Laden group. But the term works well to drum up political support for the US administration to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (soon to be trillions) and 3,000 + lost American lives to occupy a sovereign nation because Saddam angered the Bushes. The only “terrorists” that have attacked the US is the tiny group of Bin Laden’s, and their grievance against the US is the blind support and backing the US gives to Israel. The US looks the other way while Israel heaps human rights abuses and assassinations on the Palestinians and vetoes all actions the United Nations [UN] Security Council attempts to take to condemn the Israeli actions (the US has been the sole nation vetoing all Palestinian-Israeli UN resolutions for the past decades). The US never looks to ask, "Why do these extremists give their own lives and for what cause?" The US knows the answer of course, and it is the US’s long-lasting wrongful support for Israel against the middle eastern Arab nations and Palestine in particular.

It seems that many US politicians in power and particularly the current administration (Bush’s group) thinks that the US knows all and is “good” and that all other countries should do what the US tells them (like who to sell arms or oil to or fit our definition of human rights) or we will try to “punish” them like they were misbehaving kids. If the “punishment” (trade relations, propaganda, bad press relations, etc) does not get them to do what the US wants, then they become "evil" and a danger to our security. Bush is the only president to actually identify a group of countries as “the axis of evil.” I don't think that will encourage good foreign relations with them.

An example of such “punishment” is the US embargo against Cuba, which was an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962. Eisenhower started the Cuban resentment when he rejected Castro as a leader to be recognized long ago and drove Castro to go to Russia for support for needed supplies for Cuba. The US CIA tried many times to assassinate Castro and failed. They even tried to pay the mafia to kill him. A Cuban government representative said there were more than 600 attempts made on Castro's life by the US. Once the US is angered at a country no new president seems willing to say, “OK we were wrong, no more embargo.” The same is true for North Korea.

The US embargo against Cuba was codified into law in 1992 and 1996, and was implemented to “punish” and put economic pressure on the Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. In 1999, former US President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending

Prevalence of Power

Power is everywhere. When you are lifting weights you are exerting physical power. When you negotiate with businessmen and play mind games, or when you intimidate someone with your knowledge, you are exerting mental power. Knowledge itself is power, and so are secrets. Skills and expertise in a field gives you expert power. When you rule a nation, legitimate and political power is in your hands. If you were voted, you have delegated authority. Sorcerers and magicians in the past may have dazzled and influenced people using paranormal power. Religion and their attached divine powers certainly have a large impact on the masses. Kings and their heirs have been ascribed power. When you interact with your spouse, domination/submissiveness occurs. If you are going to deliver an effective speech, then you must have ample persuasion and referent power. If you own a pet or are an employer, you utilize reward power. Coercive power is when threats and forceful means are utilized; military powers use coercion. And last, but not least, money is also a major source of power.

Primitive Power

In ancient times, humans primarily attained power through physical means. A person’s size (height, weight, body shape), strength, aggressiveness, skills/abilities, and looks were the main determinants of a leader and how much power could be attained. And the maintenance of that power depended on the upkeep of such physical properties. Although such “primitive” power is still applicable today, it wasn’t until the development of language did other more complex variations of social power emerge.

Hunger for Power

Based on today’s leaders, there’s apparently something about power that is addicting. Power is the ability to get what you want. It is also the ability to control one’s surroundings and dominate other human beings (social dominance theory). Unfortunately, when some people get what they want, they end up taking it to extremes until they get more and more of what they want. And many times, they get so carried away that they begin to abuse the power that they have.

Superpower

Back in the 1940s, the Soviet Union, the United States, and the British Empire were referred to as superpowers. After World War II, the British Empire dismantled and so there was only two. And then after the Cold War, the US proved to be the only nation left that was economically, militarily, politically, and culturally dominant, thus they were the sole superpower or hyperpower. China and India have potential of becoming superpowers but aren’t quite there yet. The European Union has near-superpower status but will never get there unless they unite to form a single nation.

A number of factors makes the US the world’s current and sole superpower (or hyperpower). It has a strong democratic government (although other types of government can be strong as well) and has strong influential companies in a capitalistic market. It is the third largest country in the world, with its land providing it with plenty of resources and extensive farmland. It has a population of over 300 million and is the third largest on Earth. American culture has penetrated and influenced nations all over the world with its American products, icons, and ideals. The US has bases all over the world, has the largest nuclear arsenal, has a strong and technologically advanced army, the world’s largest navy, and largest and most technically advanced air force in the world. And it has the largest market economy in the world and also the largest economy overall.

