"and griping about how other people should fix the problem..."
Saying that tyranny can be stopped if the world were willing to unite and take action is griping?
"Exactly what are you doing about it? You can't srsly think you're less of an enabler than I am, Mr. Voice-of-the-People."
I openly express contempt for the condition instead of resignation to it. Do you think it hypocritical that I realize these things, yet do not become an activist?
"The US can't fight the entire world"
Ofc not. Just blow up enough of it so it will be useless to everybody.
"Should we never discuss potentialities that run against the current state of affairs because they run against the current state of affairs?"
That's fine, as long as we (you and I) and our audience are aware that we're discussing hypotheticals and random brainfarts. We wouldn't want anybody to accuse us of being the sort of people who believe that our daydream utopias where tiny 3rd world countries stand up to the Murricans might actually exist, or be a goal worth fighting for. Damn, that would be delusional. Or an act of terrorism.
Maybe both O.O
"Ofc not. Just blow up enough of it so it will be useless to everybody."
If the US government were not pragmatical as it is and did this, its people would not stand idle as the US declared war on the entire world. It remains legal for US citizens to acquire semi-automatic assault rifles. Why? In case its population ever needs to revolt.
"That's fine, as long as we (you and I) and our audience are aware that we're discussing hypotheticals and random brainfarts."
If they were actualities, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think looking at an alternate way the world can function should be consider a "random brainfart."
"We wouldn't want anybody to accuse us of being the sort of people who believe that our daydream utopias where tiny 3rd world countries stand up to the Murricans might actually exist, or be a goal worth fighting for. Damn, that would be delusional. Or an act of terrorism."
Maybe both O.O"
"Third world countries" would be a subset of the global community. But when we are referring to economic sanctions, which are the main throttles and deterrents for the belligerent actions of nations, the key players would be US's main trade partners: China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany, and so forth. I am saying a real threat of that would stop genocides and annexations, you are saying:
"Yeah, that 7 foot tall bully needs a midget middlepower or 2 and a couple of frightened kitty cats to chew on its bootheels."
"I know a few stodgy old Canucks who would love to pull out the cannons that won the War of 1812 for us and try to beat those Murricans back again."
"A force of hundreds or thousands begins with one.
There is no one. Complacency (or desperation) prevent them from standing up, and that's just how it is."
"The US is not Sierra Leone or Burma or Chechnya. They won't back down. It'll be WW3."
"That's fine, as long as we (you and I) and our audience are aware that we're discussing hypotheticals and random brainfarts."
And so on, basically any argument supporting enabling behavior. You are part of the problem.
"I believe in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, US was the tyrant, and the world condemned the US with words, but condoned its actions with passivity."
I don't think the world was as unified against the US' actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as you seem to think.
Perhaps not initially in the case of people of the world, but the reality of the situation slowly sank in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/23_01_07_us_poll.pdf
Though still not quite "unification." You are right.
Tangentially, an interesting graph illustrating the effects of American hysteria and lack of foresight provided by Pew Research Center:
