The US is surely the most powerful country in terms of military. It is called the superpower of the world nowadays. US can start wars or end them within a day with its highly technologically equipped military forces. This may be helpful to dissuade hostile thoughts but more often this force is used in active war around the world. US is a member of UN and seems willing to participate in UN forces to keep peace or calm down certain conflicts. However besides being a member of UN, the US continues acting in a wider range than the rest of the UN members. Such strength of US have led it to interpret the term superpower as their right to interfere with weaker states' domestic affairs. The most recent event we could observe about this issue was the attack of the US to Iraq on Ramadan -the religiously important month of Muslims. The reason and aim of the bombing were explained by the US Foreign Affairs Minister, Ms. Albright, exactly as "We -as the US- will do what is needed for Iraqi people to get what they deserve as better life standards." This statement could be interpreted in two different ways that are very far away in meaning from each other. It could either be viewed optimistically as US really cares about the future of Iraqi people and want to do something good for them. Or a pessimistic approach could be such that: US sees itself as the judge of the world and decide what is good or bad for everyone. The second approach is not the majority believes its right but this is still a failure of interpretation of superpower, travelling overseas to bomb.Another conflict in this issue is if US is so willing to save lives, why did't use its forces fully as did in Gulf War, Vietnam etc. in the Serbia vs Bosnia war. This leads us to think that US uses its forces only if it gains a profit at the end. In Gulf war it was the oil reserves in Kuwait. In Vietnam -slightly beyond economics- it was to keep alive a capitalist regime in southeast Asia wh...
