Now, let's put it in reverse:
How many people fled from the United States?
How many people fled from West Germany?
How many people fled from Japan?

You ask the wrong question.

We should compare many were killed or made refugees in El Salvador, Guatamala, Hounduras,Chile, Argentina, etc.? The US enforced it hegemony, supported corrupt and violent puppet regimes, and exploited natural resources in its own backyard every bit as thoroughly as (and often more brutally than) the Soviets and Chinese did from WW I on (or maybe the spanish american war on).

I do know that there are millions of people who would be much better off if we had won Korea and Vietnam.

The people of Vietnam and North Korea.

You missed the lessons of these conflicts. Both conflicts were proxy wars fought by the US and Russia and/or China. Probably the people in both countries would have wanted both powers to leave. In Vietnam, we allied ourselves with the most regressive, undemocratic, oligarchs we could find and then pretended that a liberal democracy would sweep the nation. Given where things in Vietnam are now, I bet the Vietnamese would have rather avoided the massive loss of life and limb (still going on via land mines and unexploded ordinance) as well as the massive chemical waste legacy of defoliants that came with our intervention there. We were a colonial power just like the French and just like the French they wanted us out.

Many newspapers, especially in the North, declared that the war would benefit the Mexican people by bringing them the blessings of democracy and liberty. ...But ...Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison's militant newspaper, the Liberator, expressed open support for the Mexican people: ... “Henry Clay declared, "This is no war of defense, but one of unnecessary and offensive aggression."

A freshman Congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln lashed out against the war, calling it immoral, proslavery, and a threat to the nation's republican values.

I admit I may have some bias here, because I learned about our Mexican wars in a Mexican public elementary school (my dad was running the Veracruz shipyard, the "astilleros de Veracruz", in the early 60s); I think Garrison, Lincoln and Clay were basically right. (But I note that in order to get the war going, the hawks had to sell it as pro-democracy; I don't think that was true for the contemporary British Empire, even though it was effectively pro-democracy in the end.)
The US subdivisions continue to exist...and I suspect that pretty much everybody is sincere, but there have certainly been times when the good guys among us were not the setters of policy. When we supported the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua (e.g., while I was going to junior high there)...this was not a good thing, and btw we have kind of a bad history there too, which Nicaraguans remember much better than my compatriots. This doesn't overturn my overall belief that Thompson was being a lot more defensible than the WaPo criticism, but...well, the opposed belief is perfectly understandable.

In Central America and Southeast Asia, Soviet imperialism attempted to take over control as it did in Cuba. The US responded in its own interests. The defining characteristic of the Cold War was Soviet adventurism (where it was not already entrenched by the rule of the gun), and US response to it. The US did not so much defeat the Soviets as hold them up long enough that the corruption of their own society caused it to implode.

Both sides did hideously ugly things and both deserve scorn for that.

This is value-free Moral Relativism 101 exemplified.

This week's daily "2-minute scorns" will be directed to: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (twice) and Lt. Calley.

How many people fled to the USSR?

How many people fled to the PRC?

How many people fled to North Vietnam, North Korea, or to Cuba today?

Now, let's put it in reverse:

How many people fled from the United States?

How many people fled from West Germany?

How many people fled from Japan?

I find it odd, in a world where the Soviets and Americans are so equal in their despicability, those who could flee didn't, while those who had to take enormous risks---did.

The people of Vietnam and North Korea.

I also think we protect the world from another world war 2 like war. Everyone knows in Europe if they attack each other we step in. They are not afraid of each other's armies but are afraid of us.

I do think we're going to have to save Europe from itself again.

The political, economic and military impact of those others losing/gaining their liberty on the national interests of the nation thinking about entering the war is the only time liberty gets consideration. It is, in essence, a selfish calculus.

Regards, C

Somehow I detect a tongue in cheek here... apparently you believe that there is no substantial difference between the behaviors of the US and the USSR post WWII. If true, I find that amazing.

Of course there are differences. But our actions and the soviets were not diametrically opposed as you try to suggest. The cold war was not a case of the soviets being beliggerent and us having to respond, it was both sides trying to force their views on the world. We did that in south east asia and central america. The soviets did it in eastern europe and Afghanistan. neither side was innocent and good, neither side was irredeemably evil. Both sides did hideously ugly things and both deserve scorn for that.

Somehow I detect a tongue in cheek here... apparently you believe that there is no substantial difference between the behaviors of the US and the USSR post WWII. If true, I find that amazing.

President Lincoln's goal, once elected, was to preserve the Union, because that was what he had the authority and responsibility to do. Lincoln had long opposed slavery but respected the institutions of government enough to realize he could not, and should not, act out of his personal preferences and beliefs no matter how right they were or how strongly felt they might be. Nonetheless, President Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and issued it in 1863, thus changing the stated aims of the war. It is worth noting that President Lincoln had the Emancipation Proclamation much earlier, but felt he had to wait for a military victory (Antietam, as it happens, though calling that a victory is another discussion for another day, but I digress) before announcing it or else its effect would be lessened as it would be seen only as a desperate act by the Union which was at the time losing the war. It is also worth noting that President Lincoln countermanded orders to free slaves in 1861 because at that time he feared too many Union officers would quit because they were not at that time fighting to free the slaves.

But I understand how some people believe a war plan be written in full beforehand and cannot be updated or modifed to deal with a changing landscape. And FWIW, someone can be wrong about some of this without being a racist, just as they can be right about some of this and still be a racist.

So, Andy, you accept the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg, and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Do you think we'd face the same level of resistance, if we were doing that to Iraqi cities?

I have some problems with the firebombings and perhaps Nagasaki, and there were lots of issues at home as well -- see Japanese internment -- but on the whole, WW2 was handled fairly well against truly dangerous opponents.

Perhaps if we had started to exterminate large numbers of Iraqis, things would be more under control. However, that scenario versus our current situation is a false dichotomy that only exists in the minds of lunatics.

I'll note how it's funny (sad, not haha) how the proponents of leveling Iraqi cities don't seem to have been concerned about getting enough troops in for security, as opposed to destroyin'.

1 million Iraqis are dead and 4 million are displaced. We have utterly failed them and ourselves.

Do you think we'd face the same level of resistance, if we were doing that to Iraqi cities?

I hasten to add, for the Democrats, that this did not happen on a short, politically-driven schedule.

Indeed, it happened in less time than we've been in Iraq, against a much stronger adversary.

Maybe FDR was competent, unlike Bush et al.

Ah, but as the Left so eagerly pointed out during the Reagan administration, forcing a governemnt to be democratic is just as evil as forcing a nation to be Communist.

Thus, they compared the invasion of Grenada with the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Note that this is distinct from the current criticism of Iraq, which is that the Iraqis are not ready for democracy. Were they ready, then the next critique would've been a rehashing of this line: Who are we to suggest that democracy is appropriate for other people, even if they're ready for it?