Why does USA not have to answer to anybody?

A small figure to the millions that would die if communism had crept across South East Asia.

I disagree with this. The imminent spread of communism throughout SE Asia, was a threat, but in no way did that justify military action and subtle genocide. America went into Vietnam and involved themselves unnecessarily in a civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. They lost 60,000 troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam they now have a better relationship with them than ever.They now trade, invest, travel, and communicate with a unified, western-leaning country that is catching on rather quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in our relationship with others. This is what policy America should have pursued with Vietnam, not a useless horror of a war..

i question whether war has ever been fair or morally right

I'm a pacifist, but I think there is a strong case for arguing that WW2 was a 'moral' war.

Why is it that the USA don't have to answer to anybody for their actions yet they're always interfering with just about every other country's business?

The armed forces are not above international law; we don't 'get over it' when civilians die unnecessarily. There are laws governing modern warfare which must be obeyed.
Members of the Serbian armed forces were tried for war crimes following the Bosnian conflict for example.
After WW2 many questioned whether Britain would be tried for war crimes due to the sustained and largely unncessary bombing of Dresden in Germany, a city of little military importance with mainly civilians in residence. They were not. Why? Because they were the victors.
The only reason the US forces avoided being tried for war crimes following the Vietnam war is because it was the most economically powerful and politically influential country in the world. This is not a fair or morally right situation.

Why should British people be charged for dresden? The german people voted hitler into power and supported him all the time knowing that he was going to start a war. Besides it was valuable in military terms the germans took over a 100k of casualties, how many german troops were kept occupied sorting bodies instead of fighting?
Some americans were tried for crimes in american courts though in some cases their sentences were lenient.

very few German soldiers were told to sort bodies. That was left mostly to the civilians. They were taking old men and boys to fight, hence strapped for manpower. I highly doubt they were going to put soldiers to pick through dead bodies in that kind of environment.

Some soldiers must have been present to keep order though. Plus the damage to the german economy of loosing a whole city must have been significant. My point is that it harmed germany's ability to make war so it was justified.

But killing innocent Gernman civilians by the millions, who otherwise would be working in factories or drafted as soldiers would harm Germany's ability to make war. Is this justified?

But killing innocent Gernman civilians by the millions, who otherwise would be working in factories or drafted as soldiers would harm Germany's ability to make war. Is this justified?

this, one could say the holocaust was justified because maybe a couple thousand of the Jews would have revolted or joined a partisan group. But that person is still full of **** and it was still a genocide.

Yes, they voted hitler in and supported him and in doing so sealed their fate. I think it was Arthur harris who said something along the lines of "if I bomb their factories it takes them a few months to build a new one, if I kill one of their workers it takes 18 years to make a new one". Of course WW2 was a war based around industrial capacity so is incomparable to wars since then.

Oh please.. Do not be so naive as to say that the all the Germans new what they were voting for, or what they were supporting. There are a vast array of factors in Hitlers rise to power.

And what do you say to those who didn't vote for Hitler. Were there deaths justified? Were the thousands of deaths caused by the blitz justified because it harmed the UK's war effort?

By your logic. Genocide would be justified, because killing every single German man, woman and child would do the most harm to the reichs war effort..

It happened yes. But i don't believe it was justified and i don't believe it was neccesary. Especially in the latter stages of the war.

Im sure the brownshirts gave them a hint of what they were voting for.

They still supported him. No the blitz deaths were not justified because we were in the right.

Genocide is unnecessary and would be counter productive anyway as it would make all germans fight to the death. However had the A-bomb been around at the time then destroying german cities one by one until capitulation is perfectly justified.

It was justified, germany sent her armies forth to kill millions of russians, to enslave the slavs, to massacre the jews and to destroy the empire. Yet according to you the german civilians shouldn't be touched? If the germans hadn't bombed cities then perhaps you would have a point.

Anyway this is way off topic.