Talk:List of United States foreign interventions since 1945

Untitled

 * This page was listed on Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see Talk:List of U.S. Cold War power plays/Delete.

Survived VfD
Survived: Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945. mikka (t) 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

21 KEEPS, 11 Deletes --Nearly a 2 to 1 vote to keep
Finally, a strong enough consensus to almost guarantee that those who only want one side of American history told no longer can no longer hold this page hostage for perpetuity (forever). Now lets work together to strive to make this article one of the most balanced and best on wikipedia.Travb

The memory hole
Following from: Travb 07:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The following has been deleted and no longer appears in the article (this is from only May 2004, when the article was created, to November 2004). Footnotes are wikipedia changes (italicized) and links with evidence which supported this deleted information.


 * I am going through the list and determining what events are intervention, by this definition:
 * To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.Travb 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1930s

 * Alleged US support to Portuguese dictator Salazar, 1930's to 1974.''


 * NOT INTERVENTION
 * The U.S. openly backed Portugal's colonial claims, due to the strategic importance of military bases such as the one in the Portugese Azores. Salazar died in 1968, after 40 years in power. Can be included in List of dictators America has historically supported

1940s

 * US provides military aid to right-wing forces battling communist insurgents in Greece in 1947. (See Greek Civil War)''


 * March 12, 1947 President Harry Truman proclaimed the Truman Doctrine, stating that the United States would support "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The US gave $400 million in military and economic aid to Turkey and Greece to battle Communist insurgents in Greece in 1947. (See Greek Civil War) ''


 * CIA involvement in Italian elections, involving propaganda and the alleged buying of votes, in order to prevent the Communist Party of Italy coming to power, in 1948. (See 1948 Italian election) Italian 1948 election  
 * NOT INTERVENTION


 * Marshall plan 1948-1951
 * 1948-1951 the United States contributed both economic and technical assistance toward the recovery of European countries after World War II, known as the Marshall Plan. Sixteen countries accept the aid, but most communist countries reject it.


 * NOT INTERVENTION


 * June 28 1948, the US flew supplies into the Western-held sectors of Berlin over the blockade during 1948-1949, known as the Berlin Airlift


 * NOT INTERVENTION


 * Rebuilding of Japan 1946-1949 These aren't really interventions either 


 * NOT INTERVENTION


 * Occupation and rebuilding of West Germany after World War II. Merged US occupation region with the French and British ones to form the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949.


 * NOT INTERVENTION


 * Funding of French Indochina War from 1945 until 1954.


 * US financial and military support of the Republic of China against the People's Liberation Army until 1949 and subsequently against the People's Republic of China ''


 * U.S. financial and military support of the Republic of China, that began during the Sino-Japanese War and through World War II, continued against the People's Liberation Army.

1950s

 * US support for Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista until his overthrow in 1959.


 * NOT INTERVENTION?


 * Alleged US-backed establishment of François Duvalier as dictator of Haiti.


 * ADD BACK?


 * Alleged CIA assassination of Congo's democratically elected leader, Patrice Lumumba.    Removed Congo since it has been debunked.  CIA involvement in plans to kill him has been long established by senate hearings and declassified documents.  


 * ADD BACK?


 * Korean War from 1950 until 1953: After communist North Koreans invade South Korea, the UN, with every nation voting "yea" except for Yugoslavia that abstained, approves military support for South Korea, involving over a dozen countries including the US.''

