Viet Nam was a classic example of the kind of intervention Manny endorses, and for exactly the same reasons she gives to justify further intervention. If we do decide to police the world, how do we decide which "situations" to police? Should we be selective and do some and exclude others, or should we intervene with troops in all of them? Who would decide? Should we accept a vote in the UN to send our troops into danger under foreign leaders, or should we go it alone, or should we stay home and fight only when we are attacked?

If we decide to intervene in Bosnia between Serbs and Moslems, why not in Palestine between Jews and Moslems, or in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants, or in Tibet, or between the countless tribes in Africa that have never ceased fighting each other. It is easy to begin, but where do you stop?

One other point that is unique to the USA. We are all from someplace else, or at least our parents or grandparents were. We are all Moslems, Jews, Catholics, Chinese, or whatever. As we go about the world sticking our nose and our troops into wars, fueds, greviances and disputes that have gone on, unresolved, for centuries, we risk importing those problems into the US (bombs in the World Trade Center, for example). In this day and age of terrorism, I don't think we need to invite those kinds of problems into our already problem-ridden society.

As Mr. Roth responded, it is a matter of priorities, and we have a plate-full of unresolved problems of our own that require more resources than we can provide. Let the Europeans police Europe, the Asians police Asia, Africans police Africa, and if any of them mess with the USA we can stand ready to clobber them.