Liberate wasn't the right word for me to use there. Protect is what I should've said.

We got involved in Korea & Vietnam to attempt to stop the northern Communist faction from taking over its southern sovereign neighbors.  Both were basically unsuccessful.  Although South Korea is free today, it is still in constant threat from its northern neighbor.  Our participation 50 years earlier, it turns out, did not eliminate the threat.

I'm not an expert on either of these conflicts, so I can't say with confidence whether the priority for our involvement was to "liberate" the northern factions (the proper place to say "liberate" here) more so than just protecting the south.  By participating, we obviously were trying to defeat the north in both cases.  If we had been successful, would it have led to a liberation of the north or a unified north and south free from Communist rule?  It's hard to say.  We helped in ridding Germany of Hitler during WWII, but the aftermath still led to Germany being a divided country for over 40 years.

There is no shame towards any of our soldiers who have died in the fight for freedom and/or democracy.  Sometimes, though, history makes it tough to justify.  That was my intended point.

-- Modified on 7/17/2004 2:40:34 AM

-- Modified on 7/17/2004 2:43:02 AM

You state my exact point.  We took Pearl Harbor as an excuse to have public opinion on our side to get involved in Europe.  Kind of like using 9/11 to excuse getting into Iraq?  Except on a larger scale, and with more popular support.