StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You just don't seem to get it.
A Tank or any weapon is nothing more than the Sum of its parts, When you can't buy parts for that American made Enginee or shells for the American made Gun-barrel or when those wires in the American made electircal system wear out and you need to buy replacments you either have to buy them or make them yourself, But don't worry you can just use all the Money Isreal makes from its vast Ecnomic reasources.... Oh wait it does not have much of that. Fine then you could always use some of that Aid coming in from those nice American people except, nope don't have any of that either, Well thats ok we can always take out a load and buy the Engine except oops only the American's and British make it and American told Britian not to sell it to us, Hmm Well I guess we got two weeks to create the worlds biggest fixed point defense system cause those tanks are not gonna be going anywhere without that Engine.


And second when memebers of the Design team are American Engineers sent over here WITH APPROVAL of the US Goverment AND it was based off an American Design we SOLD to them it sure as hell changes things

You do know how the real world works don't you? If you don't have the parts when the machine breaks down it won't run. If you don't have the ability to make your own and no one will sell it to you, your on your own




The only part of your rediculus arugment I'll acutal quote

Hell einstien came up with the general theory of relativity, perhpas the atom bomb is jewish. (he did work on the "design team"). I think that maybe we should free ourself of all this zionist technology (including the new really cool laser keyboard extension for Palm) so we can be truely free of the dreaded Jewish Grip!!

Now your just being yourself
And kindly oh Captian Brillant Please Explain how the General Theroy of Relativity has anything to do with Nukes and No Chuckles Enstient Invented the Nuke won't work, We already had a working verison when he joined the Design team of the Manhattan Project.

Surprisingly enough, I seem to agree with Azeron on this one. But, then, of course, I do not have the time to read through those insanely long posts. Here is my opinion on the issue, however, I'm sorry if this has been stated before.

Israel is a legitimate state, because it is formed as a compenstation for the atrocities of the Nazis towards the Jewish people and to insure that things like that will never happen again. The palestininas rejected the original treaty and launched an unprovoked attack on Israel. As a result, they, as well as their Arab allies lost some land to Israel, however, it can't be claimed that this land is illegitimate, since if we follow that logic, every nation in the Americas is illegitimate.

The Israelis' "discrimination" of palestinians is an attemt to protect themselves from terrorists. Every day dozens of suicide bombers are stopped at the border due to the "discriminatory pactices" of the Israeli army. Also, the reason that more palestinian civilians are killed than Israeli civilians is because the palestinian militants use them as a living shields.

Israel is willing to negotiate, the palestinians' goal is to "drive the Jews into the sea".

I admit that I may be biased on this issue, since my father is Jewish, I live in a Jewish community in NYC, and I have many friends in Isreael, but this is my opinion.

They massed on the border because Israel massed on the border. Countries that don't like each other do that often. Besides, Israel shot first. The country that shoots first is the one that starts a war. Only an idiot with half his brain cells on crack would not understand that. Why don't you?

Where is your support for this BS. Even the egyption admit they massed on the border first as a prelude to invasion in contridiction to the obvious distortions on mikes rant page. Get over it its not controversal.

the head of the Arab League made a statement saying there intent was to commit a new holocost. Its very well documented, you can rent a documentary or read any book on the subject.

They took volunteers for a year in advnace of the planned invasion, annoucing Crusade Style that thier plan was to attack isreal. The Eygptions to this day mantain they won the 6 day war, officially at least.

Ever Heard of the UAR (United Arab Republic)? Its sole purpose of creation was the destuirction of Isreal. It included both Syria and Eygpt. They tried for 5 years before the invasion to cooridnate thier efforts for this attack. when it failed it broke up. Not to mention they Blockaded Isreali PORTS!! AN ACT OF WAR PERIOD. By the laws and conventions governening the conduct of nations in a prelude of war Isreal was perfectly justified in its preemptive attack.

Anyone who jusdt brushes off one of the most degenerate evil books in the world "mien kemph" is a nazi who wants to kill jews. Its not just another book, its monument to holocost. there is no excuse for it.

