- May 2014
So all wars of conquest are based on the right of conquest and everything else is just a side effect?
If the first paragraph on the right of conquest is true and all such wars are based on the right of conquest, then all wars which are based on it are just. What makes the Mexican-American War particularly special so you declare it good?
So you admit you don't know if the settlers and the natives wanted to be a part of the US? If this is the case the justification based on self determination kind of falls flat and is based on assumptions and speculation, not on raw information.
So you admit to the earlier claims on living standards and decolonisation being a double standard?
Alright. Algeria was a bit of a special case, on the rest I more or less agree with.
So, to be honest, I don't have a problem with the conquest of territory in itself; rather, what I have a problem with is conquering (and especially annexing) territory that ends up being too difficult for the metropole to swallow.
It will always be brutal to an extent, the settlers will displace the native population and outgrow them if the goal is to alter demographics significantly,
This reminds me of a comment that Michael Mills previously made either here or elsewhere. Specifically, Michael Mills said that the Balts shouldn't have worried about a mass influx of Germans into their territories after a hypothetical German WWI victory since a lot of Slavs (primarily Russians) moved there in the decades after WWII in real life without (significantly) displacing the existing residents of these territories. (Even without the forced deportations of Balts, there should have still been enough room in Latvia and Estonia to provide enough space for everyone, no?)
in some cases outright expulsion of natives might be necessary if the native population is too great.
Frankly, I'm not very eager to view territorial expansion as a zero-sum game. When it's too much of a zero-sum game, then one probably shouldn't expand in the first place.
And you admit that you don't support the treatment of natives after the Mexican-American War, so what justifies it as being a ''good'' war as opposed to every other war of conquest ever?