Changes

The United States definitely should of entered World War II.  The U.S. probably should of even entered the war a lot sooner than it did.  So many people around the world, including U.S. citizens like to put the notion out there that the U.S. wants to be the police of the world.  That is a completely false and delusional argument.  Considering what was happening to the Jews during WWII, the U.S. getting involved was only right.  It shouldn't of took the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor to make the U.S. get involved in the war.  We should have already been involved in the war.  Millions of lives could of been saved had the U.S. entered the war sooner.  There is evil in this world and the only way to do away with it is to stand up to it and defeat it.  You don't compromise with it or ignore it as if it's not really happening; you rise up and defeat.  It's all about standing on the side of righteousness.  It's sad how so many people believe in taking the cowardly isolationist stance as if that's the best solution.  Isolationism is just another a word for cop-out.  Taking the non-interventionist approach (which is different from isolationism) would be described as NOT policing the world but knowing when it's moraly right and wrong to engage in a war.  We are non-interventionists but we are not and should never be isolationist.  As a conservative Republican, this is one of the biggest reasons why I so adamantly disagree with Libertarians.  Libertarians love to flip-flop the meanings of non-interventionism and isolationism and make it seem as if they're the non-interventionists when in reality they're the isolationists.  If a dictator in a foreign land is slaughtering people by the millions, libertarians will simply look the other way as if nothing wrong is happening and promote their ridiculous solution of letting said country sort their problems out on their own, while ignoring the fact that millions of innocent lives will be lost.  No matter how disasterous a situation may be, Libertarians feel the only time the U.S. should get involved in any war is if there is some kind of interest (usually a financial benefit) in it for us.  Trying to save innocent human beings from genocide is not enough of a reason for the U.S. to get involved in a war in the mind of a Libertarian.  Whether or not the United States should have entered World War II is honestly somewhat of a silly question.  We don't go around sticking our nose in the business of other countries every chance we get, but there is a time when we as a nation have to stand up for what's right, speak out and act out against what is clearly wrong, and lend our helping hand to those in serious need, and WWII was definitely one of those times.  If you think otherwise then your either a Libertarian or just a complete liberal.

The United States definitely should of entered World War II.  The U.S. probably should of even entered the war a lot sooner than it did.  So many people around the world, including U.S. citizens like to put the notion out there that the U.S. wants to be the police of the world.  That is a completely false and delusional argument.  Considering what was happening to the Jews during WWII, the U.S. getting involved was only right.  It shouldn't of took the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor to make the U.S. get involved in the war.  We should have already been involved in the war.  Millions of lives could of been saved had the U.S. entered the war sooner.  There is evil in this world and the only way to do away with it is to stand up to it and defeat it.  You don't compromise with it or ignore it as if it's not really happening; you rise up and defeat.  It's all about standing on the side of righteousness.  It's sad how so many people believe in taking the cowardly isolationist stance as if that's the best solution.  Isolationism is just another a word for cop-out.  Taking the non-interventionist approach (which is different from isolationism) would be described as NOT policing the world but knowing when it's moraly right and wrong to engage in a war.  We are non-interventionists but we are not and should never be isolationist.  As a conservative Republican, this is one of the biggest reasons why I so adamantly disagree with Libertarians.  Libertarians love to flip-flop the meanings of non-interventionism and isolationism and make it seem as if they're the non-interventionists when in reality they're the isolationists.  If a dictator in a foreign land is slaughtering people by the millions, libertarians will simply look the other way as if nothing wrong is happening and promote their ridiculous solution of letting said country sort their problems out on their own, while ignoring the fact that millions of innocent lives will be lost.  No matter how disasterous a situation may be, Libertarians feel the only time the U.S. should get involved in any war is if there is some kind of interest (usually a financial benefit) in it for us.  Trying to save innocent human beings from genocide is not enough of a reason for the U.S. to get involved in a war in the mind of a Libertarian.  Whether or not the United States should have entered World War II is honestly somewhat of a silly question.  We don't go around sticking our nose in the business of other countries every chance we get, but there is a time when we as a nation have to stand up for what's right, speak out and act out against what is clearly wrong, and lend our helping hand to those in serious need, and WWII was definitely one of those times.  If you think otherwise then your either a Libertarian or just a complete liberal.

== No ==

== No ==