If the Nazi regime was a creature of our present day, and if Nazi ******* Germany was killing Jews and Russians and Gypsies and all the rest of us inferior types, and assuming we knew it was going on, I presume it would be considered a justifiable action by us to take them on, militarily.
Let's put a fine point on it. It would be "justified" in almost every real sense of that term.
Now, would it be something other than "war" if it were completely justified? Or would it still be "war?" In fact, isn't that a pretty good example of a justified or "just war?"
The point is: not all war is "bad" even if it's always deadly and tragic. And even so, war is still war.
That takes me to Libya. Maybe it is "justified" to prevent Mohammar Kaddafy-**** from killing his own people to "take him on militarily." Maybe. But even if it is "justified," is it our place to be the policeman of the world?
And even if we have some undefined right to act like the world's good cop, isn't that the kind of thing the Constitution says should be authorized by Congress? Should this President -- or ANY President -- have a right to engage in ENTERING a war -- one which has not first been directed against us by the opponent -- without getting PRIOR Congressional authority?
