1. Try to avoid war, but certainly not at all costs. If you risk too much by not fighting, or if the diplomatic route proves too costly, then war is acceptable. That is, unless you're the aggressor. If you decide that you risk too much by not invading, say, Kerplakistan, because you need more living space for your people, then you're clearly in the wrong. But if you wanna save some poor minority from destruction, or protect precious resources from some maniac who wants to control them and try to blackmail the world, or something, then that's fine.

I was listening to Real Radio, and this guy, Phil something or other, was interviewing this woman who said that she appreciated the troops because their sacrifice allows her and all other Americans to live in luxury, and that's what they're there for. It was such a ridiculous caricature that I think it was a set up, but, if toned down, it shows one of those grey areas where you have to weigh the pros and cons. I mean, if, what was it, OPEC, decided to raise the price of oil to astronomical levels, say, ten bucks a gallon, I think we'd be forced to go to war. But if it's just because we're a bit paranoid about possible future fluctuations, eh, we'll see what happens.

2. I wouldn't know, not being a veteran or anything, but I don't think it should. The President, or whoever, MIGHT hate war a good deal more than someone else if they fought in one, but that doesn't mean he (or she) will shy away from it if they feel the war needs to be fought. And someone with no war experience won't necessarily rush into a war just because they didn't shoot Viet Cong in the jungle. Maybe I feel this way because I only know the horrors of war in my imagination, but hey, who knows.

3. When there's a good reason, of course. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, and various other Constitution-soundin' things.