the war on terror in my view is totally flawed, as its result has shown, rather than stability it is more instability that the world is experiencing this days. I do not feel it is anyones fault but it is rather a question of perception, and the context that perception finds itself in.
this war on terror is in many ways a war between those who were deprived and those who enjoy a certain amount of material possessions, the problem is that those who enjoy this possessions underestimate the underprivileged ones, and consider them inferior, this is what is taking place in Iraq, and most nations in south America, and the rest of the globe. this reasoning which dates back from the early primitive modes of operation of the human being is in fact resurfacing, to be more precise the mind rather than going forward is going backward, it does not think in the present it constantly relates to the past. the military have newly sophisticated weapons, but the mind of those who hold those weapons are practically a century behind. this you might realize is a time bomb. not because the pilot fails to drive his plane properly, but his failure is to understand his own actions. the same predicament is taking place in the higher stratas of the political arena, both candidates propose accommodating answers to a problem they largely refuse to acknowledge, moreover those answers are expose as some kind of a table tennis match of arguments, by which decisions are made by a few, while they display a banner of democracy imposing the guilt or benefit of these decisions on the majority of the citizens; to put it in easier terms; after 9/11, it was the American common citizens that somewhat agreed to the demands of the government, but in fact the government had already decided of his actions, but let the population believe they were the ones who have that choice. this is a kind of consciousness manipulation by which while you believe that you have a choice and you do act as if you do, your choice is irrelevant, for the simple reason that "your say" has no validity at all.
in practice it means that the men in power feel so distant from the common population that they regard them as non thinking individuals, therefore those individuals are inferior. but the Riddle of the situation is that those not thinking individuals most have a voice, in order to give reality a certain credibility.
the end result is that the citizens pays and gets the bad end of the deal; while those who rule the nation get away with everything.
in fact citizens are victims of their own democracy.
lets have Iraq as an example, in order to invade Iraq the American government demanded the acceptance of the majority of the population, after this acceptance the eventual theatrical congress agrees and releases the funds, the government claims it is for the democracy and protection of the nation, but in fact the nation cant be protected, only individuals are protected. further along atrocities and death are display, those in power are exempt from this predicament as it is the psyche of the citizens who did agree to this war, the government just executed the will of the nation, "knowing that the nation has no will, only a make believe reality"
the result of this is psychological guilt and confusion on the individual citizens mind, while those above do not have to worry about such details. we add the numerous organizations and groups who defend human rights, and other issues, the public again in principle should have a say, in fact they don't, what they get is once aging the wrong end of the deal, the guilt and the division, reason why the nation is actually divided.
a reunion of the nation seems it is not in any of both candidates interest, as the aftermath could be a collective awakening, and that could lead to unpleasant surprises for those in power.
but they will be please that the eventual contest has some intrigue, as whom ever wins in the eyes of the public is fundamentally different, while in reality it is not.
