>Oh! So you believe that Britain should have intervened in the u.s. in
>1861 to prevent all that bloodletting! Britain and/or the U.S. did
>successfully prevent such bloodletting in Latin America. I take it you
>approve. And the U.S. was serving humanity when it tried (unfortunately
>without success) to intervene in Archangel and Vladivostok in 1918, in
>China in 1947. And Cuba would be a happy paradise today (like Haiti and
>the Domincan Republic) had the U.S. stepped in to stop the bloodletting
>of the war against Batista. Your politics are interesting.
I have to ask you the same question I asked Nathan: where the fuck did you get this idea? One of the horrors of the US invasion of Iraq is that it's apparently unleashing a civil war. I certainly don't think the US should stick around to quell it.
Sometimes one is stuck in an alley because he entered it himself.
Doug