(1) The US being justified in intervening
(2) The US being prudent in intervening

Every criticism of military intervention is not from the standpoint of Code Pink or the hate America crowd. Nor are all criticisms of US military interventions based on selfish isolationism.

I have been more critical than many here about Iraq and Afghanistan once the Constitutions of both nations included the provisions about nothing contradicting Islamic law. In my view, those Constitions are a poison pill—a evil seed that only requires a bit of water for AQ version X to pop up at some time in the future. Look at the murder of that truly moderate governor in Pakistan. He wanted to parden a woman sentenced to death for “Insulting Islam”. Whether its the “moderate” clerics or the “moderate” lawyers in Pakistan, all of the various groups seem to be painting the assassin as a hero and the killing as a Godly killing.

A western country couldn’t nation build in a place like Pakistan without using a level of ruthlessness that even the English or French in their nastiest could ever have done. Afghanistan is weaker, but no less twisted. In Afghanistan, people have been sentenced to life in prison for crimes like converting to Christianity.

The point is that I always want the US to win. I can also justify virtually any use of military force by the US to be in the name of freedom and human rights. We are morally justified when we use force because we aren’t seeking land or treasure—we would like to help make the world a place where American GIs would never have to return. We are unique in how we use the military and our military is unique amongst the armies of the world.

All of that being said, we don’t have an obligation to stop every evil doer in the world, and nor have we ever had the capacity to do so. We need to pick and choose our battles, and pick and choose our tactics. Everything we do military is morally justified, but that doesn’t make things smart or prudent.

And Germany never atacked us in WWII until after we got involved.
So by your standards we never should have got involved.
Tell me why we did.
And Germany wasno threat to us or the US taxpayers in WWI.
Tell me why we got involved in that one.
Was it because we went to keep an allie free and safe.
But those two wars are ok with you.
And I never said anything about human rights violators.
That is something you brought up.
If that was the case, we would have followed Patton into Russia, and McCarther into China.
Do I see a little RP sneeking out in you?

You have to take them warts and all. And the fact is, Germany and Japan declared war on the US because Roosevelt already had us in an undeclared war against them well before they made their declarations.

Now, I happen to believe this is one of the rare instances where Roosevelt did the right thing even if it was for the wrong reasons. (I’m of the opinion he did it because his ego was too big not to be a player in The Great Game, not because of any real geopolitical implications.) If he had not undertaken the actions he did, Germany most likely would have conquered Europe and Japan the Pacific. After which they most likely would have taken a strategic pause. During the pause if we didn’t accept a subservient position to them, they probably would have attacked us. Either way, the US would have been subservient to a Nazi regime. But none of that changes the fact that we artificially provoked them into declaring war because it was the only way to overcome the isolationists.