What gives the United States the moral high ground to bomb and then invade other countries ?

Question

We started around 1900 with Cuba, the Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, and now Iraq isn't it getting a little stale?

Answer 1

The United States stance is in fact amoral, they want to destroy other countries and install puppet democracies, favorable to them.

Answer 2

"Bomb" and then "invade"?

It's funny how some people think they're asking the ultimate "checkmate" question as if to say 'I gotcha ya' or 'dig your way out of this one'. I doubt you know little more than the names of those countries you listed.

- Cuba -
Cuba was in Spanish control when an uprising was starting to materialize. Spain retaliated by setting up fortified areas around the country, in which it forced the population into. As a result, at least 200,000 people died - the leading causes being starvation and disease. Although it was a severe humanitarian crisis, we stayed out of it for almost 3 years as the insurgency got stronger taking control of the eastern side of the country. We only intervened AFTER our battleship Maine was blown up in the Havana harbor killing 266 men.

Bomb and invade? Moral high ground? I didn't see any of that here.

- Phillipines -
Ah, another country controlled by...who...yep, that's right, the Spanish. I didn't see you mention that Spain was ever in the wrong here, but that figures. You don't hate Spain. It was only a part of your list because there were some naval battles that occurred against the Spanish during the conflict that started in Cuba. It was sold to us in the Treaty of Paris. We eventually let the Filipinos have complete control.

Bomb and invade? Moral high ground? Someone skipped their history class one too many times...


Korea - nope, we were there at the end of WWII fighting Japan, tried to setup a democratic govt for the entire nation, but the Soviet-controlled North wouldn't have any part in it. So we did what we could for S. Korea and left. Only after the South was invaded did we come to their aid. No invasion here.

Vietnam - about the only one on your list that comes close to your point. This was a mistake led by the Democrats, and that's all I'll say

Panama - We aided that country in the first place helping it achieve independence from Columbia. Even after the coup in '68, we stayed out of its affairs for 20 years. Took out Noriega eventually, and again returned the country to the people. What's your point here?

Afghanistan - Housing countless terrorist training camps, housing Al Qaeda who just attacked us on 9/11. Nothing else needs to be said.


According to your false sense of logic, I'd say a lot of what I've said is unnecessary. But for the others that read this, it's best to set the record straight. Hope we don't hit your country next...

Answer 3

The United States may not have the moral high ground sometimes (the only ones in your little list which I somewhat approve with is Korea and Afghanistan, all the rest were misguided and/or foolhardy. Incidentally you left out WWI and WWII). But then again what gives the foul terrorists and lunatic nations like NoKor and Iran the high ground to threaten others and impose their own maniacal wills? We are all guilty more or less of claiming the high ground on such matters as it were. The question is whether we actually make good use of our "moral acendency" or we screw it up (unfortunately Bush is doing a good job on the latter).

Answer 4

The extreme floor in Korea replaced into that a authorities that were area of the Truce with Japan( We chop up Korea in 1/2: one area going to Russia the different to us) replaced into being assaulted by skill of the North Koreans , who were Communist. We did not commence it and we've had a quit hearth for fifty 3 years. The UN licensed this warfare commonly because the U.S. replaced into boycotting the UN. In Vietnam it replaced into over an similar in truth, except the way we were given into it. The powers theory that one after yet another of those international locations may bypass Communist like Domino's!. Philippines replaced right into a lengthy tale and we received at a extreme value in lives, quite Filipinos. We had wanted to make it a territory and it replaced into area of a treaty between us and the Spanish Iraq:there isn't any extreme floor morally or ethically. not something christian about Iraq. We were killing more suitable little ones lower than 5 with our blockades the Hussein ever theory-about killing! it may take to lengthy to respond to those! in short, overlook the Christian area because none of those were crusades. and what number may have lost their lives in somewhat some the wars is a toss-up the purely moral reason replaced into for stability interior the international or area , inspite of the actuality that Communism replaced into the inspiration of each thing undesirable and the clarification we did something!

Answer 5

Right is might. As long as organizations such as the United Nations and NATO sit on their thumbs and do nothing, the only remaining SuperPower has an obligation to act.

Answer 6

what is your suggestion... shall we wait until millions are slaughtered in concentration camps like we did with Hitler? do we owe Hitler an apology? Had we have attacked and intercepted him before the carnage, it would have been just as good a thing to do as it was after. In fact, it would have been better. Attack away America.

Answer 7

When a situation demands action, it falls on those with the ability to act to do so. Sound farmiliar? It should. Anybody else wanna chime in?

Answer 8

You left out France, Italy, Germany, & Japan. Why not put a little thought in your questions before you make a fool of yourself, moron?

Answer 9

The geopolitical decisions being made today are shameful. I hope history will record the truth, rather than propaganda.

Answer 10

because they have veto power at the UN,so they abuse their power and start bombing other countries in the name of 'freedom and democracy',like someone said just now,maybe hitler might be a good guy after all...