Hence there is no wonder why so many people are eager to move and work in the US. I myself am impressed by the US’s foundations and what the country has accomplished. I am also proud of my American heritage. The US is looked up to worldwide as well, as is evident by other nations mimicking US characteristics from the US’s governmental structure, military structure, clothing styles, singing styles, to the television shows. But in obtaining such a position in the world comes a responsibility to serve as a good example, helping to heal the world, making good judgments, and exuding a morally good presence. And since a superpower should serve as an example for other countries throughout the world, I will take the privilege of using the current superpower as an extensive example in the following section.

Abuses of Power

Power is abused all the time. As the world’s current superpower, the US has wrongfully assumed that they command the position as the world’s police. In presuming so, they have managed to have their way almost continually during their era as the world’s superpower.

The middle east has undergone much quarrel in recent times, resulting in the Iraq War’s (as of Feb. 21, 2007) 654, 965 estimated Iraqi civilian deaths (59,873 body count) [this is not surprising due to the number of “shock and awe” coalition air strikes and the massive chemical weapon droppings like the flesh-burning white phosphorus], 3,140 US military deaths, and 30,000+ Iraqi military deaths. On November 5 2006, Saddam Hussein was convicted of charges related to the executions of 148 Iraqi Shiites suspected of planning an assassination attempt against him, and was sentenced to death by hanging on December 30, 2006. This leads me to wonder whether Bush finds the 734,000+ Iraq War death toll (134,021 body count) a more acceptable figure than the number of lives lost during Saddam‘s reign. But I’m sure Bush beat his chest when he saw the hanging video, although the harassment Saddam received from the hanging party caused a lot of protests.

It seems that all Bush has done is replace one dictator that knew how to control the civil unrest in Iraq and gave the Sunnis the upper hand, with another dictator who wants to kill all Sunnis and let the Shiites control the country. Bush thinks he has a puppet government in place to do what he wants them to do, but it will not happen.

In Iran was a similar occurrence. The US had the Shah of Iran as a puppet leader, that is until the people would not stand for it any longer. The people placed a new leader into power, so the US responded by siding with Saddam in the Iraq/Iran War. Saddam then managed to anger the Bushes because he refused to kowtow to every demand placed on him by the US. The US had already controlled all the airspace in Iraq with the exception of a very small corridor for civilian Iraq flights that was allowed. Bush wanted to show the world that no one can snub the power of “The Decider,” so he planned to wipe out Saddam, install a puppet government and the people would be in such shock and awe that they would all bow down to the power. However, it does not work that way as Bush should have realized from the wars in Vietnam and Korea, but I guess they didn’t teach much of that at Yale. Fortunately, the American people were smart enough to vote in enough Democrats into the House and Senate to control Bush enough to hopefully prevent him from invading any other countries while in office and risking a third world war.

However, Bush has broken Iraq so badly that no one knows how to fix it now. It’s already difficult (or it should be) to justify a country’s intervention (more like invasion) of another’s as it is. But it’s even more difficult to justify the US’s invasion of Iraq since the reason for invasion was never confirmed--no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. As one soldier stated in a letter home, “No one understands why we are here and what our mission is. This war is lost. We aren't helping these people. We are just dying and getting injured.” Other than the huge death toll, the war has already cost $400+ billion and is projected to reach into the trillions, as the additional deployment of 20,000 troops foretells. And will the US be a safer place to live after (if) it all is done? Not at all. The world hatred for the US has increased logarithmically since Bush has been referring to entire countries being in an “axis of evil,” the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and the never-ending blind support for Israel's atrocities against Palestinians and Lebanon.

Another example of US government behavior is all the attention and pressure being put on Iran by the US so that they stop refining uranium. Iran says it is for nuclear power plants and that inspectors from the UN are welcome to inspect. However, the US states that it is not satisfactory and that Iran might “cheat.” The US says that there is no need for refined uranium to run the nuclear power plants and that it can run on low grade uranium. So Iran agrees to stop refining uranium if the US will stop refining uranium as well. It sounds fair since the US has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Furthermore, why should the US require more refined uranium if US power plants can run on low grade uranium. A Bush spokesman said the proposal is ridiculous and that the US will not even consider it enough to discuss.

There is not as much saber rattling against North Korea as against Libya or Iran because of the US fear of the damage North Korea could cause in a war. They could inflict heavy casualties on South Korea and the many US forces stationed there if the US were to attack them.

