Because there is injustice everywhere, it is wrong to talk about a specific example?

The fact that some countries are held to such higher standards is incredibly irritating to those nations' inhabitants, and very understandibly so. However, you should remember that removing injustices is often beneficial to the society that does so. In these causes, doing the right thing is not some moral burden, but simply a good business decision that is difficult because of short term costs. Green guy, (I only have one window open and forgot your exact name) you also have a point, injustice is injustice. Once again, however, you could solidly argue that it is immoral to focus on relatively miniscule injustices, when you could tackle much greater ones.

This is where I am glad to be an American, in our history, removing injustices has clearly been beneficial to the nation as a whole. Looking back, the tolereant opinion was the pragmatic one. However, I have the benefit of owing all my ideological loyalty to the United States as a nation and empathic morality in general. The cultures of my pre-American ancestors were forgotten a century ago. My family has no strong ties to any established religions, going back two genrations. I lack any line of "pure" racial heritage. Since injustices sometimes really do occasionally support cultures or faiths, I dont know what to say to people to are loyal to them, other than to stop being the way they are.

Now that Im on the subject, I dont get that crap about being "proud of your heritage." For me, NOT having corrupting, involuntary influences on my judgement, is awesome. No one made me support the US, my parents were far from dyed-in-the-wool patriots. I support the US because, after years of contemplation (including a few years as a kid when I was basically a socialist), I decided its what I should do.

flow my eyes when I hear Americans say "I support the US because, after years of contemplation (including a few years as a kid when I was basically a socialist), I decided its what I should do." I am awed that after years of contemplation and watching your country kill people on a hitherto unknown scale you have reached this decision. You are a wonderful human being.

Here we go:

I am well aware about the Native Americans. The sad fact is that no people can survive if they are so much weaker than their neighbors. If the Aztecs would have advanced and Eurasian societies would have remained stone age, Im sure Iroquois children would now have to watch guilt-inducing documentaries about how their rapacious ancestors violeated the ancestral lands of the innocent, peace-loving white-and-yellow-skins. That is Human nature, not American nature, Western nature, or any other culture specific nature. A terrible as the near-elimination of the Native-Americans was, nothing else could have happened.

I am well aware of the atomic bombs. Your opinion is literally the opinion I held as a child. Without them the Japanese military hardliners would have been able to stay in power. The only thing that would have happened is a US, Soviet or US and Soviet land invasion. If the Americans would have led the invasion, it would have been Vietnam times ten. If the Soviets would have led it, they would have used the merciless, nightmarish scorched-earth tactics they used in Eastern Europe. Far more people would have died either way. The atomic bombs jarred the nation, allowing the emporer and the moderates to get out the order to the Japanese people and miliatary to stand down.

I am sure I am aware of whatever specific thing in South America you are alluding to, but youll have to say it. I wont try to address every little South American conflict you might be alluding to. But whichever, I am sure your understanding of it is simplistic and one-sided.

Iraq, I was too young to appreciate what was going on during the lead-up, but looking back, it was clearly an awful choice. Bush was an either evil or an idiot who did not see how things work. The justifications were faulty. However, in its conduct, the US took more efforts to protect innocents than any other force in a similar situation. If you wish to argue this, please make comparisons to real things, not ideals.

Afghanistan, intervention made more sense. Once again, compared to real things, there has been almost excessive concern for civilians.

Please return with solid arguments, thought-out logic, and analysis. If you do so, I will happily engage you in an academic, thoughtful discussion. If you come back with more sentimentality, I will probably not respond.

I went on to do some other things, and looking back, I probably should have included the Native Americans. I thought of including it, along with the Black Death, the Mongol Conquests, and the killings by Timur' i Lang. I thought since it was farther in the past than the other things I listed, it occured over several centuries, and was a complex phenomenon, instead of an isolatable event, I shouldnt. But, I probably should have mentioned it. I stand by my opinions about it, but its omission was incorrect of me.