prfsnl_gmr wrote:Agreed. With a few exceptions, nations don't really go to war with each other any more, and I think re-drawing some international boundaries would resolve a lot of the world's bloodiest conflicts.
But should we do this to automatically award aggressors, such as Russia with Georgia and Ukraine(as well as potentially harassing moves toward Finland and Estonia) or China and its claims on territorial waters against Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, and Taiwan, or China's border dispute with India?
No. We should not award aggressors, and international law should them to respect their neighbors' borders. Where, however, you have a former colony, such as Iraq, whose borders were drawn without regard to the various groups living within it, I do not think that there should be as much emphasis on keeping those borders in place.
Personally, I think that there would likely be much less conflict in Iraq right now if, after the U.S. led invasion, we has broken the country into three parts (i.e., east, west, and north). Certainly, I would not expect those three new countries to get along very well - think India and Pakistan - but forcing them to share power in a representative democracy has proven to be a disaster.
What if we were to take a similar approach to how India and Bangladesh recently resolved their maritime border dispute, by taking the dispute to a United Nations tribunal for resolution?
But in this case, Bangladesh submitted the case and India willingly went along, which is rare for a major power. It's doubtful that a country like China or Russia will willingly submit to UN regulation of their borders, and even if they did, it's doubtful that there would be any means to enforce a decision in the face of their military capabilities. In fact Russia is once again considering changing its defense and nuclear policies to provide it greater means for use of force if it perceives a threat against itself(such as Ukraine becoming a NATO member, or in an even looser interpretation, if the US and NATO agree to arm Ukraine), and China is actively criticizing and condemning American and Japanese defense policies and forces in the western Pacific so they can drive out a competitor and potential foil.
This is the problem I see with international arbitration to "fix" borders and territories: it'll only work if everyone goes along with it(including all major and regional powers) and there's some method to enforce it.
Ack wrote:This is the problem I see with international arbitration to "fix" borders and territories: it'll only work if everyone goes along with it(including all major and regional powers) and there's some method to enforce it.
But I think that's what makes it possible in the middle east. No great world power is happy with the situation over there. So you could split the countries along tribal lines, and even share them among great powers. Give north Iraq to the Kurds and the West, give the east to Iran and China and give the west part of Iraq to Syria and Russia. Everybody is happy and the balance of power (the only thing that ever stops a true war from happening) is kept.
Better than the no-mans land we have right now which creates problems and gets in the way of the middle east ever developing out of its medieval times situation.
Now the south China sea and former soviet satellites can't be solved this way since it would be a direct competition between 2 great powers (EU VS Russia and China vs USA).
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
Ack wrote:This is the problem I see with international arbitration to "fix" borders and territories: it'll only work if everyone goes along with it(including all major and regional powers) and there's some method to enforce it.
But I think that's what makes it possible in the middle east. No great world power is happy with the situation over there. So you could split the countries along tribal lines, and even share them among great powers. Give north Iraq to the Kurds and the West, give the east to Iran and China and give the west part of Iraq to Syria and Russia. Everybody is happy and the balance of power (the only thing that ever stops a true war from happening) is kept.
But that still won't work. It contributes heavily to Iran but leaves out the other regional power in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. Of the three sections, one goes directly to Iran, and the other to Syria, a major Iranian ally? And then there is the breakdown of the populations. Iran is predominantly Shia, as is Iraq. The Sunnis would most likely end up in Syria which is predominantly Sunni in population, but under a government run by Alawites(an offshoot of Shia Islam) that isn't exactly known for its tolerance and is currently crippled by a civil war which has bolstered Sunni terrorist organizations like ISIS.
And then there are the major powers involved, Russia, China, and the US. Russia and China have reasonably good ties, both oppose the United States, and both are members of BRICS, which has been intentionally designed to end US monetary policy in the world's economic system. I don't think the US will be particularly pleased with this sort of arrangement.
