To: SilentZ who wrote (324892 ) 2/7/2007 2:12:34 AM From: tejek Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1576739 >Canada (1812), >We were at war with Britain. Britain was stealing our sailors and restricting American trade with France because they were at war with France. Upper and lower Canada were provinces of Britain, and therefore, part of the enemy. We were trying to take Canada and using the War of 1812 for cover... kinda like Israel and the West Bank. Who told you? Jon Stewart? First time I've heard that one. Why would we want Canada....we were expanding west, not north.>Mexico (1840s), >Texas had seceded from Mexico and asked to be annexed by the US. Mexico declared war on the US. Nuh uh. We declared war on them. After Mexican soldiers attacked American soldiers stationed in Corpus Christi.>They have to do with what we call a necessary police action but what I am beginning to believe is a bully with too much time on its hands and a defense industry that wants to expand. Nah, the bullying really is a pattern that goes back a long way... however, the military-industrial complex is a new thing... we used to go to war for land, fur, or fruit. Oh, and do the words "manifest destiny" mean anything to you? Excuse me. I am the social studies teacher here, not you. Yes, I know about America's manifest destiny. And that's exactly my point.......in the past, our wars were fought either to protect the country or to expand it. Now, the wars we do are police actions where we believe we know what's best for other countries while making sure our interests are protected and our war industries have plenty of business. There's a difference and while neither kind of warring is desirable, the latter is particularly onerous and smelly.