1960s

 * US support of Ba'ath Party coup in Iraq in 1963; support for dictator Saddam Hussein until 1990.
 * Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Juan Bosch, the democratically elected leader of the Dominican Republic.
 * Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador in 1963.
 * Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia in 1965, resulting in estimated death of one million suspected Communists.
 * Alleged CIA-backed military coup brings dictator Mobutu Sese Seko to power in the Congo in 1965.
 * Alleged CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece in 1967.
 * American support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War / American support for Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1982 Lebanon War.
 * U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem (1963).
 * CIA-orchestrated assassination of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, the US-backed ruler of the Dominican Republic, in 1961     
 * CIA Involvement in the Tlatelolco massacre in Mexico, 1968 ''
 * CIA covert support for the election of Eduardo Frei Montalva of Chile in 1964. ''
 * 1961: CIA involvement in the assassination of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo, their former ally in the Dominican Republic.
 * 1962: Alleged CIA involvement in overthrow of Juan Bosch, the democratically elected leader of the Dominican Republic.
 * 1963: Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of José María Velasco Ibarra and after of Carlos Julio Arosemana, both presidents of Ecuador.
 * 1963-64: CIA involvement in riots and violence in order to undermine the Marxist People's Progressive Party and its leader, Cheddi Jagan.
 * 1964: Alleged involvement in riots and violence that brought down the government of Cheddi Jagan in Guyana.
 * 1965: Dominican Republic military officers revolted against the junta to try to restore Juan Bosch, whereupon U.S. President Lyndon Johnson sent 20,000 U.S. troops to defeat the revolt so to avoid "another Cuba."
 * 1965: Alleged CIA-backed military coup against Patrice Lumumba that brings dictator Joseph Mobutu to power in the Congo.
 * 1966: Alleged CIA support to military coup against Ghanaian leader Kwame Nkrumah.
 * 1967: Alleged CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece.

1970s

 * Alleged CIA-supported coup against Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia and installation of puppet Lon Nol in Cambodia in 1970. ''
 * Alleged CIA-supported military coup against President Juan Torres of Bolivia in 1971.
 * American support for Pakistan in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War
 * CIA support for UNITA rebels in Angola, from 1976 - 1984.
 * Following overthrow of the dictator Samosa in Nicaragua by the Sandinistas, the CIA supports the Contras from 1979 - 1989. Nicaragua still has not received the U.S. restitutions for military and paramilitary activities as ruled by the International Court of Justice and as supported by a United Nations General Assembly resolution.
 * An alternative view was that Allende, who won only 36% of the popular vote, instituted radical policies that led to economic ruin, leading to widespread unrest and a military coup which was watched by the US.  ''
 * Political and economic intervention in Chile against president Salvador Allende; contacts with military officers planning to overthrow Allende.''
 * Alleged CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno and subsequent support of Suharto in Indonesia in 1965. Former officials of the U.S. Embassy in Indonesia acknowledge supplying a list of 5,000 suspected communists -- given to them by the CIA -- to the Indonesian government and checking them off the list when those people were executed. The U.S. government also supplied 90% of Indonesia's military hardware. ''


 * U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador (1977).
 * Bombing campaigns against Cambodia; an estimated 600,000 civilians killed.''
 * CIA support for UNITA rebels in Angola, from 1976 - 1984.
 * Alleged corruption of 1976 Portuguese Election.
 * Alleged corruption of 1976 Jamaican Election.
 * U.S. support for Indonesian invasion and occupation of Portuguese Timor (now East Timor)(1975).''
 * Approval of and support for the "Dirty War" military junta in Argentina. (1976-1983). ''
 * Alleged CIA-supported military coup against President Juan José Torres of Bolivia in 1971.

1980s

 * Sale of arms to Iran in Iran–Contra Affair ''
 * Training of Nicaraguan Contras and support to repressive regimes in Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, and South America during the 1980s.''
 * Alleged involvement in the mysterious death of Samora Machel, President of Mozambique (1986).''
 * Support for military dictator Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala. 1982-1983. Alleged CIA support for the coup that brought him into power. ''
 * CIA support for José Napoleón Duarte and other anti-Communist politicians alleged to have links with right-wing death squads.
 * In 1989, The US establishes Support for East European Democracy to help assist Poland and Hungary's transition into market-based democracies. ''
 * Alleged support for Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, 1980s. ''

