1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Karo-lina-s [1.5K]
3 years ago
6

What are some reasons why Americans should not have the right to burn the flag?

History
2 answers:
miss Akunina [59]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

I consider flag-burning to not only be an ineffective way to express disagreement, but toxic as well. More than that, I believe it to be a hate crime. Yes, it makes an obvious statement, but at the heart of it, all it truly exhibits is hatred for our country. I would even go so far as to question if flag-burning ought to be judged as treason.

Vikki [24]3 years ago
6 0
The American flag should be burn down because without the flag we wouldn’t have 50 states and 13 colonies
You might be interested in
Was the united state correct 1945 when it became the first nation to use atomic weapons against japan to end world war 2 or was
Dominik [7]

Answer:

It was a morally wrong decision to drop the atomic bombs.

Explanation:

This is a heavily debated opinion-based question where you can go both ways. In my personal opinion, I personally argue that it was morally wrong for the US to use atomic weapons on Japan. Below is my reasoning.

1. Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender previous to the dropping of the atomic bombs, meaning that they were not a military necessity.

Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender under the single condition that their emperor would not be harmed. (This was mainly due to cultural reasons that made the emperor a particularly important figure) Instead of accepting, the United States instead decided to fight for unconditional surrender. While they did achieve that in the end, they ended up not harming the emperor anyway, meaning that they could have just accepted Japan's surrender in my personal opinion. Moreover, this desire disproves the argument that the decision to drop the bomb was a military necessity and many contribute Japan's surrender more so to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which meant Japan now had to fight a two-front war.

2. Atomic weapons are a form of indiscriminite killing.

Atomic weapons don't have eyes. They can't tell the difference between the military and civilians. Thousands of women and children were killed that had no involvement in the war. It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians, so why would atomic weapons be ethically acceptable? While the US did drop leaflets to warn civilians prior to the attacks, this act is not enough, and it cannot be expected for millions to flee thier homes.

3. The government may have been considering diplomatic reasons rather than solely ending the war.

If the US was really after a speedy end to the end of the war, there could have been many other ways to go about it. They could have continued to firebomb cities or accept conditional surrender. Some have argued that the diplomatic effects that came with it such as scaring the Soviets and proving US dominance were also in policymakers' minds. If the US had not been victorious in World War II, several important members of the government would have likely been tried as war criminals.

The Counter Argument:

Of course, there is also a qualified opposing view when it comes to this. It is perfectly valid to argue that the bomb was necessary for ending the war: as it is impossible to know the "what ifs" had history not happened the way it did. It is undeniable that the atomic bomb likely saved thousands of American lives if the war would have continued, and the war did ultimately come to an end a couple of days after the atomic bombs. There also is not enough evidence as to what exactly was the reason the Japanese unconditionally surrendered: it could have been Manchuria or the atomic bomb, both, or even other reasons entirely. Lastly, the general public did approve of the bombings at the time.

In recent years, the public have slowly become more critical of the bombings, although it remains a weighted moral debate.

Note: These are my personal views and this does explicitly represent the views of anyone else. Please let me know if you have any questions :)

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
First Answer Is The Brianlyest!
Cloud [144]

Answer:

the 21st Century Congestion Challenges

Explanation:

the congestion challenges of today would not be beneficial at all for economic growth so they need to solve that challenge by adding infrastructure

5 0
3 years ago
Which answer choice is a result of the Lincoln Douglas debate (civil war)
BigorU [14]

Answer:

The correct answer would be Option C.

Explanation:

  • The competition again for Illinois seat would be among Stephen Douglas as well as Abraham Lincoln throughout the decade 1858. Another much-publicized sequence of discussions was held by the contestants.
  • The official results including its negotiations saw Douglas regain his senate majority although, but again a loser, Lincoln achieved requisite knowledge and skills.

Some other decisions that were made are not connected to the example in the case offered. So, the solution above is the appropriate one.

6 0
3 years ago
read the fallowing excerpt from British poet Rudyard Kipling's the white man's burden written 1899 what does the excerpt suggest
tensa zangetsu [6.8K]
<span>Read the following excerpt from British poet Rudyard Kipling's the white man's burden written 1899 what does the excerpt suggest about European imperialism during the late 19th century?<span>

</span>Answer: The poem smacks of cultural imperialism, with the superior English going into a country of “sullen” brutes and imposing their civilizing behaviors and institutions.

I hope it helps, Regards.</span>
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What did Shay’s Rebellion convince people of?
kogti [31]

Answer:

Shays' Rebellion informed the debate over the framing of a new U.S. Constitution, providing fuel to Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists who advocated for a strong federal government and diminished states' rights

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • People who sought “normalization” for individuals with mental illnesses wanted to
    10·2 answers
  • 3. Which of the following was considered a push factor for the migration patterns of the 20th century?
    14·1 answer
  • According to Plato, individuals could not achieve a good life unless they did which of the following?
    11·1 answer
  • Why is it important for some agencies within the federal government to remain independent
    7·2 answers
  • Which primary source document could help a historian understand why the civil war started?
    5·1 answer
  • The belief that the world should be viewed realistically
    13·1 answer
  • 4. Provide an overview of the actions that were taken to address the working conditions of industrial workers.
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following events promoted or contributed to slavery in the U.S. ?
    9·1 answer
  • Please write a summary for the passage above.
    7·1 answer
  • 3) When the Republican Party refused to let Teddy Roosevelt run for President
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!