Edited by author 03-18-2003 01:29 PM
Your example of the cold war ending communism is interesting -- assume it did. I personally think it had a lot to do with it, and it was probably necessary given all the circumstances. But just when did the cold war involve invading the USSR or Eastern Europe? I must have been sick that week. Your example then is a wonderful example of how not having am all-out war but just wearing them down is an effective tool to promote freedom.

Your example of East Timor is also problematic for your position. (BTW, you seem to be under the impression that I am anti- any war or military action. Like most people who are against the present war in Iraq, I am for intevention in some instances. Now back to E.Timor.) East Timor is also a good example of how to do it (and how it could likely have been unnecessary) -- those were UN troops. Where are the UN troops, or even backing, in Iraq? But the situation in East Timor had gone on for many years, with Indonesian-backed militias messing up people's lives. The US turned a blind eye -- something to do with US submarine bases in Indonesia which patrol the strategic areas around there. If the US had put pressure on Suharto, and they had plenty of ways to do that, they could have prevented the East Timor situation from happening.

Now the Korean war was probably necessary; one of very few in the past century.

So you have one case (Korea) where military action (suported by a number of countries -- the US wasn't alone) was probably necessary; one (East Timor) where UN troops ended a conflict that probably could've been ended by US pressure a decade earlier; and two cases (Eastern Europe and the USSR) where continued pressure instead of war did the deed and brought freedom to millions. Not really a good case for war, much less going to war without UN and/or broad international support.