1990s

 * US-led sanctions against Iraq, resulting in the estimated deaths of over one million civilians, from 1990 to 2003.
 * US removal of Raoul Cedras from office in Haiti and occupation of the country, 1993 ''
 * Corruption of elections in Bulgaria in 1990 and in Albania in 1991. ''
 * NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, 1999. Whilst the bombing was widely reported in the US as an "accident", an exposé by the London Observer showed the attack to have been deliberate. ''
 * Alleged support for Mexico in fighting the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, 1994 and later ''
 * Beginning in December 1989 until 1996 when the Liberian civil war ended, the United States attempted to get UN involved in negotations. The UN refused. Meanwhile, the US provided humanitarian aid, including food and developmental aid.''
 * The FREEDOM Support Act in 1992 amends Support for East European Democracy to include the new independent states of the former Soviet Union to aid their transition into market-based democracies. ''
 * Operation Provide Relief, a 1992 US lead humanitarian relief for Somalia. After looting of the aid, it was reorganized as Operation Restore Hope, an American military operation with the support of the United Nations to deliver humanitarian aid and restore order to Somalia, that eventually lead to the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. ''
 * Operation Infinite Reach: a US cruise missile strike on terrorist bases and targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, including the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, after al Qaeda bombed two US ebassies in 1998. ''

2000s

 * Alleged CIA-backed abortive coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in 2002.  
 * Alleged American support for the overthrown of the government of Haiti in 2004
 * CIA-backed removal of democratically elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide from office and creation of a military dictatorship in Haiti, 1990 (See Jean-Bertrand Aristide.) ''
 * Alleged support (along with Spain and Britain) for a failed coup plot against Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea in 2004. ''

Links deleted

 * When foreign intervention is justified: Women under the Taliban
 * A Hemisphere of Our Own: U.S. Foreign Policy in Central America - 2 Hours Talk by Noam Chomsky at UC Berkeley - RealAudio format.
 * What A Wonderful World - Bowling for Columbine source material.

Un-categorized

 * Funding for the conservative, pro-Western Botswana Democratic Party ''
 * Involvement in riots and violence that brought down the government of Cheddi Jagan in Guyana. ''
 * CIA-orchestrated rebellion in China (Tibet), 1959.''
 * Funding to the opposition presidential candidate, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, in Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua. Chamorro won the election.''
 * Assassinations and bombings against anti-nuclear politicians in the American colony of Palau.

Comments Deleted
As well as these military interventions the United States also pursued and gained economic controls over many developing states. It was aided in this by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.


 * As well as these military interventions the United States also pursued and gained economic controls over many developing states. Some claim that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank assisted American foreign policy in this area. (If correct, this would also require implicit co-operation of other countries, as the US has only 18% of the IMF's voting rights. )

Furthermore, the United States has provided continued military support for repressive regimes, including those of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Turkey, and Egypt.


 * Furthermore, the United States has provided continued military support for governments widely regarded as repressive, including those of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Pakistan, and Egypt, maintaining that these nations are strategic allies of the US in their respective regions.''

See also: History of United States imperialism, List of Soviet actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic

This is a list of United States interventions, including many that have, in some circles, been considered examples of imperialism, though the evidence that there are circles that have considered the interventions as examples of imperialism is not offered. Imperialism is a pejorative word that is usually used to criticize these actions. The list is an incomplete list. The "some circles" have not been identifieed, so the criteria for inclusion in the list is not revealed. The list also does not include any historical context other than date. The strength of allegations is not referenced. Alternatives to any of the actions are not discussed. Kd4ttc ''5th time

Beyond these interventions, the United States has also pursued and gained economic control over many developing states. Some claim that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have assisted American foreign policy in this area. (If correct, this would also require the implicit co-operation of other countries, as the US has only 18% of the IMF's voting rights. ) ''


