Who's to blame?

Historically speaking, we still live in WWII....There is a big cease-fire, and the battle has shifted sporadically throughout the world in the general negotiation in the peacemaking-proces. The main participants (Security Council...they secure the money) of the World-Governing Body are representatives of the WWII-states. When it comes to it, they make the coices. The invasion of Iraq, like many conflicts before, were war-acts by the State which still ownes the best Cards at the negotiation table, the USA.


Because we dont have supranationality in any military-political sense, there are still many conflicts. Peace is soon negotiated by the peace-commity (The United Nations). They negotiated with the Nation-States and have achieved alot of accomplishment.

The top of the United Nations, the Participants of WWII will have to allow Nations of the World into the Security council, once those Nations are Democratic States. But that doenst seem to make the people democratic. Most of them would love living in a democracy, but some, usually the richest and most powerful, arrange a deal.


It is striking that it is the United States seem to have the big role in this democratisation of the world. The thing is, they only communicate with the Rich. The movement from Saddam to Democracy has been a nice play. But the Iraqi are not stupid. In 20 to 30 years Iraq will probably be a nice boy, like Egypt, or maybe even Korea, but.....India, China are by then rich and powerfull enough to sit at the big table. This will continue, unless Iraq, would, for some reason, become economically unsound. Maybe its biggest Export-product, Oil, will no longer sail. Not that there won;t be consumers. There won't be stock to sail. Will Iraq become some sort of Spain? How will this happen and in what international structure?

The most obvious solution is to avoid this is to decide to startover. Democratise the United Nations' Military and Economic wing. Now, military over time has become to us something of fear, and destruction. That has not always been the case. In tolerate empires army served security and expansion. Now, expansion isn't possible the military are mostly security. All other military efforts (such as invasions) are inspired by Fear. This is not to be blamed to anyone. Maybe Americans are invasive by nature, maybe Europeans are only able to talk, maybe Chinese only stare at the mirror the entire day – could be the wisest thing to do, maybe Saddam wasn't exactly a diplomatic genius, by getting all messed up within the powerful weapons-trade-maffia. In the end, it could be our fault.


But how are we supposed to know good and bad? We can look at our own lives and calculate the political situation we are supposed to favor. We can look at history and decide from our gut-feeling those arabs are only lazy people so what does it matter to me. We can consider it the War on Terror.
So in the end the United Nations, being the security body of the world has been played by the leaders of the world since WWII. From the battlefields of Europe to the battlefields of Afgahnistan, Russia, New York and Amsterdam.Yes, there is a mental battlefield as most of the worlds democratic people is somesense reflects on current world-affairs. In order to live in peace everyone must govern everyone. Utopia is always like Ice Cream. In reality it's cold and it looks like shit, but it tastes good and sweat, so we eat it in the summer.