Our nation's policing actions around the world are extending their jurisdiction, and now we see their reprecussions. We have two choices right now, and those are to deny our ancestors completely and just rule the middle east as a territory, strip it of its resources, and then return it back to its people. This seems to be the method we are leaning towards and might be known as one of a few euphamisms: Capitalism, Economic Free Enterprise, Free Trade, or one of many more words misused by todays society to hide the reality of what they are doing to peoples' lives. The second choice is to completely withdraw, and let the war in the Middle East work its own way out. However, at this point, withdrawl may only lead to a massive offensive towards the contiguous states simply because of our involvement thus far and ultimately threaten our national security.
Iraq and Afganistan share a common tie besides Islaam... they were once American "allies" as long as they shared our views. In the 1980's, the United States provided them with much of the military technology and weapons that they have now, including Anthrax. But as soon as the United States was through with Afganistan, they let them become the war-raveged wasteland that they are today simply because the Soviet threat was over and then forgot about them because they no longer offered any economic means. Views with Iraq changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Why did these views change? The US policy on Iraq changed because they are greedy bastards. Kuwait provides the world with much of its oil resources. Dictator Sadaam Husain surely invaded Kuwait for imperialism goals with the oil in mind, however, the US defended Kuwait for the very same imperialistic reason: to defend the oil reserves and achieve their own imperialistic hold on the region.
Imperialism is illegal in the United States, so they, again, use the euphamisms "capitalism," "free enterprise," and "free trade."
In both instances, the United States acted not only against their own laws, but against common decency and for their own hidden agenda.
In more recent news, just this last week, President Bush with the help of the CIA has released a list of about twenty-five men, however, ordered assassinations are supposedly outlawed by the United States government. All the men on this list are labeled with "Shoot to Kill." If this doesn't hold substancial evidence that the American government is allowed to break its own laws, one might defy others to provide rebutal. Who does the US government have to answer to? Certainly not the United Nations because it's against US policy to make alliances, and more likely, it is more horstorically proven that the US government will break alliances, so it would be obvious that if any UN action was taken against the United States, the US would immediatly succede following their historical trend.
I'd just like to let all you future terrorists of the world that I have no respect for the American government or for what they practise world-wide, so please keep in mind that only politicians, foreign dignitaries, and the rest of our so-called leaders should be the ones to suffer, not those of us unlucky enough to be born under their regime.
I am not grateful of the modern man that risks his lives to supposedly save mine. I am not grateful of the Washington leaders that are supposedly trying to help us. The truth of the matter is this: Washington does not care about American citizens. They care about their pocket books. As long as we're paying taxes, they will indeffinately do as they can to keep us alive, and as long as Kuwait is supplying oil cheaper than Iraq, they will indefinately defend Kuwait. Just as Afganistan was no longer "of interest" at the end of the Cold War, will Kuwait be our ally whenever Iraq decides to sell oil for cheaper than Kuwait? Or will they continue their trend and aid Iraq to invade Kuwait this time?