 * Vietnam War - (1964-1975) - estimated deaths of three million Vietnamese.''
 * Bombing campaigns against Laos, with more US bombs dropped than during all of World War Two, from 1964 - 1975.
 * CIA support for death-squads in El Salvador throughout the 1980s.
 * US bombing of factory in Sudan - later admitted to be a mistake - in 1998.
 * CIA and MI-6 orchestrated overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran in 1953 (Operation Ajax), reinstating Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who led Iran in a period of strong economic growth, gave women the vote, and redistributed land to farmers, but created an unpopular autocratic regime and was overthrown in 1979. Travb 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted most of these entries recently

 * CJK deletes over 18 entries


 * CJK deletes 2 entries more


 * CJK deletes 1 more entry


 * CJK deletes 1 more entry

Actual written contributions to the article by CJK: Zero. Travb 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If I thought there was any more, I would have made additions. You can put them all back provided that they are actually objectively sourced (i.e. not cooperative research, William Blum, z-mag, and those numerous "peace" organizations who are all known to have radical leftists affiliations), and verified, not merely "alleged". Its not my responsibility to verify every charge being made. You're the only one who has complained. And some of these cited above weren't even deleted by me, the IP belongs to User:Trey Stone. CJK 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With all do respect CJK, but you are not the sole authority on what is reputable. You do not decide what is reputable news, and what is not reputable news. Just because those sources do not share your own Disney version of American history, does not mean that they are not reputable sources.  Labeling something "radical leftist" is just that, a label.  I could call your brand of propaganda a certain label, and I have in the past (in which I got banned for 72 hours).


 * What you are doing is no different, albiet less inflammitory.
 * If you have ever been to any of these sites, you would see they are out to push an anti-American agenda along socialist lines which, at least where I come from, is widely described as radical. CJK 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't want this article to cite "radical leftist organizations" then there is a very simple solution: Acutally do some research. I have followed your POV deletions across wikipedia.  I have never once seen you cite a single source.  Not once.  Your wikipedia "editing" is actually "deleting", just as it has been in this article, over 20 deletions, and not one single contribution.  From what I have seen, you have not contributed anything from Wikipedia, you have only taken information out.


 * The only way that this information will be deleted, is if you actually take the time and research these articles, and come up with research that contridicts the findings.
 * Travb, why should I go through tons of research to look up a covert operation which may not even exist? Let's put this into perspective. A google search on "William Blum" turns out, at least to the first 40 entries, entirely pro-Blum material. Why is that? Is it because his word is taken as the unconditional truth? No, its because no one takes him seriously enough to consider his loon conspiracy theories. Likewise, no one would have anything to say about these wild allegations apart from their promoters. The onus is on them to provide proof. CJK 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your blanket deletions are detremential to wikipedia and you are simply pushing your own narrow Disney version POV. Another right wing POV warrior who contributed to this page was severly repremanded and booted for some time for the same POV pushing that you have exhibited. Keep it up, and you will inevitably find yourself in the smae situation.


 * This article has survived 2 requests for deletion, the most recent vote was by almost a 2 to 1 margin. In addition, many more people (at least a dozen) have contributed to this article, and they have all been contacted about your edits.  Your Disney version of history is in the minority.  This article did not survive deletion twice, to be slowly deleted, entry, by entry, by yourself.  Wikipedia has spoken, and it is against your deletions.


