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.