World domination by whom? Muslims(radical)? or the United States?

Question

The United States.
It has called some its past adversaries empires, bent on world domination (the Soviet Union), but it has 200,000 soldiers permanently stationed in dozens of countries around the globe. Its global military presence expands every year, encircling one of the few countries left to challenge its hegemony -- Russia.

And so here we are. Fastened tightly in still another region.

Who really wants to dominate?

it's just a question. don't get your panties all scrolled up.

Answer 1

That is the NEOCON agenda. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, some bright men with nothing to do got tired of playing Risk, and graduated to Global Politics. They concluded that in this power vacuum, it would be a really good idea for the US to assert itself while it had the chance, aiming at a kind of PAX or Power Americana, another name for world domination. This all happened while we were all asleep, without our being consulted, and we now find ourselves trying to figure out how we got into this mess, the latest being Afghanistan and Iraq. These guys are for real, and they are plundering along the way. No one has ever succeeded at this throughout history, but they are giving it another shot, as they figure by the time anyone catches on, they will be set and on their private island some where. It is always the general population that has to suffer these guys, paying in blood, destruction, and chaos. No one ever believes this can be until it is way too late. The "big lie" has been used over and over for a very long time to cover this behavior up, and no matter how many times it is used, they always seem to initially get away with it. They say if you don't know history you are doomed to repeat it, and here we are again. That must be why we don't teach real history in our schools, so this kind of thing can happen.

Answer 2

The people of the U.S. don't want to take over the world, and the government is ultimately answerable to them. Some of the people do want to impose U.S. will on other countries, but its not world domination.

Japan is the best example. The United States used nuclear weapons on a civilian population to force a surrender, forced the Japanese to write a constitution for a democratic government, established military bases on that country to "protect" it since the new constitution forbade it from having a military, and then...

imposed basically no taxation or oppression whatsoever.

The U.S. attitude toward the world has changed since then, but remember that all the U.S. made Japan do was write a democratic constitution and then live by it. The Japanese even kept their emperor. A reasonable but arrogant American might say that the Japanese, who formerly lived under a military reign and are now a free country, actually benefited from this. The countries that were conquered and oppressed by Japan, and had their soveriegnty restored afterward, almost certainly benefitted from America's action. Note that those countries don't live under U.S. militarry tyranny either, even though some of them were seized from the Japanese by U.S. troops.

When a country surrenders, is expected to write a new constitution that makes their government be founded on the same general principles and style as the victor, and writes one that bans them from having a military, and becomes dependent on the country that defeated them for military protection, that's called "being under a giant paw." Note that the paw was not a heavy one, and had no malice, and was merciful compared to how Japan itself treated countries it invaded during WW2.

Nothing has changed enough for you to expect worse treatment than this if the U.S. defeats you today. At least, I hope it hasn't. Although the U.S. is currently fighting countries that did not attack it as Japan did, that is all the more reason to know that Americans do not have malice toward the people they send troops to occupy. Americans can't keep the difference between Sunnis and Shiites straight (and that shows how little they understand the war, but have strong opinions about it without actually taking the hours to gain a better understanding), and beleive that women should be allowed by law to wear pants in public even if everyone is Muslim, but they do not want to have everyone bow down to the U.S. capitol building.

The MOST expansionist Americans who are mainstream enough to have power, would like to see the U.S. convince everyone to salute their OWN democratic flag, and work at American companies. Maybe that would replace their culture with America's, but its not military hegemony. And that is the MOST imperialistic someone can be and still get sympathy from parts of mainstream America.


Signed, a youth of the U.S. who can't wait for 2008 when the current president will be replaced (since for some reason even a 32% approval rating won't get impeached for the "intelligence failure" about WMDs).

Answer 3

Well, I suppose the leader of the former Soviet Union would know all about World Domination. In his speech he implies Russia would like to be one of the world's "masters", and we have seen how Russia is willing to cut off gas supplies to its former Republics to try to effect political change in those countries (Georgia, Uzbekistan, etc). As far as I cam concerned, Putin has no credibility to be pointing ANY fingers at other countries over "human rights violations" or "world domination".

Answer 4

Now China, India are very strong and going to be much stronger then the USA.
Russia began to go out of crisis.
Moslems settle and multiply everywhere in the world and dispite their weak hi-tech they are large force.
Asian countries discuss setting in operation of ACU (asian currency unit).
The USA are being pressed stronger and stronger.

Answer 5

Afghanistan and Iraq are two of the weakest militaries on earth, but the US could not control them and has failed miserably in both cases. Terrorists grow stronger, increase their number, and become more popular every day that Bush remains President. Conversely, America’s military, economy, political reputation, and popularity all suffer. Americans citizens lose their Constitutional rights and liberties – score another one for the terrorists who seem to be gaining while we lose.

Russia has nothing. China is, or soon will be, the big dog. You will not find any Muslim terrorists messing with the Chinese.

---------------------------------------------------

ruth -

Secular: Worldly rather than spiritual.

Progressive: A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular


I take then that you are spiritually dedicated toward worsening conditions in society and government.

And, may I say that you neocons are doing a damn good job of it, too.

Answer 6

Almost all armed conflicts everywhere in the world involve jihadists...

but I dont mean to bore you with bothersome insignifcant little facts like that....unless your in the phillipines or uzebekistan or thailand or kashmir or Iraq or Sudan or Chad or South Africa or Chechnia or....

Answer 7

I think the US gives me more freedom than the other choice.

Religion should be a privite matter. Truly only 1 entity knows if you have a relationship with him/her/it. NO one else knows for sure.

Answer 8

this is the 3 rd time America has sought to insert its influence into another part of the world . We lost Korea,Viet Nam..and now Iraq. All these senseless deaths , all for lies...and yet we don;t hold the real perpetrators accountable.

Answer 9

Crouching tiger, hidden dragon.

Answer 10

Two words: Rising Dragon.