 * I would say more, but you would want nothing more than to silence me so you can continue your blank deletions/borderline vandlism on wikipedia.Travb 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Travb, I do not wish to be your enemy. I only strive for neutrality in what is a largely anti-American community, and I do conduct research of my own on other articles, but am very lazy and don't have time for that anyway, so not much has gotten done, thus I limit myself to pretty much non-controversial changes and (rarely) deletion of poorly sourced information. I reserve the right to do so. If you any problem with any of my edits, I will discuss them on their respective pages. 99% of your article edits are perfectly fine, IMO. CJK 01:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fabulous, lets work together to build this article to a state which we can both be proud of. I am all for sourcing information and making an article encyclopedic as possible.Travb 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic has made a point to subvert Wikipedia through their own biased agenda. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts]. I couldn't say for certain that's where this is coming from but it seems likely. Richard Cane 07:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. CJK 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Suharto
I noticed, CJK, you said giving out names and weapons to Suharto's regime isn't intervening in their affairs. If a dictator came to power in the U.S. and another country armed and trained that dictator once he came to power, would you consider that intervening in the affairs of the United States? What if 5,000 U.S. citizens were hunted down and killed because a powerful outside influence helped pinpoint them. Would you say that was intervening in the affairs of the United States? Please be logical in your reply. If you don't bother to reply I'll just put it back up. Richard Cane 22:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because the US merely handed over a list and just that. The US was not actively involved in hunting down these guys, many of whom would have been killed anyway in Suharto's anti-comunist massacres. CJK 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, I have already been banned for 72 hours for stating what I feel about your opinion, So I won't and I can't say anything more here. In legal terms, what you are justifying is called an accessory to a crime. If America were on trial, they would be tried and found guilty of murder of the Indonesians.   Keep on deleting CJK, keep on deleting and justifying. Travb 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What is your point? I never once justified anything, just asserted that it is utterly ridiculous that handing over a list should be counted as an intervention. CJK 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point, which is a good one. We need to come to a concencious on what a "intervention" is. Maybe this article needs to be renamed, it has the same name problem, to a lesser extent, as the article named History of United States imperialism.  I won't elaborate on the whole justification comment...Travb 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Potential ground rules on the list
I think that every entry should be no more than one concise sentence each. Otherwise, it fails to be a list, and become either:


 * a) Long laundry list of American attrocities added by "anti-Americans"


 * b) Long Justification of American actions, added by "apologists"

I have researched the history of this page, and these additions to the page is where most of the contention on this page comes from (other than the apologists mass deletions). We could provide a wiki link to the full article, and apologist and Anti-Americans can fight it out on those pages.Travb 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

More potential ground rules for the list
I took out all of these entries, simply because they do not fit the definition of intervention: To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.

To be balanced, and to keep to the spirit of the word "intervention", I will also take out/keep out: ::*all of the US vote rigging entries,
 * US diplomacy in support of dictatorship,
 * General support for dictators, and
 * non-military support that America provided to other countries, including dictatorships.

Simply because these entries do not fit into the defintion of "intervention", these entries belong on another wikipage.

Deletions:


 * Occupation and rebuilding of Japan 1945-1952 after World War II, drafting Japan's current democratic constitution.
 * 1945, USSR occupies North Korea and U.S. occupies South Korea after the surrender of Imperial Japan in World War II. USSR denies elections in North Korea, establishing a Communist government, while the U.S. supports UN-supervised elections.
 * Occupation and rebuilding of West Germany after World War II. Merges U.S. occupation zone with the French and British zones to form the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949.
 * June 28 1948: Flies supplies into Allied-occupied West Berlin over the Soviet blockade during 1948-1949, known as the Berlin Airlift

===1940s===
 * CIA involvement in Italian elections, involving propaganda and the alleged buying of votes, in order to prevent the Soviet-aligned Communist Party of Italy from coming to power in 1948. (See Italian general election, 1948)

If a wikipedian disagree with these deletion, I am okay with this, but it potentially opens up a pandora's box. The article will have to also include other items which do not fit into the strict definition of "intevention" (above). Travb 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your definition leaves out instances when US personnel are invited into a country by that nation's own government. It also contradicts the numerous "supports" via foreign aid, which I don't think belongs here. CJK 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * CJK, it is not my definition, but one dictionary defintion. I know there are other dictionary defintions, if this one is not broad enough, please let me know.


 * But where does the list end? If we add foriegn aid, do we add all of the money that America gives to every country in the world, from 1945-present?  Do we list influences that America has in countries via their embassies?  Do we list every election that America influenced?  If we add all of this, this list will become so big and it will cease to be a managable list.


 * Can you see the "pandora's box" that is opened here?


