But while extending democracy in the world may be seen as a positive and worthwhile goal, unfortunately this represents only the cover for the real purpose of US interference. And while the USA has always been an aggressive nation (it has fought more wars than it has been years in existence), the past four years have seen a very significant change in the US attitude towards foreign intervention. International laws, mostly adopted after World War II have established what represents "acceptable behaviour" in the international arena, and these rules have kept major world conflicts from breaking out for nearly 55 years.

After the 2000 US election however, the people in the new Bush administration decided to take advantage of the demise of the Soviet Union and their sole superpower status in the world, to throw out the existing international conventions and agreements, and embark on a policy of "might is right". With this, it sought to use its economic and military superiority to establish its will upon the rest of the world by implementing the policies outlined in the document "The Project for the New American Century" (PNAC), which projected America in the 21^st Century as the new 1000-year Reich, similar to what Adolf Hitler dreamed of in his days.

In the last four years however, this policy has proved to be a colossal failure. The justification for implementing the new policy was triggered by the events of September 11, 2001, and was henceforth presented to the American public and the world as the "War against terrorism". The enormity of the 9/11 events initially gave rise to great sympathy with America in a large part of the world, but later many questions have been raised about the possible complicity of the US administration and their failure to prevent the attacks despite many warnings – questions that linger to this day. Timely warnings about the pending attack have been sent by the intelligence agencies from Germany, Russia and Israel, among others, but all of them were ignored. And the continuous resistance of the US administration to any serious investigation into the attack only increased the mounting suspicion of complicity.

Nevertheless, America’s answer to the 9/11 events was by attacking the Taliban regime of Afghanistan for their apparent unwillingness to deal with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, and this met largely with international understanding and approval. But while the Taliban regime was removed from power, they, bin Laden and Al Qaida have all survived. Today’s Afghanistan is anything but a peaceful nation, and democracy remains just a dream. Only the capital city of Kabul is relatively safe, and should US and foreign troops withdraw from the region, the warlords of the past are sure to re-establish themselves and the Taliban regime may even return to power. This is hardly the success Bush & Co. were said to be aiming for, but the skeptics will argue that the US never did intend to leave Afghanistan, as they are mostly interested in an oil/gas pipeline from this region, to feed the insatiable need for energy. Thus a US military presence over the long term was always in the cards – while terrorists and resistance fighters continue to operate and democracy is but a far-away dream.

The subsequent invasion of Iraq has proved to be an even greater failure. Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations Security Council consisted of pure fabrication, and all the "convincing data" he produced that was to prove that Iraq was a serious threat to America and the free world, has long since have been proven false. The stand-off in the UN which didn’t buy Powell’s arguments, caused a serious rift in the Atlantic Alliance, which resulted in Bush declaring the UN irrelevant and going it alone, barring Tony Blair and a handful of politicians from other nations who defied the majority opinions in their own countries. Prediction of a quick victory in Iraq, accompanied by a huge support from the Iraqi population proved totally wrong, as is obvious from the current situation of struggle of the Iraqis against the foreign occupiers of their land. And just like in Vietnam before, America cannot win this war against a determined people who fought on their own territory against a foreign invader who brought them death and destruction – and conditions worse than what they experienced under former ruler Saddam Hussein. This is not a war against terrorism or for democracy, but a war to secure Iraq’s energy resources for America, to establish a military presence in the region – to support Israel and to further threaten countries in the region, such as Syria and Iran. Surely, if Iraq’s resistance had been weak, US troops would have already moved on to their next target in the "Axis of Evil", be that Iran or North Korea. But the US is bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq, something that the plotters of the invasion never thought possible.

Bush also embarked on a "Roadmap for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians. However, the intransigence of the Israeli government and the unflinching support of America for Israel ensured this initiative was also doomed to failure.

Instead, Israel continues building a wall to keep Palestinians out of Israel – and it presses on with the expansion of all settlements on Palestinian soil, besides continuing is policy of assassination of Palestinian leaders they regard as "terrorists". The policy of "might is right" ensures the continued state of war between the two sides, all with the overt support of the United States.

