Nato faces 'dim future', warns Pentagon chief

[K. A. Pital]

Obviously I was not talking only about military dimension of strength and not only in terms of absolute strength but in terms of relative strength as relevant to NATOs reason of existence. Globally European powers have definitely lost strength in relations to many countries, US being the first example. I provided charts in the other thread showing Germany and France going from 26.9% and 19.9% of US GDP in 1975 to 18.1% and 15% in 2008 respectively. This only underscores my point: increase of relative and absolute US power in relation to France and Germany, decrease of relative and absolute Russian power in relation to France and Germany and increase of relative power and security for France and Germany is making NATO obsolete. However while German military power had declined it has done so by choice not inevitably because of economic collapse like Russia. Therefore should Germany feel the need to expand its forces in the future it has the economic and technological potential to do so far more than Russia.

My point was that the weakening of NATO - a military structure - also brings a reduction in the military capabilities of member nations. Which makes European nations less capable of running foreign wars. Without a structure like NATO it would also be much harder for any action of the USA to look as anything but a unilateral war. "Coalitions of the willing" would be much harder to forge. So while the military power of the USA rises, the end of NATO could be a diplomatic debacle for the US; even if it would look like a positive thing at first.

No one said that a multiethnic nation will eliminate all jingoism and warmongery. But the relations between people of various ethnic and racial groups in US is today far better than in most other countries including Russia and China.

Relations between racial groups in the US are better only because the US is well-off, while Russia and China are poor (Russia also has nationalists, who view other ethnicities as "outsiders" from their sovereign nations, not as Russian citizens, which is clearly not the case with America). However, feel free to prove that the relations between racial groups in China are much worse than those in the US. Are they, really? Are the relations between Mexicans and white Americans that much better? Are American rednecks much better than Russian neo-nazis (I havent' seen any Nazis in China, anyways)?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/17/pen ... index.html

"The evidence suggests that Mr. Ramirez was targeted, beaten and killed because he was Mexican," Rendell said. "Such lawlessness and violence hurts not only the victim of the attack but also our towns and communities that are torn apart by such bigotry and intolerance."

Whoa. Looks like in America you can get beaten to fucking death because you're Mexican. How is that any different from Russia, where the same can happen because you're Uzbek? Prove your point.

The issue is not whether or not US commited crimes during the American-Philippines war but how well does US integrate current Fillippino immigrants compared to other countries today.

See above. Let's talk about Mexicans, how easy and good is a life of a Mexican in America, and is there a chance that he might get killed for his mere looks? Or for the fact he's an illegal alien, like many Uzbeks in Russia are?

US conquest of Native Americans might have been no more gentle than Russian conquest of Caucasian people but how each country is treating them today is what makes the difference. Did you see a protest in New York about stopping the immigration of Native Americans lately?

I saw people protesting the immigration of Mexicans lately - you know, a nationality that's actually relevant, that's immigrating into the USA in great numbers and isn't simply a remains of a nation living in fucking reservations after being subjected to one of the greatest ethnocides in history. By the way, Russia, when it took over the Caucasus and made it part of the Russian Empire, put Georgians, Ossetians, Abkhazis and Chechens into reservations and gave them smallpox blankets so that they all die out and don't stand in the way of the glorious future? Was that really what happened, or is that what you would want Russia to do; except that's something it didn't do - American "multi-ethnic" colonists did that. And the fact that they were part British, part Irish, part god-knows-who didn't stop them from ethnociding the bloody guts out of the Natives. How can the Natives "immigrate" into America? The modern American "nation" fucking annihilated them.

US interventions stem from its power and global interests and not all are wrong. Also there is nothing wrong with people being loyal to their home countries in the sense that they will not run away if an enemy is attacking them or they won't sell secrets for money or won't help outside forces attack the country for money. At the same time they can criticize their country if it does something wrong.

Interventions don't stem from power. They stem from a desire to intervene. You can have power, but ignore a place and not intervene unless that is in your interests. Power does not produce intervention in and of itself. Power, and especially military power, is a means to an end. The US developed its military complex to make war against its adversaries and keep necessary hotpoints under control; it did not just make shitloads of weapons and soldiers for no reason and then go "LOOK, we have lots of war material, lets make use of it". Likewise Germany developed a military in the 1930s to take over territories it wanted, Danzig, Czechoslovakia, later all of Eastern Europe up to the Urals. Likewise the USSR in the 1930s developed a military to restore the "territories of the former Russian Empire" unto Russian dominion. Military is a means to an end. It is not the end and it is not the reason for interventions.

However, it is also true that the existence of a vast military power provokes interventions, because it makes easier to decide in favor of a war when you have lots of weapons. It is much harder to decide in favor of a war if you don't have the military that could complete desired objectives. And if your military is weak and pathetic, objectives will be likewise limited.

If your military is strong, you can become high on power, like on a drug. Ambitions keep rising and rising, until they become global. The British Empire was born exactly that way. Global power gives food to global ambitions; and those ambitions pressure you to get even more military power. It was actually quite the same with the USSR; in a while it saw that it is mighty and powerful, with a military capable of supporting foreign interventions. Slowly it reached out to South America, to the Carribean, to India and Egypt. The military power it received corrupted it; made it a part of the Great Powers club. And all major powers are guilty of this; of trying to remake the world in their image, to use their military power to fuel ambitions and ambitions to "explain" to the people just why we need such a great military.

Communism being an economic system doesn't say anything more about nations than capitalism does. However I'm not interested in theory or how you would like communism to be but practice. In practice communist countries weren't defined only by their economy but their political organization and their total inability to deal with interethnic tensions constructively. They simply barred all public discourse and ethnic animosities, rather than being resolved, were simply frozen in time until they finally exploded in the early 90s, in fact even before USSR was actually dissolved various ethnic groups started clashing. Your criticism of American performance with assimilating foreigners seems to be confined to analyzing the speeches of fringe conservative groups rather than actual data about the multi racial and multi ethnic character and large numbers of current immigrants.

Yeah, the same immigrants that can get killed for appearance, like that Uzbek janitor in some street in Voronezh. Which is the synonim to Bumfuck Nowhere. Don't give me this crap - I simply said that as a communist I hate nationalism and I dislike the very idea of nation-states. You somehow decided to say that this is unreasonable or something. It's not. It is the logical consequence of being internationalist. Communism isn't just an economic system, it is an ideology which includes internationalism and a firm stance on the equality of nations. The inability of either Soviet or post-Soviet rulers to protect one nation from violence inflicted by another nation is lamentable, but how is that relevant to the fact that this is a worthy goal?

It's not that nationalism triumphed it's that it was never dealt with since no real social issue can be dealt with if there is no free speech. Combined with obviously imperialistic communist policies like transferring ethnic Russians into baltic states and Central Asia while at the same time discouraging the immigration of Central Asians and Caucasians into Slavic parts of USSR and the stage was set for an implosion.

Actually Russians immigrated into Central Asia a lot. As for nationalism not triumphing, it is hard to say it has not triumphed. It definetely has. Nationalist parties are in power. Openly nationalist, sometimes fascist and clinically insane dictators are in power (Niyazov, for example, was clinically insane, while Putin and Medvedev are part of a nationalist oligarchic dictatorship, something you can't even seriously dispute). Saakashvili is another nationalist dictator, so are Nazarbayev and Lukashenko.

It is clear as day that nationalism as a policy has triumphed. From the crazy clericalist anti-abortion, homophobic constitution in Hungary to Niyazov's golden statue madness in a desert full of oil and poorly fed people, nationalism, fascism, fundamentalist clericalism has triumphed all over the post-Soviet and post-WARPAC space.

Except of course hobo is just as likely to knife you for ten bucks. What difference does it make that Rwandan genocide wasn't imperialism? You are still dead. I don't know about you but I would rather live under British rule and pay tribute to the British King than to live in Rwanda, Somalia, North Korea or Sudan.

Yeah, now you'd love to live under the benigh rule of a nation so rich on the blood of underdeveloped colonies it's not even fun anymore. Of course you would. However, what is the principal difference between the hardships in Somalia or North Korea or the hardships in British-ruled Ireland, India (from Pakistan to modern Bangladesh), Mandatory Palestine, Egypt, Kenya? You're still dead, right?

The difference, as you can see, is that Somalia can't invade the whole world and kill people across the entire world so that the sun will rise and set, and there wouldn't be a place on earth where Somalian colonizers wouldn't be killing, opressing, starving people.

Somalia can't invade even it's neighbors, so weak and pathetic it is. North Korea maybe can invade South Korea, but not much more, not at all. Neither China nor Russia. It wouldn't be able to take over South Korea as it is now. Sudan and Rwanda likewise can't take over the world and create a world empire where they'd be the masters and everyone else would be second-rate people, neoserfs whose life isn't worth even a good damn.

I never said that you support the Russian government nor is that in any way relevant to my argument which is that based on your previous posts you clearly support "Russia" as a geopolitical entity and that your hopes for the destruction of US (or West) are not a result of some kind of anationalist sensibility but out of very practical realization that it will benefit Russia.

How will it benefit Russia? Russian economy is dollarized, industry is degrading. The West is the only real customer for Russian oil, which keeps Russian people from starving like they do in Taijikistan, where there's no oil. A collapse of a Western currency even would be the collapse of Russia's economy pure and simple. The crisis of 2008 made Russia weaker and put the rouble into freefall, and the industry was crippled as a result. You've clearly flunked economics if you don't understand this. If the West falls, current Russia will fall with it. But considering current Russia is rather nightmarish, although less so than say Turkmenia or Kazakhstan, perhaps I'm not entirely objective here, you're right. Maybe I wish for that.

I was talking about mindsets - like you claimed that because the ancestors did something in the 19th century, people of the 21st lose the right to act?

Not as an absolute rule. But maybe that's a sound idea, though. If a nation claims continuancy from a government which "did something" in the XIX century, it is not a good idea to give it an opportunity to "do something again". If someone was running a concentration camp, and the next camp commandant inherited the power over the camp from his father, he bears the same responsibility. Few governments and few nations, if ever, renounced their past. You as a German live in a nation that was created after a war with and as a rejection of the fascist past. Germany's government can only claim continuancy from 1945. Obviously it hasn't commited a single imperialist act since then (I think Germany isn't invading Iraq, right?). The nation as a whole considers it legitimate.

Other nations do not have this luxury. You don't give vodka to a son who was born in a family of alcoholics - he is predisposed. You don't and you shouldn't trust hyperempires like Britain, America or France or Russia with enormous military power.

Because of course any move by today's European states = 18th century British?

See above. You don't give lots of vodka to an alcoholic's descendant. Especially to a son who never renounced his father when said father raped his wife, beat her and eventually killed her. The consequences of that can be dreadful.

Only those who renounce imperialism (as Germany) have a right to wield power responsibly in my view. But there's few nations like that. Most are alcoholic's sons who still consider their father a good guy, him the "Greatest Generation". Those shouldn't be trusted. Distrust is not a crime. I distrust all nations, but powerful nations first and foremost. Power makes it easier to convince the world.

[Kane Starkiller]

My point was that the weakening of NATO - a military structure - also brings a reduction in the military capabilities of member nations. Which makes European nations less capable of running foreign wars. Without a structure like NATO it would also be much harder for any action of the USA to look as anything but a unilateral war. "Coalitions of the willing" would be much harder to forge. So while the military power of the USA rises, the end of NATO could be a diplomatic debacle for the US; even if it would look like a positive thing at first.

What unjustified foreign wars did European powers wage under NATO exactly? Also how exactly did NATO make "Coalition of the willing" easier to gather? It was precisely the existence of NATO that decreased the legitimacy of US led invasion of Iraq when US went against the wishes of many of the NATO members.
And sure the end of NATO could be considered as a diplomatic debacle for US, but then that is one of my points: you argue from perspective of hurting US. I don't remember you arguing against SCO or CSTO even though they too increase military power.

Relations between racial groups in the US are better only because the US is well-off, while Russia and China are poor (Russia also has nationalists, who view other ethnicities as "outsiders" from their sovereign nations, not as Russian citizens, which is clearly not the case with America). However, feel free to prove that the relations between racial groups in China are much worse than those in the US. Are they, really? Are the relations between Mexicans and white Americans that much better? Are American rednecks much better than Russian neo-nazis (I havent' seen any Nazis in China, anyways)?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/17/pen ... index.html

"The evidence suggests that Mr. Ramirez was targeted, beaten and killed because he was Mexican," Rendell said. "Such lawlessness and violence hurts not only the victim of the attack but also our towns and communities that are torn apart by such bigotry and intolerance."

Whoa. Looks like in America you can get beaten to fucking death because you're Mexican. How is that any different from Russia, where the same can happen because you're Uzbek? Prove your point.