I have had many jewish friends in my day, and my first gf was a jew, who happens to be one of the most decent people I have ever met. hearing that people want to kill someone like her becasue of the religion she worships make me sick. This kind of vitrolic hatred from wanna be jew killers is disgusting.

Anyone who would dare trying to compare isdreali Nazi germany, the very people who shoved 6 MILLION PEOPLE INTO OVENS AND GAS ROOMS with an isreali occupation which at worst has been an issue of land transfers and conditions of roads, is muderous troll no differenet then those SS troops which gassed jews in the 2nd World war.

I don't know what in the world what make you side with the same people who rejoiced at the sight of 3000 Americans die in the bigest suicide attack in the history of mankind. Only inhuman monsters could react such a way. Not even when we dropped atom bombs on Japan were there any parting on the streets of America.

I can't say that I am not biased against the Palestinians. I mean they only claim to be "caninites" which are greeks!! ( http://www.minfo.gov.ps/ sorry you can't deep link, you just click on the history buttons) theyu only jump up and down at the sight of dead jewish children, throwing thier parties. They only strap explosives to thier own childern to go commit murder. they only run commericals egging 5 -8 yeart olds that the best way to go is by taking some jews with you. For the life of me, considering how progressive isreal is (if the mexicans pulled this crap with us mexico would be a radioactive wasteland a long time ago). Isreali restrain is superhuman. Muslims set some cars on fire in france and a "get rid of the minorites canidate" takes 20% oi the vote. I can understsand the isrealis, they seem to act like americans. They don't seem, to want to mindlessly kill arabs like thier enemies want to kill them.

Look USFazce. you know next to nothing about the conflict. You know knowing about about the Belfour declration, you know nothing abiout the UN partition, You know nothing about the Creimean War, or Ottomon Turks, or the Fall of the persian empire. You know nothing about isreal Period. You have no idea what the bible says about the history because you never studied it. THAT IS OBVIOUS. You wanna talk about the history of isreal, you are going to have actually do allot of studying. Why becsasue its 3000 years of histroy, and mike's rant is full of so much crap distortions and outright ignorance, and advocations of outright attempts and genocide, its rediculous.

So give it up, and admit you just wanna see lots of dead jews, and forget this absurd pretense of caring about a palestine that never existed.

Asseron wrote:I don't know what in the world what make you side with the same people who rejoiced at the sight of 3000 Americans die in the bigest suicide attack in the history of mankind.

The Palestinians had nothing to do with the attack. By the way, exactly how many U.S. citizens were killed when the Israelis launched an unprovoked attack on our forces in 1967?

You have no idea what the bible says about the history because you never studied it. THAT IS OBVIOUS

How about we start at the beginning when the Israelis launched an unprovoked attack against Jerico, killing all the men, women, and chidren. That is how Israel began, through genocide.

Allow me to provide the fun quotes from the Toran

The first Genocidal mass Murder was Yawen aka God

The LORD had said to Moses, "Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you -- so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt." Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

Exodus 11:9-10

At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

Exodus 2:29-30

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."

Exodus 17:14-16

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: `Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died ... And the LORD struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made

Exodus 32:27-28,35

And thus just Exodus I won't even go into Leviticus and I left quite a few things out

ONA Stalin killed twice and Mao four times as many people as Hitler did FYI

Of course Stalin had them shot or frozen/starved to death
While Mao perfered just Starvation and Guns untill the Cultural Revolution where he also burned people to death.

you mean the USS Liberty?
The Liberty was a US inteligence ship attached to one of our battle groups. I take it that they though if the world found out that the arabs were losing the war then they would try and stop, but not before then. Since we were not allies with them at that point, it is not shocking.

