Printable View
A nation is people who have a common culture,History and Tradition.In Europe the Basques are a disgrace for France and Spain they are the only European Nation without a country of their own.The Nation is there where i draw the line.I dont speak about some bloody settlers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
A Civil War in Iraq would turn into the Proxy War for every nation in the Middle-East to go have it's say.
I thought that was already the case , and has been the case for many years already .
Read the initial post.
Yes .... and ?????
Its a stupid idea , it will not bring any benefit , it would threaten the "stabiity" of the whole region and it would further impact on the whole worlds economy .
Whats wrong with Nation States?Yes i would give idependancy also to Basques and Tzecheens.If democracy is about giving people freedom why cant they get it?
Can you guarantee freedom or democracy ? When you create new nation States based on ethnicity what happens to those whose ethnic make up is not compatible with the new State ? Take a look at this last centuries "new States" for some examples .
What a great idea! The Allies just pull back to the bases, only coming out to arm the Shia and Kurds and keep the other Sunnis in the area from causing problems too.
Maybe there would be genocide, maybe not. To be honest that does not bother me. More dead people. We've got that anyway. What would really help is if the Sunnis could just leave when retribution starts. Send them to Iran or Syria. Oh wait, already tried that once with the 'palestinians'. Shoot, so much for religious support.
But of course, Bush would be castrated for allowing it. But then...would he care?
Azi
[QUOTE=
Can you guarantee freedom or democracy ? When you create new nation States based on ethnicity what happens to those whose ethnic make up is not compatible with the new State ? Take a look at this last centuries "new States" for some examples .[/QUOTE]
Countries like Creece,Hungary,Finland,Romania,Bulgaria,Ukraina,Finland,Estonia,Latvia and Lithunia.If i would be still citicen of Empire of Russia,You can bet i would do anything to get under that yoke.
There are always minorities they can stay or they can leave. :bow:
And you know how much that means to me coming from you. ~;)Quote:
Its a stupid idea ,
Really though, as stated its just an opinion, no need to get so hostile.
Hey Panzer I am not being hostile , just stating that its a stupid idea in my opinion .
If you have a civil war with different religeous and ethnic factions , who are variously backed by surrounding nations who also have different religeous and ethnic factions in their own populations , what do you think the result will be ?
A regionwide war .
Since the region supplies huge amounts of the substance that keeps the industrial world working , what do you think would be the result on the worlds economy ?
The 19th century principle that declares that every nation is justified to pursue the creation of a state isn't compliant with international practices during the 20th century and even with self-determination as proclaimed after WWI. There isn't any internatonal law rule (whatever that means;)) that recognises the right of a nation to form a state. Self-determination was the legal basis for the decolonisational proccess, the right for the people of a state to choose the political and social system they prefer and in extreme cases where national borders aren't clear and there is a severe violation of basic human rights of solid ethnical entities. Any other secessional tendencies are not supported by international law (whatever that means;)) and more like a political problem that trascends legal questions.
Bulgaria, Greece and Romania were state before WW1, acting in a completely different world political environment than today's. It's hard to consider Latvia and Estonia nation-states. Democracy has more to do with citizens than with ethnicities. Federal states/ regions with autonomy are indeed the approved method when dealing with concetrated "non-ethnical" population and not every one of them has a separate state in Europe (apart from the people in question). Violent or otherwise removal of minorities away from their regions is considered naturally an inbreachment to their rights and that's when they can make a good case of further autonomy in order to protect themselves. Now how this will be achieved is another questions. But forced migrations and exchange of populations between states is hardly the appropriate answer , their tragic results widely acknowledged.Quote:
Countries like Creece,Hungary,Finland,Romania,Bulgaria,Ukraina,Fi nland,Estonia,Latvia and Lithunia.If i would be still citicen of Empire of Russia,You can bet i would do anything to get under that yoke.
There are always minorities they can stay or they can leave.
Many Cornish would like to be a seperate nation.Quote:
In Europe the Basques are a disgrace for France and Spain they are the only European Nation without a country of their own.
The Italian North/South divide means many would like the nation to be seperated again.
We shouldn't just divide nations because people can't get along. We should work together towards resolving our differences rather than just retreating into our own little fortresses whenever decisions go against us.
Argueing that regions were once nations is hardly grounds for new nation-hood. In the dark-ages there were thousands of nations accross Europe alone that would provide justification for just about any region to be split into tiny fragments.
Iraq however, is one situation where I believe splitting the nation into states would be a good idea. We shouldn't create 3 new nations because then violence between these groups can then be authorised as warfare rather than terrorism.
Okay where should i start. ~;) First of my rugged belief is still that National are key to succes,but only when the people want them.First USA is not good comparison in this matter.They are Federal State because they want to be.They have their states that agreed to join forces against Colonialist efforts Of British Empire.
