(This is not me saying conquest is moral or justifiable, merely pointing out that people have been willing (your word) to wage total war for the sake of conquest)
Typically "good" in this context is equated with "moral", so I'm a little confused with your statement. Could you please elaborate?
It seems like you're unable to decide between utilitarianism and some notion of "fair"ness (reason perhaps?) as your central moral philosophy. Note that utilitarians generally define fair as "greatest good of the greatest number".
You're right though, my views are often very utilitarian. Although, while 'fair' on the large scale applies to 'greatest good for greatest number', I would very rarely condemn someone for acting out of self-preservation, even if it was not 'fair' on the large scale. Generally speaking I hold our own right to defend ourselves, and those we love, above 'fair'. Generally speaking.
I really agree with you here. In my opinion, total war is how war should be waged. If we're in, we're in for the long haul and we take it serious. Plus, it forces our citizens to constantly acknowledge and renew their commitment every day, which means no shaky 'oh I'm not sure' wars.