What exactly is that supposed to prove? Obviously there will always be assholes in every country and individual cases like this will happen. The question is how many Mexican born are there living in US? How many Uzbek born are living in Russia? How many Mexicans are immigrating into US each year? How many Uzbeks immigrated into Russia during the centuries it was in the same country as Russia, first the Russian Empire and then USSR.
I am talking about a national scale: US is letting in Mexicans and assimilating them, Russia failed to do that with Uzbekistan even when it was a part of the same country. Your counterpoint is to dig up some individual case and say "see they are the same".

I saw people protesting the immigration of Mexicans lately - you know, a nationality that's actually relevant, that's immigrating into the USA in great numbers and isn't simply a remains of a nation living in fucking reservations after being subjected to one of the greatest ethnocides in history. By the way, Russia, when it took over the Caucasus and made it part of the Russian Empire, put Georgians, Ossetians, Abkhazis and Chechens into reservations and gave them smallpox blankets so that they all die out and don't stand in the way of the glorious future? Was that really what happened, or is that what you would want Russia to do; except that's something it didn't do - American "multi-ethnic" colonists did that. And the fact that they were part British, part Irish, part god-knows-who didn't stop them from ethnociding the bloody guts out of the Natives. How can the Natives "immigrate" into America? The modern American "nation" fucking annihilated them.

Apples and oranges. I was comparing groups that were conquered by America and Russia centuries ago and were part of those two countries for centuries: Native Americans and Caucasians. Mexicans coming in during the last 50 years don't qualify. Neither of the two groups were annihilated since they number in the millions as they did when they were first conquered your attempts to equate individuals giving out smallpox blankets with genocide notwithstanding. But more importantly you again evade the point: the exact ruthlessness level 150 years ago is not relevant. What is relevant is how each country is treating those people today. No one in New York today will protest if Native Americans immigrate into it from South Dakota the way Muscovites are protesting en masse over the immigration of Caucasians-the people that were a part of not only USSR but of Russia in particular for centuries.

Interventions don't stem from power. They stem from a desire to intervene. You can have power, but ignore a place and not intervene unless that is in your interests. Power does not produce intervention in and of itself. Power, and especially military power, is a means to an end. The US developed its military complex to make war against its adversaries and keep necessary hotpoints under control; it did not just make shitloads of weapons and soldiers for no reason and then go "LOOK, we have lots of war material, lets make use of it". Likewise Germany developed a military in the 1930s to take over territories it wanted, Danzig, Czechoslovakia, later all of Eastern Europe up to the Urals. Likewise the USSR in the 1930s developed a military to restore the "territories of the former Russian Empire" unto Russian dominion. Military is a means to an end. It is not the end and it is not the reason for interventions.

However, it is also true that the existence of a vast military power provokes interventions, because it makes easier to decide in favor of a war when you have lots of weapons. It is much harder to decide in favor of a war if you don't have the military that could complete desired objectives. And if your military is weak and pathetic, objectives will be likewise limited.

If your military is strong, you can become high on power, like on a drug. Ambitions keep rising and rising, until they become global. The British Empire was born exactly that way. Global power gives food to global ambitions; and those ambitions pressure you to get even more military power. It was actually quite the same with the USSR; in a while it saw that it is mighty and powerful, with a military capable of supporting foreign interventions. Slowly it reached out to South America, to the Carribean, to India and Egypt. The military power it received corrupted it; made it a part of the Great Powers club. And all major powers are guilty of this; of trying to remake the world in their image, to use their military power to fuel ambitions and ambitions to "explain" to the people just why we need such a great military.

So if Albania starts desiring to intervene in 20 years they might develop a military to invade Argentina? It doesn't work that way. Countries attack either because they fear an external attack is imminent or because they feel they need outside resources to survive or expand.
Every powerful country is imperialistic to some extent and I never disagreed with that.
But nothing you said above has anything to do with the original point: how US treats its multiethnic multiracial population and how redefinition of "nation" enables US to assimilate various groups.

Yeah, the same immigrants that can get killed for appearance, like that Uzbek janitor in some street in Voronezh. Which is the synonim to Bumfuck Nowhere. Don't give me this crap - I simply said that as a communist I hate nationalism and I dislike the very idea of nation-states. You somehow decided to say that this is unreasonable or something. It's not. It is the logical consequence of being internationalist. Communism isn't just an economic system, it is an ideology which includes internationalism and a firm stance on the equality of nations. The inability of either Soviet or post-Soviet rulers to protect one nation from violence inflicted by another nation is lamentable, but how is that relevant to the fact that this is a worthy goal?

See above. I'm talking about national level, I wasn't attacking Russia for any individual hate crimes which any country will inevitably have. I never said that equality of nations isn't a worthy goal just don't see how exactly do you plan to do it better than the West.

Actually Russians immigrated into Central Asia a lot. As for nationalism not triumphing, it is hard to say it has not triumphed. It definetely has. Nationalist parties are in power. Openly nationalist, sometimes fascist and clinically insane dictators are in power (Niyazov, for example, was clinically insane, while Putin and Medvedev are part of a nationalist oligarchic dictatorship, something you can't even seriously dispute). Saakashvili is another nationalist dictator, so are Nazarbayev and Lukashenko.

It is clear as day that nationalism as a policy has triumphed. From the crazy clericalist anti-abortion, homophobic constitution in Hungary to Niyazov's golden statue madness in a desert full of oil and poorly fed people, nationalism, fascism, fundamentalist clericalism has triumphed all over the post-Soviet and post-WARPAC space.

No offence but are you reading my posts? Yes Russians immigrated into Central Asia that is my point. Russians were encouraged to immigrate to non-Russian and non-Slavic parts but non-Slavs were discouraged from immigration into Slavic parts.
Again: why weren't there Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Turkmens and Azeris in Moscow or Kiev in significant percentages even as late as 1970s and 1980s? After centuries in the same country one would expect that at least the capital of Russian Empire and later USSR would be a melting pot of various ethnicities with Central Asians and caucasians immigrating into the more developed parts. Yet exactly opposite happened: Russians immigrated into less developed parts of Central Asia. It's a textbook example of imperialist racist "dillute the non-Slavs in general and non-Russians in particular" policy that continued during the entire period of communist rule.
Nationalism was a policy during the communist rule and there is absolutely no surprise it all ended the way it did when economic woes in the late 80s weakened the power of the center.

Yeah, now you'd love to live under the benigh rule of a nation so rich on the blood of underdeveloped colonies it's not even fun anymore. Of course you would. However, what is the principal difference between the hardships in Somalia or North Korea or the hardships in British-ruled Ireland, India (from Pakistan to modern Bangladesh), Mandatory Palestine, Egypt, Kenya? You're still dead, right?

The difference, as you can see, is that Somalia can't invade the whole world and kill people across the entire world so that the sun will rise and set, and there wouldn't be a place on earth where Somalian colonizers wouldn't be killing, opressing, starving people.

Somalia can't invade even it's neighbors, so weak and pathetic it is. North Korea maybe can invade South Korea, but not much more, not at all. Neither China nor Russia. It wouldn't be able to take over South Korea as it is now. Sudan and Rwanda likewise can't take over the world and create a world empire where they'd be the masters and everyone else would be second-rate people, neoserfs whose life isn't worth even a good damn.

Except of course if British were killing people at a rate and density Hutu were killing Tutsi they would be killing 200 million Indians within a year right? Which means that during the time period of a century the British would quite literaly exterminate every last human being in their entire Empire. Never mind the many constructive and beneficial thins the British did during their rule unlike in Sudan, Rwanda and North Kore today. But as long as it's your own people that are slaughtering you instead of evil imperialists that's OK.
It doesn't matter if North Koreans have to eat grass as long as it's not the British that make them eat grass.
BTW Somalia can indeed cause problems since it serves as a base for pirate activity around the horn of Africa. If things continue it might even be necessary to invade their territory and destroy and contain the spread of pirate activity. Or would that be evil interventionalism?

How will it benefit Russia? Russian economy is dollarized, industry is degrading. The West is the only real customer for Russian oil, which keeps Russian people from starving like they do in Taijikistan, where there's no oil. A collapse of a Western currency even would be the collapse of Russia's economy pure and simple. The crisis of 2008 made Russia weaker and put the rouble into freefall, and the industry was crippled as a result. You've clearly flunked economics if you don't understand this. If the West falls, current Russia will fall with it. But considering current Russia is rather nightmarish, although less so than say Turkmenia or Kazakhstan, perhaps I'm not entirely objective here, you're right. Maybe I wish for that.

I never said you thought everything through. I'm just repeating what I saw you post on this board: repeated statements of support for Russian spread of influence, reformation of USSR, SCO, rise of China as a foil to US and statements in which you wish for destruction or decline of the West in general and US in particular. I also saw you stating several times that US overconsumption of oil is one of that major reasons for economic woes of other countries but now you seem to be changing your tune and suddenly saying that US oil/energy consumption is actually keeping Russia afloat (I actually do agree more with the latter than with the former).
Another example would be justifying Russian intervention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia but when it comes to discussion of NATO/US/West decrying any sort of interventionalism in the name of new-age communism or something. Now I'm not saying that you were in the wrong for arguing that Russian intervention was justified, the point is merely that you obviously don't think that any and all intervention is a priori bad and that Russia was in the right in this particular case. It's not really difficult to piece together your real position even if you don't come out and explicitly say it.
I'm guessing you are banking on the fact that while immediate effects of US/West collapse would be damaging to Russia in the long term you are hoping Russia will benefit from it by expanding its influence and territory over Eurasia without US to stop it. But I have no idea what your internal thought process is, all I know is what I read.
Now, to be sure, I'm not blaming you that as a Russian you would like for Russia to overpower US but be open about it so we can have a honest discussion.

[K. A. Pital]

What unjustified foreign wars did European powers wage under NATO exactly? Also how exactly did NATO make "Coalition of the willing" easier to gather? It was precisely the existence of NATO that decreased the legitimacy of US led invasion of Iraq when US went against the wishes of many of the NATO members. And sure the end of NATO could be considered as a diplomatic debacle for US, but then that is one of my points: you argue from perspective of hurting US. I don't remember you arguing against SCO or CSTO even though they too increase military power.

NATO invaded Afghanistan, despite Osama being in Pakistan and the attack on 9/11 aimed against the US. SCO or CSTO deserve to exist only as a counterbalance to a powerful military alliance. If NATO is gone, the SCO has no reason to exist. None at all, other than imperialism in Central Asia. NATO created a network of clandestine fascist and neo-nazi agents in their own member nations as a "safeguard" against a communist invasion. I'm not sure European powers waged "wars under NATO", but surely enough you know that Britain and France invaded Egypt not so far from now? And you probably know that Srebrenica was during the Bosnian war, but NATO bombed Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war, which was much less clear-cut as to who was the victim party. Kosovars ethnically cleansed Serbs, the Serbs did the same.

I am talking about a national scale: US is letting in Mexicans and assimilating them, Russia failed to do that with Uzbekistan even when it was a part of the same country. Your counterpoint is to dig up some individual case and say "see they are the same".

Um... why would Russia "let in" Uzbeks and assimilate them when Russia and Uzbekistan were one nation. That's like saying "America is not letting Texas to massively immigrate to New York". That simply doesn't happen because there's no reason for that. On the other hand, your point was that there's no tensity in America between nationalities because of ... magic, whereas there's lots of tensity in Russia and China. CHINA! You dropped that example entirely, because you probably realized it was fucking bullshit. But you continue to press on the Russia angle. Despite both examples being quite relevant. Uzbekistan became impoverished after the USSR collapsed; this is what encourages immigration, often illegal. Mexico is impoverished, and many Mexicans immigrate ILLEGALY into the USA. In both nations illegal immigrants face the threat of death from redneck / nazi groups.

No one in New York today will protest if Native Americans immigrate into it from South Dakota the way Muscovites are protesting en masse over the immigration of Caucasians-the people that were a part of not only USSR but of Russia in particular for centuries.

Native Americans love to live according to Sharia law and attempt to install it everywhere? Maybe Americans don't worry about Sharia-fanatic Pakistanis immigrating? Oh, no, I heard they were batshit fucking crazy in their fear of islamism (now that it outlived its usefulness as anti-Soviet tool). France, another First World nation, closed borders when there was supposed to be an influx of Ah-rabs. They also banned the burqa. Hum, why is that? Maybe your comparison between Islamist radicals from the Caucasus and Native Americans is a dishonest strawman?

So if Albania starts desiring to intervene in 20 years they might develop a military to invade Argentina?

Yes, if Albania would want to intervene or conquer someone, they'll build up a military capable of that.

I'm talking about national level, I wasn't attacking Russia for any individual hate crimes which any country will inevitably have. I never said that equality of nations isn't a worthy goal just don't see how exactly do you plan to do it better than the West.

So Russia is treating the Uzbeks as a state worse than the USA? Prove it. Because Uzbeks suffer from hate crimes. Just as Mexicans. And there are lots of illegal Uzbek immigrants, like lots of illegal Mexicans. Here's why the comparison is relevant. America isn't letting all Mexicans who want in "openly", they build a fucking wall and conduct hunts of illegal immigrants. It wasn't too long ago when America deported millions of Mexicans in the 1930 and then in the 1950s! You're crazy if you say America "welcomes" Mexicans all the time and in any quantities. Just as Russia only "welcomes" legal Uzbeks (but even legal immigrants can be killed in hate crimes). Just like legal Mexican immigrants can die in hate crimes.