About countries of Balkan like Creece,Bulgaria,Romania,Serbia and Albania.Before their independancy they were vassals or part of the Ottoman Empire.The christian part.From which they freed them selves from it with help of other western countries who felt empathy towards them.The muslim parts Turkey excluded werent that lucky ones because they were already occupied by France and Britain,that didnt care about the souverinity of those peoples wishes.
Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire before WWI and they gained their independancy when Austrian Empire crumbled during the war.Here i would like to remind that the final reason why WWI started was that an Serbian separatist "terrorist" killed the Grand Duke of Austria.
Countries like Finland,Ukraina,Poland,Estonia,Latvia and Lithunia gained their Independancy because another empire,The Empire of Russia crumbled during WWI.Unfortunetuly the Socialist revolution eated up Ukrainas Independancy.All the other mentioned countries also experienced communist rebellions or even civil wars.
About British Empire.The separation went down more peacefully,thanks to Britains more democratic stature.Canada,Australia,New Zealand and Ireland had their own governments because i think Britain had learned her lesson with USA.The scotts and Wellsh even decided to be a part of Britain.But i dont think thats an excuse to deny other Nations their independancy.
If you look at that development,you can clearly see that many of our European or American forefathers could have been accused to be "terrorists".
There were also lots of revolutions in South America but i didnt addres them because of my little knowledge about the actual events.
Someone stated that it would be against International law that Nations would try to form their independent states.Do you really think that our forefathers did give a crap about international law.
The thing with middle East and Africa is that they hadnt experienced that kind of wawe revolutions.Most of the countries there are still Kingdoms or relics of European Colonialism.My opinion is that if we really want to help these fellow human beings.We as more powerfull and developed Nations should provide them a chance to decide themselves what they want.Not to overlook them because they are less developed then we are.
That was my 5 cents. :bow:
Basques does not have a distinct history. Their lands were owned either by France or Spain for centuries. They are no different from, let's say, the Britons or the Welsh.
Furthermore, I don't really agree with your idea PJ. The Kurds' main goal is to create their own state (the Great Kurdistan). It looks like they're already trying to get their own state in northern Irak and don't really care about Irak itself.
It's quite evident you didn't understand what I wrote and the role of international law in the shaping of national practices and what behaviours are considered acceptable at the time. Your forefathers did give an excrement about standard practices, esp. in the context of your paradigm. The Congress of Vienna did set some "rules" regarding what would be tolerated by the "Holy Alliance". And the creation of new countries was out of the question. The Great Powers didn't help Greece (the events of the Greek revolution in 1821 being the first to challenge the above mentioned decisions) out of the goodness of their hearts, protection of human rights by imbreaching a state's sovereignity was many many decades away. The debate about what motivated 19th and early 20th century "superpowers" from helping out nations that pursued independance (in the end they got only freedom, not independance) isn't a very complex one. Maybe because diplomacy at that point was a secret process where the public had no say in it, thus no need for intricate rhetoric or the need to please the voting masses. Eitherway I 've putlined what *today* is considered acceptable and don't forget that all actions need somehow to be justified. Among the legal services that government , esp. the White House, employ are the ones entrusted with molding the current standards to fit future actions by presenting a logical and defendable case. Ofcourse as power differences increase between nations, the need to find concrete legal ground is downplayed. Anyone starting from E. H. Carr could tell you that.Quote:
Someone stated that it would be against International law that Nations would try to form their independent states.Do you really think that our forefathers did give a crap about international law.
I know powerfull nations didnt help Creece because of the godnes of their heart.But from their own intrests.States arent invidual humans.States operate in ways that benefit their purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
What i tryed to say that international law can be read in multiple ways.Almost every state or federation have broke it somewhere along their history.By the way what is your alternative solution? :bow:
International law isn't something tangible anyway and it's rapidly changing during periods like this one where the new world system after bipolarity hasn't yet matured; I just mentioned that you can't base the creation of a new state on the existence of an ethnicity without a home state. So, say, an hypothetical intervention by the US to enforce upon the Iraqi state and its neighbours a new kurdic state with full autonomy and representation in world organisations won't be easily accepted by almost anyone, as it's a bad case to make. Besides it isn't necessary in the best interests of the current US administration to do so. A solution I don't offer, simply because what is "good" in such a situation varies for every participant in this scenario, plus I can't make accurate predictions regarding the reactions of the kurdish and turkish element involved there.
He he he he! Sorry. He he he! I can't stop laughing!
International law? What a joke. Might as well call it what it is: "Might makes right". You think Kim Jong Il gives a crap about international law? Who is going to enforce it? The corrupt UN?
Of course international law is in flux. The one nation capable of enforcing it is riven by political fights about the one attempt that nation has made at enforcing 'international law'.
