[FarCenter]

we have never waged a war of conquest against another nation

Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Philippines, Spanish-American War, and interventions in Central American banana republics by Marines on a regular basis.

[Kevmo]

Those are all excellent examples of wars that do not involve conquest because we LEFT those countries after the warfare.

[Tell It Right]

"outside the North American Continent, we have never waged a war of conquest against another nation"

"Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Philippines, Spanish-American War, and interventions in Central American banana republics by Marines on a regular basis"

I'm counting Grenada since it's in the Gulf of Mexico, though it's probably more South America. And I'd say Afghanistan was very much justified after 9/11 (I'd a gone into Pakistan too, and not "win over hearts and minds" in either country). So we're pretty much left with Iraq and the Philippines.

[JewishRighter]

Which of those were wars of conquest?

[Ancesthntr]

“we have never waged a war of conquest against another nation”

“Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Philippines, Spanish-American War, and interventions in Central American banana republics by Marines on a regular basis.”

---

You must distinguish between destroying the ability of an enemy’s armed forces to effectively resist your forces - and leaving a certain period of time later, vs. destroying the enemy’s forces and occupying/annexing the territory of that country. These are 2 COMPLETELY different things. A “war of conquest” necessarily implies the latter choice of permanent occupation/annexation - and we have not done that since the Spanish-American War (even then, we gave the Phillipines their independence in 1946) - all that we really kept was Puerto Rico (not exactly the greatest decision, btw) and some islands in the Pacific. Before that, we never initiated a “war of conquest,” though had things gone more our way on land in the War of 1812, there would be no Canada.