Why is the American Moral so sensitive to tyranny?
I ask this because in all previous wars, the US always went against the Tyranny.
That's why we defended South Vietnam against the Vietcong who where backed by Communist Russia.
That's why we defended South Korean against the Communist North Korean Dictatorship.
That's why we bully Cuba, because Che and Fidel Castro executed many innocent people for their revolution. Not to mention the Cuba Missile Crisis. It sickens me when I see a Che t-shirt.
That's why we went into Iraq, to stop Saddam. A very cruel dictator that killed many people and hordes the wealth to himself.
That's why we went against Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo the Fascists, who were tyrants that executed the opposition, wanting to expand their territory, ruining sovereignty to other nations.
This is why we are in Israel. We are defending their peace. Versus the fascists like Yasser Arafat that love to control all the wealth, having 14 year old boys fight his battle. All terrorists in the middle east want to control all the wealth. If everyone had a sense of dignity and a job, they couldn't pay them cheap wages to suicide them self for a brain washed belief. Most American's would laugh at such an idea because of the accomplishments we self justify daily.
I just hope we stop ruining American Moral and defeat the Tyrants. You can say who cares, yet what happens when the Tyranny controls the world as America becomes the last one left?
Acidblonde: You criticize a minor typo? That's it, wow I must be bullet proof if all you do is criticize cosmetic issues. Excuse me for making a typo.
con man: That is such a dumb question, the police man of the world? Are you kidding me? So you'd let Hitler own all of Europe, and Japan owns all of Asia? That's what you want, a massive Tyranny that suppresses everyone?
Easter Bunny: Yes let's get that history book out. We backed Saddam to fight Russia. Russia was the Tyranny in it's time. How do you expect to know your ally in the future will become the tyrannt you sought out to destroy? Wow let's look at the historical events instead of jumping to A-C, let's focus on part B.
Second I don't care what liberal colleges teach you. All they do is victimize the evils. Good for you.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavourite answer
The birth or our nation was an act of throwing off a tyrant. I guess it's in our blood.
Also, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's why the liberals in 1789 bore conservative descendants. We are now trying to conserve what they gave us.
To the "crack a book" easter bunny:
It seems to me your interpretation of history needs a little adjustment here and there.
We have a history of doing business with tyrants while fighting others, beginning with the French Monarchy during our fight for independence from the British Monarchy. It seems you're suggesting a policy that would have precluded us from enlisting the help of the French--that we should have allowed King George to continue raping America.
In my opinion, and I think the opinion of most Americans, it is sometimes necessary to enlist the help of one tyrant to defeat another.
1. Viet Nam was a loss for us. Had we won Viet Nam, it would have been a two-for-one deal. We would have helped them build a constitutional government with a citizen vote.
2. We didn't start the Iran - Iraq war. We just chose a side.
We went to Iraq in '03 for several reasons, the most glamorous of which was to rid them of WMDs. We didn't find any, but we achieved a related objective - weapons inspection - something that the UN, in all their wisdom, couldn't seem to manage on their own. And, at the same time unseated a tyrant.
3. Any remotely careful reading of our involvement in WWII would reveal the fact that FDR knew we should have been involved much earlier. It was the dovish sentement in the US that was holding him back.
In early September, 1939, President Roosevelt proclaimed a "limited national emergency" and ordered an increase in enlisted strengths of all armed forces, three weeks before Poland surrendered. FDR was planning for involvement right from the start! Shortly after, we were supplying war equipment to the allied effort.
4. Palestine has no oil, and no money, so I question the question, but your answer is a fallacial overreach regardless.
5. Batista was a democratically elected leader in Cuba from 1933 to 1944, the era we first befriended him. He lost in '44, then came back as a military dictator in the 1950s. We should have applied pressure then, but we were embroiled in Korea and generally more concerned with the spread of communism.
With 150+ sovereign nations today, many of which have no meaningful constitution and no meaningful popular vote, it's simply not possible to free all the people under the thumb of tyranny at the same time.
Batista is the perfect example of the "selective" revisionist history taught in our public schools today. It's not just the easter bunny who had no clue that Batista was the winner in a free election back in 1933, triviadude jumped right in too, and proved he was clueless. These two are representative of the millions who have done no independent study, and rely soley on their public school education.
Text books are written by companys for a profit. They are going to be written to appeal to the general sentiment of those who make the buying decisions in the various school districts around the country. The anti-American sentiment in our own text books today is telling of the general mindset of our public school system.
I'm not saying our text book authors should lie. I'm saying that their selection of facts they report can and does sway the opinion of the readers.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Wow, crack a history book please. lol.
Let's examine your claims:
"That's why we defended South Vietnam against the Vietcong who where backed by Communist Russia."
-South Vietnam was itself a corrupt, undemocratic dictatorship, even our own Pentagon said as much.