The US is more likely to try to destroy the military capabilities of Iran. The US is not so much interested in Iran oil as Iraq oil. Iran oil is projected to be exhausted in 10-15 years. Iraq has a tremendous supply of oil in the ground so that is another major reason why the US is there (along with the anger the Bushes have for Saddam). The US wants to install a puppet government into power in Iraq that will do what the US orders and not sell oil to countries the US is not fond of (like China for example). US also wants to keep a military force there to have a base to attack other Muslim countries as the need arises.

Another ironic tidbit is the fact that the US funded and backed the Osama Bin Laden Al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, giving them stinger missiles to fire at Russian troops, arms money, etc. Now Bin Laden is the US’s number one enemy.

Furthermore, the so called “war on terrorism” is a term used by the US administration to fire up support for any aggressive action that the US administration wants to take against other countries. There was never any terrorist support of Bin Laden within Iraq nor any terrorist acts against the US by Iraq or any other Muslim nation except the small Bin Laden group. But the term works well to drum up political support for the US administration to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (soon to be trillions) and 3,000 + lost American lives to occupy a sovereign nation because Saddam angered the Bushes. The only “terrorists” that have attacked the US is the tiny group of Bin Laden’s, and their grievance against the US is the blind support and backing the US gives to Israel. The US looks the other way while Israel heaps human rights abuses and assassinations on the Palestinians and vetoes all actions the United Nations [UN] Security Council attempts to take to condemn the Israeli actions (the US has been the sole nation vetoing all Palestinian-Israeli UN resolutions for the past decades). The US never looks to ask, "Why do these extremists give their own lives and for what cause?" The US knows the answer of course, and it is the US’s long-lasting wrongful support for Israel against the middle eastern Arab nations and Palestine in particular.

It seems that many US politicians in power and particularly the current administration (Bush’s group) thinks that the US knows all and is “good” and that all other countries should do what the US tells them (like who to sell arms or oil to or fit our definition of human rights) or we will try to “punish” them like they were misbehaving kids. If the “punishment” (trade relations, propaganda, bad press relations, etc) does not get them to do what the US wants, then they become "evil" and a danger to our security. Bush is the only president to actually identify a group of countries as “the axis of evil.” I don't think that will encourage good foreign relations with them.

An example of such “punishment” is the US embargo against Cuba, which was an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962. Eisenhower started the Cuban resentment when he rejected Castro as a leader to be recognized long ago and drove Castro to go to Russia for support for needed supplies for Cuba. The US CIA tried many times to assassinate Castro and failed. They even tried to pay the mafia to kill him. A Cuban government representative said there were more than 600 attempts made on Castro's life by the US. Once the US is angered at a country no new president seems willing to say, “OK we were wrong, no more embargo.” The same is true for North Korea.

The US embargo against Cuba was codified into law in 1992 and 1996, and was implemented to “punish” and put economic pressure on the Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. In 1999, former US President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending t

perpower status but will never get there unless they unite to form a single nation.

A number of factors makes the US the world’s current and sole superpower (or hyperpower). It has a strong democratic government (although other types of government can be strong as well) and has strong influential companies in a capitalistic market. It is the third largest country in the world, with its land providing it with plenty of resources and extensive farmland. It has a population of over 300 million and is the third largest on Earth. American culture has penetrated and influenced nations all over the world with its American products, icons, and ideals. The US has bases all over the world, has the largest nuclear arsenal, has a strong and technologically advanced army, the world’s largest navy, and largest and most technically advanced air force in the world. And it has the largest market economy in the world and also the largest economy overall.

Hence there is no wonder why so many people are eager to move and work in the US. I myself am impressed by the US’s foundations and what the country has accomplished. I am also proud of my American heritage. The US is looked up to worldwide as well, as is evident by other nations mimicking US characteristics from the US’s governmental structure, military structure, clothing styles, singing styles, to the television shows. But in obtaining such a position in the world comes a responsibility to serve as a good example, helping to heal the world, making good judgments, and exuding a morally good presence. And since a superpower should serve as an example for other countries throughout the world, I will take the privilege of using the current superpower as an extensive example in the following section.

Abuses of Power

Power is abused all the time. As the world’s current superpower, the US has wrongfully assumed that they command the position as the world’s police. In presuming so, they have managed to have their way almost continually during their era as the world’s superpower.

The middle east has undergone much quarrel in recent times, resulting in the Iraq War’s (as of Feb. 21, 2007) 654, 965 estimated Iraqi civilian deaths (59,873 body count) [this is not surprising due to the number of “shock and awe” coalition air strikes and the massive chemical weapon droppings like the flesh-burning white phosphorus], 3,140 US military deaths, and 30,000+ Iraqi military deaths. On November 5 2006, Saddam Hussein was convicted of charges related to the executions of 148 Iraqi Shiites suspected of planning an assassination attempt against him, and was sentenced to death by hanging on December 30, 2006. This leads me to wonder whether Bush finds the 734,000+ Iraq War death toll (134,021 body count) a more acceptable figure than the number of lives lost during Saddam‘s reign. But I’m sure Bush beat his chest when he saw the hanging video, although the harassment Saddam received from the hanging party caused a lot of protests.

