Just War Theory...and then some

Today I went to a speaker who talked about "Just War Theory in the Contemporary World". Maj. Kevin Cutright was the speaker, he is currently teaching philosophy at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY; he earned his undergraduate in international relations and earned his graduate degree in philosophy at Vanderbilt. I ended up going to lunch with him, his wife and son, the head of the philosophy dept. at USD, a retiring philosophy teacher who taught on ethics and philosophy, and the former student government association president for USD. Needless to say I was pretty stoked to have the head of the philosophy dept. to my left and a philosophy teacher from West Point to my right and be eating lunch with them. But here is a brief overview of my understanding of Just War Theory:

If you polarize the philosophies of war you end up with either the view that war is never justified in any circumstance or that war is always justified in every circumstance. Just War Theory, on a very basic level, states that at times war is justified and at others war is not justified. I find that this theory, though I truly don't know everything about it, is coherent and fits with reality and experience. What's interesting is that if you do believe this then you must acknowledge that:
1) Not every idea and action is equal to another.
2) Right and Wrong are based on standard.
3) Justice is not a convention of society.
4) All human beings have an equal inherent value (Every human being has certain rights...maybe intrinsic value is a better wording)

World War II is a prime example of a Just War. Hitler was had ideas that we say are logically incoherent and violate human rights. His ideas and actions were bad. He believed that not all humans were equal and we saw this played out in his belief in Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensch or Superman. If every idea/action were equal, then we were not justified in going to war against Germany.
One might say: Nazi Germany was wrong because they violated basic human rights. I agree that happened, but why is that wrong? If those actions are wrong, why are they wrong and where does the idea of right and wrong come from? And if an idea/action is right or wrong must there not be a standard by which to judge what is right and wrong? "If," as Ravi Zacharias puts it, "there is a moral law, must there not, then, be a moral law giver?" Where do we get our standard for morality (right and wrong)? If right and wrong, or Justice, is a convention of society then who's society is correct? How can I say that Nazi Germany was wrong? Because there is a standard of right and wrong, and of Justice.
To sum up, I believe that our moral law comes from God. God's moral nature (Because God is completely good) shows us what is good or bad, right or wrong, just or unjust. God, by is own nature, is the moral standard. Because God is the moral standard and we are made in the image of God, we can understand why what Nazi Germany did to people was wrong and how their actions violated basic human rights: They not only went against God's moral nature but violated beings that contained the image of God.

I know this is a little sporadic, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying...and if not, then please question me...or do anyway.
Jordan