...but non-Slavs were discouraged from immigration into Slavic parts

There were no legal barriers in the post-1950s USSR to immigrating into the RSFSR. But industries in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya, elsewhere were WORKING and people had food, wage and a place to work. Of course mass pauperization MADE THEM to immigrate even more massively. But go on, prove that there were laws which prevented Uzbeks or Kazakhs from moving to Moscow or Omsk. There are a lot of Kazakhs in Omsk who moved during the 1980s. Nobody stopped them. You're lying, perhaps?

Russians immigrated into less developed parts of Central Asia. It's a textbook example of imperialist racist "dillute the non-Slavs in general and non-Russians in particular" policy that continued during the entire period of communist rule.

I thought ethnically homogenous regions were hotbeds of nationalism, so mixing people was okay. Also, respond to the point above. There were no barriers for Ukranians, Kazakhs or Uzbeks to move to Moscow; at least, no legal ones that I'd know of. Many of them simply prefered their own nation, which at the time had industry, wages and food. And no civil war, like Tajikistan had in the 1990s. You're lying, plain and simple, right?

But it turns out you're lying. Since 1975 Russia (RSFSR) was a net recipient of immigrants, to such an extent that immigration became the most important source of population growth (natural pop growth amont RSFSR citizens was negative by the time). Explain this, then?

Nationalism was a policy during the communist rule and there is absolutely no surprise it all ended the way

So what exactly barred Kazakhs from moving to Moscow?

Except of course if British were killing people at a rate and density Hutu were killing Tutsi they would be killing 200 million Indians within a year right?

Heh. The British often managed to "alleviate" and ignore famines to bring about 10, 20 or 30 million deaths in a year or so. Of course, not 200 million, but I bet you wouldn't like to be among them.

Never mind the many constructive and beneficial thins the British did

We're talking about other things. Like torturing in Mandatory Palestine, British Raj, Ireland, running penal construction with a 50% death rate, building railways with slave labour, castrating their political opponents, throwing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of political prisoners in jail in the 1900s British Raj. But sure, if "constructive things" excuse this, then autobahns excuse Hitlerite genocide, and the economic worth of the Belmorkanal excuses the deaths of GULAG workers sent to build it.

So pardon me while I gleefuly ignore "constructive and beneficial things" the British did, at the same time as they tortured second-rate people, chain up people like cattle to an oil press and then lash them with the cat-o-nine tails so that they'd run fast. I hate Britain, by the way, did I tell you that. I love it, too, because it is a nightmarish industrial progress colossus crushing people like bugs and spreading suffering in a myriad of ways.

If I were ever to forget or to excuse the British Empire's history, I would praise it, because if you remove the crimes, an industrial triumph of an enormous magnitude is left standing on its own, a marvel which I can only bow before and humbly learn. Heh.

As long as it's your own people that are slaughtering you instead of evil imperialists that's OK.

It's not okay, idiot, but it is less dangerous. You can only kill your own people - you're a local danger. You can kill ANYONE ANYWHERE? You're a fucking global danger. If you're too stupid to comprehend the difference, think about a person armed with a knife and another with an RPG and AK-47 and a tank. The one with the latter weapons would clearly be able to do more damage.

Or would that be evil interventionalism?

Unless you feed them, if you just invade and make them end piracy and then watch as they fucking starve and die - it would be evil, and no amount of apologism would change it.

I also saw you stating several times that US overconsumption of oil is one of that major reasons for economic woes of other countries but now you seem to be changing your tune and suddenly saying that US oil/energy consumption is actually keeping Russia afloat (I actually do agree more with the latter than with the former).

Yes, overconsumption of US oil is a cause of economic woes for other nations; resource needle. But it also keeps Russia afloat. That cripple oligarchic shithole is afloat thanks to oil. Just like Niyazov's crazyland. I'm sorry, how is that "contradictory"?

Another example would be justifying Russian intervention in Abkhazia and South Ossetia

One imperialism against another. Russian imperialism versus Georgian imperialism. You're ready to pick a side? Not me. I refered to that on several occasions as "Russian imperialism", BTW.

But I have no idea what your internal thought process is, all I know is what I read.

You probably figured out that I hate the entire status quo that now exists in the world, I hate suffering, I hate poverty, I hate hypocrites, imperialism, war, and everything associated with that. I haven't yet devised a system to replace it, but I believe people eventually will. That's all.

[TC Pilot]

Native Americans love to live according to Sharia law and attempt to install it everywhere? Maybe Americans don't worry about Sharia-fanatic Pakistanis immigrating? Oh, no, I heard they were batshit fucking crazy in their fear of islamism (now that it outlived its usefulness as anti-Soviet tool). France, another First World nation, closed borders when there was supposed to be an influx of Ah-rabs. They also banned the burqa. Hum, why is that? Maybe your comparison between Islamist radicals from the Caucasus and Native Americans is a dishonest strawman?

Funnily enough, the state of Alabama, which in the past decade has had the highest percentage increase of illegal (read: Latin American) immigrants, just last week passed the country's strictest anti-immigration legislation to date (exceding even the law passed in Arizona last year that made such a storm of controversy).

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, international law agrees with me. Germany paid reparations to entire nations. Africa and India and many others were seeking reparations from Britain.

If your government is continous (in case of Britain and USA, two major imperialist hyperpowers of the XIX-XX century, it clearly is), or claims succession from the prior government (Russia from the USSR) - yes, you can claim for reparations. Yes, guilt falls upon the children. Like if you borrow too much today, your children will be debt slaves. If you kill Africans today, tomorrow your children will pay for that.

You disagree?

Stas, I'm not at all sure how you reconcile the ideas of blood guilt with the idea of being above racism and nationalism. Race and nationality are about the only ways to even define groups that exist over multiple generations. If I am morally responsible for what my ancestors did five or eight generations ago, it can only be because of the continuity between me now and my ancestors then.

How do you talk about the crimes of 19th century Britons against 19th century Indians, or 19th century whites against 19th century blacks, without giving legitimacy to the idea that men are properly grouped into long-term, enduring races and nationalities as opposed to classes?

I can understand how this fits together if your argument is that the 19th century Western bourgeoisie in general was monstrously oppressive to the people of what is now the Third World (as well as being oppressive to their own people, obviously). But that doesn't seem to be how you phrased it.

[Lonestar]

Wrong. None has enough cash to keep up an army able to defend its foreign economic interests. Quaddafi is a threat to economics, not to our population. That's why most nations don't want to spend a lot on a war with him. A real threat would receive much more attention.

The point is that US thinks that "defending foreign economic interests" = "defending the nation" (it's an imperialistic way of looking at the world, and it's fine if you have the money), for most european countries that's a luxury.
But it's not necessarily a bad thing.

There is nothing in that statement that disagrees with mine. NATO was wringing it's hands about Libya, it wanted to do something about Libya, the French and British took leading roles in calling for something to be done about Libya, But they couldn't do a thing until the US kicked in the door. NATO outside of the US is useless for "Highly kinetic military operations". Wanna drive around in a truck doing peacekeeping duties? Cool. Want stop a dictator with a 30 year old air defense system? Turns out all of European NATO can't do that. You have to plead to the US to take care of stuff in their backyard.

If America is always willing to invade people with the slightest provocation, why would anyone else in NATO bother to maintain a large standing army? If America started saying 'no' instead of crying about it like a sissy girl, maybe they'd see changes, or maybe Europe would just be more peaceful.

The complaint is that Europe wanted to stop Libya, but was completely unable(or unwilling) to without the US kicking in the door and making it difficult for any of their people to get shot down.

It would be like if a similar situation arose in the Western Hemisphere, but the US refused to do anything until they got the Euros to obliterate the air defense network of the country in question. If you can't take positive control of the situation in your own neighborhood then it invites criticism.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, I'm not at all sure how you reconcile the ideas of blood guilt with the idea of being above racism and nationalism. Race and nationality are about the only ways to even define groups that exist over multiple generations. If I am morally responsible for what my ancestors did five or eight generations ago, it can only be because of the continuity between me now and my ancestors then.

I was talking about nation-states, primarily, which are entities that survive over generations. A Kenyan or an Irishman can sue the current Britain (and by that the British government) for torture because it is the same continous government that ordered his torture. But if he wins, who is going to pay? The torturer, or the torturers' generation? Probably not. The British government will pay it out of the government's funds. But the British government only controls what the taxpayers - the citizenry - give it. So it would mean that if Kenya or Ireland or India win a court-of-law case against Britain, the children will pay for the sins of the fathers.

I never said I would like this to exist, but international law seems to work that way regardless of my wishes. Besides, if you never properly disclaimed any continuancy from the prior government, you can be held responsible for any actions of your nation in the past. Perhaps you could frame this in a "international law is racist" and "lawsuits for reparations should have a term of expiry" type of phrase... However, why should a crime of torture or murder have a term of expiry when we are talking about governments and nation-states, entities that survive over several generations?

How do you talk about the crimes of 19th century Britons against 19th century Indians, or 19th century whites against 19th century blacks, without giving legitimacy to the idea that men are properly grouped into long-term, enduring races and nationalities as opposed to classes? I can understand how this fits together if your argument is that the 19th century Western bourgeoisie in general was monstrously oppressive to the people of what is now the Third World (as well as being oppressive to their own people, obviously). But that doesn't seem to be how you phrased it.

See above. In this debate with Thanas I merely pointed to the fact that as of now, international law has not invented any type of "forgiveness" for crimes that have no term of expirity. Murder and torture don't have a term when they expire, if they are commited by a nation-state. Any nation-state is a system, a society and a government. When someone "sues Britain", he does sue the British government. But since the government's funds are the people's funds, in the end he's suing modern-day Britons for what their ancestors did.

You may dislike that very idea. But is it racist? Or is the opposing idea - that you should forgive all crimes once those who commited them die, and never demand any reparations from the nation-state in question - not racist? This would open the door to horrific transgressions. Just wait until Bush, Cheney and most of the people in charge of the invasion die, use the international pressure of the USA, and Iraq would never be able to file a lawsuit against the US government. The concept of forgiving transgenerational entities like governments and nationstates is, in my view, much, much more dangerous than the currently existing principle of acceptable search for reparations for past misdeeds.

By the time Britain left India, a whole century has passed after Indians last rebelled in 1857. Could India seek reparations for the damage caused by that incident, the torture and the murders done at the behest of Britain? According to your principle, no, it lost this right because the generations have changed. But it was still opressed for a century and of course it could not challenge Britain during these 100 years at all. It could only do so after almost a hundred years expired!

A mesmerizing fact is revealed - it would be beneficial for the opressor to keep the opressed under his yoke for as long as possible, so that they lose all right to reparations or retribution merely due to "passage of time". It would be beneficial for Indonesia to keep East Timor subdued for a century, because then Sukharto generation which commited the genocide, dies, and there'll be no right to seek reparations from "current Indonesians" for "what their fathers did". It would be beneficial and rational for the USSR to never ever let Eastern European nations become de-facto independent, stop being satellites, because once they do, they could reasonably seek reparations for damages caused in 1956, 1968, etc. from current Russians! Thus it would only become acceptable for the USSR to release them from orbit around... 2056, 2068 or some such term, when it becomes unfeasible to sue.

I am not a big fan of "sue the son for the father". However, nation-states and governments are not individuals and should not be treated as such.

[Simon_Jester]

All right, Stas. I perceived an inconsistency between the anti-nationalist stance and the "intergenerational debt" stance, but as a practical matter enforcement is such a problem.

I don't have a problem with governments being held liable for intergenerational debts, within reason.* I would think that you would, but I recognize that you see such a big enforcement issue (how do we hold anyone accountable for any crime otherwise?), and so you accept that yes, it is reasonable for international law to tax the current generation for the sins of their fathers. Which does help to clarify your position.

But it becomes awkward when you say "Britain has no right to a say in the present affairs of remote countries because of thier historical abuse of remote countries" and then turn around and say "I am anti-nationalist, I would prefer that national groupings not exist and that all people would be treated equally regardless of where they live."

There is a certain discord there, you see, though one which (consistent with your normal preferences) tends to work to the advantage of the weak at the expense of the strong.
___________

*At some point, a consequentialist argument has to prevail, because otherwise it is all too possible for attempts to punish People A for abusing People B to turn into quasi-cyclic standing waves of suffering, bouncing back and forth.

Or because the scope of the damage is such that there is simply no one left who can be repaid in meaningful terms, at which point there is really not much you can do but accept a historical fait accompli and throw serious resources at bettering the lot of whatever abused minority were the victims of that abuse. No one can fully repay the natives of the Americas for the conquest of their continents and the destruction of so much of their civilizations, because there are not enough left of them to repay. Giving them the entire continents back would create something like a billion new refugees, the vast majority of which had lived out their lives "in good faith," without harboring any intent of their own to rob the natives or profit by their losses. And it would do this without actually benefiting the Native Americans that much, except to give them free title to a huge tract of land they lack the numbers to use.

