Other than the European theatre of World War II, can you name any MAJOR examples

[apocalypsehow]

30. I think the war against the Japanese Empire was just, but as you have already dealt with that issue

in this thread I won't engage it other than to say I disagree with your analysis of it.

What I'd really like to ask is do you think nations should wage war to fight for the "poor, the dispossessed, working people, or true victims of oppression" in the first place? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a wand was waved and Ken Burch was placed in sole charge of the foreign policy of the United States. Would you conduct your foreign policy based on world-wide altruism or on your country's specific interests?

Waging wars against regimes around the world that oppress the poor, working people, and the like would, I wager turn into a full time endeavor, with a re-imposition of a large draft, to boot. Like, a draft of a WWII-style scale, 16 million men and women. You will also have to put the U.S. economy on a war-time footing, which might not be an altogether bad thing since a war-time economy is the closest to socialism the United States has ever been. It might tame some of our current capitalistic excesses, just as it did in 1941-46 (I say '46 because the U.S. basically stayed on a war footing till then, although the war was over).

I can think off the top of my head dozens of regimes that fit the parameters of governments that oppress the poor and working folks, but altruistic wars are usually tough sells back home after the bullets start to fly.

Of course, you'd probably wage NO wars, unless we were invaded or attacked by another nation-state, and that would be an improvement over our foreign policy since the end of WWII (that's a bipartisan swipe, BTW: I don't think LBJ's foreign policy was any better than Nixon's, for instance). So, a Ken Burch foreign policy probably would get my support in any event.