It seems that all Bush has done is replace one dictator that knew how to control the civil unrest in Iraq and gave the Sunnis the upper hand, with another dictator who wants to kill all Sunnis and let the Shiites control the country. Bush thinks he has a puppet government in place to do what he wants them to do, but it will not happen.

In Iran was a similar occurrence. The US had the Shah of Iran as a puppet leader, that is until the people would not stand for it any longer. The people placed a new leader into power, so the US responded by siding with Saddam in the Iraq/Iran War. Saddam then managed to anger the Bushes because he refused to kowtow to every demand placed on him by the US. The US had already controlled all the airspace in Iraq with the exception of a very small corridor for civilian Iraq flights that was allowed. Bush wanted to show the world that no one can snub the power of “The Decider,” so he planned to wipe out Saddam, install a puppet government and the people would be in such shock and awe that they would all bow down to the power. However, it does not work that way as Bush should have realized from the wars in Vietnam and Korea, but I guess they didn’t teach much of that at Yale. Fortunately, the American people were smart enough to vote in enough Democrats into the House and Senate to control Bush enough to hopefully prevent him from invading any other countries while in office and risking a third world war.

However, Bush has broken Iraq so badly that no one knows how to fix it now. It’s already difficult (or it should be) to justify a country’s intervention (more like invasion) of another’s as it is. But it’s even more difficult to justify the US’s invasion of Iraq since the reason for invasion was never confirmed--no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. As one soldier stated in a letter home, “No one understands why we are here and what our mission is. This war is lost. We aren't helping these people. We are just dying and getting injured.” Other than the huge death toll, the war has already cost $400+ billion and is projected to reach into the trillions, as the additional deployment of 20,000 troops foretells. And will the US be a safer place to live after (if) it all is done? Not at all. The world hatred for the US has increased logarithmically since Bush has been referring to entire countries being in an “axis of evil,” the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and the never-ending blind support for Israel's atrocities against Palestinians and Lebanon.

Another example of US government behavior is all the attention and pressure being put on Iran by the US so that they stop refining uranium. Iran says it is for nuclear power plants and that inspectors from the UN are welcome to inspect. However, the US states that it is not satisfactory and that Iran might “cheat.” The US says that there is no need for refined uranium to run the nuclear power plants and that it can run on low grade uranium. So Iran agrees to stop refining uranium if the US will stop refining uranium as well. It sounds fair since the US has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Furthermore, why should the US require more refined uranium if US power plants can run on low grade uranium. A Bush spokesman said the proposal is ridiculous and that the US will not even consider it enough to discuss.

There is not as much saber rattling against North Korea as against Libya or Iran because of the US fear of the damage North Korea could cause in a war. They could inflict heavy casualties on South Korea and the many US forces stationed there if the US were to attack them.

The US is more likely to try to destroy the military capabilities of Iran. The US is not so much interested in Iran oil as Iraq oil. Iran oil is projected to be exhausted in 10-15 years. Iraq has a tremendous supply of oil in the ground so that is another major reason why the US is there (along with the anger the Bushes have for Saddam). The US wants to install a puppet government into power in Iraq that will do what the US orders and not sell oil to countries the US is not fond of (like China for example). US also wants to keep a military force there to have a base to attack other Muslim countries as the need arises.

Another ironic tidbit is the fact that the US funded and backed the Osama Bin Laden Al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, giving them stinger missiles to fire at Russian troops, arms money, etc. Now Bin Laden is the US’s number one enemy.

Furthermore, the so called “war on terrorism” is a term used by the US administration to fire up support for any aggressive action that the US administration wants to take against other countries. There was never any terrorist support of Bin Laden within Iraq nor any terrorist acts against the US by Iraq or any other Muslim nation except the small Bin Laden group. But the term works well to drum up political support for the US administration to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (soon to be trillions) and 3,000 + lost American lives to occupy a sovereign nation because Saddam angered the Bushes. The only “terrorists” that have attacked the US is the tiny group of Bin Laden’s, and their grievance against the US is the blind support and backing the US gives to Israel. The US looks the other way while Israel heaps human rights abuses and assassinations on the Palestinians and vetoes all actions the United Nations [UN] Security Council attempts to take to condemn the Israeli actions (the US has been the sole nation vetoing all Palestinian-Israeli UN resolutions for the past decades). The US never looks to ask, "Why do these extremists give their own lives and for what cause?" The US knows the answer of course, and it is the US’s long-lasting wrongful support for Israel against the middle eastern Arab nations and Palestine in particular.

