In article ,
"Toller" wrote:

Had we done something to stop Hitler (or Hirohito for that matter) in 1939,
instead of waiting for Pearl Habor over three years later, we could have
saved 40,000,000 dead. But no, public opinion was too strong against it.
Thank God the Japanese were stupid enough to attack PH.

But with that thinking, Toller, the world would be in a perpetual state
of war. Who's to make the determination that a country's leader is a bad
and/or dangerous guy who needs to be taken out? It's dangerous thinking
to believe we're (USA) always in the right with our foreign relations
decisions - history has and will continue to prove this statement
correct.

Castro has been considered an enemy of the US for half a century - would
it have been better to declare war on Cuba in '60 with the resulting
deaths or to do as we've done and allow them to co-exist in a world of
their own making? What of the leaders in Africa who are complicit or
complacent to the genocide within their own borders? Why are we
tolerating their behavior for decades and not removing them?

Like it or not, cynical or not, most of our military decisions to enter
a war come down to matters of economics. Until a foreign conflict or
threat impinges on our ability to make money or significantly affects
our trading partners we aren't much interested.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05