I am not for war, but is it sometimes necessary? Ask Americans why we are at war and you will get different answers.
We provide healthcare for other countries when thousands of Americans can't afford insurance. We put our troops in danger for another country's "freedom". We have alliances that make enemies of other countries. We supply and support Israel. All for what? How exactly does this benefit America?
Should we continue doing what we have been doing or should we just stay over here and mind our own business? I am eager to see how other atheists view this.
[Disclaimer: I have not read the bulk of the thread, I apologize]
Self-defense is justifiable...which is probably why there was a lot of back and forth on which wars could be justified by self-defense.
But more substantially, it really does depend on what you mean by "mind its own business". Do you mean:
1. An internationalist stance, whereby the USA participates in international institutions and diplomacy while restricting the use of the military?
2. An isolationist stance where the USA would not only restrict the use of the military but also withdraw from international institutions like the UN?
Both could constitute the US "minding its own business" but there are very important differences between them. Personally, I support the internationalist stance.
As far as spinning off topics...it would be interesting to talk about differing countries perceived moral standing around the world - How it is measured, on what basis, and is it all justified? Having gotten into related discussions about the Iraq War as much as I agree that the justification was weak and the war was unwarranted - there is sometimes a sort of moral grandstanding that occurs by opponents of the war. They sometimes get drawn into the claim that countryX is more moral than the United States because they/we didn't and wouldn't start an Iraq II style conflict. It's at this stage that I tend to diverge in my viewpoint because the claim about 'relative morality' is typically presented without justification or analysis. It would be interesting to see it properly justified (or not).
I've done what I can to look into it - there are two peer reviewed studies, but Bush just scoffed at them.
Saudi support for Sunni insurgency is as evident as Iran support for Shia insurgency. That's usually why it's referred to as international state sponsored terrorism. Note the usage of "sponsored" and not "financed" - the Wahabis in Saudi are highly sympathetic to the Al-Qaeda cause.
Al-Qaeda (and later Taliban) is an offshoot of Egyptian led Sunni revolutionaries. Their aim is the restoration of the Islamic Khalifat in a pan-Arab state which aim is to eradicate Jews, Persians, and Capitalists. Iran, which is not an Arab state, feels the threat of Sunni encroachment and therefore directly support puppets in Lebanon (Hizbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), and to a certain extent Syria (which is also developing nuclear weapons) to defend its borders.
All this means is that Al-Qaeda=Sunni, Hizbollah/Hamas=Shia. Sunni countries at least tacitly support AQ. So if combatting AQ is the main aim then Saudi should probably be invaded. (That would make the Ayatollas very happy. (US and Iranian interests in the region is more similar than dissimilar.)