Marketing, ecommerce, and contemporary blog!

As the election year closes ahead with the chance as some put it a defeat of the Republicans in the Congress another issue for some reason has overlapped about what will might see in the outcomes of the polls in the following week and that is the view many politicians, scholars and pundits how in the past five years they think the world has changed but more importantly how those deadly attacks changed their views of the world. Since all that is given are nothing more than opinions some of the solutions that you see sounds as though nothing ever happened since those attacks. We already know with increase terrorist activities that people's rights might be compromised or in the other hand given the nature of the attackers that there are bound to be splinter groups willing to attack the US. So the problem we like to see and even know is what has really changed since September 11, 2001. The fail military and foriegn policy of the US presence mainly in Iraq and the other parts of the world may cut it but such failure or trying to understand those failures doesn't come to grip with certain ongoing reality. For starters, those attacks were based on a declining hold of the nation-state model that has been the the very axis of how and why states behave in such a way. To put it more specifically, previous wars up until the Persian Gulf War were based on what the perfect model of the nation state was. Some would imagine that the empires of monarchs were the best or the ones rooted in democracy should take precedent and yet still those of corrupt dictators telling people with absolute power what is best for them. The decline of the Soviet Union gave way ironically to any form of empires or the so-called hegemonic state. It also downplayed the role in which even though justified on a historical basis that a collection of states sharing in the same belief the value of human rights, democracy, world peace and the free flow of trade can always be achieved either through international diplomacy or military means. What this all adds up to is the value and nature of warring communities that is fast shaping and from what anyone knows in which the world will plunge into. The collapse of the USSR didn't stop war or even contain with the promise of post-Cold War peace or that the US can make the world safe from certain 'evils.' On the contrary the level playing field of war might be greater and far catastrophic than what people think. Throughout history and especially that of the last century the cycle of energy and motion of what shape society and how it relieves enmity between competing factors has grown far more intense than it ever did. It has outpace the conception of what people think of and believe of living in a world or human society. Think of how people get around from one part of the globe to another. They usually do that through flying on airplanes. Think also how goods are transported, mainly the same way including shipping and land vehicles. The problem with creating a correlation from goods and human numbers is that we always don't know what those goods are and who are always traveling from one part of the world for what purpose. Even though one can assume that all goods that are flowing from country to country or continent or continent for some weird notion are able to satisfy the world population or keeping it from growing to a world depression, the satisfaction of those goods cannot explain who and how the major players(assuming that we possibleknow who they are at any given time) might benefit from them. This might seems a bit pedantic but it is not always so. If the world changes more intensely from a historical perspective those goods, numbers and forms of transportation becomes very obscure and even distorted which explains that what kept the former Soviet Union alive at the time it did becomes also another playing field of why it fell and other entities has taken its place. It doesn't explain why not another 'empire' of the sort takes it place which can also be explained that those mobile forces makes statist empires very obsolete or very well exhaust them. However it does not affect the appetites of the major players or the battlefield in which wars are fought and won. The war that engulfed 3 to 4 million lives from 1998-2002 was one that can characterized as a world war because given geographical area it was fought over(the same size of Western Europe) and the amount of intervening countries(unusually a lot for a conflict in Africa) the idea of a world dictator emerging in that world sounds silly and hopeless niave but it doesn't--to make sense of the none believers or those who continues to believe otherwise--that the area becomes a dictatorial playground for state of the art military and scientific technologies and campaigns. Therefore it isn't hard to believe the way things happened until the two airlines crashed and collapsed the the Twin Towers nearly five years ago. So not only the idea and what constitutes war has changed but the conventions that will shape society has dynamically is continuing undergoing a major transformation.