i think it all depends on what you believe
elecartist may be right, but i doubt it....but then again, my vision isn't any better than his
the bigger question i think, is let's say elecartist is right, and what the US did (the west, really) was necessary to stop eventual communist takeover in western democratic societies (of course this insinuates that all this takeover would have pre-empted the implosion that occurred to the russian common system)....
this argument says it is OK to interfere in other nation's/people's lives if yours is ultimately threatened......is this right?
related to the individual level, i cannot go attack my neighbour here in suburbia, although i can defend myself when attacked....under the 'fight communism' argument, if that neighbour invites criminals into his house, then i should be justified in taking him out in pre-emptive self-defence
btw, the military uses these concepts enshrined in doctrine.....US ROE includes the right to use 'anticipatory self-defence'.....canadian ROE do not include this, although we can ct in self-defence in response to not just a hostile attack, but hostile intent as well....not the same thing
basically, self-defence under hostile intent means us canadians can kill even if one is not currently threatening us, providing:
1. he did it in the past
2. we have reasonable intel he's about to do it again
3. he has the capability
anticipatory self-defence means you americans can kill based on the suspicion that the above situation is about to be reached.....
full circle......but is it right? do the ends justify the means?
i don't think so......
elecartist's argument implies that if we don't act, we're taken over.....conveniently forgotten is that we defend ourselves before being attacked, or a WWII coalition situation is reached before it ever comes to an attack....after all, some type of invasion(s) is required to get the point where the US/canada is under direct threat.....
so i say no