It seems that many US politicians in power and particularly the current administration (Bush’s group) thinks that the US knows all and is “good” and that all other countries should do what the US tells them (like who to sell arms or oil to or fit our definition of human rights) or we will try to “punish” them like they were misbehaving kids. If the “punishment” (trade relations, propaganda, bad press relations, etc) does not get them to do what the US wants, then they become "evil" and a danger to our security. Bush is the only president to actually identify a group of countries as “the axis of evil.” I don't think that will encourage good foreign relations with them.

An example of such “punishment” is the US embargo against Cuba, which was an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962. Eisenhower started the Cuban resentment when he rejected Castro as a leader to be recognized long ago and drove Castro to go to Russia for support for needed supplies for Cuba. The US CIA tried many times to assassinate Castro and failed. They even tried to pay the mafia to kill him. A Cuban government representative said there were more than 600 attempts made on Castro's life by the US. Once the US is angered at a country no new president seems willing to say, “OK we were wrong, no more embargo.” The same is true for North Korea.

The US embargo against Cuba was codified into law in 1992 and 1996, and was implemented to “punish” and put economic pressure on the Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. In 1999, former US President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending

s sentenced to death by hanging on December 30, 2006. This leads me to wonder whether Bush finds the 734,000+ Iraq War death toll (134,021 body count) a more acceptable figure than the number of lives lost during Saddam‘s reign. But I’m sure Bush beat his chest when he saw the hanging video, although the harassment Saddam received from the hanging party caused a lot of protests.

It seems that all Bush has done is replace one dictator that knew how to control the civil unrest in Iraq and gave the Sunnis the upper hand, with another dictator who wants to kill all Sunnis and let the Shiites control the country. Bush thinks he has a puppet government in place to do what he wants them to do, but it will not happen.

In Iran was a similar occurrence. The US had the Shah of Iran as a puppet leader, that is until the people would not stand for it any longer. The people placed a new leader into power, so the US responded by siding with Saddam in the Iraq/Iran War. Saddam then managed to anger the Bushes because he refused to kowtow to every demand placed on him by the US. The US had already controlled all the airspace in Iraq with the exception of a very small corridor for civilian Iraq flights that was allowed. Bush wanted to show the world that no one can snub the power of “The Decider,” so he planned to wipe out Saddam, install a puppet government and the people would be in such shock and awe that they would all bow down to the power. However, it does not work that way as Bush should have realized from the wars in Vietnam and Korea, but I guess they didn’t teach much of that at Yale. Fortunately, the American people were smart enough to vote in enough Democrats into the House and Senate to control Bush enough to hopefully prevent him from invading any other countries while in office and risking a third world war.

However, Bush has broken Iraq so badly that no one knows how to fix it now. It’s already difficult (or it should be) to justify a country’s intervention (more like invasion) of another’s as it is. But it’s even more difficult to justify the US’s invasion of Iraq since the reason for invasion was never confirmed--no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. As one soldier stated in a letter home, “No one understands why we are here and what our mission is. This war is lost. We aren't helping these people. We are just dying and getting injured.” Other than the huge death toll, the war has already cost $400+ billion and is projected to reach into the trillions, as the additional deployment of 20,000 troops foretells. And will the US be a safer place to live after (if) it all is done? Not at all. The world hatred for the US has increased logarithmically since Bush has been referring to entire countries being in an “axis of evil,” the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and the never-ending blind support for Israel's atrocities against Palestinians and Lebanon.

Another example of US government behavior is all the attention and pressure being put on Iran by the US so that they stop refining uranium. Iran says it is for nuclear power plants and that inspectors from the UN are welcome to inspect. However, the US states that it is not satisfactory and that Iran might “cheat.” The US says that there is no need for refined uranium to run the nuclear power plants and that it can run on low grade uranium. So Iran agrees to stop refining uranium if the US will stop refining uranium as well. It sounds fair since the US has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Furthermore, why should the US require more refined uranium if US power plants can run on low grade uranium. A Bush spokesman said the proposal is ridiculous and that the US will not even consider it enough to discuss.

There is not as much saber rattling against North Korea as against Libya or Iran because of the US fear of the damage North Korea could cause in a war. They could inflict heavy casualties on South Korea and the many US forces stationed there if the US were to attack them.

