I quite clearly said "major groups" before I listed those. I was not going to try and list every single one of the dozens of groups involved.
You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I was just stating that the Moro people were apart of the different Sultanates. You said the Moro and the Sulu Sultanate were seperate, correct? Which is false, you could have said that some of the Moro nobles did not abide by the Sulu Sultans peace treaty.
But this was not any single kind of rebellion like the US Revolution was. Think of the chaos of 1920's Germany, and you might start to get an idea. With dozens of groups all trying to rise to power.
Your correct, it wasn't a single rebellion, it was seperate conflicts in a region. Germany's situation was different from the Philippine situation.
The Philippine Insurrections were a serious of many groups, extending back to the reign of Spain, and continuing for about a decade. The rebels were generally local groups, fighting in their own areas against any US or Government forces that they saw as standing in their way. The Morro Rebellion was simply the longest of them, so some make the mistake of thinking they are seperate.
Your contradicting yourself right here, can you see where? Rebels were local groups fighting in their areas, also there were multiple rebel groups doing this, each with their own agenda. This is what I would classify as seperate.
But if the rebels of had their way, there would be no "Philippines" today. Instead you would have dozens of micro-countries, all fighting with each other.
What made you draw this conclusion? I could say the opposite, maybe their wouldn't be religious strife there now if there was a seperate islamic state. Africa is a good example against your train of thought. Multiple states in africa were drawn up by europeans, was this a good thing? They just threw a bunch of people with different cultures, languages, and religions together, even putting enemies together, also at the same time splitting people of the same tribes with national borders. This has caused more problems than if they would have had micro nations, in my opinion that is.
And if you are not sure why we were there, you should really go back even further and read about the Spanish-American War then.
I know the reasons why american people supported war. But that doesn't mean the politicians didn't have their own agenda, which became obvious in the near future.
Spain was not a kind overlord to their colonies, and the Philippines of that era were in no way unified.One of the standard practices of Spain was concentration camps. Round up entire regions, and put them in "Concentration Camps" at night. Then anybody out in the fields or jungles at night was an enemy and you shot them.That is why we got into the war in the first place, getting their Pacific colonies was something that happened, we were not trying to gain them at all.
No, Spain was not kind... Neither were the other European empires... We weren't trying to gain them? We just accidently did, then they fought us, just as they did with Spain for independence Lol...
And much like Iraq, Weimar Germany, or many other situations, you then had groups pop up all wanting to control of the area.
You are all over the place
These are different from the Philippines...
What should we have done, left them to kill each other off in a dozen year or more of internal bloodshed like Yugoslavia did?
Completely different than the Philippines. Just because conflicts have similar attributes do not mistake them all for being the same. This is another example why you shouldn't throw a bunch of ethnic or religious groups in the same country without individual liberties.
You are trying to put modern thoughts and beliefs into an era more then 100 years ago, and that is a huge mistake for anybody to do.
What are you talking about?