Make your own free website on

If you can see past the glass, say hello

Superpower Askew

Home | Younger Comments | Single Me?? | It Doesn't matter It's in the Past | Poem About Her | Cyber Reality v. Reality | Love??? | 9 Months ago I thought .... | Poem "Together" | Ex

Superpower gone Askew

            The United States began as a nation of a multitude of various cultures, which melded into the greatest superpower on Earth.  However, at what point did this superpower decide to abandon the ideals upon which the United States was founded and instead decide to meld the entire world into the United State’s view of what is best? 

            Presently the “War on Terrorism” is unique in all the wars the United States has started because not only did the United States start the war but also the reasons for starting the war seems to be to aid the freedom of foreign nations.  However, what is in the best interest of a foreign nation?

            In order for the United States to aid these nations, Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been a massive military presence and also a huge expenditure of US tax payers money to repair the damage caused not only by US military forces but by the former rulers, or lack of in some cases.   Obviously there are few issues that the US has to concern about domestically if the US government can afford to spend so much on a fight the US chose to fight the most expensive way; boots on the ground.

            Such a sacrifice by the US taxpayer, yet never once has there ever been the consideration of whether invading a country is an appropriate action for the reigning super-power.  When did the nation founded upon people of all cultures immigrating suddenly decide that the US way is the only way?  Presumptive?  If the US way is the only way then why not conquer the entire world; that would end terrorism right?

The United Nations exists to maintain a communication with the rest of the world, why else pay so much to have a representative from every country in the world present.  Based out of New York at much expense again to the US taxpayer, the UN allows the US to find out the global political opinion of other nations.  In that case why does the US decide just to ignore the best advisory board available, with exception to foreign media?

Never prior to President Bush has the US actively engaged in pre-emptive warfare, and to indoctrinate such so publicly appears to be the President’s choice to be able to pick a fight anywhere.  Hitler engaged in pre-emptive warfare and gained all of Europe in doing such.  In that situation why should France, or any nation in the UN, dislike the US’s use of pre-emptive warfare?

 War is necessary at times and at other times clandestine operations may prove to be the best approach to eliminating a undesirable regime.  At what point is assassination worse than the leveling of an entire nation’s government and starting a bloody occupation to restore a new government?  Only time may tell but for the taxpayer that is obviously the difference between a few thousand bullets and a few lives verses over 1000 US deaths, even more Iraqi deaths and a bill that is in the $100,000,000,000s.  Though there is no support for legal assassinations there is also no support for a invasion of a sovereign nation

Terrorism may come from both domestic and foreign sources; does that mean the US must reject all citizen rights to achieve a total victory in the War on Terrorism?

So far the US has been highly successful in the War on Terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan have both been casualties to the war machine … who is next?  More of your rights?



NOTE TO READERS: I fully support my country, and it is because I care that I state all that I do.  I have NO I repeat NO desire to change anyone's opinions or insult anyone's political views of morally appropriate.  This is my opinion stated feel free to state yours, websites on tripod are free.

Enter supporting content here