Sorry for taking so long to respond, I took some time off from work to spend with my family. I didn't touch a computer for the past week (I have them at home, but I just didn't bother).

1. Would you support a war against that nation, a nation which has never attacked your country? -My country would be founded on mutual symbiosis, Moral Relativism, Greedlessness, Equality, & World Peace. Anyone who is not in accord with this is attacking my country's integrity. Imperialism may be what it's called but there's a need for unity, total cooperation of everyone capable in order for world peace to be accomplished. My country's goal is to transcend borders, unify languages, globalize resources w/o greed. The only crime would be greed and the only humane consequence to criminals is exile to another planet or instantaneous execution, not as punishment, but as the bare minimum one can do to permanently remove any harmful agent from the host.
   You've got a few problems here, Moral Relativism may (and likely will) conflict with your ideas of mutual symbiosis, Greedlessness, Equality and even World Peace. Further, how do you enforce Greedlessness or mutual symbiosis? Do you intend to shoot people who are greedy (since exile to another planet isn't currently possible)? Is greed really a crime (let alone a capital crime)? How do you define greed? If I make a smart business decision and end up with more “stuff” than my neighbor (money, property, food, etc.) does that make me greedy? Will I be executed for it? Executed for making a good business decision?
   How do you intend to enforce world peace? Do you attack dissenters (not very peaceful)? Do you confiscate all weapons in the whole world and wipe people's brains so they can't figure out how to make more? As long as people can think, they can make weapons and kill each other.
   What if people don't want unity (many people don't)? What if they don't want to unify languages (look around, most people don't)? What if they don't want globalization? What if they want borders? What you're describing is global conquest. If Hitler had won, you'd see much of what you are describing here.
   Come on, give it some more thought and keep it real. Also, you didn't really answer my question. You sidestepped. Instead of making up your own (questionably) ideal world, look at the one we're in.
2. Would you support that war even if the rest of the world was against it? -yeah, I'd be at the front lines.
   Ok, so you want to kill people to keep other people from starving. Probably the people you'd kill aren't the ones making the decisions that are causing others to starve. Eventually, though, presuming you win, you'd throw out one tyrant and then you can feed the people. Hmm, what kind of government are you going to establish in that nation to ensure that another tyrant won't take over when you leave (or do you intend to conquer the nation)?
3. Would you want UN approval? -I don't need others approval for my actions or for what I feel is right.
   That stance is, frankly, part of the coalition stance on the Iraq war. The coalition didn't need the approval of others to do what is right.
4. What if the UN didn't approve? -Then they're supporting the continuation of tyranny.
   Perhaps so (actually they definitely are). Do you then support dismantling the UN?
5. What if some business people from your own country did business with that country and further, what if those same business people contributed to your campaign for President and are demanding their political favors in the form of you not pursuing that country (most politicans fail at this one)? -I'd never have become president by accepting bribes from the very type of people I'm leading to dissolve. Naturally they wouldn't want me in power anyways. To outlaw greed would effectively render money obselete. People who are financially supporting a country that's exploiting thier citizens are just as bad as the country they're doing "business" with.
   I didn't say bribe, I said contribution. Becoming President costs money. Unless you have billions laying around, you need support (if you do, then why aren't you feeding the people instead of becoming president). Every contribution that you get will come from someone with their own political agenda that will somewhat complement yours, but there are bound to be conflicts.
   How do you outlaw a thought? How do you determine what is greed and what is incentive? Do you think that people will choose difficult careers without the incentive of a better lifestyle? Can't that incentive be considered greed? We've covered this before, what is your justification for telling someone that even if they work hard and earn certain rewards, they can't have them because that would be greed? Do you believe that without incentive, the vast majority of people would still work hard and accomplish things? Historical examples suggest that incentive is necessary for growth and progress. Where's the line between incentive and greed? Who gets to draw that line? Do you really want to execute entrepreneurs who bring progress because they earn more than that line?
   So doing business with a tyrant makes me a tyrant? Perhaps and perhaps not. What if I didn't know about the tyranny?
   What if there is a product that only comes from a certain tyrannical nation (it is a resource found only there) and that product is necessary to make a medicine that saves millions of lives annually? Sure, you can say that we'd need to research and find another medicine (which could take decades). Should the pharmaceutical company, who is trying to help save lives (as well as turn a profit), stop making the medicine because they'd have to do business with the tyrant? Should millions die each year during the research period because a tyrant is allowing some of his people to starve? Yeah, that's it, one is as bad as another.
6. What about if your State Department says, "let us negotiate, we'll get the job done and it will make the US look good in the international arena that we can do the job with diplomacy instead of the military."? -War should be a last resort. If a state department can give a reasonable amount of time and arrive at an agreement w/ the another country within said amount of time then great. If not, then war w/o hesitation.
   So what is a “reasonable” amount of time? Let's say 1,000 people are starving to death per year in that country. Is 1 year reasonable? Is 10 years (10,000 people)? How many people must die before you decide that diplomacy isn't working? How about this? What if during those 10 years, you see real progress? Perhaps people are still starving (still 1,000 per year) but the overall population of the country is growing so that each year, it is a smaller percentage of the population? When do you decide to start a war?
   For that matter, what if the state department can't give a time line? Diplomacy isn't an exact science. There's no way to tell how long it may take to persuade a tyrant that he needs to change his ways. Do you issue an ultimatum (backing yourself into a corner)? Do you then proceed with a war if that ultimatum isn't met?
7. If only people did the right thing, but you do understand that you can't make people do the right thing, don't you? - yeah, but you CAN make them cease doing the wrong thing.
   Nope, you can't. If you could, then you could stop crime. You could stop tyranny. You could stop discrimination. Nobody can stop these things because we can't control other people's thoughts. You can outlaw an action, but that doesn't stop it. Read the newspapers. How many people were murdered yesterday? How many robberies occurred? How many rapes? These are all outlawed actions, but outlawing them doesn't stop them.

-"There are good people in the world who want to fix this. You find many (most) of them in charities and churches. Think about it."
Nice, responding with my own words. Consider that many (probably half) of the people in charities and churches wouldn't necessarily support military actions against other nations to stop starvation. They want to stop starvation, but they want to do it peacefully (missions, not machine guns). Do you believe that these people will fund your military crusade against starvation? Even if they did, they can't because you'd need to find national governments to obtain the necessary military equipment (feel frey to try to buy a fleet of warships, aircraft, munitions, tanks, etc. without a government backing you).

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan