I'm using simple terms for understanding purposes.
Now I won’t be surprised if most of you believe in the term natural selection, this has nothing to do with the Darwinian VS Creationist debate. What
this term means is that nature selects which animal survives (the animal needs to somehow adjust to nature, the term is confusing the least), the same
goes for organizations, and collection of organizations (hence nations).
At individual levels we have to adjust to our environment to survive, the thing is humans have created their own environments, it is an amazing
achievement which no other entity in this universe has managed to achieve (at least the ones we know of). Objectivity aside, what does that mean in
regards to the OP?
see... which ever organization, or collection of organizations (hence countries) has the monopoly to create the environment will survive. No friends,
no foes, don’t take it personal. America has been doing this for along time now, how do you suppose she became the dominant specie (Country wise
speaking)? America has created an environment which gives her the advantage, hence having stockpiled a huge amount of
(guns, bombs etc),
creating the UN
which gives it more advantages
over other states, creating the security council
which gives her
more power over other countries, pushing for free market
which gives her more advantage over
other states etc.
Now where does monopoly
come in to play? Well if you are aware of this term in business perspective you would have an understanding in regards
to companies buying out other companies to reduce or nullify competition, the same thing is happening in the international level in regards to
countries. I’m sure you have heard of puppet regimes
(now rephrased as influence
confusion)? The more countries you have a grip on, the less competition.
See here in NZ there are two different toothpaste companies, right? They both have different names, right? The funny thing is that they are both
owned by the same company. Apply that to international politics and I think you would have a better understanding of what is going on.
Why do you suppose America is fearful of the
Don’t they have as much right to influence as America? Yes they do, it goes both ways, but at the same time it is not about principle, it is,
. If it was about principle America wouldn’t have supported Saddam at the time of his terror, and America wouldn’t have turned
its back on Saddam later in 2004. America has plans to invade every nation
on this earth, it is a policy in pentagon (assumption), think one step ahead. No friends, no enemies, not personal.
Recently the American people have awakened
, and many go against what America has been representing over the
past decades and are willing to change. This is visible, I can see it personally, and I have seen the change. The new direction which America will
take would create an environment which is advantageous for all nations, and not just one.
Note: Just remember that these are the words of an optimist, who has a lot of hope in his heart. A realist sees the world for
what it is and says hell that’s how it is, live with it. An optimist sees the world for what it is, but knows in his heart that it could be a lot
better and pushes forward new ideas even if it seems impossible. Why do you suppose I support the ideas of philosophers who teach us that
impossibility is obsolete? Because change won’t come until we all believe in it, take our ideas and push it forward, no matter how unrealistic it
Thank you for your time
[edit on 19-10-2009 by oozyism]