For the year leadning up the war with all the talk about geneocide andf the consensus about the isrealis laying down and dieingh because they would be over whelmed. (i think the soviets were allies at this point, its hard to keep track of the actual dates as they changed realtively quickly during this time period). Leading up to the buildup there was not one iota about what they were about to do, comit the second holocost in 20 years. For the first 4 dyas of the war, the arabs were claiming victory even though they were being routed, and that they were killing jews by the busload. Only when the arabs finnally announced to the world that they were about to be defeated and thier countries invaded did the US say it wanted an end to the war. All public record if you want to check it. You can look up the resolutions on the UN website and compare them to the dates of the war.

I think that its understandable what they did. They were in a fight to just to survive. You have to appreciate that.

I think that your notation fro mthe bible is complete lie. Jerhico fell because it was an enemt base, a powerful enemey base as well. They were part of the same gorup of people who had been trying to kill them for around 200 years. Peaceful? the Caninites were anything but peaceful

Bean, your wrong, you are forgeting about Noah. goid kiled allot of people that time too.

but you think that you are sorta comparing apples and oranges when comparing what happeend 5 times in the past 50 years, and what supposedly God did thousands of years ago.

Yes Stalion and Mao were worse.

Yes Noah was pretty bad but I'm talking about the first direct murdering outside of Sodium and Gomora where he did not kill everyone but just a specfic race of people

Running to teh mods you jew hating nazi?

On another note Pablo only posts in the morning and bob knows where the heck Dalton ever is and we can't find bob

Oh, btw, i think refering to the Bible is pointless. It does not matter what happened 3,000 years ago. What happens now is the thing that matters.

wow azeron it must be so convenient to be able to label anyone who disagrees with your opinion as a nazi and an anti semite. You sure do pepper your factual and intellectual debate with highly emotive language. I didnt realise that a willingness to discuss issues and debate ideas was such an obvious show of racial prejudice but I guess I am out of the politically correct loop. You accuse the Palestinians of engaging in an unjust and immoral campaign of terrorism against Israel yet you claim that the attack on the Liberty was understandable even justified because Israel was fighting in a war for its very survival.... what do you think the palestinians believe they are doing playing for points? Whats going on in the middle east is terrible and i cant see it ever being peacefully resolved and thats a terrible shame but to come on to this forum and start accusing people who wish to discuss it in more detail and try to gain a better understanding of the situation of being hate mongers well thats a travesty

What happens now is the thing that matters.

Aye but right now we got a FUBAR situation with the goverments of both sides just increasing the problems

Azeron,

I must object at your hijacking of my thread. In starting this thread, I intended to discuss the idea of legitimacy of nations, using Mike's rant as a starting point. But you have turned this into a vicious, partisan Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Please, if you want to discuss this, start a new thread.

Azeron, i knew it was only a matter of time before you would become another village idiot.


With that said here's my take on things. I agree with Mike opinion on the topic and both sides are at fault. I also support a Palestine state, and feel their right for self-determination is a just one calling for establishment of such a state. This process came very close to success in 2000 with the Taba plan but was thwarted by Israel and not wanting to accept the idea of Palestine becoming a contiguous state. This resulted in a renewed Intifada in responce to the various Israeli incursions, war crimes (Jenin), and bombings. This was followed by retaliation in the form terrorism on the part of Hamas. Conflict and fighting will not solve this problem, although a complex one I believe it can be achieved by negotiation and compromise.

For more info about the truth of the 2000 plans go here: http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

wow azeron it must be so convenient to be able to label anyone who disagrees with your opinion as a nazi and an anti semite. You sure do pepper your factual and intellectual debate with highly emotive language. I didnt realise that a willingness to discuss issues and debate ideas was such an obvious show of racial prejudice but I guess I am out of the politically correct loop. You accuse the Palestinians of engaging in an unjust and immoral campaign of terrorism against Israel yet you claim that the attack on the Liberty was understandable even justified because Israel was fighting in a war for its very survival.... what do you think the palestinians believe they are doing playing for points? Whats going on in the middle east is terrible and i cant see it ever being peacefully resolved and thats a terrible shame but to come on to this forum and start accusing people who wish to discuss it in more detail and try to gain a better understanding of the situation of being hate mongers well thats a travesty