The US is more likely to try to destroy the military capabilities of Iran. The US is not so much interested in Iran oil as Iraq oil. Iran oil is projected to be exhausted in 10-15 years. Iraq has a tremendous supply of oil in the ground so that is another major reason why the US is there (along with the anger the Bushes have for Saddam). The US wants to install a puppet government into power in Iraq that will do what the US orders and not sell oil to countries the US is not fond of (like China for example). US also wants to keep a military force there to have a base to attack other Muslim countries as the need arises.

Another ironic tidbit is the fact that the US funded and backed the Osama Bin Laden Al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, giving them stinger missiles to fire at Russian troops, arms money, etc. Now Bin Laden is the US’s number one enemy.

Furthermore, the so called “war on terrorism” is a term used by the US administration to fire up support for any aggressive action that the US administration wants to take against other countries. There was never any terrorist support of Bin Laden within Iraq nor any terrorist acts against the US by Iraq or any other Muslim nation except the small Bin Laden group. But the term works well to drum up political support for the US administration to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (soon to be trillions) and 3,000 + lost American lives to occupy a sovereign nation because Saddam angered the Bushes. The only “terrorists” that have attacked the US is the tiny group of Bin Laden’s, and their grievance against the US is the blind support and backing the US gives to Israel. The US looks the other way while Israel heaps human rights abuses and assassinations on the Palestinians and vetoes all actions the United Nations [UN] Security Council attempts to take to condemn the Israeli actions (the US has been the sole nation vetoing all Palestinian-Israeli UN resolutions for the past decades). The US never looks to ask, "Why do these extremists give their own lives and for what cause?" The US knows the answer of course, and it is the US’s long-lasting wrongful support for Israel against the middle eastern Arab nations and Palestine in particular.

It seems that many US politicians in power and particularly the current administration (Bush’s group) thinks that the US knows all and is “good” and that all other countries should do what the US tells them (like who to sell arms or oil to or fit our definition of human rights) or we will try to “punish” them like they were misbehaving kids. If the “punishment” (trade relations, propaganda, bad press relations, etc) does not get them to do what the US wants, then they become "evil" and a danger to our security. Bush is the only president to actually identify a group of countries as “the axis of evil.” I don't think that will encourage good foreign relations with them.

An example of such “punishment” is the US embargo against Cuba, which was an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962. Eisenhower started the Cuban resentment when he rejected Castro as a leader to be recognized long ago and drove Castro to go to Russia for support for needed supplies for Cuba. The US CIA tried many times to assassinate Castro and failed. They even tried to pay the mafia to kill him. A Cuban government representative said there were more than 600 attempts made on Castro's life by the US. Once the US is angered at a country no new president seems willing to say, “OK we were wrong, no more embargo.” The same is true for North Korea.

The US embargo against Cuba was codified into law in 1992 and 1996, and was implemented to “punish” and put economic pressure on the Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. In 1999, former US President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending

done? Not at all. The world hatred for the US has increased logarithmically since Bush has been referring to entire countries being in an “axis of evil,” the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and the never-ending blind support for Israel's atrocities against Palestinians and Lebanon.

Another example of US government behavior is all the attention and pressure being put on Iran by the US so that they stop refining uranium. Iran says it is for nuclear power plants and that inspectors from the UN are welcome to inspect. However, the US states that it is not satisfactory and that Iran might “cheat.” The US says that there is no need for refined uranium to run the nuclear power plants and that it can run on low grade uranium. So Iran agrees to stop refining uranium if the US will stop refining uranium as well. It sounds fair since the US has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Furthermore, why should the US require more refined uranium if US power plants can run on low grade uranium. A Bush spokesman said the proposal is ridiculous and that the US will not even consider it enough to discuss.

There is not as much saber rattling against North Korea as against Libya or Iran because of the US fear of the damage North Korea could cause in a war. They could inflict heavy casualties on South Korea and the many US forces stationed there if the US were to attack them.

The US is more likely to try to destroy the military capabilities of Iran. The US is not so much interested in Iran oil as Iraq oil. Iran oil is projected to be exhausted in 10-15 years. Iraq has a tremendous supply of oil in the ground so that is another major reason why the US is there (along with the anger the Bushes have for Saddam). The US wants to install a puppet government into power in Iraq that will do what the US orders and not sell oil to countries the US is not fond of (like China for example). US also wants to keep a military force there to have a base to attack other Muslim countries as the need arises.

Another ironic tidbit is the fact that the US funded and backed the Osama Bin Laden Al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, giving them stinger missiles to fire at Russian troops, arms money, etc. Now Bin Laden is the US’s number one enemy.

Furthermore, the so called “war on terrorism” is a term used by the US administration to fire up support for any aggressive action that the US administration wants to take against other countries. There was never any terrorist support of Bin Laden within Iraq nor any terrorist acts against the US by Iraq or any other Muslim nation except the small Bin Laden group. But the term works well to drum up political support for the US administration to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (soon to be trillions) and 3,000 + lost American lives to occupy a sovereign nation because Saddam angered the Bushes. The only “terrorists” that have attacked the US is the tiny group of Bin Laden’s, and their grievance against the US is the blind support and backing the US gives to Israel. The US looks the other way while Israel heaps human rights abuses and assassinations on the Palestinians and vetoes all actions the United Nations [UN] Security Council attempts to take to condemn the Israeli actions (the US has been the sole nation vetoing all Palestinian-Israeli UN resolutions for the past decades). The US never looks to ask, "Why do these extremists give their own lives and for what cause?" The US knows the answer of course, and it is the US’s long-lasting wrongful support for Israel against the middle eastern Arab nations and Palestine in particular.

It seems that many US politicians in power and particularly the current administration (Bush’s group) thinks that the US knows all and is “good” and that all other countries should do what the US tells them (like who to sell arms or oil to or fit our definition of human rights) or we will try to “punish” them like they were misbehaving kids. If the “punishment” (trade relations, propaganda, bad press relations, etc) does not get them to do what the US wants, then they become "evil" and a danger to our security. Bush is the only president to actually identify a group of countries as “the axis of evil.” I don't think that will encourage good foreign relations with them.

An example of such “punishment” is the US embargo against Cuba, which was an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962. Eisenhower started the Cuban resentment when he rejected Castro as a leader to be recognized long ago and drove Castro to go to Russia for support for needed supplies for Cuba. The US CIA tried many times to assassinate Castro and failed. They even tried to pay the mafia to kill him. A Cuban government representative said there were more than 600 attempts made on Castro's life by the US. Once the US is angered at a country no new president seems willing to say, “OK we were wrong, no more embargo.” The same is true for North Korea.

The US embargo against Cuba was codified into law in 1992 and 1996, and was implemented to “punish” and put economic pressure on the Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. In 1999, former US President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending

Laden group. But the term works well to drum up political support for the US administration to spend hundreds of billions of dollars (soon to be trillions) and 3,000 + lost American lives to occupy a sovereign nation because Saddam angered the Bushes. The only “terrorists” that have attacked the US is the tiny group of Bin Laden’s, and their grievance against the US is the blind support and backing the US gives to Israel. The US looks the other way while Israel heaps human rights abuses and assassinations on the Palestinians and vetoes all actions the United Nations [UN] Security Council attempts to take to condemn the Israeli actions (the US has been the sole nation vetoing all Palestinian-Israeli UN resolutions for the past decades). The US never looks to ask, "Why do these extremists give their own lives and for what cause?" The US knows the answer of course, and it is the US’s long-lasting wrongful support for Israel against the middle eastern Arab nations and Palestine in particular.

It seems that many US politicians in power and particularly the current administration (Bush’s group) thinks that the US knows all and is “good” and that all other countries should do what the US tells them (like who to sell arms or oil to or fit our definition of human rights) or we will try to “punish” them like they were misbehaving kids. If the “punishment” (trade relations, propaganda, bad press relations, etc) does not get them to do what the US wants, then they become "evil" and a danger to our security. Bush is the only president to actually identify a group of countries as “the axis of evil.” I don't think that will encourage good foreign relations with them.

An example of such “punishment” is the US embargo against Cuba, which was an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962. Eisenhower started the Cuban resentment when he rejected Castro as a leader to be recognized long ago and drove Castro to go to Russia for support for needed supplies for Cuba. The US CIA tried many times to assassinate Castro and failed. They even tried to pay the mafia to kill him. A Cuban government representative said there were more than 600 attempts made on Castro's life by the US. Once the US is angered at a country no new president seems willing to say, “OK we were wrong, no more embargo.” The same is true for North Korea.

The US embargo against Cuba was codified into law in 1992 and 1996, and was implemented to “punish” and put economic pressure on the Cuban government led by Fidel Castro. In 1999, former US President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of US companies trading with Cuba in dollar amounts totaling more than 700 million a year. As of 2006, the embargo is still in effect, making it one of the most enduring trade embargoes in modern history. The UN General Assembly has passed a non-binding resolution condemning the embargo every year since 1991. The most recent condemnation took place on November 8, 2006, by a vote of 183-4, with the U.S., Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voting against. Notice the voting by the UN to condemn the US embargo against Cuba and of course notice who were the anti-votes: the US, Israel, and two tiny islands that receive most of their money from the US.

