My Definition of "War as a last resort is..."

... actually being willing to go to war at some point.

I think its ridiculous to believe that the US should NEVER go to war.

Of COURSE we should go to war !!

- We should always go to war when attacked directly.
- We should always go to war when its blindingly clear even to the leftest liberal that we are about to be attacked.
- We should always use force to prevent any violent entity (terrorists, foreign state, whatever) from imminently getting WMDs (should all else fail)

This is a given, and every single Democratic Politician on the planet agrees with these points. You WILL NOT find a Democratic candidate that does not agree with these points, and if you do, they they are a "f*cking batshit crazy moonbat" that should be impeached.

'nuff said.

Although I'm not sure the 3rd is always practical, there's no problem with the principle of it. That's when you get into exaggerating intel to create false crises and so forth (and why such things ought not be done but are anyway).

But politically speaking, anyone who is not the sitting President is mainly dealing with the principle of the matter to begin with, and no serious Democratic candidates would disagree with these principles, I think it's fair to say.

Does Pakistan? Does North Korea? How about Israel? How about if they are purported to be imminently acquiring WMDs, but it's all just a pack of lies, as it was with Iraq?

Sorry, but your point #3 has already been used to launch a war, with disastrous effects.

According to you, because Bush lied, intelligence can never be valid again.
Because Bush lied, there are no such thing as WMDs, and there are no threats to the US of WMDs falling into the wrong hands.

That is 100% certified bullshit.

Any time we have evidence that a violent/terrorist group or state is about to aquire WMDs we should use force to stop it.
EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I REFUSE to let Bush's lies put ME AT RISK from actual Terrorists with actual WMDs, just because YOU are too afraid that it MIGHT be another lie.

Thats just crap, and any politician that takes that stance is a moron.

When was the last time they launched any aggression on another country without being first attacked. How about North Korea? It has been over fifty years since they tried for re-unification with the South in that time the USA has launched over ten violent incursions upon other countries..

:eyes:

What real action have they taken? Right wingers say all the time "Glass Em" and they are talking about the entire Middle East..

Ahmedinajad said the state of Israel should no longer exist. That is not saying Israel (and all its citizens) should be wiped off the map. Perhaps you recall Ronald Reagan saying the same thing about the Soviet Union. It's gone now, but Russia and its people still exist.

I believe it is Israel making the belligerent threats about attacking Iran. No?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1601413,00.html

"Iran's new president created a sense of outrage in the west yesterday by describing Israel as a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the face of the earth". Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is more hardline than his predecessor, told students in Tehran that a new wave of Palestinian attacks would be enough to finish off Israel."

and

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/

"Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world." "


Note: he quoted Khomeini, and the direct wording is "must be". Not "will someday be". "must be". "must be" is a directive, not a prediction.

Iran's President Did Not Say "Israel must be wiped off the map"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x13672

Looks to me like he was calling for an end to the regime in Israel not Israel itself. Kind of like we want to get rid of the Bush regime. This is my problem with preventative attacks, you can never be sure who's telling the truth.

Actually doing it, yeah, that would be violent. Just talking about it? Not so much.

So when are you planning on enlisting, rpgamerd00d?

has a 3rd world country launched an attack on a developed nation, halfway across the world. It's doubtful that such an attack could ever occur.

On second thought, DON'T give me a "W"... or any other Bush (or Republican/Conservative) for that matter.

and anything which would genuinely fall into that category I would support.

But, you'd be damned foolish to count on it.

Pre-emptive war, as in your 2nd & 3rd examples, worked ever so well in Iraq.

How do you define "violent entity"? The USA is a violent entity. Check the evening news for obvious violence that it's indulging in.

p.s. No, we should not bomb Iran. It doesn't qualify as per my criteria in the OP.
p.p.s. Yes, we should bomb North Korea, it does qualify. It already developed nuclear weapons against international law.

And, all of them have a history of violence.

NK has not attacked us. They are AFRAID of us - with good reason - we think that they "should be wiped off the map".

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
47 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, pray for them that persecute you;
48 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
49 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the tax-gatherers the same?
50 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles so?
51 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what gain have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
52 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Most High: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
53 Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

EVER!