What criteria should the U.S. use for military intervention?

[razorman]

In light of the arguments over WMD's, mass graves, torture chambers, genocide, and other horrible conditions in the world, I have a question that I would like to hear from other DU'ers about.
If there were an official checklist adopted by our government (regardless of which party is in charge at the time) which listed criteria to use before sending our military anywhere in the world, what items would you like to see on the list? In other words, what conditions must be present in a situation before we send in the troops?

[OneBlueSky]

1. whatever the criteria, it should rise to a higher standard than "makin' shit up" . . . n/t

.

[bemildred]

3. Right on. nt

[razorman]

4. Absolutely. Whatever factors are used to justify military action,

they should be proven first. False info was used to get us into both Iraq and the Balkans. Neither was the great world threat that they were made out to be.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. "Both Iraq and the Balkans?"

You're not really insinuating the two events are in any way, shape, or form, morally equivalent, are you?

[ChicagoRonin]

2. Fix Home First

I think until we prove that we can handle our own domestic emergencies (like Katrina) and alleviate home-grown problems such as intercity crime, illegal immigration, out-of-control big business, white collar corruption, voter fraud, declining quality of public education, exploding prison populations, influence peddling in government, declining employment, and lack of quality public health care (to name just a few ills), maybe we shouldn't be trying to run around saving everyone else.

[groovedaddy]

5. Only when we're attacked by another sovereign nation

Intervention to stop genocide, etc., should only happen as a U.N. mandate.