If you were to keep your posts to a reasonable length, you would get more answers for those towards the bottom.
what military involvement of the U.S. since WWII have you supported, and what proposed or actual involvement have you opposed? When have you supported remaining longer than we did and when have you supported leaving before we did?
I was strongly against fighting in Viet Nam, but once there, felt that we should have put the necessary assets into it to end it and go home. I was never in favor of just giving up without winning, once entered.
I thought that going into Greneda was silly.
I was too young to have a view on Korea, but if I had, I would again have been against it, but once there,
would have fought to win.
I was against going into Lybia, and am against going into Syria.
I would have gone into Iraq, and would have remained as an occupying force for approximately the same length of time as in Germany and Japan, building democracy from the bottom up as we did there.
The same applies to Afghanistan.
I have been against almost all limited actions. We should not put soldiers in harm way unless we plan to put enough resources to win.
I would not use nuclear weapons against a country that had no nuclear weapons. But I would certainly use all other force to prevent an avowed enemy like Iran to get them.