The U.S. should never go to war except in the case of genocide

[apples and oranges]

That is the only time we should intervene in foreign disputes. Why we didn't help those in Rwanda and Darfur I will never understand. But we have no business in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[stray cat]

1. Why then? How many people and who have to die to make it acceptable to intervene in another country

[glowing]

2. How do we go to war with ourselves. I'd say a million dead Iraqi's and 5 million

refugees makes for a genocide.. guess it doesn't count if we are the super power?

[mike_c]

3. it's interesting that we've become so numb to the notion of war as foreign policy...

...that we don't even seriously talk about the one undisputable reason for going to war any longer-- defense against foreign aggression. And by that I mean foreign military aggression against the U.S. or, when there are treaty obligations demanding it, our allies. But otherwise, no. Every war the U.S. has engaged in since world war two has been a war in which the U.S. was partly or wholly the aggressor. It is a shameful legacy.

I listened to a program on public radio today in which army and marine officers were interviewed about war, and every one of them stated outright that the U.S. has NEVER fought a war except in direct self defense. That is apparently a matter of policy, if not of veracity. It's appalling.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Are you saying we should not go to war if a foreign government attacks the U.S.

I agree that we should interfer with a genocide. But would we need to delcare war on a country to do so. What if we led an internatonal coaltion of peacekeeprs t separate the side and protected a court that would try the criminals?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. What if it's not technically a genoc ide, yet still some kind of war crime calamity?