second Sumatran expedition (1838)
Patriot War (1838)
Mexican-American War (1846-1848)
Cayuse War (1847-1855)
Apache Wars (1851-1900)
Puget Sound War (1855-1856)
Rogue River Wars (1855-1856)
Third Seminole War (1855-1858)
Yakima War (1855-1858)
Second Opium War (1856-1860)
Utah War (1857-1858)
Navajo Wars (1858-1860)
First and Second Cortina Wars (1859-1861)
Paiute War (1860)
Reform War (1860)
American Civil War (1861-1865)-Support the Union from a moral standpoint, but likely would have been a Confederate due to geographical reasons. So, limegreen, since I don’t quite know which side I’d be on in this war.
Dakota War (1862)
Colorado War (1863-1865)
Snake War (1864-1868)
Red Cloud's War (1866-1868)
Comanche Campaign (1867-1875)
Modoc War (1872-1873)
Red River War (1874-1875)
Las Cuevas War (1875)
Great Sioux War (1876-1877)
Nez Perce War (1877)
Bannock War (1878)
Cheyenne War (1878-1879)
Sheepeater Indian War (1879)
White River War (1879-1880)
Pine Ridge Campaign (1890-1891)
Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii (1893)
Second Samoan Civil War (1898-1899)
Spanish-American War (1898)
Philippine-American War (1899-1902)
Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901)
Border War (1910-1919)
World War I (1917-1918)
Russian Civil War (1917-1922)
World War II (1941-1945)
Korean War (1950-1953)
Second Indochina War (1953-1975)
First Gulf of Sidra Incident (1981)
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Invasion of Panama (1989-1990)
Persian Gulf War (1990-1991)
Operation Restore Hope (1992-1994)
Bosnian War (1993-1995)
Operation Uphold Democracy (1994-1995)
Kosovo War (1998-1999)
War in Afghanistan (2001-Present) (Supported from 2001-2011, oppose 2011-present).
Iraq War (2003-2011)
2011 military intervention in Libya (2011)

Did you actually look up the circumstances of all the Indian Wars? I'm impressed.

[H. Ross Peron]

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.

Indeed. The Mexican-American War was literally just invading a sovereign country with the goal of expanding slavery. There is no argument in favor of it.

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.

[H. Ross Peron]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So jockeying for territory for strategic/national security reasons automatically makes one a murderous bully? By "nationalistic" I didn't mean the term in some sort of "national glory" or "Manifest Destiny" sort of way but in the sense of protecting the nation through the securing of uncertain areas-much as Rome expanded to its natural defensive lines at the Rhine, Danube, and so forth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true. At the same time, though, the part of the Mexican Cession that actually became a state-namely California ended up tilting the balance of the states in favour of the free ones.

[H. Ross Peron]

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.

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. Considering the area was claimed by Mexico, how should the United States government have protected it, if not by sending a military detachment? By this logic reinforcing Fort Sumter provoked the Civil War.

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?"
[/quote]

The phrase "jockeying for territory" was badly phrased but what I meant is that expansion was motivated by reasons for complex than a simple opportunistic land grab, in light of the strategic position of California and (for example) fears that the British would seize control of it. Nor was Polk particularly eager for war-after all his initial plan was to purchase those territories and compensation was given at the conclusion of the war in Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It hardly was the proudest moment in the history of the Republic, but in hindsight the war was decisive in making the United States a continental power.