But there is a lot of room for reparations demands to be made in a logical form. The existence of intergenerational political entities certainly justifies them.

[K. A. Pital]

Yup. My position is consistently to ensure that the weak is protected, moreso than the strong. Intergenerational reparations clearly benefit the weak one; at some point he might become at least independent enough to demand his damage be compensated.

I don't like the principle of intergenerational debt, if you ask me personally. It does reek of nationalism, and too often this question can become a nationalist rallying cry.

However, on the other hand are transnational mega-entities who can screw over "weaklings" for centuries until the damage done is so far back suing becomes hard. Witness Union Carbide's Bhopal story. Those who did it are still alive. And even then properly forcing them to clean up the entire mess, cover the cost of treatment for all poisoned and crippled citizens is enormously hard. That's like an uphill battle. It is even more of an uphill battle when this is a descendant suing for evil done to his ancestor. However, uncanny as this sounds, the position of the descendant may very well be impacted by the fact that in the past, a foreign government killed or crippled his father.

Sometimes it is clear you should leave room for action. I bet Barack Obama's grandpa would have some words to say about America's bestest friends in Europe. To be frank, the more I learn about Britain's imperial actions, the more I think that Britain - especially as a rich nation which can pay - should pay back. And there's lots to be paid back even taking the XX century alone.

Britain has no right to a say in the present affairs of remote countries because of thier historical abuse of remote countries

Not like that, a bit more like "Britain can have a say, but should it have a gun to force its say at gunpoint, given historical precedent?" People should be treated equally regardless of nation. It doesn't mean Britons should have less rights than Somalis. But it does mean the British government should not have any more rights than Somali government (when that place gets a government, anyway).

My position seems to me pretty consistent. I am supporting the British goverment losing military capacity, but not its citizens losing civil rights or something like that. Yes, through degrading of military capacity I support the British government losing a "right" to meddle in the affairs of other "remote" nations. But the truth is there never was a right to meddle in these affairs, the British simply did it using weapons and power, and then made laws that would codify the existing order.

So I'm not proposing Britain losing any "rights to meddle". Britain, like other nation-states, never had any such right. I doubt there's even such a concept as a "right to intefere". Usually intereference is done simply because of national interest, sometimes out of a moral imperative (very, very rare occasion). But on a basis of a "right"? Probably not.

Internal migration in the USSR - for Kane Starkiller
I just did a quick search on internal migration in the USSR, specifically centered on internal migration to the RSFSR. This migration clearly existed during all of Soviet Union's existence, even if the migration saldo was negative (as in 1950-1975, for example, where the number of RSFSR citizens emigrating to other republics was greater than the number of immigrating citizens). As an example of early migrations, one could note that in 1926-1939, the number of Kazakhs in the RSFSR increased 2,3 times.

In 1975-1989, 13 million immigrants entered the RSFSR. According to the 1989 census, there were 10,5 million permanent RSFSR residents born in other republics of the USSR, and another half-a-million permanent residents with non-USSR territory of birth. In the period since 1979 to 1989, the number of Kyrgyz and Tadzhik in the RSFSR rose 1,7 times, Uzbek and Turkmen - 2,1 and 2,8 times, compared to their natural population growth of 1,3 and 1,4. They were intensively immigrating to the RSFSR. The number of Central Asia-born in the RSFSR from 1959 to 1989 rose from 42 to 247 thousand, i.e. a five-fold increase. On the other hand, 4 million emigrants born in the RSFSR ended up in former Soviet republics in 1990. Clearly the net saldo of migration was in favor of immigration to the RSFSR. Although one should note that most Russian migrants were in Central Asia (3 million), due to Khrushev's policy of labour migration to Central Asia during the "new lands" campaign.

Maybe you want to know what happened to Caucasus? Georgia, Azerbajan, Armenia? The number of Georgians in RSFSR rose from 58 thousand in 1959 to 131 thousand in 1989, azerbajanis from 71 thousand in 1959 to 337 thousand in 1989, armenians from 256 thousand in 1959 to 533 thousand in 1989. Moreover, in total the number of Russians in the Caucasus decreased from 965 thousand in 1959 to 782 thousand in 1989, whereas the number of Caucasians in Russia increased from 385 to 1001 thousand during the same period. So whereas Russian diaspora in the Caucasus decreased, Caucasian population in Russia almost tripled.

In total, non-Russians composed 18,5% of the RSFSR population in 1989.

Finally, a capitalist comparison. During 1989—2000, 11 million immigrants entered Russia. See a big difference with the Soviet migration figures in 1975-1989? I don't.

And... Moscow! Let's see how the national question evolved in this city.

First, Tsarist times. 1897 census shows that there were 95% Russians in Moscow. All other nationalities comprised 5%, and the share of each was less than 0,5%!

Next, 1939. Russians = 87,4% of population. 2,2% are Ukrainians and 1,4% are... Tartars! Those pesky Tatar Mongols, how could the communists let them into Moscow! In Tsar's times there were only 0,4% of those.

Then, 1970, 1979 and 1989. Russians are 89-90% of the population. Jews comprise 3,6-2,8%, Tatars 1,5-1,7%, Ukrainians 2,8%. Other nationalities comprise in total 10,3% of Moscow's population by the time USSR collapsed (1989).

Surprisingly, this proportion doesn't change much even now. 85% of Moscow is still Russian by 2002, despite "mass migration" (but we figured out above that migration was not much more speedy or massive than Soviet migration).

What would you say now, Kane?

[Thanas]

The right to interfere lies in international law. Intervention out of humanitarian reasons and pre-emptive wars to defend your nation are recognized as such.

Also, I reject your approach because it essentially makes some states less equal than others, when the citizens of said state have done nothing to deserve that. I do not like it when the sovereignty of nations is infringed upon.

[K. A. Pital]

The right to interfere lies in international law.

Which was composed by major powers.

Intervention out of humanitarian reasons and pre-emptive wars to defend your nation are recognized as such.

Wars to defend your territory are not related to intervention. Especially far-away intervention like I mention below.

Also, I reject your approach because it essentially makes some states less equal than others, when the citizens of said state have done nothing to deserve that. I do not like it when the sovereignty of nations is infringed upon.

It makes some governments less equal than others, because the governments of said nation did enormous amounts of things to deserve that.

Don't strawman my point, Thanas. Citizens of Britain will not lose civil rights if Britain loses the ability to put a bomb into some insurgent or Third World government soldier somewhere 5000 miles away from the British isles. Neither would the citizens of France or Germany.

Besides, citizens of Britain do a lot to deserve this. They have never publicly rejected their imperialistic government like Turkey or Germany. They support the continuancy of the British government for several centuries. That's enough. You support continuancy from imperialist government and with that, responsibility for its prior actions? You deserve all the scorn and contempt you can get. You can't support continuancy but say "Uh-huh, I don't want to be responsible for this nations' historical shitty-poo, I only want to continue this government which is the same government and has same legitimacy and lineage as the prior government". It doesn't work that way.

Hell, the French with their multiple oustings and revolutions have a better claim to non-responsibility for the acts of the French Empire than the British.

[Thanas]

The right to interfere lies in international law.

Which was composed by major powers.

Not really.

Wars to defend your territory are not related to intervention. Especially far-away intervention like I mention below.

Ah, so it is not a prohibition not to interfere, it is a prohibition not to intervene far away. How do you define far-away and why did you chose not to answer my point regarding humane intervention, like in say Bosnia?

It makes some governments less equal than others, because the governments of said nation did enormous amounts of things to deserve that.

So once again, sovereignty of nations suddenly does not matter. Also, I was unaware Lord Salisbury reigns in perpetuity.

That's enough. You support continuancy from imperialist government and with that, responsibility for its prior actions? You deserve all the scorn and contempt you can get. You can't support continuancy but say "Uh-huh, I don't want to be responsible for this nations' historical shitty-poo, I only want to continue this government which is the same government and has same legitimacy and lineage as the prior government". It doesn't work that way.

Hell, the French with their multiple oustings and revolutions have a better claim to non-responsibility for the acts of the French Empire than the British.

Responsibility I could get behind, but I cannot support any system that forever keeps nations like Britain relegated to second-class status. In many cases, it is the right to intervene and the capacity to do so which secures the civil rights of citizens, like how no african dictator can detain and torture British or European citizens without the thought of "well, maybe the Royal Marines will pay me a visit".

[K. A. Pital]

I've erased your double post, if you don't mind. Also:

Which was composed by major powers.

Not really.

Okay. Who then created the bulk of international legal documents in the XIX-XX century? Aliens? Third Worlders? Former colonies? No.

Ah, so it is not a prohibition not to interfere, it is a prohibition not to intervene far away. How do you define far-away and why did you chose not to answer my point regarding humane intervention, like in say Bosnia?

Where the hell did you get that "prohibition" bit? I simply said no nation has any intrinsic right to interefer. Someone may grant this nation a right to interfere (the whole idea behind the UN mandate, you know), but in and of itself, no nation has the right to interfere in the affairs of another nation. More or less the very concept of sovereignity and independence. I said that the loss of military capacity and thus the capability to interfere would not enroach on any rights of the citizens of said nation.

So once again, sovereignty of nations suddenly does not matter. Also, I was unaware Lord Salisbury reigns in perpetuity.

Why? Nobody is infringing on Britain's "sovereignity". Nowhere did I argue for a ban on British interventions or French interventions. I merely said that them losing military capacity will make them less prone to intervention and less capable to carry out interventions. None of this trumps their sovereignity. You were unaware that Britain's government is a continous entity which never repudiated itself over the course of several centuries? In a way, it does reign in perpetuity. Unlike many other nations who destroyed their own governments and revoked their imperial claims (say, Turkey with the fall of the Ottoman empire, Russia after the revolution revoking the Empire's claim to Finland and Poland, post-war Germany utterly rejecting any territorial claims of the Reich - there's lots of such examples).

Responsibility I could get behind, but I cannot support any system that forever keeps nations like Britain relegated to second-class status. In many cases, it is the right to intervene and the capacity to do so which secures the civil rights of citizens, like how no african dictator can detain and torture British or European citizens without the thought of "well, maybe the Royal Marines will pay me a visit".

Second-class? You're being deliberately insulting, right, Thanas? Britain, a wealthy, militarily powerful First World nation which has conquered an enormous chunk of the world (and don't give me this "well they gave Britain the opportunity to get conquered, because they were weak, so it's dandy fine uh-nuh", kinda like defending the rapist because the rape victim was a weak woman). Britain, the same nation that could just a few decades ago invade Egypt because Egypt decided to nationalize the Suez Canal? Britain, whose torture and murder victims died forgotten, and those who still breathe remain uncompensated, because, well, Britain is Britain and Kenya is bumfuck nowhere and Joe Nobody?

Are you sure we're talking about the same nation?

In many cases, it is the right to intervene and the capacity to do so which secures the civil rights of citizens, like how no african dictator can detain and torture British or European citizens without the thought of "well, maybe the Royal Marines will pay me a visit".

Oh yes, how glorious - the fear of military might gives Europeans a higher level of protection in the world. "Gunboat diplomacy" is a positive thing, because it keeps the White Mister - the world's most successful opressor with centuries of bloodshed and slavery on his hands - safer than those Third Worlders.

Why is that a good thing? Why should the life of a European be worth more than that of a Third worlder? It should not. Weapons that keep Europeans' status as the world overclass aren't serving any good goal whatsoever.

I'm not making the British a "second-rate nation". I'm making them follow the same rules that are there for every small nation. Pakistan can't put a Tomahawk into the White House because America tortured the fuck out of Pakistani farmers, sometimes completely innocent, in Gitmo and secret prisons everywhere. Why should Britain have more rights than Pakistan, whose citizens Britain castrated, tortured, massacred, incarcerated in thousands if not hundreds of thousands?

[Thanas]

I've erased your double post, if you don't mind. Also:

Which was composed by major powers.

Not really.

Okay. Who then created the bulk of international legal documents in the XIX-XX century? Aliens? Third Worlders? Former colonies? No.

Now you are being obtuse. International law was started by a lot of nations but the birth of modern international law was Munster/Osnabrück in 1648 and Grotius, the former being explicitly created to protect smaller nations from the Reich. The institute of sovereignty explicitly protects smaller nations - the bigger ones are already so big that their de facto power is enough.

Where the hell did you get that "prohibition" bit? I simply said no nation has any intrinsic right to interefer. Someone may grant this nation a right to interfere (the whole idea behind the UN mandate, you know), but in and of itself, no nation has the right to interfere in the affairs of another nation. More or less the very concept of sovereignity and independence. I said that the loss of military capacity and thus the capability to interfere would not enroach on any rights of the citizens of said nation.

