Let's look at one tree, then...

Badbboy's point is valid, and I'd like to follow it up.

Assuming a government is a requirement for a "just war" (I'm using a term that has multiple meanings here... in this case, I mean a war that is just in its aims and conduct), was the conflict that has become known as the American Revolutionary War an act of insurrection, or a war between established states? Was the American Revolution a "war" or not, as you have defined it?

I'm going to assume that you think it was, since the Continental Congress had both declared its independence and constituted a representative government out of the delegates from the thirteen colonies.

It has been postulated that as much as 50% of the living population at the time, however, considered themselves "British" well into 1777, especially in New York, New Jersey and New England. Much of Philadelphia, New York City, Trenton, and Baltimore remained staunchly "loyalist" in their views and opinions. Even Washington himself was (by his own words) fighting for concessions from Parliament and the Crown right up until May of 1776 (nearly two years into the war), and not for American independence.

What sort of "war" can we assume was being waged if the population of the various states and colonies fighting the "sovereign" empire that was Great Britain wasn't supporting the effort by even 50% as late as 1777? If the Continental Congress wasn't representing the "majority" of Americans... who were they representing, and how were the rights and freedoms of those other "citizens" being protected? How just of a war did those men and women see the fight against George III?

Don't get me wrong here... I'm not picking fights, and I'm not suggesting that the leaders of the American Revolution were terrorists. The right side won that fight, believe me. My whole point in this thread and discussion is that this is a slippery slope, and Ryan gets pissed at me all the time for saying it... but I'll say it again anyway: One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Facts like "Lend Lease" aside, FDR ran a campaign of isolationism all through the Great Depression years (I still shudder to type those words)... even though he was always committed to his views that America's future was tied to that of Great Britain. He knew war was coming... but couldn't afford to lose public support for his administrations because he was willing to send Americans into another European war. Right up until Saturday, December 6th, 1941... America maintained a majority opinion that Hitler was NOT their problem, and the Japanese were not going to get past the Chinese and bother us. Was that "consensus" correct? Was the government of the US right, prior to 12-7-41? This has always been a burr for me... so many historians and pundits point fingers at Chamberlain and his "peace in our time" quote, but his position wasn't that different than anyone in Washington DC prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, was it?

I would also ask that we look at the other side of this coin:

If only governments can wage war, why then can governments be so good at conducting or supporting terror? The vast majority of terrorist crimes and atrocities that have occurred over the course of... lets say the last 150 years, have been perpetrated by established governments, and not by small groups or rogue bands of madmen. Add up all the deaths attributed to bin Laden, the PLO, the IRA, Hezbollah, the Red Brigade, the Black Hand, or the Ku Klux Klan... and then compare it to the deaths attributed to the governments of Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Third Reich, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Franco's Fascist Spain, Khomeini's Revolutionary Iran, and Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq. Given that comparison, which is the greater threat of terror on an epic scale: terrorists or established governments?