the year is 1917. a bitter war is raging in Europea war that has been called a threat to civilizatrion. at home many people are urging America to wake up and get involved while others are calling for the country to isolate itself and avoid the fight.
is it right to intervene in forign conflicts?
when american lives are threatend how should the government respond?
should america go to war to make the world "safe for democracy"?
2007-06-13 09:35:21 · 20 answers · asked by Noor A 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
America is making the world a very dangerous place a very corrupt deceitful country using media brainwashing to lie and control. Bush is a very evil man look into building seven thats proves 9 11 was a inside job anyone who can`t see that fact must be a moron
2007-06-13 09:40:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Time and time again, presidents have repeatedly claimed that we are not the world's policeman.
And time and time again, America's interests abroad are threatened.
The Austro-Hungarian/Prussian powers and its allies threatened the peace and stability of Europe.
London was bombed by dirigibles. There were privations and our ships were being torpedoed by German U boats in the Atlantic.
Hell yeah we got into the fight and whipped those Huns' butts!
Then we made them pay after the war. And we got to do it all over again in 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
America should go to war when its overseas interests are threatened. When shipping lanes are being targeted, when aircraft cannot fly; and when the vital economic interests of this nation are at stake, yes we will go to war if necessary.
As far as going to war JUST to make the world safe for democracy? Hmmmmm. That line's nothing more than a pretense.
End of story.
2007-06-13 09:41:33 · answer #2 · answered by krollohare2 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In WW1 some American ships have been bombed, yet that handed off in the process the full element. the US in straightforward terms joined on the tip s they could take all the honour. The conflict replaced into very almost gained, yet u . s . a . of america mandatory to be considerable. Even after the conflict on the treaty of Versailles, u . s . a . of america have been there, yet Russia who did lots extra effective than the US weren't. for the period of ww2, Russia did very almost each and every thing. yet they could no longer do all of it, so as that they begged international places including the US and Britain. Britain could no longer help lots, they have been too small, yet nevertheless they controlled to combat interior the full conflict. It replaced into in straightforward terms whilst the jap attacked that they've been compelled to connect in.
2016-10-17 04:07:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our 2ND Constitution states , "Never Take Arms Against Another Country, Only If They Strike Our Country First". That is the Constitutions that Bush broke when he did a preemptive strike on Iraq, they had done nothing to us are against us. That is the first Constitution he broke and then he just kept breaking any he choose to. Our Framers wrote these Constitutions To never be broken. That is why he should be impeached for breaking any Constitution
You know what his answer was , "Oh, those old men didn't know what the world be like today". That is why I call him a sorry lying bast***
2007-06-13 09:50:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as a view from people in the year 1917, we should have stayed out of the war, just to stay out of foreign conflicts that don't concern us.
As a view looking back on it, we definitely should have gone to war when we did. We stayed on the sidelines in the early parts of WWII and we got bombed for it, whereas if we had already been fighting, there would have been no offensive strikes on U.S. soil.
2007-06-13 09:40:42 · answer #5 · answered by Maverick 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How about we make America safe for democracy. Close the borders to the millions of illegals crossing. Bring our troops home and put them on the borders and secure our homeland. Let the rest of the world take care of itself. Maybe then America would gain a little more respect. We can't afford to be the world's police, it gives us a black eye most times.
2007-06-13 09:39:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
With the benefit of hindsight, America should not have entered into that war.
Whether it is right to intervene depends on the conflict, the circumstances, etc. There is no one single correct answer that holds true for every circumstance.
2007-06-13 09:57:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we should have entered that war. But to correct you statement, we weren't making the world "safe for democracy". We were protecting democracy from being threatened and invaded.
Also, when your allies are asking for you to help them with the war, I am much more willing to say it is worth helping them. If our allies wanted us to stay out of it, that should also be respected.
2007-06-13 09:39:42 · answer #8 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes!!!!!That one was right, so was the next one, so is this one!!!
Here's something interesting for you folks< the "war" in vietnam was started by France and went in to bail them out and got shafted, but when we need them, they say that we're "wrong" and "it's unjust" !!
Kroll or what ever the name is above my the Germans did not have U-boats in WWl, there was no threat to the USA at all, we went in to WWl to save Europe, PERIOD!!!!!
2007-06-13 09:43:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, there's a big difference between going to war after the Germans intentionally torpedo the British passenger ship Lusitania knowing its full of Americans
versus
jumping into a mid eastern civil war in order to spread democracy - then saying its God gift to the world..... so, im guessing we're God now?
2007-06-13 09:40:50 · answer #10 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