Except that the mere concept of sovereignty is worthless without sufficient force to back it up, see Somalia. I also agree with you that in it itself, no nation has the right to interfere. I merely dispute your earlier assertion that "weaker" nations get more of a pass than "stronger nations".

Why? Nobody is infringing on Britain's "sovereignity". Nowhere did I argue for a ban on British interventions or French interventions.

I saw that you qualified your earlier post in a response to Simon_Jester, which I apparently missed. I am well satisfied with that clarification.

(and don't give me this "well they gave Britain the opportunity to get conquered, because they were weak, so it's dandy fine uh-nuh", kinda like defending the rapist because the rape victim was a weak woman).

WTF, asshole? When have I ever argued that point?

Oh yes, how glorious - the fear of military might gives Europeans a higher level of protection in the world. "Gunboat diplomacy" is a positive thing, because it keeps the White Mister - the world's most successful opressor with centuries of bloodshed and slavery on his hands - safer than those Third Worlders.

Why is that a good thing? Why should the life of a European be worth more than that of a Third worlder? It should not. Weapons that keep Europeans' status as the world overclass aren't serving any good goal whatsoever.

First, screw you for that "White Mister" BS.
Second, the matter of how you arm your owned forces is a principle of national sovereignty, which you are allegedly so big on.

[Simon_Jester]

I think that Stas is couching this in terms of what he considers moral arguments, and supports the idea of sovereignty only insofar as he considers it moral.

To him, sovereignty is therefore moral when it prevents abuses, and immoral when it encourages abuses. If a powerful nation violates the sovereignty of a weak one for humanitarian reasons it is good; if a powerful nation violates the sovereignty of a weak one for selfish reasons it is bad.

In practice, most such violations are selfish- troops being sent in to secure the economic interests of the strong, to procure territory, to avenge a wrong, or to punish an insult, at the expense of the weak. Practically every strong nation on Earth has a long history of this kind of selfishness. Whereas weak nations are helpless to enforce selfish interests (economic goals, territorial ambitions, avenging a wrong, or punishing insults) against strong nations.

The US can bomb and invade a Middle Eastern country for getting three thousand of its citizens killed, but the reverse is not true; when American bombs fall on Pakistan there is little the Pakistanis can do to make their displeasure known, and nothing they can do to punish the Americans effectively for careless bombing of Pakistanis.

So from a moral standpoint, usually such violations of sovereignty turn out to be immoral. There are far more cases of nations violating another nation's sovereignty for selfish reasons, and everyone who now claims any kind of right or duty to interfere in other nations' sovereignty has at least some history of having used their power selfishly in the past. And this immorality is asymmetrical- it always takes the form of blows from the strong landing on the weak, hardly ever the other way around. Whereas these same nations, who have the power to do good by violating sovereignty in cases where it would be moral to do so, seldom do.

So Stas looks at this and concludes that on balance, it would be better if no one had the power to go around the world violating sovereignty so easily, because this power is rarely used for good and often used for evil. And he applies that consistently to all nations I am aware of- there is no country that he thinks should have more weapons than it already does. Like many socialists throughout the past century and more, he would seem to favor world peace and disarmament over the current status quo of a handful of well armed nations who can and do enforce their whims against everyone else.

But key to this argument is that sovereignty is an instrumental good, not a good in and of itself. To Stas, sovereignty is good if it protects the weak from being injured by the strong, and bad if it's used to give the strong the freedom to harm the weak.

I can understand this argument; I'm not unsympathetic. On the other hand, I fear the potential consequences of a world where military power is greatly decentralized more than Stas does, I think; I worry that it might backfire and result in more atrocities, not less.

[Kane Starkiller]

NATO invaded Afghanistan, despite Osama being in Pakistan and the attack on 9/11 aimed against the US. SCO or CSTO deserve to exist only as a counterbalance to a powerful military alliance. If NATO is gone, the SCO has no reason to exist. None at all, other than imperialism in Central Asia. NATO created a network of clandestine fascist and neo-nazi agents in their own member nations as a "safeguard" against a communist invasion. I'm not sure European powers waged "wars under NATO", but surely enough you know that Britain and France invaded Egypt not so far from now? And you probably know that Srebrenica was during the Bosnian war, but NATO bombed Yugoslavia during the Kosovo war, which was much less clear-cut as to who was the victim party. Kosovars ethnically cleansed Serbs, the Serbs did the same.

Afghanistan was the base of operations for Al-Qaeda and Taliban provided them with sanctuary the fact that they dispersed to other countries after the attack notwithstanding. Allies weren't wrong to attack Germany despite Eichman being in Argentina later right?
Also it is very convenient for you to claim to support CSTO and SCO just because they are weaker with respect to NATO rather than out of nationalistic support for Russia.

Um... why would Russia "let in" Uzbeks and assimilate them when Russia and Uzbekistan were one nation. That's like saying "America is not letting Texas to massively immigrate to New York". That simply doesn't happen because there's no reason for that. On the other hand, your point was that there's no tensity in America between nationalities because of ... magic, whereas there's lots of tensity in Russia and China. CHINA! You dropped that example entirely, because you probably realized it was fucking bullshit. But you continue to press on the Russia angle. Despite both examples being quite relevant. Uzbekistan became impoverished after the USSR collapsed; this is what encourages immigration, often illegal. Mexico is impoverished, and many Mexicans immigrate ILLEGALY into the USA. In both nations illegal immigrants face the threat of death from redneck / nazi groups.

Texans are not an ethnic group unlike Uzbeks so they can't be a target of ethnic or racial based discrimination. Since Texas was a rapidly developing region in the last 50 years it was other parts of US which immigrated into Texas which themselves are composed of German, Mexican and various other ancestries.
I haven't forgotten China: remember the Tibet and Uyghur protests a few years back with hundreds of dead? When did something like that last happen in US?
Finally you can compare Uzbekistan to Mexico today you can't compare Uzbek SSR with Mexico since Uzbek SSR was a part of USSR, Mexico was never a part of US.

Native Americans love to live according to Sharia law and attempt to install it everywhere? Maybe Americans don't worry about Sharia-fanatic Pakistanis immigrating? Oh, no, I heard they were batshit fucking crazy in their fear of islamism (now that it outlived its usefulness as anti-Soviet tool). France, another First World nation, closed borders when there was supposed to be an influx of Ah-rabs. They also banned the burqa. Hum, why is that? Maybe your comparison between Islamist radicals from the Caucasus and Native Americans is a dishonest strawman?

The only one strawmaning here is you. Pakistan was never a part of US hence US was never responsible for its societal development. Caucasians, like Native Americans, were part of Russia and US respectively for 200 years. Both were recepients of brutal treatment but ultimately US successfully (more or less) integrated the Natives into US nation. Russia hasn't. Caucasian failure is a failure of successive Moscow regimes: Empire and later communists.

Yes, if Albania would want to intervene or conquer someone, they'll build up a military capable of that.

No they wouldn't because:
1) Their small size means their contact with Argentina is nonexistent so there can be no issues
2) Their small economy means they have no possibility of constructing large enough navy
Do I really have to explain this to you?

So Russia is treating the Uzbeks as a state worse than the USA? Prove it. Because Uzbeks suffer from hate crimes. Just as Mexicans. And there are lots of illegal Uzbek immigrants, like lots of illegal Mexicans. Here's why the comparison is relevant. America isn't letting all Mexicans who want in "openly", they build a fucking wall and conduct hunts of illegal immigrants. It wasn't too long ago when America deported millions of Mexicans in the 1930 and then in the 1950s! You're crazy if you say America "welcomes" Mexicans all the time and in any quantities. Just as Russia only "welcomes" legal Uzbeks (but even legal immigrants can be killed in hate crimes). Just like legal Mexican immigrants can die in hate crimes.

Mexico was never a part of US. Uzbekistan was, for over a century. Stop invoking invalid comparisons. I was not talking about current Russian policies towards Uzbekistan but of immigration patterns during the times of communist rule. Stop trying to derail the discussion.

Heh. The British often managed to "alleviate" and ignore famines to bring about 10, 20 or 30 million deaths in a year or so. Of course, not 200 million, but I bet you wouldn't like to be among them.

India had a huge population and low technology. Famines were inevitable. What does that have to do with picking up a machette and slaughtering your way through a population?

We're talking about other things. Like torturing in Mandatory Palestine, British Raj, Ireland, running penal construction with a 50% death rate, building railways with slave labour, castrating their political opponents, throwing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of political prisoners in jail in the 1900s British Raj. But sure, if "constructive things" excuse this, then autobahns excuse Hitlerite genocide, and the economic worth of the Belmorkanal excuses the deaths of GULAG workers sent to build it.

So pardon me while I gleefuly ignore "constructive and beneficial things" the British did, at the same time as they tortured second-rate people, chain up people like cattle to an oil press and then lash them with the cat-o-nine tails so that they'd run fast. I hate Britain, by the way, did I tell you that. I love it, too, because it is a nightmarish industrial progress colossus crushing people like bugs and spreading suffering in a myriad of ways.

If I were ever to forget or to excuse the British Empire's history, I would praise it, because if you remove the crimes, an industrial triumph of an enormous magnitude is left standing on its own, a marvel which I can only bow before and humbly learn. Heh.

Again invoking something that happened in 1900 and comparing it to something that happened 15 years ago or is happening now in Sudan, Somalia, North Korea etc.. You said that current First World nations have no right to exist or rather lesser right to exist than current poor nations. Can you back that up without digging 100 years in the past?

It's not okay, idiot, but it is less dangerous. You can only kill your own people - you're a local danger. You can kill ANYONE ANYWHERE? You're a fucking global danger. If you're too stupid to comprehend the difference, think about a person armed with a knife and another with an RPG and AK-47 and a tank. The one with the latter weapons would clearly be able to do more damage.

You are rambling. The fact of the matter is that local, weak, poor regimes like Rwanda, Khmer Rouge killed far more people than any First World country in the last 50 years. Furthermore many interventions like South Korea, Iraq in 1991 were beneficial while above examples were simply mindless slaughter.

Unless you feed them, if you just invade and make them end piracy and then watch as they fucking starve and die - it would be evil, and no amount of apologism would change it.

It would be evil not to feed someone who is stealing from you, endangering and killing your countrymen? In other words unless First World behaves like 21st century Jesus and turns the other cheek they are Evil. This way when you mangle the definition of evil beyond all recognition you can pretend to hate First World because they are Evil and not because of your nationalistic urges. After all Russians didn't feed all those Germans they raped and expelled from Eastern German territories after WW2 and then stolen their territory but you have no problem posting your BEER FOR THE VICTORS! banner.
But please do keep pretending you are above such petty things as nationalism and have no horse in the race one way or another. It's most amusing.

Yes, overconsumption of US oil is a cause of economic woes for other nations; resource needle. But it also keeps Russia afloat. That cripple oligarchic shithole is afloat thanks to oil. Just like Niyazov's crazyland. I'm sorry, how is that "contradictory"?

It causes economic woes...but keeps economy afloat. And you ask how is this contradictory? The fact that it also keeps a flawed regime afloat is a red herring. I'm asking about whether you think US energy imports are good for the economy of exporting countries or not.

One imperialism against another. Russian imperialism versus Georgian imperialism. You're ready to pick a side? Not me. I refered to that on several occasions as "Russian imperialism", BTW.

You clearly stated that Russia was not an instigator in the conflict and that Georgia was the one who started it that South Ossetians were Russian citizens thus making Russian operation completely legal and that "in this case" you would be willing to take arms and go to war. But now you are saying you didn't care who wins Georgia or Russia? So you changed your mind? Or is it, just like with CSTO/SCO, convenient to declare yourself above it all now that Russia got what it wanted?

In 1975-1989, 13 million immigrants entered the RSFSR. According to the 1989 census, there were 10,5 million permanent RSFSR residents born in other republics of the USSR, and another half-a-million permanent residents with non-USSR territory of birth. In the period since 1979 to 1989, the number of Kyrgyz and Tadzhik in the RSFSR rose 1,7 times, Uzbek and Turkmen - 2,1 and 2,8 times, compared to their natural population growth of 1,3 and 1,4. They were intensively immigrating to the RSFSR. The number of Central Asia-born in the RSFSR from 1959 to 1989 rose from 42 to 247 thousand, i.e. a five-fold increase. On the other hand, 4 million emigrants born in the RSFSR ended up in former Soviet republics in 1990. Clearly the net saldo of migration was in favor of immigration to the RSFSR. Although one should note that most Russian migrants were in Central Asia (3 million), due to Khrushev's policy of labour migration to Central Asia during the "new lands" campaign.

