2006-08-25 14:48:06 · 9 answers · asked by Olivia 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The United States intends to maintain its near monopoly of force, with no likely contestant for that role. One effect will be exacerbation of domestic economic difficulties; another, a renewed temptation to "go it alone" in relying on the threat of force rather than diplomacy, generally regarded as an annoying encumbrance.
This is what is called the New World Order. This new order will certainly allow the US to carry out all sorts of state sponsored terrorism and reconstruct the world in a way that most benefits the elite forces that own the United States. This is no shock, it has been a long time coming, and we can clearly see how the US leaders are far more blod in thier statements thatn they were when the USSR was in full effect.
Axis of Evil? ya know...
We are the lead terrorist force in the world. Every person we kill proves this, and every child is a Jon Benet and should be cared about as much, but people are brainwashed and could care less, to us bigots and fascist thinkers Iraqi children are just nothing, dirt, unhuman... and that is sick, this is why the USA is a sick place. this is why you should resist the virus that is spreading, the right wing virus.
2006-08-25 15:07:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
In a way, maybe. The US provided the Taliban and Osama bin Laden with plenty of weapons and training when the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan. And we gave Saddam Hussein a "starter set" for chemical and biological weapons when Iraq and Iran were at war. After the Soviet Union fell and the Taliban and bin Laden didn't have that war to fight anymore, bin Laden turned his attention to the one super power left in the world. So, I guess if the Soviet Union was still around, maybe they'd still be fighting in Afghanistan and maybe they'd still be supplying weapons to Iran, so the US would still be supplying weapons to Iraq and Iraq and Iran would still be fighting each other.
World politics sure is messy.
2006-08-25 14:58:56 · answer #2 · answered by cool_breeze_2444 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Iindirectly I would answer in the positive. Since undesirable elements in the Soviet Union were not under as much government control they were free to seek buyers of their trade and materials to people in other countries for the right price.
2006-08-25 14:55:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who said the Soviet Union fell? All they did was changed their name too the Russian federation and installed czar puttin....as head commie!
2006-08-25 15:40:06 · answer #4 · answered by General Custer 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
AS LONG AS AMERICA'S USES MILITARISM TO IT'S IDEALS ON THE REST OF THE WORLD, TERRORISM WILL EXIST....TERRORISM IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.....LIKE IT OR NOT IT'S HUMAN NATURE TO USE WHATEVER MEANS TO FIGHT OPPRESSION AND TYRANNY....AMERICA NEEDS TO LEARN RESPECT!
2006-08-25 16:00:19 · answer #5 · answered by rubiconski 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Laughable, simple laughable. Our school systems are doing such a wonderful job I see.
Just remember, if you forget everything else, wars are fought, not for land, but for raw materials. Imperialist nations aren't land grabbers anymore, but it's the 'control' of the 'resources' that turns politicians into hypocrits.
I hope you learned (not just read) something today.
Good luck.
2006-08-25 14:58:11 · answer #6 · answered by cmtoolsmith1 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You may have something here. I never thought about it, but the timing is about right.
2006-08-25 14:53:43 · answer #7 · answered by Salem 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It gave USA the chance to bomb itself and blame on other countries, yes.
2006-08-25 14:53:04 · answer #8 · answered by Haahshalom 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
no damnocrats did but they blame President Bush
2006-08-25 14:51:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