Historically that's putting the cart before the horse. People -- ordinary soldiers and even military and political leaders -- were fighting for what they knew, not for what might someday be.
Arguments like yours demand far too much purity of people. The assumption seems to be that you can only pursue non-materialistic ends if you seek your own ruin.
Are you suggesting the quest for empire, whether it was Rome, Britain or the US, was based on patriotism, rather than a naked quest for power, wealth & control?
There is a difference between expansionism and attempts to preserve what one has. Arguably, we weren't fighting Mexico for idealistic ends, but it's harder to make such a statement about a country in civil war. Ideas and ideologies matter a lot more when it comes to civil wars than they do in reference to wars of territorial expansion.
Here's a question for you: why the high suicide rates among former military? Could it be veterans found out the truth after they were used, abuse and discarded, much like a cheap whore? Next, I imagine you're going to assert that GW1 & 2 were *not* about blood for oil.
Keep posting like that. See where it gets you.
I don't have an issue with those who wish to entertain morality and other theological motivations; but, please, keep it to yourself.
"I don't have an issue ... but please, keep it to yourself" means "I do have an issue."
It's the height of foolishness to engage in the wider field abroad.
I'm not sure what that means. The ACW wasn't a foreign war.
I thought FR consensus now considers both Bushes as traitors of the worst kind. Are you now suggesting that Trump's criticism of their engagement in'selective wars' is contrary to current FR commenting policy?
Please, why don't you expand on this a little more so that others may have the opportunity to be educated as to your, let us say, interesting option(s).