 * For example, if you insist on adding foreign humanitarian aid on the list, which is generally positive to America, in fairness, you will need to allow some negative aspects of American foreign policy/aid, which you seem to want to downplay. I dont think you can have it both ways. Either the foreign aid is listed, and the support for dictators, the vote tampering, etc is included too. Or they are both excluded.  I think it is in both our best interests, and it is best for the list itself to exclude this.


 * My intentions


 * I simply want the battle between the two of us on this page to go to other pages, not on this one. If we can agree on ground rules/boundries, then we can build this list, and let the battles about the details of the particular incidents go on elsewhere.


 * For example: did America have a part the overthrow in Chile? We can both agree: yes. Therefore, it should be on the list.  How much influence did America have?  That can be argued on another wikipage, not here.  I think we should simply state the event, and add a wikipage link to a page.


 * Every list that I have seen on wikipedia, except for this one, is sparce. It lists the events in one sentence. (I can give stark examples of this, if needed.)Travb 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that foreign aid should be excluded. The definition would leave out instances where the US was invited to intervene. Your suggestion that the evemts should be argued on other pages is good, but it should only occur if there is clear consensus on them, otherwise the article will be cluttered with "Allegeds". CJK 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm. . . weren't the Soviets 'invited' into Czechoslovakia? I guess it depends on who you ask.  They had a list of 18 signatures before they went in. . .  fact of the matter is, they secured the 'government' support they needed for that intervention, and by their own terms, that was an 'invitation'.  I think it's important to make the distinction between what the US Government *perceives* (or *arranges*, for that matter) as an invitation, and what is actually an invitation. Sigma-6 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

wrong list
Sesel your contribution:

Palestinian legislative election, 2006: USAID contribution of $2 million to the election campaign of Fatah, intended to counter the influence of Hamas.

Appears not to fall within the proposed definition of "intervention" please see the "potential ground rules" above to avoid an unmanagable list and edit wars between apologists and anti-americans.

I did not erase your contribution, but simply made it invisible until we can reach a concensus here on this talk page.

Let me know what you think.Travb 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

merger discussion
... is going on at the talk page of List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945 Kalkin 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Suharto again
I again maintain that giving Suharto a list and ignoring his invasion of East Timor does not constitute "intervention". CJK 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Do you meant that we should include the invasion of East Timor, please clarify.Travb 13:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that both aren't actually US covert "interventions". CJK 20:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Response on your talk page.Travb 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I see many interventions missing. But how is intervention defined? Any secret military dealings, or any infereference of a deliberate political nature to affect the poitical reality of a country?Giovanni33 09:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So. . . you are a known contract killer, CJK, (for the sake of argument) and, without paying you for the specific acts, I *wink* and offer you a list of people I would like to see killed. You then kill them.  In a court of law, We're both guilty of a crime. . .   Now, if I get to *write* the laws, or at the very least, selectively determine which ones apply to me, I can write myself exemptions or pretend that I didn't do anything wrong, but an independent court would still find me guilty of the crime.  That's pretty clearly an intervention, and it is quite in character, because there are plenty of other similar incidents which had the same result: have a look at the list provided to Saddam, for example.  I suppose that if you'd like to continue splitting hairs, you can go on doing that, but I'm glad that the laws of my country aren't written that way, because we'd have a hell of a lot more violent criminals on the streets today than we do, and a lot more of the people who conspire with them. Sigma-6 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your example is called the Domestic analogy a term used by liberal hawk, Michael Walzer. I use the same example with CJK. See: User_talk:CJK  Notice this conversation is very cold--the original converstaion was back in February. Travb (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was aware that it was the domestic analogy, and I was aware that the conversation was cold. I was not aware of a resolution however, so I assumed that further arguments might still be presented.  If I was wrong, then I apologize. Sigma-6 00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, I assumed to much. Sorry.  Best wishes. Travb (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Marshall Plan
Your definition of Intervention may USUALLY mean the use of force but not always. The Marhsall plan virtually defines US intervention in Europe. How pumping millions of dollars into Europe is not intervention is beyond my reconciling. I strongly suggest putting it back in.