When do you think it’s justified to make war on a whole nation, not just it’s government, but it’s people too?

That’s how we did it in WWII, and I’m pretty sure that’s why WWII was our last decisive victory.

My own opinion is that when a nation state attacks you and it’s fairly clear it’s population is supportive of the government, unrestricted warfare is justified.

Afghanistan’s ruling government aided and abetted the organization responsible for 9/11. They refused to cut ties with said organization when we stood at their doorstep yelling “send the culprits out and we won’t firebomb the building.”

An attack on Afghanistan was justified. The execution and resolution of the attack has thus far been another Rumsfeldian nightmare, but we were within our rights to hit back at the Taliban.

Iraq remains another story.

“1. Attack America, get hit back. If you attack America or our aliies expect to get hit back just as hard. I don’t believe in turning the other cheek.”

It seems, to me, you are suggesting Iraq (maybe Afghanistan too) attacked America and that we were right not to turn the other cheek. What other conflict(s)could be relevant to your statement?

And yet, Iraq did not attack us. No one has attacked us, and there is no sign at all that any nation has the will or the weaponry to attack the U.S. Your position seems fuzzy to me. I’d say this: We should never attack a nation simply because some of its citizens have carried out terrorist attacks against us (a principle we actually upheld in regards Saudi Arabia.)

If I’m over-reacting, and misreading you, please set me straight.

11) If an adversary or enemy celebrates prior attacks against us and has deliberately violated prior agreements–don’t treat a diplomatic solution in and of itself as a victory. Our interests should not be measured in the commitments of despots, but rather their intention and record in meeting their diplomatic obligations.

12) We are no more or less culpable for torture if we send terrorists to authoritarian allies that do it for us. IF we think torture doesn’t work, then we need to also end rendition.

I agree also (although, I note earlier you indicated that under certain extreme conditions you would use torture).

Sigh.

And the pro-torture morons like Jay and Dugger will beat you with that .00001% until you give them 99%, then 98% and so on.

I noticed that too. But while I was glad you seem to have reconsidered your opinion on it, Dugger seems dissapointed.

I guess torturers love company.

Since you have no way of determining that the information you get is accurate regardless of the circumstances under which you decide to torture, then why place limits at all?

If a bomb is going to go off in two hours, for example, maybe you say “let’s waterboard this person.” But how are you so sure that the information you receive will be at all different if the bomb is meant to go off in two weeks?

As far as torture, yes, under unbelievably specific and life-threatening conditions I think going beyond the pale is required but 99.9999% of the time it’s just immoral.

So why is 13 years of occupation any better?

the sticking point becomes the details like

“Military action is always the last option in diplomatic negotiations”

How do you know you have reached the end of diplomatic negotiation? I mean, the world “negotiated” with saddam for more than 13 years before the US “rushed” to war…