That's in the past and was done for selfish gains with JFK and other presidents pushing so hard to beat communism. Who was it that stopped Saddam and his genocide (the first time we fought Iraq I mean)? We did. Who was it that committed troops to Korea to help? We did. Yes, we had help from other nations but who always made the biggest commitment?

Also, I've seen something saying we donated less than other countries during most disasters...but you know what? The poll was based on percentages, like how much we gave of how much we have. And yeah, we were ranked pretty low...but how much more do we have than everyone else? Last I checked we were one of the wealthiest countries in the world and it's not fair to say we should donate the same percentage when that percentage means significantly more from us.

You know OFF topic...I see many spouting polotics that are not even old enough to vote,and getting their information from the media or Mom &Dad and have no real knowledge of how the world works.

We DO see the deaths in other places..we DO care that people suffer!
As an American I have volunteered my time to that in many ways.

Spoony is correct and you guys should listen to him.Metal is also correct in that it is not the nation,it is an individual that is thoughtless or uncaring.
This should not brand a nation...but individuals.

FYI I turn eighteen next month and I plan to vote, and yes I pay alot of attention to politics in case you haven't been able to tell from all my posts. But yes I am guessing there are alot of fifteen and sixteen year olds that probably don't know what they are talking about in this conversation. That is why I can counterpoint them so well :D

imo metal head i do not think you counterpoint well at all but switch to a new example in hopes to find some sanctity there. but thats imo not a flame.

i still think we should have listened to george washington in his farewell address. the only thing we should have done anything for in this world was remove hitler. but if we didnt go into ww1 there would not have been any hitler in power. but thats theory and thought.

it just seems to me that the more we try to help the more hated we become. and the more hated we become the less caring we become. it is an evil cycle and we are the only victims

i seriously doubt that you know all of the information without first having watched the news and what not. i too, pay attention to politics
most of what we have to say (and i have to say) is a reflection and interpretation of some media source.
often at times things that we dont like to/want to hear gets posted.

here are the hard facts that Americans may not be all that knowledgeable.

http://people-press.org/reports/images/319-1.gif
Source: Summary of Findings: Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319)

The very first paragraph of the report.
Since the late 1980s, the emergence of 24-hour cable news as a dominant news source and the explosive growth of the internet have led to major changes in the American public's news habits. But a new nationwide survey finds that the coaxial and digital revolutions and attendant changes in news audience behaviors have had little impact on how much Americans know about national and international affairs.
one can infer from the whole article that americans may not really know about the tragedies on the other side of the world

before you flame me, please read the full report with the link above. also, for fun, you can take the news quiz yourself and see how you compare.

If you don't know your own state's governor, or the vice president, you HAVE to be living in a ****ing hole.

I did not go to the link to look at the poll but I would like to know who they surveyed. Judging from the site it is likely not young people you would meet on the street. They are likely well read people who take the time out of their day to know what is going on in the first place.

FYI I turn eighteen next month and I plan to vote, and yes I pay alot of attention to politics in case you haven't been able to tell from all my posts. But yes I am guessing there are alot of fifteen and sixteen year olds that probably don't know what they are talking about in this conversation. That is why I can counterpoint them so well :D

This is why I pointed you out.You flame a lot,but I have come to realise it is because you are not a Moron,and have no tollerance for them the same as myself.

Being young does not mean you are stupid.Being stupid means you think you understand it all when you don't.

Sigh, do i need to post it for you?
well here it is.
Dramatic differences emerge when the results are broken down by age. Young people know the least: Only 15% percent of 18-29 year-olds are among the most informed third of the public, compared with 43% of those ages 65 and older. But it is not these oldest respondents who know the most. Instead, it is people in the age group younger than them - those ages 50-64 - who are slightly more likely to finish among the third of the sample who know the most (47% vs. 43%) and less likely to be represented among those who know the least (22% vs. 28%). This difference likely is caused by the very different life circumstances of the two oldest age groups. Many of those 65 and older are retired from work, and health problems as well as lifestyle changes can disproportionately work to diminish the interest or ability of some in this generation to keep up with the news.
here is another chart

http://people-press.org/reports/images/319-7.gif
i got these from the same website above. and i again encourage everyone to the quiz. especially those who claim that they have a high knowledge of politics and so forth.