Three reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have enter WW1.?
1.War is always a lie, war begets more war. It gives banks & military weapon makers unprecedented powers and large salaries. They use science for war instead of human development and advancement like healthcare, food, travel & education. 2. The Great War began in 1914, Wilson (formed the Federal Reserve & income tax in 1913) was elected in 1912. He wanted to be President again and won re-election on the basis "He Kept US out of War" before setting in motion the advancement of pre-planned warfare in 1915 after the pre-planned Lusitania attack & Zimmerman Letter. Men were sent to die so our industry would rise & certain men profit. 3. It was not our conflict, so do you wonder what America might have been like if we had not entered?
What are some reasons why Truman shouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What are some reasons why President Truman SHOULDN'T have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? & What are some reasons why he SHOULD have dropped the bomb?
Reasons why U.S shouldn't have been involved with Vietnam War?
The conventional liberal argument post 1968 was that it was, "The wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place...." Of course they never seemed to be able to answer the question what was the right war at the wright time in the wright place? Never I guess. The Communist should have just been allowed to run rampant, which is what they did after 1973.
What are some good reasons why the US shouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima (other than death of innocent civillians)?
I’m sorry to burst your Utopian bubble, but there are no such good reasons and looking at the history of the world and specifically of the conflict created by the fanatical excesses of the Japanese lust for conquest in the 20th century and use of the atomic bombs to end their reign of terror will not change that.Many more “innocent civilians” died in the fire-bombings of Tokyo than died in both of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Many more “innocent civilians” were massacred by the Japanese forces in their occupations of Nanjing and Hong Kong and Singapore and Manila and Manchuria.Many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more “innocent civilians” would have been sacrificed by the Japanese military leaders in futile defense of the home islands had the invasion of Japan itself been required to end the war, not to mention the deaths and other casualties of the soldiers on either side of the battle, an number frequently estimated to exceed one million.Nuclear bombs are not useful weapons of war. They are too indiscriminate and powerful to be useful in that role. They are, however, extremely useful as weapons to END a war when no other better possibility is in sight, as was the case in August, 1945.
Why shouldn't the US have entered WW2??
I was a child, growing up in the 1930's, and remember that the country was staunchly Isolationists! Americans were really tired of war after WWI, and were resolved not to get involved in this new "European war" again! I remember everyone felt so sorry for Britain and specifically for the Londoners during the "Blitz" when Hitler was sending over storms of rockets over the major cities--but were still staunchly against entering the war! Ironically, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought almost every American to support the war effort, as the "surprise attack" seemed to incense all Americans to support entry into the two-front war effort! I DO believe that we SHOULD HAVE DONE SO. Hitler had the rockets and, I think, that Hitler could eventually have invaded Britain. Germany certainly had control over Europe. One mistake that Hitler made (in my opinion) was the same one made by Napoleon--he attacked Russia at the beginning of the great Russian winter.
What 3 reasons why American colonies should have stayed loyal to Great Britain?
They don't have to reasons to win over your audience. 1) Avoiding two wars - the war of independence and the war with Canada which was essentially also a war with Britain, possibly also the civil war. 2) Britain abolished slavery before America. 3) Independence was unnecessary, Britain gave up her colonies eventually anyway. 4) America might have ended up as several smaller countries, not an overarching nation, thus no federal power to interfere with local laws and no federal financial laws trying to force fiscal unity on what are essentially several different economies, e.g. Arkansas and California. 5) British imperialism followed the path of Roman imperialism when dealing with populated lands - dealing with and empowering local leaders to be our friends and share their resources, rather than going with armies and just taking everything we wanted. Therefore we might arguably have dealt with the indigenous population less brutally than the Americans in the 19th century. I'm not saying definitely, just that it's a possibility. Yes, I'm aware we weren't very nice to the Irish. Yes, I'm aware of the Indian and Zulu uprisings. 6) The taxes weren't as onerous as they were made out to be, people back in Britain had it worse. It's actually depressing that I don't know enough about British history - trade, wars, the Victorians etc - to answer this question well.
What are some reasons why Of Mice and Men should be banned?
We did this in English :D - uses racist language, shows America to be racist - shows America in a state of depression that they'd rather forget - is apparently sexist due to its portrayal of Curley's wife as a 'tart' - uses blasphemous language, eg Jesus Christ! and many people do not find that acceptable - swears - speaks of prostitution casually Can't think of any more off the top of my head, hope I helped!
What are good reasons that an American should not move to Europe? It seems as if life is better in France, Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland. What are some good reasons to stay in the US? What are my rose-colored glasses filtering out?
Somewhat in the spirit of Jan Simmonds and somewhat tongue-in-cheek.You should not move to Europe:Because you are doing well in USA, want to guarantee your children do well, even if by unfair means, and you prefer low social mobility to protect your kids from the tougher competition they might face in a more meritocratic society.a.k.a. "pulling up the ladder after you have climbed it."As George Carlin put it: "If Americans Want To Live The American Dream ... They Should Go To Denmark."Or a longer, more statistics laden version of the same idea from TED talk by Richard Wilkinsonhttp://www.upworthy.com/if-ameri...As such, if you like the "Gilded Age" aristocracy, gated communities, the alumni track to university and the country club hiring circuit, moving to Europe would be a bad idea. Counter-intuitively, social mobility is lower in USA than in most European countries. Britain, with its royals and its rituals, its titles and its toffee-nosed traditions, has always been the class system poster child for Americans (I'm looking at you, Lady Mary Crawley!). We're hooked on the upstairs-downstairs exotica of Downton Abbey, yet Americans should know that people in the UK have a greater chance than we do of improving their financial circumstances – 42% of Americans never escape the lowest income bracket, compared to 30% of Brits.Guardian article on social mobility: Want to get ahead? Move to DenmarkAnd Britain has lower social mobility than many countries in Europe.Or, as Kurt Vonnegut put it:Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.Yes, this is somewhat tongue in cheek. Somewhat.