If the political fights would cease (aided and abetted by the left-wingers that control the media) , and the people in charge of the rebuilding could proceed without relentless second guessing by the liberals at home, methinks the process of rebuilding would go much faster. Just let the military do what it is supposed to do. Kill people. And I'm sure the Mossad would love to help out too. Get some 'on the job' training for the operatives. But because of the media covering, smothering the country, the Allies cannot fight the kind of dirty war needed to finish off the terrorists.
Would it be a dirty war? It already is. But I would love to see what SEALs, Mossad, MI6 could do in that country if given free reign.
Azi
Sorry mate.but can you point out a single state that have emerged without someone condemning it.So if i follow your logig right way.For example creation of Israel was illegimite because Arab states objected it.More reacent scenario could be Kosovo.If we would follow strictly the international law.The Kosovos Albans were only rebels,because they where part of the legimite State of Yugoslavia.So Natos intervention was illegal one.We should also remember that Saddam attacked Kurds with Chemical weapons because he was controlling their separatist efforts.In Turkey,Turkish goverment is also controlling Kurdish separatist efforts by using military forces.Is that legimite?Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
*sighs*Quote:
International law? What a joke. Might as well call it what it is: "Might makes right". You think Kim Jong Il gives a crap about international law? Who is going to enforce it? The corrupt UN?
I don't think the concept is so hard to comprehend. Why do people have to connect international law at its basis (the justification proccess) with the effects that its possible enforcement has? Its enforcement I might add is used a lot for UN-accusations, that mostly aim in finding reason for its abolition by pointing out its shortcomings at intervening, while it's clear that the same people wouldn't like those interventions in any part of their national foreign policy. International organisations are as powerful as their members want them to.
Noone said that it's a concept similar to domestic law, for more then obvious reasons, and this won't change for a long while. But otoh it can complicate things and unilateralism isn't looked upon favourably. Iraq might be one good example of that? Consensus is what this is about and "might makes right", but if you misuse it for a long time then your might starts withering, as today "soft power" can be the way to ensure your dominance (in the case of the US) long-term. Power as you probably know is classicaly divided into 3 categories: military, economic and diplomatic or soft power. You need the first to survive short-term, the second long-term and the last to ensure that your current status will be respected after you start abusing the first two.
Kim-Jong Il's disregard for what you mean as "international law" gives North Korea the status it enjoys right now. An outcast if you may.
EDIT: Answers regarding the questions kagemusha set in the previous post can be found above, sorry I'm not eager in going into circles.
You break it, you own it. Now you fix it.
Thinking about another thread, that's accountability in international relationship for you...
Louis,
You mean to tell me that the Saami got their own nation-state recently? ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Are they bloving up things in Finland and Killing people or even demanding self government?No, they are not.And you know at as tiny country as we are the island of Ahvenanmaa(Åland) where majority of people are from Swedish origins,have their own parliament and self-government. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Basques does not have a distinct history.
Meneldil , just out of curiosity , as Basques do not have a distinct history , then could you tell me where their language comes from and which other european language (or world language for that matter)it shares its origins with or is derived from ?
Sorry mate,but i dont see any answers there all you have stated have been about the theory how international law works.Basicly you just say no.You havent given any alternative solutions to those problems that i stated before.Problem with so called international law is that you cant please everyone at once. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
Nope, answers are up there and I think it can't get clearer unless I start chopping the things I mentioned into little digestible pieces heh. Particularly look at my initial #40 post in this thread. But I won't try to further explain it as there seems to be here a mutual lack of understanding and radically different approach on the systemical works of the international community ~:)Quote:
Sorry mate,but i dont see any answers there all you have stated have been about the theory how international law works.Basicly you just say no.You havent given any alternative solutions to those problems that i stated before.Problem with so called international law is that you cant please everyone at once.
Okay.I understand.We will never turn eachothers heads on this subject. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Impresario
Altough,I have enjoyed this conversation. :bow:
Yeah go on arm the Shia... but don't be surprised when they bite you on the arse in 2 years time.
Pull out. Invest all that cash in alternative fuel sources and watch the whole problem disappear up its own backside.
To whom are you talking to?Quote:
Originally Posted by GonZ
Mmmm...alternative fuels...mmmm...
I do rather like the idea of letting the middle east become the cess-pool is should be sooner rather than later...but still, I don't know how long it is going to take to develop alternative fuels.
Ethanol is not cheap to make. Hydrogen is @#*$ dangerous. Fuel cells are not bad, but right now efficiency is dismal. And you still have to make the H2 and O2. Hydrides could be fun...but then that takes electricity (and a lot of it) to make any useable amount. Natural gas is SSDD (well SSDSource in this case).
And I don't know what else is out there. Hamsters maybe?
Azi
It would appear to be the original thread starter, PanzerJaeger.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha