"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
news
Agkistrodon wrote:

SNIP

1) Non-uniformed combatants are not granted the same level of protection
as are uniformed soldiers under international law. We have a far lower
standard to meet when dealing with such people.

2) The proactive interdiction by military means against nations that we
presume will harm us has a long and studied history in the US. For
instance, when Japan attacked us in WWII, we declared war on them AND
Germany (which to that point had done very little to us) on the
assumption that they were allies and that Germany meant us (and our
allies) harm.


This is not quite true. Here is the Declaration of War on Japan:

SNIP

Well, OK. Technically, we were in a state of war w/Germany, but they
had not actually done anything to us (as of the moment of our declaration
of war).
--


We were technically in a state of war with Krautland ONLY after they
declared war on us. We were in a full state of war when we declared it on
them. They were allies of Japan and it was common knowledge that we would
have to fight them. In fact, the American strategy was to concentrate on
Europe as the more dangerous enemy and prevent further Japanese expansion
until Germany was taken care of. It went better in the Pacific than we
thought it would. Although the Japanese were actually closer to making
their own nuke than the Germans ever were, they needed maybe another year.

Agkistrodon