Quite frankly I doubt that you can really get int oa debate on the subject with me. You simply don;t know enough about the area we are talking about. I have spent the better part of 7 years studying the last 3000 years. History is a thing of mine. qhen I hear people spewing unsupported crap about this part of the world I get offended. I even get mad at people calling Bedouin tribes as palestinians. Anyone who has actually studied the area, knows that it is an absolutely absurd claim. you see mike provclaiming that in the bible King david ordered the deaths of arabs (jesubites) I can;t stand his enormous ignorance on the subject. They only killed greeks!! the greeks killed the arabs!! Canninites (philistines - greeks) were not peaceful, they were violent sadistic people. To call thier claim on Jearuslam any stronger than the jews is to condom the actual murderers of the Arabs who founded the city!! And it doesn't matter, cause they were killed off too, so there can be noone to carry on thier claim.


If you understand the claims being made, the actions actually occuring, then you ahve to side with the isrealis. They have the strongest historical claim to the land. The "palestinians" are trying to say they are cannites and therfore have a stronger claim to the land. But they can't possibly be Canninites. So if you start analzing thier claims, you start off a complete fraud, go through history and how the jews aquired the land, the jewish claim is beyond reproach, except by liars and those that want to kill jews. This is one of those cases where there is a clearly supported side, and another which is based solely on lies mostly generated over the past 40 years.

Resident Commie,

regardless Of how I beleive that the palestinian claim is based on fraud, forgetting it entirely, isn't it a principle of negotiations that both sides have to conceed some grounds so they can reach a conclusion. the proposal you want results in the ethnic cleasning of jews fro mthe west bank regardless of thier desire to stay, and the legal authority to block isreali transit accross palestinian territory. If there was no violence, and the palestinians were acting like the followers of ghandi, or martin luther king, and accepting really Good offers, I would aggree with you whole heartidly because their were some concessions leads me to conclude that the palestinians only want to kill jews and will find any excuse to kill them including unfenced roads a 75 feet wide.

If the palestinians keep this up, this will degenerate into what Clauswitz called a "people's War" and ther will be no more palestinians. Thats why terrorizing civlians is no good. Thats why it rarelyu works. It just turns people into a murderous mob, where they feel it is either kill or be killed.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:Azeron,

I must object at your hijacking of my thread. In starting this thread, I intended to discuss the idea of legitimacy of nations, using Mike's rant as a starting point. But you have turned this into a vicious, partisan Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Please, if you want to discuss this, start a new thread.

Hey, he wants to sue me for libel - he earned that Village Idiot title fair and square. . .

Anyway, to get back to the meat of the matter, I don't think we disagree too much on the real world events, but we may have a problem with the question of what makes a nation legitimate.

The gist of the argument seems to be that the problem with Israel is that it is: 1) a military aggressor, who has taken large stretches of its current territory by military force and 2) extremely discriminatory against Palestinians within that territory.

You quite correctly point out that, if we take a quick stroll through the history books, most nations have some elements of this in their history (to use Australia as an example, England invaded in 1778, and Aboriginals were only granted full citizenship in 1967 or so). For the European nations it is often necessary to go back a bit further, but there is blood and violence there too. Human history is, in general, one of conflict.

You then take this information and say that, because these nations were, at some time in the past as bad as Israel, they are therefore equally illegitimate now. Additionally you say that, because these nations may not be perfectly egalitarian (with issues such as the way Australia treats asylum seekers), they are just as illegitimate as Israel. I have problems with both of these pieces of reasoning. (note, the examples cited are my own - but I believe they represent the points you have made so far in this thread)

Before I continue though, I need to clarify a piece of terminology: what does it mean to say a nation is legitimate? (Yes I managed to get this far into the discussion before realising that what I mean by the word may not be what you mean by the word). My take is that the role of a legitimate nation is to provide an environment that encourages the freedom and liberty of its citizens - in other words, a nation whose current form of government rests on a foundation of humanist morals (basically, the semi-list I posted earlier talking about 'modern liberal democratic states').

