I've heard the argument about WWII and after reading Pearl Harbor, it seems
very plausible.  Necessary to gain public support.  Otherwise it was just
their problem.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 1:32 PM
  To: CF-Community
  Subject: RE: comments?

  Agreed. Whether its deliberate (as some historians have argued regarding the
  two world wars) or accidental is hard to say. But there have been situations
  where a faster intervention, i.e.., Kosovo, Bosnia, Burundi and Rwanda,
  where it may have made a significant difference.

  larry

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 2:24 PM
  > To: CF-Community
  > Subject: RE: comments?
  >
  >
  > I believe that one could form a solid argument that our/USA's
  > fundamental problem is that we wait to act in any meaningful
  > fashion until force is the only solution.
  >
  > So that problem isn't that we act too quickly, it is that we
  > act too slowly.
  >
  > Andy
  >
  >
  >    More recently
  >   however there has been a significant humanitarian component
  > to the US
  >   becoming involved in local or regional conflicts, when this
  > country finally
  >   gets off its butt and acts.
  >
  >   larry
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to