I understand your position Muff, and I wish I could see it that way. However, I see the space program, clean operating rooms, mass-production of steel, etc etc etc as being inherent to the civilization that we call humanity. Our ability to move beyond the primitive means that the Native Americans (who lacked large scale war) lived in is a simply good thing. Look at the ethnicities and nations that enjoy the highest standards of living, you'll see the descendents of those who waged war in a structured, advanced manner. Greater civilization comes from greater destruction of fellow man. I can't judge the morality based upon standards that ignore those concepts, I believe that while some morals can be removed from all context, the morals governing killing of fellow humans cannot (e.g. the killing of a child rapist is a GOOD act, wherby the killing of said child by the rapist is not.)
I believe that argument can stand upon its own to justify war (the argument of the causation of civilization from warfare,) however, there is also another inherent justification for war. Easiest example is the crusades, but rise in populations, especially of young and males, has almost always coincided with a large warfare campaign (at the least in european culture, haven't seen studies on Asian.) That war releases population pressure is a given, and perhaps this IS inherently needed.
There's a lot of uglier arguments that can also be given, and I believe are accurate. I call them ugly however because they are judged using emotions and pre-concieved values, and are not discussed in a...god I hate foxnews for ruining this phrase...in a fair and balanced manner. Instead persons discussing them have their stance, and refuse to accept the argument for analysis because of that stance.

Oh, and Muff, if you think WW2 was about stopping the "holocaust" you've been mislead. Yes, in hindsight that will be what it was known for, but at no point did a nation engage in warfare to "Save the Jews!" Similarly is the USAvCSA war, aka "The Civil War." This was a war about land and power, not slaves. Yes slaves gave a moral justification, especially in hindsight, for the destruction that was waged. Also gave a convenient excuse to shred the founding fathers intention of a union of states into an executively controlled nation made up of psuedo-states. But the war did not start nor continue because of slavery. That lincoln didn't "free the slaves" until 3 years in should be a clear example. That he only freed the slaves of another nation (the CSA) and not the slaves within the territory he actually posessed power over, should be even clearer. The Emancipation Proclimation is an important piece of history because of the outcome of the war, but had the war gone any number of different directions, it would have been nothing more than PsyOps.

And no, I'm not a redneck who waves around a confederate battle flag. I do not think the south shall rise again, I do not think black people are inferior or any of that other white power crap. I'm just a person who tries to remain objective when possible, though I'll admit to failure many times.

Cheers.

I agree with this. In comparing the recent Iraq war with the Gulf War, I found that a good time to "pull the trigger" on war is when one nation violates the rightful sovereignty of another nation, like Iraq did to Kuwait during the Gulf War. That war was justified. That was the US and other countries beating down a bully.

Germany was a bully. Japan was a bully. I have no issue with us going to fight bullies.

Meanwhile, I hate being an American when the US becomes the bully, as it was during the recent Iraq war.

Now, to be clear, Saddam was a fucker. Morally speaking I can say he got what he deserved. But if every nation were free to attack other nations based on their own notions of morality, the world would be plunged into chaos. That said, for global stability, morality has to give way to sovereign rights. Saddam was a fucker but he was Iraq's fucker. He was an internal problem and he should have been dealt with internally. By going against him as we did we violated Iraq's sovereign rights, and the world saw it. The UN opposed it so, of course, we began to demonize the UN and discredit it. Typical bully tactics. "You're with us or against us" - more typical bully tactics.

Afghanistan is a tougher situation, as is terrorism in general. In this case we have no choice but to enter others' sovereignty in order to attack our enemies who are hiding there. Hopefully we'll always have some measure of support of the local government. If not... well... that's a huge gray area.