Ack wrote:But that still won't work. It contributes heavily to Iran but leaves out the other regional power in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. Of the three sections, one goes directly to Iran, and the other to Syria, a major Iranian ally? And then there is the breakdown of the populations. Iran is predominantly Shia, as is Iraq. The Sunnis would most likely end up in Syria which is predominantly Sunni in population, but under a government run by Alawites(an offshoot of Shia Islam) that isn't exactly known for its tolerance and is currently crippled by a civil war which has bolstered Sunni terrorist organizations like ISIS.
Ok to be honest I didn't exactly do my research before writing my post . Anyway any creation of nations would involve long haggling and diplomatic contacts, but my point still stands. Until the middle east is separated into countries made up of populations that can get well together we won't see peace.
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
well to sum this entire thread up, life sucks. You don't ask to be born, then you are and its all about money and arguments and etc, etc. If you meet the love of your life, they will cheat. You may never know it, but they will. What is the point of life? Even if you make all the money in the world, you die and you're dead and gone.
They have escaped into the mansion where they thought it was safe, yet.
jvalentine98 wrote:well to sum this entire thread up, life sucks. You don't ask to be born, then you are and its all about money and arguments and etc, etc. What is the point of life? Even if you make all the money in the world, you die and you're dead and gone.
well to sum this entire post up, threads suck. You don't ask for them to be created, then they are and it's all about reading through them and the overall discussions and etc, etc. What is the point of threads? Even if you reply to all the threads in the world, no one reads your reply, it's there and it's pointless.
BoneSnapDeez wrote:The success of a console is determined by how much I enjoy it.
jvalentine98 wrote:well to sum this entire thread up, life sucks. You don't ask to be born, then you are and its all about money and arguments and etc, etc. What is the point of life? Even if you make all the money in the world, you die and you're dead and gone.
well to sum this entire post up, threads suck. You don't ask for them to be created, then they are and it's all about reading through them and the overall discussions and etc, etc. What is the point of threads? Even if you reply to all the threads in the world, no one reads your reply, it's there and it's pointless.
Everyone in the world acts like if all your opinions don't make everyone happy then you are a horrible person. Suicide please. There is literally no thought that can please everyone, and if you express a thought, you are bombed for it. And if you get the best job in the world and you "make it" then so what? A hundred years from now you'll just be another rich guy who died a long time ago. Life certainly is depressing
They have escaped into the mansion where they thought it was safe, yet.
jvalentine98 wrote:well to sum this entire thread up, life sucks. You don't ask to be born, then you are and its all about money and arguments and etc, etc. What is the point of life? Even if you make all the money in the world, you die and you're dead and gone.
well to sum this entire post up, threads suck. You don't ask for them to be created, then they are and it's all about reading through them and the overall discussions and etc, etc. What is the point of threads? Even if you reply to all the threads in the world, no one reads your reply, it's there and it's pointless.
Everyone in the world acts like if all your opinions don't make everyone happy then you are a horrible person. Suicide please. There is literally no thought that can please everyone, and if you express a thought, you are bombed for it. And if you get the best job in the world and you "make it" then so what? A hundred years from now you'll just be another rich guy who died a long time ago. Life certainly is depressing
With your negative outlook on all things, I can see why
jvalentine98 wrote:well to sum this entire thread up, life sucks. You don't ask to be born, then you are and its all about money and arguments and etc, etc. If you meet the love of your life, they will cheat. You may never know it, but they will. What is the point of life? Even if you make all the money in the world, you die and you're dead and gone.
My advice to you: Don't bother too much with the world, start with your immediate habitat. People have been successful in deriving meaning from their existence for millennia, no reason why this generation can't do the same. Or maybe you subconsciously feel a need to help improve the world outside your own environment, there's the Peace Corps and countless other organisations that could use any skills you may have. Get crackin'.
. Anyway any creation of nations would involve long haggling and diplomatic contacts, but my point still stands. Until the middle east is separated into countries made up of populations that can get well together we won't see peace.