How does any of this change my point? Total number of Uzbeks, Turkmens, Kyrghyz and Tajiks in Central Asia was 6.46 million in 1926 rising to 25.8 million in 1989. And during that time their total number in RSFSR increased from 39,000 to less than 250,000. At the same time number of ethnic Russians living in Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajik and Khyrgyz SSR increased from 443,000 in 1926 to 3.29 million in 1989 even though those parts were less developed economically.
Looking at entire Central Asia number of ethnic Russians increased from 1.72 million in 1926 to 6.2 million in 1959 to 9.3 million in 1979 while the number of titular Central Asian ethnic groups in RSFSR rose from 395,000 in 1939 to 646,000 in 1989.
Again: looking both as percentage and especially as absolute numbers Russian immigration, at least until 70s dwarfs immigration into RSFSR even though it was more economically developed.
This doesn't make any sense if people were completely free to move.
Especially laughable are your attempts to pass of Tajik or Khyrgyz 2 time increase as impressive when their total numbers in RSFSR were barely over 15,000 in 1979.

Maybe you want to know what happened to Caucasus? Georgia, Azerbajan, Armenia? The number of Georgians in RSFSR rose from 58 thousand in 1959 to 131 thousand in 1989, azerbajanis from 71 thousand in 1959 to 337 thousand in 1989, armenians from 256 thousand in 1959 to 533 thousand in 1989. Moreover, in total the number of Russians in the Caucasus decreased from 965 thousand in 1959 to 782 thousand in 1989, whereas the number of Caucasians in Russia increased from 385 to 1001 thousand during the same period. So whereas Russian diaspora in the Caucasus decreased, Caucasian population in Russia almost tripled.

Actually that is not the whole story. The number of Azeris, for example, increased only from 43,000 in 1939 to 95,000 in 1970. This is not any significant immigration. At the same time number of ethnic Russians in Azerbaijan increased from 220,000 in 1926 to 510,000 in 1970. Again even though Azerbaijan is much smaller and has lesser per capita GDP it experienced immigration from ethnic Russians while at the same time no significant numbers emigrated.
Things however change after 70s but not because any movement in policy but because of demographics. Ethnic Russians were 58.4% of USSR population in 1939, 54.6% in 1959, 53.4% in 1970, 52.4% in 1979 and 50.8% in 1989. Meanwhile five main Central Asian ethnic groups comprised 6.4% of USSR population in 1939, 6.2% in 1959, 8.1% in 1970, 9.9% in 1979 and 12% in 1989.
Azeri also went from 1.3% of total USSR population in 1939 to 2.4% of the population in 1989. Therefore communist attempts to dilute other ethnicities by moving Russians there were clearly going to fail due to their lower growth rates hence by 70s and beyond those policies were largely abandoned since it was clear that Russians were going to be less then 50% of the population soon.

In total, non-Russians composed 18,5% of the RSFSR population in 1989.

And the vast majority of those 18.5% are either other Slavic ethnicities or non-Slavs which were always within Russia or RSFSR like Tatars. This has nothing to do with immigration.

I thought ethnically homogenous regions were hotbeds of nationalism, so mixing people was okay. Also, respond to the point above. There were no barriers for Ukranians, Kazakhs or Uzbeks to move to Moscow; at least, no legal ones that I'd know of. Many of them simply prefered their own nation, which at the time had industry, wages and food. And no civil war, like Tajikistan had in the 1990s. You're lying, plain and simple, right?

Mixing people is indeed OK but when it is done freely not by clear attempts to dilute other ethnicities with Russian immigrants while at the same time barring those ethnicities from coming to RSFSR. Ironically had the communist allowed larger immigration from Central Asia into RSFSR instead of only bringing in Russians into Central Asia it is likely that dispersal of these ethnic groups throughout Russia would make secession impossible.
The numbers are clear and conclusions are pretty obvious your attempts to evade them by pretending I need to provide some kind of explicit legal document that barred other ethnicities from immigrating notwithstanding.

[Thanas]

Allies weren't wrong to attack Germany despite Eichman being in Argentina later right?

Nobody cared about the jews back then and it certainly was not the reason why there was a war.

[Kane Starkiller]

Oh sure just responding to the his peculiar claim that because the enemy leader (or high ranking officer) escaped to another country after the invasion this somehow invalidates the attack on the initial aggressor country.

[someone_else]

If European air forces are running out of munitions after a short campaign against Libya, how well would they perform against a larger, more capable enemy?

I highly doubt we are using our whole inventories. I think that none is so worried about Lybia to use the munitions/stuff stockpiled for a real war. So they are nibbling a bit on said stockpiles and then prefer to stop before losing a fuckload of such munitions and having to pay for new ones. Then again, I have no proof of that (and I don't know if the proofs of it are readily available to civilians, given the kind of info), but I find it more reasonable than assuming that we had so tiny amounts of ordnance in the first place (when a quite a few nations have ordered a buttload of new fighters and building/just built new carriers, that is).

Or one which wasn't in such convenient striking range of their own airbases?

That had been a problem since the USSR times (when the USSR could squash anything we had anyway). Although there are new, slightly more useful carriers in the works for UK and France (UK is already building a couple, France is still deciding what exactly wants, so far is still doing studies about stuff). And Cavour will stop sucking when they deliver us the 22 F35-B we are waiting for (although may be a long wait).

this premise that yes it is our business what happens far away.

And technically it isn't totally wrong, since if you don't defend your nation's interest, your people will suffer somehow (on the paper, in a world where the economic interest are always what your people wants and not what the ruling elite wants).
It's just murderously expensive and thus only Big Boys can do that militarly (others use diplomacy and economics. When it fails they take it in the ass, not that happens on a so regular basis to be crippling anyway).

[K. A. Pital]

Afghanistan was the base of operations for Al-Qaeda and Taliban provided them with sanctuary the fact that they dispersed to other countries after the attack notwithstanding. Allies weren't wrong to attack Germany despite Eichman being in Argentina later right? Also it is very convenient for you to claim to support CSTO and SCO just because they are weaker with respect to NATO rather than out of nationalistic support for Russia.

Why and how is it convenient? I've always said that I only support imperialist entities as counterbalance to other imperialist entities. Never just because they are a certain imperialist entity. But if we get down to the roots, I reject any and all imperialist nation-states. That obviously includes Russia. SCO is turning into an imperialist entity in Central Asia, quite possibly in the future it will be used to assert control over Central Asian natural resources if their impoverished populations will start rioting; I don't think I can support it any longer in good faith, by the way.

Texans are not an ethnic group unlike Uzbeks so they can't be a target of ethnic or racial based discrimination. Since Texas was a rapidly developing region in the last 50 years it was other parts of US which immigrated into Texas which themselves are composed of German, Mexican and various other ancestries.

Well, Central Asia was rapidly developing in the 1960s (new lands campaign, remember) - so that's why people emigrated there. But people also emigrated from there. There were no legal barriers. However, economic development of Central Asia obviously made migration a low priority - when you can find job at home, why migrate?

I haven't forgotten China: remember the Tibet and Uyghur protests a few years back with hundreds of dead? When did something like that last happen in US? Finally you can compare Uzbekistan to Mexico today you can't compare Uzbek SSR with Mexico since Uzbek SSR was a part of USSR, Mexico was never a part of US.

I thought mob violence was pretty common in the USA in the XX century. Mobs killed blacks. Hell, the KKK, if that rings any bells. Besides, "hundreds of dead" - are you sure? Even the "Tibetan government in exile" only claimed 80 casualties. The government reported 13 civilian dead. As usual, you're peddling bullshit here. As to your question, when did a race riot like that happen in the USA - I could easily answer your question. 1992 Los Angeles. 53 dead, soldiers sent to quell riots. I know that in your blind love for the US of A you tend to be oblivious to any knowledge that shakes your little cozy world, but them's the cards.

The only one strawmaning here is you. Pakistan was never a part of US hence US was never responsible for its societal development. Caucasians, like Native Americans, were part of Russia and US respectively for 200 years. Both were recepients of brutal treatment but ultimately US successfully (more or less) integrated the Natives into US nation. Russia hasn't. Caucasian failure is a failure of successive Moscow regimes: Empire and later communists.

Uh... Okay. Caucasians were part of Russia for 200 years. However, the Russian Empire didn't put them into reservations. Caucasians practiced radical islam and eventually turned to Wahhabism. Russians feel uneasy about radical islamists. But if you're willing to press the issue, let's pick Wounded Knee. As far as I know, Caucasians in Russia were never bold enough to take over a town because of Russians massacring Caucasians there. So when you boldly trump your ignorant card about how there are no issues with Native Americans in the USA, you're looking like a fool. Suprisingly enough, even a cursory investigation in the history of Native Americans in the USA yields unwelcome facts. Native Americans did not obtain U.S. citizenship until 1924, they were considered wards of the state and were denied various basic rights, including the right to travel. And of course, in 1958 Native Americans still faced threats like the Ku Klux Klan. Not to mention that there are still Neo-Nazi and KKK marches every year here and there in the USA. How are they different from neo-nazi marches in Moscow? America has a different, more benigh neo-nazism?

Oh, and let's not forget the United States even forcibly sterilized black people and Native Americans until the 1970s.

Although the following events were not explicitly justified through the by-now-discredited eugenics movement, they certainly fit the older pattern. In 1970’s, several activists and women’s rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded.

For example, in 1972, United States Senate committee testimony brought to light that at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations had been performed on poor black women without their consent or knowledge. An investigation revealed that the surgeries were all performed in the South, and were all performed on black welfare mothers with multiple children. Testimony revealed that many of these women were threatened with an end to their welfare benefits until they consented to sterilization. These surgeries were instances of sterilization abuse, a term applied to any sterilization performed without the consent or knowledge of the recipient, or in which the recipient is pressured into accepting the surgery. Because the funds used to carry out the surgeries came from the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, the sterilization abuse raised older suspicions, especially amongst the black community, that “federal programs were underwriting eugenicists who wanted to impose their views about population quality on minorities and poor women.”

Native American women were also victims of sterilization abuse up into the 1970s. The organization WARN (Women of All Red Nations) publicized that Native American women were threatened that, if they had more children, they would be denied welfare benefits. The Indian Health Service also repeatedly refused to deliver Native American babies until their mothers, in labor, consented to sterilization. Many Native American women unknowingly gave consent, since directions were not given in their native language. According to the General Accounting Office, an estimate of 3,406 Indian women were sterilized

During this and earlier periods, similar involuntary sterilization programs were being performed on other women of color, among them Chicanas of the Los Angeles area (Acuña 2004). It is estimated that by 1966, one-third of the women of childbearing age on the island of Puerto Rico had been sterilized without their ‘ ‘ informed consent. ’ ’ In addition, MULANEH (Mujeres Lationoamer-icanas de New Haven), a mainland Puerto Rican women’s organization, discovered that 44 percent of Puertorriqueñas in New Haven, Connecticut, had been sterilized by 1979. In Hartford, Connecticut, the figure stood at 51 percent. Women in Puerto Rico were also part of experimentation studies of the early birth control pill before it was released on the U.S. mainland.

How many women from ethnic minorities of the USSR were sterilized? Ever? Or maybe the USSR forcibly castrated men?

No they wouldn't because: 1) Their small size means their contact with Argentina is nonexistent so there can be no issues 2) Their small economy means they have no possibility of constructing large enough navy Do I really have to explain this to you?

You are saying they cannot build up a military to be imperialist simply because they are small. However, I simply said that the military is a means to an end. There are large and densely populated nations with pathetically small militaries, e.g. Bangladesh. There are small nations with extremely large militaries - like DPRK. Hell, Britain itself was very small, and yet it took over the world. I would love your funny attempt to explain in 1500 how Britain could never take over India or even have a war with it because it was (1) small (2) their small economy means they have no possibility of constructing a large navy. Do I really have to explain this to you? I merely explained that the military is a means to an end. Bangladesh is large, but it does not field a large military. Germany is advanced, but it also does not field a large military. Neither riches nor population adequately explain militarism.

Mexico was never a part of US. Uzbekistan was, for over a century. Stop invoking invalid comparisons. I was not talking about current Russian policies towards Uzbekistan but of immigration patterns during the times of communist rule. Stop trying to derail the discussion.

During communist rule Uzbeks were not prohibited from immigrating into the RSFSR (unlike the American Indians were before 1924). During communist rule Uzbeks immigrated into Russia in greater numbers than before. During communist rule, Ubzeks did not have to fear neo-nazis crushing their skull because they so desired. I already provided data on immigration patterns - if you were so stupid to ignore it, your's the fault.

India had a huge population and low technology. Famines were inevitable. What does that have to do with picking up a machette and slaughtering your way through a population?

Amartya Sen disagrees. Famines were not inevitable. By the way, Russia had a huge population and low technology. Does this mean famines were inevitable? Let's remember that the railways which the British built actually exacerbated famines often, because they allowed hoarders to move grains and foodstuff quickly to secure guarded depots in other parts of the nation, where the starving poor peasants would not be able to get them. Let's not forget about British support of food export from India and food export from Ireland during famines. Did Ireland also have "huge population and low technology"? Will you excuse every British-caused famine in such a fashion? You're... filthy, you know.