I have nothing against tiny islands though, as these people are no lesser than anyone else. Or at least they shouldn’t be. Diego Garcia, a 17-square-mile atoll of coral and sand in the middle of the Indian Ocean (part of the Chagos Archipelago) is one of the most valuable pieces of real estate on Earth. It was “discovered” by the Portuguese, became a territory of Britain, and then was leased to the US. Today it serves as a strategic air base (especially now with the Iraq War) for primarily US military personnel and a few British. Although Diego Garcia once had a small native population, the inhabitants, known as the Ilois, or the Chagossians, were forced to relocate (1967-1973) so that the island could be turned into the US military base. Uprooted and robbed of their livelihood, the Chagossians now live in poverty in Mauritius’s urban slums. A smaller number were deported to the Seychelles. About 850 islanders forced off Diego Garcia are alive today, and another 4,300 Chagossians have been born in exile. Although having finally triumphed in a hard-won and lengthy legal battle in the British courts, the Chagossians finally gained the right to return to their homeland and the surrounding islands in the Chagos archipelago. However, they now find themselves at loggerheads with the US as the US opposes anyone other than military personnel and their employees living anywhere in the Chagos archipelago.

Another example of the US’s world domination and its assumed world police position is Noriega. Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno was a Panamanian general, the defacto military leader of Panama from 1983-1989. Contrary to the claims offered by several sources, Noriega was never President of Panama. He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s-1986. By the late 1980s, relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the US government, and in 1989 the general was overthrown and captured in the US invasion of Panama. He was taken to the US, and convicted under federal charges of cocaine trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering. He remains imprisoned in a federal prison in Miami, Florida.

Essentially, Noriega was the dictator of Panama for years and the US CIA used him as a puppet for an easy access to money the CIA needs to have as unaccountable funds to buy weapons and bribe politicians in countries all over the world to get what we want done and who we want elected in those countries. The US allowed drugs to be funneled through Panama to the US and other destinations with the agreement that Noriega take a small cut of the drug money and give a much larger cut of the drug money to the CIA. But as seems to be the case elsewhere, as soon as Noriega did not follow the administration’s demands to the fullest the US invaded Panama and imprisoned Noriega. The CIA was using part of that money and other money, that the Congress had approved for other reasons, to support the government overthrow in Nicaragua. We called the group trying to overthrow the government in Nicaragua “freedom fighters.” One government’s freedom fighters is another government’s terrorists, depending on whose propaganda we hear.

Not to say Noriega or Saddam or others were nice people. They were not. It is just the fact that the US uses them up, and if they complain, drop a hammer on them.

The Transfer and Balance of Power

It is important to note that power is not a one-way road. One cannot say that he “has power” without also specifying the role of other parties in the social relationship. Power almost always operates reciprocally, though not necessarily with equal reciprocity. In order to control others, one must have control over the things that they need or desire. Only then can you manipulate or influence those people or things. One can rarely exercise this control without a measure of reverse control also existing. All parties to all relationships have some power, whether large, small, or equal.

Some Philippine politicians make a habit of bribing people for their votes as I‘ve heard from people in Bataan, and it‘s an effective practice as many of the poor Filipinos have no idea who to vote into office anyways because the nation lacks ways to inform the people as to what plans, positions, and ideals running politicians have (it‘s no wonder why so many Filipinos [and usually incompetent Filipinos] in showbiz and sports get voted into office). Unfortunately, some Filipinos accept such bribes, satiating their immediate need for money instead of forcing the politicians to follow the concept of the common saying, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a life time.” But why would Filipino politicians want to follow that saying when they can continue to make even more money for themselves by cheating the impoverished Filipino masses even more? The reason is revolution.

The only truly representative government for a population is the population itself. For efficiency, electoral systems have been created in order for people to vote for accurate representatives. However, there comes a time when those in power are not representative of the people’s needs and end up over-abusing their powers. When this happens, a counter power (the people) wrestles for a higher share of the power to put things back into balance, and either change or chaos occurs. This is what happened when the former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos was removed from power by the “People Power” EDSA Revolution, it’s what’s happening now with the people of Guinea and their president Lansana Cont?, and it is what happened when the Americans rebelled against and gained independence from the British Empire. The possession of power is ever-changing in levels and holders. It must be kept in mind that power exists in relationships. Power will always be transferring as an equilibrium tries to be reached. It is this strive for getting as close as possible to an ideal balance of power that is key.