by Cid_Yama » Sun 14 Nov 2010, 01:27:30
This is part of the a much broader issue, the changing nature of war.
In prior decades, war was primarily between states, one nation against another.
Now we are faced non-state combatants. They do not belong to nor are guided by the government of some nation.
These groups are independent multinational entities, much like multinational corporations.
No state governs them and there is no global government to have overriding jurisdiction over them.
There are no "nations" to retaliate against for their actions.
I can understand the feeling of impotence the Bush Administration must have felt in the face of 9/11. With the American people demanding retaliation and no nation to declare war against, the Bush Administration acted 'as if' there were nations responsible. They just picked a couple in the Middle East they were already wanting to take action against and blamed them.
The problem was the changed nature of war in the 21st century.
Nationalism is dead. The concept of independent states is dead. When states are restricted to actions within their own borders, and prohibited from acting within another's borders, yet attacks are launched from outside their borders, mutiple independent states becomes an obsolete notion that cannot survive.
Just look at the problems we have from our inability to regulate multinational corporations.
It appears one world government with overriding jurisdiction is inevitable. But will be fought against tooth-and-nail by those who benefit from the lack of one.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.