Which wars involving the United States would you have supported?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

hawkish, big government forum.

lol..............

[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?"

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

An interesting thing to note is that there are many "immoral" wars, like most of the Indian Wars and the Mexican American war, that, while we were clearly acting wrongly, provided benefits to the US that I doubt many people here would want to live without. I doubt anyone here would want all of America to consist of the East coast, for inastance.

[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.

[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.

[hawkeye59]

Revolutionary War
Whiskey Rebellion - support government
Quasi War
First Barbary War
First Sumatran Expedition
Patriot War - support government
Second Sumatran Expedition
American Civil War - support Union
Border War
World War I (without hindsight)
World War II
Korean War
Persian Gulf War
Operation Restore Hope
Bosnian War
Kosovo War
War in Afghanistan
2011 Military Intervention in Libya

[SNJ1985]

Probably none of them. I would have been a Loyalist during the American Revolution.

[°Leprechaun]

zero

[Cassius]

Probably the vast majority of them, aside from the Revolution (#KingGeorge4ever), the Whiskey Rebellion and the War of 1812.

[Mr. Illini]

My support/opposition to US involvement in the conflicts.

Supported cases are in bold to more easily distinguish.

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)
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)
Vietnam 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) --- would have voted to enter, but strongly opposed to how it was conducted
Iraq War (2003-2011)
2011 military intervention in Libya (2011)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I dare you to guess which ones I would've supported.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I dare you to guess which ones I would've supported.

All the ones Ron Paul supports