3 ms·

Hypocracy implies no desire to change. The US did, eventually, deliver on its promises. That says to me that the ideals were aspirational, not hypocritical.

• pretoriusB 14y ago
  >Hypocracy implies no desire to change. The US did, eventually, deliver on its promises. That says to me that the ideals were aspirational, not hypocritical. Did it though? Or was it just forced to change some things due to mass protests or because it found other ways to get the same conveniences? I mean, who needs slave labor when you can have an industrial revolution, factories and tractors? That doesn't mean that the old slaves are not equal -- you then have Jim Crow laws, segregation, 70% of prisoners being non-white and other methods of control. Plus have you talked with native americans, say, in the South Dacota? They have some interesting things to say about the country "delivering on its promises".
• accountswu 14y ago
  You mean Americans stopped killing people around the world for resources? At what point did the US not kill people in the last 50 years? Or the last 100 years? Philippines early 1900s, that was called the first Vietnam. Close to 1 million killed. Korea: 2 million killed. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos: 4 million killed. Iraq from 1991 to 1995 alone: 0.5 million infants killed by sanctions that denied life-saving drugs to kids who didn't even know they were Iraqis. And the Clinton administration Secy of State said that the cost was "worth it." Iraq from 2003 to date: 1 million+ killed, many more maimed and traumatized, many more displaced. That you call "deliver on its promises"...? Or do you not count it when the victims are non-American and the promise was for Americans only?