The US has not fought a single just war since WWII.

NOTE: Before we move onto the instigator's errors, please note that nowhere in his last round did he respond to my attack against the idea that the United State's entered WWII as a last resort, as dictated by the instigator's definition. I gave him the opportunity to expound on how the US exhausted all manner of peace with Japan or whether or not it was simply impractical to attempt peace, yet he has refused. Let me give you a good reason as to why the instigator couldn't or won't be able to reasonably respond: It's because the United States had ample opportunity to insist peaceful methods, therefore not making an immediate assault as impractical or a last resort. It is because of this that the instigator has already lost this debate since the resolution makes it clear that WWII is an example of a "just war." Therefore, even if you do not buy my argument concerning the war on terror, I am still victorious. Moving on, please note that this debate concerns whether or not a war can be waged and not actions taken afterwards in the war, hence clarification such as "Only under all of these "Jus Ad Bellum" (and perhaps some others) may war be waged" -claypole. Looking at that, all of what the instigator brings up which doesn't concern why the war was waged is to be disregarded. Finding Islamics terrorist? Strawman. Please note the exact terms of the war on terror, as noted by the Bush administration: "The Bush Administration has defined the following objectives in the War on Terrorism: [23] 1. Defeat terrorists and their organizations. 2. Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations. 3. Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists. 1. End the state sponsorship of terrorism. 2. Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism. 3. Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism. 4. Working with willing and able states. 5. Enabling weak states. 6. Persuading reluctant states. 7. Compelling unwilling states. 8. Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists. 9. Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens. 4. Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit. 1. Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism. 2. Win the war of ideals. 5. Defend U.S. citizens and interests at home and abroad. 1. Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security. 2. Attain domain awareness. 3. Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad. 4. Integrate measures to protect U.S. citizens abroad. 5. Ensure an integrated incident management capability." . . . therefore, not just islamic terrorist. Now with all of that being properly exploited, onto directly clash: "So, the just cause was never served (we didn't bomb Germany or the UAE), and this also means we lose our right intention." Not at all. What does the US having made a mistake in finding the culprit's of the 911 terrorist attack have to do with whether or not it was ever justified or had the right intention to initiate it's war stance on terrorism in the first place? That's like saying a man is not justified to look and retrieve his missing wallet simply because he looked in a place where it was not located. In other words, it's completely nonsensical, hence why a large majority of the text my opponent came up with in the last round is meaningless. "as my opponent alluded to in his provision of a Right intention, that it's OK to fight a war, provided you say your attempting to do some good." Note that it is the instigator who originally alluded to this. If you find problem with what is to be understood as right intention, you are finding fault with the PROS definition. I'm simply showing how even by his own definition, his claim is erroneous. "The issues surrounding the rest of WWII, including US bombing of civilian populations, are very complicated," Please note that this is not an argument but rather an opinion. We're not here to exchange opinions; we're here to debate! If the instigator wishes to suggest that the parts of the war which he doesn't feel as worth talking about are too complicated, he should present some legitimate arguments to back up his claim. Who is he to say what is "too complicated" for you to understand? If anything, this is an insult to your intelligence, my dear audience. However, I'm sure the instigator meant well, so don't be insulted. But at the same time, disregard his attempts to get out of having to argue in favor of something which he claims as "too complicated" to argue about. "I hope you can now see the difference between defending certain actions in a war and calling an entire war just." Audience, you have no reason to see this other than that it is merely my opponent's opinion that it's "too complicated for you to understand" "As it is, my opponent actually is trying to call an entire war just." I'm not sure what piece of fiction the instigator is reading, but you'll note that there is no point in my last round where I take up any position other than his own in agreeing to exclude parts of the war (unless he agrees to defend anything which I could exploit in WW2). Finally, about whether or not the War on Terror was fought out of a last resort, the instigator's only offense against this is a link which includes evidence and insightful diplomatic means available in avoiding the war, however, there is immediately a big problem with this link. This blog is not against the War on Terror itself, but rather the Iraq invasion. It merely providing an alternate and more peaceful means of the result which the invasion was meant to achieve is in turn agreeing with the War on terror (just not the strategy of invading Iraq). This hurts the instigator's case . . . badly. As for most terrorist being dealt with through peacefully eroding their support base, this is done by agreeing to the demands of the terrorist. There's a reason why individuals such as even Barack Obama (whom my opponent supports, as shown in his profile) openly claim that it is injudicious to negotiate with terrorist. What my opponent would have us do is simply bow down to demands of any terrorist faction in order for peace. But, this is obviously impractical. Please take a gander at the motivations behind the terrorist responsible for 911: http://mb-soft.com... This country is founded on freedom of/from religion and the means of "peacefully" eliminating such motivation behind said terrorist attack is beyond unreasonable. To really get into the absurdity of negotiation, I shall use an example. Let us say that I come barging into my opponent's house smashing his stuff and demanding that he give me his plasma screen tv or that I will continue. Should he give me his plasma screen TV? Does it make any sense that I am entitled to it all for the sake of peace? Rather than bowing down to my demands, he should either open up a can of whup@$$ or call the cops. Not only do I not get the TV I don't deserve, but I am now less motivated to demand something else out of my opponent, given that I know that he means business and is willing to get me into serious trouble. In conclusion, I thank the instigator for the offer of switching up arguments, but I'd advise that he take his own advice as his current route is a route which is not winnable. Not only have I shown that the US was justified to wage war against terrorism, but I've also shown that the United States' entering WW2 doesn't fulfill jus ad bellum. Vote CON. END OF CON ROUND 2