"That's why we bully Cuba, because Che and Fidel Castro executed many innocent people for their revolution. Not to mention the Cuba Missile Crisis. It sickens me when I see a Che t-shirt."
-Che t-shirts aside, the Batista regime (the one we backed) also murdered and imprisoned many innocent people.
"That's why we went into Iraq, to stop Saddam. A very cruel dictator that killed many people and hordes the wealth to himself."
-Funny, because not long ago, even though we knew full well of his cruelty, we backed him against the Iranians. I could have sworn the stated objective was to find and remove his WMD, not free the people of Iraq from tyranny.
"That's why we went against Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo the Fascists, who were tyrants that executed the opposition, wanting to expand their territory, ruining sovereignty to other nations."
-Wow. No, Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo had already been making war on their neighbors for years. We got involved after Tojo and co. attacked us and the other two declared war on us and for no other reason.
"This is why we are in Israel. We are defending their peace. Versus the fascists like Yasser Arafat that love to control all the wealth, having 14 year old boys fight his battle. All terrorists in the middle east want to control all the wealth. If everyone had a sense of dignity and a job, they couldn't pay them cheap wages to suicide them self for a brain washed belief. Most American's would laugh at such an idea because of the accomplishments we self justify daily."
-I don't understand why you think that's our job, to enforce a Pax Americana around the world at the point of a bayonet, or how you could possibly think we could even pull that off.
"I just hope we stop ruining American Moral and defeat the Tyrants. You can say who cares, yet what happens when the Tyranny controls the world as America becomes the last one left?"
-I believe you mean "morale" and not "moral." Learn to spell, learn to reason, crack a book and not one written by a Fox News host.
- PatriciaLv 44 years ago
I don't think so. There are multiple parties, different groups (the senate, the house of rep. Etc.) The thing is with so many different opinions and beliefs, it is rare that everyone agrees, it rarely happens that everyone has a unanimous vote. That being said, it is unlikely that everyone involved in the government would agree to such a thing. The way the American government is set up, there isn't really one person who decides everything, even the president needs other people's permission and input. Therefore who would lead such a movement? In some countries It is easy to create a tyranny because of dictatorship, one person rules, and everyone else in the government follows. America is a democracy, and required the input of so many people. This being said, there are too many people involved.
- ?Lv 51 decade ago
You have a very short and selective memory.
Uh...who do you think we backed before Castro took over? Batista was not a democratically elected leader. We didn't have a problem with that.
During the Reagan era, we were best buds with that evil murderous Saddam. Against the theocrats in Iran. Who came to power as part of the backlash against our overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah.
The US has a long history in South American of supporting fascist regimes in the name of "anti-communism" which in lot of cases merely meant anti-democracy.
It also sickens me when I see a Che T-Shirt. I saw a picture of one once on an AIG executive.
If you think that any of the various games we play in the world, reflect any sincere commitment to principle rather than a short term attempt to advance our interests, then you must be another victim of the American educational system.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Notice how liberals attack the typos to questions that are on the money and they cannot argue against? Must be awful to be so wrong so often. As for the question, we should always be sensitive to tyranny, especially now that we are so close to one ourselves. 2010 is just around the corner and 2012 can't get here soon enough!Source(s): Acidblond the question is answerable if one is smart enough to answer it.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You mean American Morale? With an e?
Your question makes no sense the way you asked it.
...you aren't a product of No Child Left Behind, are you?
edit. Sorry, I just think it underscores how little your online persona knows about what he's talking about. And it's pretty hilarious, to me. And, if I spend any time arguing with an obvious fool, who is really the fool?
...it would appear to be the person who hasn't quite mastered the American English language yet. You know, it's not too late to go to one of those fine "liberal" higher learning institutions and learn actual history and grammar.
Didn't mean to get so far under your skin there.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The U.S. invaded Vietnam to stop it from developing along an independent path! It was an illegal invasion! The resistance to the U.S. Assault was supported by the population! Congratulations on proving you know nothing about recent history!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Why should we be the policemen of the world? we have enough problems of our own right here. So stop with the we have to stop tyranny stuff. We have to fix our own problems first, then we may help the rest of the world.
- Smooch The PoochLv 71 decade ago
People are honestly too naive and complacent to think it can ever happen. They need to wake up. Copenhagen isn't a visit over coffee. In addition this so-called health care reform bill, our freedom and sovereignty is truly at stake.
*edit: I guess you were right about that sensitivity. Say something that is factual about what is happening in this world and you get heated rants and hissing and spitting. Wonder why we are screwed? Look at your America hating answers.
- 1 decade ago
We can send our sons and daughters across the globe to fight another country's war/tyranny, but we can't provide affordable healthcare for our other sons and daughters right here in our own backyardSource(s): strange world