Again invoking something that happened in 1900 and comparing it to something that happened 15 years ago or is happening now in Sudan, Somalia, North Korea etc.. You said that current First World nations have no right to exist or rather lesser right to exist than current poor nations. Can you back that up without digging 100 years in the past?

Torture and mass detentions in Mandatory Palestine happened in the 1930s, the Bengal famine - several million dead - happened in 1943, torture and mass murder in Kenya happened in the 1940s-1950s, hundreds of thousands of political prisoners were thrown in the Raj prisons in 1900 to 1930s, not just early in the century, torture in Northern Ireland happened in the 1920s and easily reoccured in the 1970s, torture, mass murder and castrations in Punjab happened in the 1930s, invasion of Egypt happened in 1956, torture in Cyprus - in the 1950s. No need to dig "100 years in the past". This is just a fraction of the history of one First World nation, the British Empire in the XX century. I did not say the current First World nations have no "right to exist" - show me where, then? I said they have no right to opress others and engage in imperialism and imperialistic conquest. That's all. By the way - French war and torture in Algeria, 1960s. US invasion of Iraq and torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world - 2003-present. Just... tidbits

You are rambling. The fact of the matter is that local, weak, poor regimes like Rwanda, Khmer Rouge killed far more people than any First World country in the last 50 years. Furthermore many interventions like South Korea, Iraq in 1991 were beneficial while above examples were simply mindless slaughter.

Rwanda and the Khmer Rouge killed lots of people, sure. However, you're wrong again. The USA's involvement in South Asia wars (Vietnam, Lao, Cambodia) killed a similar number of people. That's just one war involving a First World nation. If we sum up all the wars involving First World nations, the figure would be much higher. The British invasions, crushing uprisings and wars of agression after 1950s till now would weigh up to a 100 000 dead, America's wars in South Asia and Iraq easily come to over a million dead, France's war in Algeria is at least several hundred thousand dead, and a whole million dead at most. At the very low end, First World powers participated in the murder of one million people through wars of agression and crushing of rebellions and uprisings and independence movements in colonies. At the high end, the number would be closer to 2,5 million people (1 million in Vietnam, 600 000 in Iraq, 900 000 in Algeria, 50 000 - British colonialism). So no, First World nations killed and tortured lots of people. You may find it hard to grasp or counter-intuitive, because they're so rich and cozy on the inside, but that's only your problem.

After all Russians didn't feed all those Germans they raped and expelled from Eastern German territories

Did they not? I thought Russia and the Allies fed the Germans they "raped", because otherwise there'd be a hunger of epic proportions and tens of millions of Germans would have died. You know, kinda like Germany and Japan did in Eastern Europe and China, where 25 million civilians and 10-20 million civilians perished respectively. Oh wait, I forgot, First World nations like Germany and Japan killed 35-45 million civilians just in the last century! I must be kidding! Surely this could not have happened.

It causes economic woes...but keeps economy afloat. And you ask how is this contradictory? The fact that it also keeps a flawed regime afloat is a red herring. I'm asking about whether you think US energy imports are good for the economy of exporting countries or not.

If you're too dumb to understand the term "resource curse" (hint - google it) - you're an idiot not worth talking to. Oil exports keep an economy afloat, but in the long term they hurt it, because the resource curse makes it profitable to export raw resources and not invest in complex industries like machine building, etc. Mexico, Venezuela, Turkmenistan have lots of oil. It does not make them rich.

But now you are saying you didn't care who wins Georgia or Russia? So you changed your mind? Or is it, just like with CSTO/SCO, convenient to declare yourself above it all now that Russia got what it wanted?

In this particular case, you are willing to argue that Georgia did not instigate the conflict by shelling a separatist province' capital? Maybe you'd be willing to argue that Russia did not start the war in Chechnya, but instead Chechnya started the war in Russia?

Again: looking both as percentage and especially as absolute numbers Russian immigration, at least until 70s dwarfs immigration into RSFSR even though it was more economically developed. This doesn't make any sense if people were completely free to move. Especially laughable are your attempts to pass of Tajik or Khyrgyz 2 time increase as impressive when their total numbers in RSFSR were barely over 15,000 in 1979.

Actually, it does make sense, but you probably don't know that in the 1960s the USSR initiated the virgin lands campaign, which was centered around sending lots of people to "virgin lands" in Central Asia. Economic migration. Kinda like... Texas

Again even though Azerbaijan is much smaller and has lesser per capita GDP it experienced immigration from ethnic Russians while at the same time no significant numbers emigrated.

You're judging the now-Azerbajan, whereas in Soviet times there could be economic incentive to move to an undeveloped region... because the wages were higher, because you could get a flat, etc.

Therefore communist attempts to dilute other ethnicities by moving Russians there were clearly going to fail due to their lower growth rates hence by 70s and beyond those policies were largely abandoned since it was clear that Russians were going to be less then 50% of the population soon.

Um... attempts to "dilute"? You're talking about the same communists who introduced birth control and allowed abortions in the 1950s, which drastically lowered Russian birthrates? Undeniably Stalin, who banned abortion, was willing to increase the Russian birthrate. However, his successors presided over the most massive downfall in Russian birth rates and gave all instruments for that - condoms, abortions and chemical contraception, as well as sex education, which was nigh absent under the Stalin rule. I'm not sure how this is a reasonable depiction of the policy. But feel free to argue this point until you reach absurdity.

And the vast majority of those 18.5% are either other Slavic ethnicities or non-Slavs which were always within Russia or RSFSR like Tatars. This has nothing to do with immigration.

Like, Tatars were always in Russia but their share of population in Moscow was barely 0,4% before the communists. You would have to admit that there were no legal barriers in Soviet times, especially after the 1950s.

Mixing people is indeed OK but when it is done freely not by clear attempts to dilute other ethnicities with Russian immigrants while at the same time barring those ethnicities from coming to RSFSR. Ironically had the communist allowed larger immigration from Central Asia into RSFSR instead of only bringing in Russians into Central Asia it is likely that dispersal of these ethnic groups throughout Russia would make secession impossible. The numbers are clear and conclusions are pretty obvious your attempts to evade them by pretending I need to provide some kind of explicit legal document that barred other ethnicities from immigrating notwithstanding.

What? In America there was a clear law that prohibited Native Americans from freely travelling until 1924. In the RSFSR in the 1920s-1930s there were also travel-prohibiting documents - something tangible, you know. But in the 1950s and later? No legal barriers whatsoever. You failed to prove your point - concede it. If the Kazakhs did not move to Moscow, maybe they did not want to? And why would they want to move there, if wages in the USSR were more or less uniform - unlike now, when Moscow wages are 4-5 times higher than Russian provincial wages? The numbers only show that it was beneficial to emigrate to Central Asia because the Soviet government provided incentives for RSFSR citizens to do so. Economic incentives. You're trying to create some sort of "evil dilution" picture, but the lack of any legal barriers and no real "evil" in intermixing of races (except from the viewpoint of a racist) kinda underscore the fact that your point is bullshit from beginning to end.

However, if you're so well-versed in history, maybe you can prove your point... with riots! Show me a race riot in the 1950-1985 USSR that would end up with 50 killed. Show me a Ku Klux Klan attack on Tatars (a native RSFSR minority) or on Jews, or Georgians. Why not? If the USSR was so bad in its internationalist policies, clearly race riots and race murders should've been ubiqutous and many.

Now you are being obtuse. International law was started by a lot of nations but the birth of modern international law was Munster/Osnabrück in 1648 and Grotius, the former being explicitly created to protect smaller nations from the Reich. The institute of sovereignty explicitly protects smaller nations - the bigger ones are already so big that their de facto power is enough.

Sovereignity is merely one concept in international law. Besides, sovereignity of the British Empire, a nation that came into existence by infringing and breaking and destroying the sovereignity of other nations is worth shit.

Except that the mere concept of sovereignty is worthless without sufficient force to back it up, see Somalia. I also agree with you that in it itself, no nation has the right to interfere. I merely dispute your earlier assertion that "weaker" nations get more of a pass than "stronger nations".

Except of course the British Empire is not anywhere close to Somalian anarchy and I have never argued anarchism. Germany's military is much smaller than Britains, but Germany does not devolve into anarchy.

When have I ever argued that point?

See above. If imperialist nations can hold on to their conquered territories simply because they're "sovereign" and have enough weapons to do so, any rebellion or war to liberate conquered territories is automatically illegal and also injust in a way. That's bullshit.

First, screw you for that "White Mister" BS. Second, the matter of how you arm your owned forces is a principle of national sovereignty, which you are allegedly so big on.

Oh no, Thanas. You said that it is good that a British citizen can enjoy special protection in the Third World because his nation can put a bomb into this nation's government and thus "fear will keep them in line". I countered this with the example of Pakistan. Pakistan could not run a bomb into the Parliament, despite the British torturing, castrating, mass murdering Pashtuns in the 1930s. Pakistan cannot run a bomb into the White House as the US tortures in Gitmo and elsewhere. So if Britain's military is reduced to the levels of Pakistani military, it would not be able to do these things. But why is that a bad thing? If you wish for people to have protection, you should logically extend it to all nations and races. You should say "It would be good if Afghanistan could blow up the US government, if the US government tortures innocent Afghani farmers in some secret prison in Romania or Guantanamo or elsewhere". But you don't say that. Britons should have increased protection by force of arms. Not others.

Am I right?

Like many socialists throughout the past century and more, he would seem to favor world peace and disarmament over the current status quo of a handful of well armed nations who can and do enforce their whims against everyone else.

I would actually say that my position has changed over time (Kane's idea that I'm somehow "masking" my nationalism is stupid - I was just more nationalist before than I am now). Hell, I'm still sometimes laughing at my "inner ape" which gasps when it sees advanced weapons of war. A few months (or maybe years?) ago I changed my info to "Before we find world peace, we have to find peace in the war in the streets". It is often hard to reconcile an extreme anti-war stance with clear examples when war could be beneficial - for example, the Vietnam defeat and takeover of Cambodia stopped the Khmer Rouge. An intervention in Rwanda could possibly stop the genocide. And yet, one has to realize all these things and examine each case of war and application of military power on its own. Is it beneficial? Is it just? If I just agree that lots of military power that can be applied by nations with a prior history of agressive application of the same is good, I am not paying attention to history. Thanas from his point of view as a German can argue against my position. But it is fun to see people defending British and French colonial empires, as if they were somehow better than the Khmer Rouge, Rwanda regime or the DPRK.

[Simon_Jester]

I will say one thing.

If the British or French empires were as bad, on average, as the Khmer Rouge, there would be no one left alive in the countries they once ruled. They would have killed everything that moved in those countries, several times over. At their worst, I can easily believe managed to be as bad as the Khmer Rouge, for short periods of time and in localized areas, they did not act this badly throughout the lands they ruled and at all times.

However, there is a colossal amount of room between "good" and "less bad than the Khmer Rouge." So much room that it should be enough to satisfy even the most hard-core of anti-imperialists.

While the Khmer Rouge may not set the record for the worst, most senselessly destructive, most murderous government in the history of human civilization, they're certainly a high profile candidate.

[K. A. Pital]

I will say one thing. If the British or French empires were as bad, on average, as the Khmer Rouge, there would be no one left alive in the countries they once ruled. They would have killed everything that moved in those countries, several times over. At their worst, I can easily believe managed to be as bad as the Khmer Rouge, for short periods of time and in localized areas, they did not act this badly throughout the lands they ruled and at all times. However, there is a colossal amount of room between "good" and "less bad than the Khmer Rouge." So much room that it should be enough to satisfy even the most hard-core of anti-imperialists. While the Khmer Rouge may not set the record for the worst, most senselessly destructive, most murderous government in the history of human civilization, they're certainly a high profile candidate.

Kane was arguing from an absolute standpoint. It is clear that from an absolute standpoint, even if the Khmer Rouge exterminated the ENTIRE population of Cambodia - and I mean ENTIRE - it would still be less than the absolute number of victims of British imperialism. And this brings me back to my point - a hobo with a knife can murder his wife, his kids, he can even murder himself and maybe a couple of other guys on the road. A soldier armed with an RPG can murder dozens of people with one shot. This is the difference.

In an absolute scale the Khmer Rouge was limited by their own backyard. They could only kill 3 million people at most!

On the other hand, Japan, when it conducted imperialist ventures from their tiny island, murdered 20-30 million people. That's tenfold the number the Khmer Rouge could realistically kill.

I think we've settled the issue with "who's worse". Yes, the Khmer Rouge is extremely bad. However, the damage it could possibly deal was limited by its non-existent military capabilities. Even Vietnam could crush it. Now imagine if the Khmer Rouge had the military capabilities of modern-day ... France. What could they achieve in Indochina? The results would be much, much more dreadful if you even begin to think about a possible imperialist conquest.

Imperialism ALWAYS - not at times, but ALWAYS - carries a greater potential for destruction. Britain, USA and France could kill much more people precisely because they were militarily potent enough to bring destruction and mass murder to any corner in the world, if they so desired.

This is why imperialism is so dangerous. Rwandans could kill each other in hundreds of thousands, but they could not kill other Africans in such numbers. However, what they could not do, Europeans could do in the millions. Ireland, India, the Congo Free State, even Algeria, Iraq and Vietnam tell us there's nothing impossible in killing millions in a colonial regime, colonial war or a war of agression.

You can only justify imperialism if you say that it killed a lesser percent of the population of occupied territories than the Khmer Rouge. But even that is not true. Two famous cases of imperialism - Irish famine and the Congo Free State eliminated 20-30% of the respective nation's population, which is well on par with the Khmer Rouge.

So yes, imperialism is murderous, and the fact that it is not uniformly as murderous as the Khmer Rouge is not even slightly helping. It can be as murderous in some places like the CFS and Ireland and less murderous elsewhere, but still with an enormous deathtoll.

[Thanas]

Now you are being obtuse. International law was started by a lot of nations but the birth of modern international law was Munster/Osnabrück in 1648 and Grotius, the former being explicitly created to protect smaller nations from the Reich. The institute of sovereignty explicitly protects smaller nations - the bigger ones are already so big that their de facto power is enough.

Sovereignity is merely one concept in international law. Besides, sovereignity of the British Empire, a nation that came into existence by infringing and breaking and destroying the sovereignity of other nations is worth shit.

By that standard, every sovereignty in existence is "worth shit", because there is no nation today that did not form by crushing the sovereignty of others. Well, maybe the Swiss, but that is about it.

Do you realise that this is an extremely slippery slope here?

Except of course the British Empire is not anywhere close to Somalian anarchy and I have never argued anarchism. Germany's military is much smaller than Britains, but Germany does not devolve into anarchy.

This was not my point, my point is that you cannot claim to uphold sovereignty and then discard it upon entirely arbitrary standards on your part whenever it suits your fancy. That is not the way a concept like sovereignty works.

See above. If imperialist nations can hold on to their conquered territories simply because they're "sovereign" and have enough weapons to do so, any rebellion or war to liberate conquered territories is automatically illegal and also injust in a way. That's bullshit.

I also support the right of the people for free determination, provided they can demonstrate sufficient strength and more importantly, popular will.

Oh no, Thanas. You said that it is good that a British citizen can enjoy special protection in the Third World because his nation can put a bomb into this nation's government and thus "fear will keep them in line". I countered this with the example of Pakistan. Pakistan could not run a bomb into the Parliament, despite the British torturing, castrating, mass murdering Pashtuns in the 1930s. Pakistan cannot run a bomb into the White House as the US tortures in Gitmo and elsewhere. So if Britain's military is reduced to the levels of Pakistani military, it would not be able to do these things. But why is that a bad thing? If you wish for people to have protection, you should logically extend it to all nations and races. You should say "It would be good if Afghanistan could blow up the US government, if the US government tortures innocent Afghani farmers in some secret prison in Romania or Guantanamo or elsewhere". But you don't say that. Britons should have increased protection by force of arms. Not others.

First, the "white mister" stuff, in case you are to ignorrant to know about it, has a clear history of the deepest levels of racism. So I resented your clever attempt to call me a racist thug. Second, not all goverments are of equal value and worth. Case in point: Hitler and Mandela. Third, if you ascribe to the concept of sovereignty, then it also is the right of every nation to arm as they see fit.

[K. A. Pital]

By that standard, every sovereignty in existence is "worth shit", because there is no nation today that did not form by crushing the sovereignty of others. Well, maybe the Swiss, but that is about it. Do you realise that this is an extremely slippery slope here?

Actually, the majority of Third World nations formed without crushing the sovereignity of others. Some nations that were extremely hard to reach (e.g. Bhutan, Nepal) or had nothing of worth were also often barely touched by imperialism. You're painting everyone with a broad brush - but that's just stupid. British sovereignity outside the British Isles is bullshit - and that's what I've been arguing. They took over that territory by conquest. Don't tell me you serious compare the level of British infringement on the sovereignity of others and that of, say... Chile. Despite Chile being independent from the 1800s. Again your eurocentric view of the world betrays itself- you could only name Switzerland, but not others. Incidentally, Switzerland: a First World nation which didn't trample sovereignity of other nations and crush their people like bugs. Good example, thank you.

This was not my point, my point is that you cannot claim to uphold sovereignty and then discard it upon entirely arbitrary standards on your part whenever it suits your fancy. That is not the way a concept like sovereignty works.

Oi, look, "arbitrary standards". Claiming that sovereignity automatically legalizes any conquest is just as idiotic, if not far, far worse. Germany was defeated by trampling on German sovereignity in World War II, did that occur to you?

I also support the right of the people for free determination, provided they can demonstrate sufficient strength and more importantly, popular will.

So if they can't demonstrate "sufficient strength", like, if they're murderfuckingkillerized and captured into human zoos, which then people would politely call "reservations", they don't deserve their rights? Or if their popular will is broken through the conqueror's relentless terror, tortures, political opression, decapitation of resistance organizations and declaring them illegal, they lose their right to self-determination? That's even more crazy than "arbitrary violation of sovereignity" and a good recipe for another round of imperialism. After all, the weakling only deserves "self-determination" if he can prove he's strong. How Churchillian of you, Thanas. "I don't believe a dog may have right to the hay even if it lay on it", he spoke of the Third Worlders. He considered that if a nation could not resist the power of "civilized Europeans", it may not have self-determination, independence or sovereignity. What is crazy and evil - that view, or my position?

First, the "white mister" stuff, in case you are to ignorrant to know about it, has a clear history of the deepest levels of racism. So I resented your clever attempt to call me a racist thug. Second, not all goverments are of equal value and worth. Case in point: Hitler and Mandela. Third, if you ascribe to the concept of sovereignty, then it also is the right of every nation to arm as they see fit.

I'm not saying all governments are "of equal worth" (if you note, I allowed the trampling of sovereignity for moral reasons exactly because of that; the massive trampling of German sovereignity after the defeat of the Reich was justified only to stop the Reich - not because Britain, USSR, USA and France had a right to rule Germany because Germany's people "did not have enough popular will" to be sovereign). Every nation has a right to arm itself as it sees fit. I only said that it would be good if some nations lost disproportionally huge military power. Oy-vey, cry opression! This thread is fucking surreal. I have not argued for any sort of legal action against Britain, France or other former imperialist powers, stripping them of assets of war or anything. I just said it's good they're losing military strength and you all rallied against me.

Huh? "Opression"? They're losing military strength because they fucking broke their budgets and overspent, and NATO is becoming pointless now that Russia turned to a piece of crap as a military power. Not because Congo, Rwanda, DPRK and god knows who else is opressing poor Britons and taking away their shiny military toys.

I said it would be good if Britain or France - on its own - loses the capability to run a bomb into some Third World nation's government, because that government can't do the reverse. Alternatively, I could say that it would be good if Pakistan gets a missile that could blow up the British Parliament. Or how would the French like it if Algeria invaded France and killed a million people? They would fucking cry and weep. The entire world would be up in arms, and endless cries of "opression, injustice, mass murder!" would be filling the BBC, French BC and all other BULL-SHIT Euro- and Ango-centric mass media, which is racist, prejudiced, ignorant, bigoted and always ready to support the inequality of the world.

You spun this as me depriving Britons, Frenchmen, etc. of their rights. What rights am I depriving them of? Do you realize just how crazy this accusation sounds?

[Thanas]

Actually, the majority of Third World nations formed without crushing the sovereignity of others. Some nations that were extremely hard to reach (e.g. Bhutan, Nepal) or had nothing of worth were also often barely touched by imperialism.

Until the early 17th century, Bhutan existed as a patchwork of minor warring fiefdoms, when the area was unified by the Tibetan lama and military leader Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal who fled religious persecution in Tibet. To defend the country against intermittent Tibetan forays, Namgyal built a network of impregnable dzong (fortresses), and promulgated the Tsa Yig, a code of law that helped to bring local lords under centralized control.[...]After Namgyal's death in 1651, Bhutan fell into civil war. Taking advantage of the chaos, the Tibetans attacked Bhutan in 1710, and again in 1730 with the help of the Mongols. Both assaults were successfully thwarted, and an armistice was signed in 1759.

In the 18th century, the Bhutanese invaded and occupied the kingdom of Cooch Behar to the south. In 1772, Cooch Behar appealed to the British East India Company which assisted them in ousting the Bhutanese, and later in attacking Bhutan itself in 1774. A peace treaty was signed in which Bhutan agreed to retreat to its pre-1730 borders. However, the peace was tenuous, and border skirmishes with the British were to continue for the next 100 years. The skirmishes eventually led to the Duar War (1864–65), a confrontation for control of the Bengal Duars. After Bhutan lost the war, the Treaty of Sinchula was signed between British India and Bhutan. As part of the war reparations, the Duars were ceded to the United Kingdom in exchange for a rent of Rs. 50,000. The treaty ended all hostilities between British India and Bhutan.

During the 1870s, power struggles between the rival valleys of Paro and Tongsa led to civil war in Bhutan, eventually leading to the ascendancy of Ugyen Wangchuck, the ponlop (governor) of Tongsa. From his power base in central Bhutan, Ugyen Wangchuck defeated his political enemies and united the country following several civil wars and rebellions in the period 1882–85.

No, no crushing the sovereignty of others or imperialism here....

After centuries of petty rivalry between the three kingdoms, in the mid-18th century, Prithvi Narayan Shah, a Gorkha King, set out to unify the kingdoms. Seeking arms and aid from India, and buying the neutrality of bordering Indian kingdoms, he embarked on his mission in 1765. After several bloody battles and sieges, he managed to unify the Kathmandu Valley and surrounding territory three years later in 1768. [...]

In 1788 the Nepalese overran Sikkim and sent a punitive raid into Tibet. Kangra in northern India was also occupied by the Nepalese. In 1809, Ranjit Singh the ruler of the Sikh state in the Punjab, had intervened and drove the Nepalese army east of the Satluj river

At its maximum extent, Greater Nepal extended from the Tista River in the east, to Kangara, across the Sutlej River in the west as well as further south into the Terai plains and north of the Himalayas than at present.

Nope, no imperialism here either....

You got any more examples? Humanity as a whole has never existed without trying to bash in the heads of others. By your very own definition, Nepal and Bhutan's sovereignty is also "worth shit".

You're painting everyone with a broad brush - but that's just stupid.

Funny, considering that is what you are doing.

British sovereignity outside the British Isles is bullshit - and that's what I've been arguing. They took over that territory by conquest.

If that is the criteria, then they also took over the British Isles themselves by conquest. This is utterly simplistic.

Don't tell me you serious compare the level of British infringement on the sovereignity of others and that of, say... Chile.

No, why would I?

Oi, look, "arbitrary standards". Claiming that sovereignity automatically legalizes any conquest is just as idiotic, if not far, far worse.

Good thing that I never argued that then. Or are you just hellbent on ignoring my part about the right to self-determination? If an ethnic group wants a nation state and has lived on the land for generations, why shouldn't they? That however in no way impacts the right of sovereign nations to arm themselves and to take actions to protect their citizens.

So if they can't demonstrate "sufficient strength", like, if they're murderfuckingkillerized and captured into human zoos, which then people would politely call "reservations", they don't deserve their rights? Or if their popular will is broken through the conqueror's relentless terror, tortures, political opression, decapitation of resistance organizations and declaring them illegal, they lose their right to self-determination? That's even more crazy than "arbitrary violation of sovereignity" and a good recipe for another round of imperialism. After all, the weakling only deserves "self-determination" if he can prove he's strong. How Churchillian of you, Thanas. "I don't believe a dog may have right to the hay even if it lay on it", he spoke of the Third Worlders. He considered that if a nation could not resist the power of "civilized Europeans", it may not have self-determination, independence or sovereignity. What is crazy and evil - that view, or my position?

I would say your continued strawmanning of my position is pretty crazy and unbecoming from your usual rational self, Stas. Note the "more importantly in my quote", something which you completely ignored in favor of going into a half-crazed rant. What the heck is going on here, man? Why the heck are you flying off the handle about my statement when you very well know that I have argued for several people to get a state in the past who were to weak to get it? Palestinians, Bosnians, Albanians - ring a bell?

But in case you are too stupid or too arrogant right now in your overblown sense of self-justice, let me point it out for you: Oppression is bad. If you invade a country for no reason, that also is bad.

Every nation has a right to arm itself as it sees fit. I only said that it would be good if some nations lost disproportionally huge military power.

No, you said that Britain had lost its right to interfere. You then qualified that to a point I was content with and said so in the post.

You spun this as me depraving Britons, Frenchmen, etc. of their rights. What rights am I depriving them of? Do you realize just how crazy this accusation sounds?

See above, your earlier position read as if you were depriving them of every right to interfere, like, for example my earlier case about some people grabbing British citizens. Again, I don't disagree with your qualified position which you made in a post to Simon_Jester several posts above.