America’s threat against the Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) has also been totally ineffective. The DPRK suffered a serious energy shortage after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which had been its primary supplier of energy. It also suffered drought conditions as well as floods. Having no energy resources of its own, it sought to remedy the problem through a program of nuclear power, which led to charges that it was developing nuclear weapons.

An agreement between the USA and DPRK was worked out in the mid-nineties, whereby the US would provide oil and replace the two graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactor power plants that pose less of a risk of proliferation. After a substantial part of the new generators were completed (which in actual fact was not done), the DPRK would allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into the country to prove its compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

When the Bush administration took over it cancelled the oil supplies to the DPRK, accused it again of nuclear weapons manufacture and threatened it with military action. As one of the countries of the "axis of evil", North Korea was labeled a rogue state and a threat to the USA. Instead of working for a negotiated, peaceful solution to the DPRK problem, US chose to use the heavy- handed approach by threatening to use military force.

North Korea’s reaction to this was totally predictable. It will defend itself against an attack by US forces with all the means in its possession, which may include nuclear weapons. Thus, relations between the USA and DPRK have been lowered by the Bush administration to possibly the lowest level since the Korean War of the 1950s.

One of the most telling examples of the lies that America is actively bringing democracy to the world can be found in the case of Venezuela. Despite the fact that the Government of Hugo Chavez has been elected twice with approximately 60% of the vote, and, recently won the recall election by nearly the same margin, the US continues to side with the rich minority of Venezuelans who support the opposition. The involvement of the CIA in an (unsuccessful) attempt to overthrow Chavez, also its support for the long strike in the oil industry, which was trying to cripple the government and bring it down, as well as other overt and covert actions by the Bush & Co. to undermine Chavez – these are ample proof that the USA does not respect the will of the people as expressed in the free elections. However the success of the Bolivarian revolution, which addresses the needs of the Venezuela’s poor and uneducated masses, is undeniable and already influences other South American nations to free themselves from the influence by the IMF World Bank and the US-dominated free trade agreements. Without the use of the US military, who are already bogged down in Iraq and other parts of the world, the Bolivarian revolution of the people will not be stopped. And if US military force is employed, it will become yet another Vietnam or Iraq for America. Once again, US foreign policy is a failure.

And finally, there is the American Missile Defense System (MDS), a project opposed practically by the whole world. Yes, there may be some countries, who, for economic reasons decide to participate in its manufacture, but there can be no question that the opposition to this project is massive. Aside from the fact that there is no proof that it actually works, or that it is a defense against terrorism, it is frequently seen as a start of a new arms race that no one wants. The MDS is nothing more than yet another step- in the total military domination of the world by the USA – precisely as is written in the PNAC document, which foresees the establishment of a military space-force as a means to monitor and control the whole world. But, military might had on more than one occasion proven to be no match for peoples and nations seeking self-determination and freedom from foreign domination and control. All Empires of the past thought that they were unbeatable, but all have ultimately failed, so will the US imperialist designs on the world.

Americans are rightly concerned about their security at home and abroad. However, this security is unlikely to be enhanced by behaviour in the world arena that places Americans above the laws others are expected and pressured to adhere to. Neither is security enhanced by the wanton use of military force and the trampling and disrespect of local cultures, customs and ways of life. America has so much potential for good in the world, if it would only use this potential to improve the lives of the people in poorer nations, in a co-operative manner, instead of through exploitation of other countries’ resource wealth for the private gain of its own corporate giants.

In conclusion, in the past four years, America’s foreign policy has succeeded in only one thigh: To create more hostility and more enemies in the world then it ever had before. The dream of George W. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Perle, Wolfowitz and others who are complicit in the Project for the New American Century for a new 1000-year Reich through the use of USA’s military supremacy and subordination of the world’s nations to American rule, is an absolute and total failure and, if pursued much longer, it can only lead to the ultimate, unimaginable disaster, for the Americans, as well as for the rest of the world.