At that point, the question of legitimacy becomes primarily a question of how egalitarian the government is. Does it attempt to treat or people fairly? Or does it unjustly discriminate against certain groups? To what extent does it succeed or fail at being egalitarian?

Obviously, by these criteria, I would judge many nations to be illegitimate. The fundamentalist theocracies of the Middle East are definitely out, as are the blatantly discriminatory policies of the Israelis. China can be a tricky call, but the lack of accountability weighs heavily against them. Western democracies, while certainly not paragons of virtue, are a damn sight better at treating people fairly than any of the other forms of national government currently existing on the planet.

One of the common characteristics of these nations, is that they no longer condone the bloodshed involved in their formation - but they can't go back and change that now. The big difference is that, with Israel, it is happening right now and everyone keeps going on about how evil and nasty those damn Arab terrorists are, and not bothering to keep track of just who invaded who.

I suspect this is going to end up turning into a terminology debate, though: What does it mean to say a nation is legitimate? The definition you give that term is going to determine which nations you consider legitimate.

Nick wrote: Hey, he wants to sue me for libel - he earned that Village Idiot title fair and square. . .

The sad thing is, I think that he is in substance right more often than he is wrong. It's just that his poor proofreading skills and his incredible belligerence put everyone off.

Nick wrote: Anyway, to get back to the meat of the matter, I don't think we disagree too much on the real world events, but we may have a problem with the question of what makes a nation legitimate.

The gist of the argument seems to be that the problem with Israel is that it is: 1) a military aggressor, who has taken large stretches of its current territory by military force and 2) extremely discriminatory against Palestinians within that territory.

You quite correctly point out that, if we take a quick stroll through the history books, most nations have some elements of this in their history (to use Australia as an example, England invaded in 1778, and Aboriginals were only granted full citizenship in 1967 or so). For the European nations it is often necessary to go back a bit further, but there is blood and violence there too. Human history is, in general, one of conflict.

You then take this information and say that, because these nations were, at some time in the past as bad as Israel, they are therefore equally illegitimate now. Additionally you say that, because these nations may not be perfectly egalitarian (with issues such as the way Australia treats asylum seekers), they are just as illegitimate as Israel. I have problems with both of these pieces of reasoning. (note, the examples cited are my own - but I believe they represent the points you have made so far in this thread)

Before I continue though, I need to clarify a piece of terminology: what does it mean to say a nation is legitimate? (Yes I managed to get this far into the discussion before realising that what I mean by the word may not be what you mean by the word). My take is that the role of a legitimate nation is to provide an environment that encourages the freedom and liberty of its citizens - in other words, a nation whose current form of government rests on a foundation of humanist morals (basically, the semi-list I posted earlier talking about 'modern liberal democratic states').

I define a legitimate nation as one which has the right to exist. Mike believes that neither Israel nor any feasible Palestinian state is legitimate. On the grounds he has chosen to make that argument, I think that he must then condemn nearly every nation in existence.

The roles that you have ascribed to the legitimate state are not ones that I would disagree with, as far as I understand them. However, the point to my history digression is that almost all the nations that practice those morals now do so upon a power base built from racist expansionism.

This is incredibly important. If the past is irrevelant, then the smart thing for would-be nation builders to do is to embark upon a crash program of racist genocide. After they are successful, and have eliminated claimants to the throne of their nations' power, then they can go about earning legitimacy.

I argue that some other criteria must be established for legitimacy. That is why I mentioned the British version of citizenship. If racism is the primary problem with the ideology of most nations, then it would follow legitimacy comes from eschewing racism in favor of a more inclusive ideal of citizenship; one based upon ideals rather than culture, shared history or genetics. This is a real problem, even for nations that we would both agree are legitimate under your definition.

For example, if you have been following the news from Europe lately, you will have noticed that there are large anti-immigrant movements building in several traditionally laid-back countries. I know that Denmark and Holland, in particular, are having trouble defining what it means to be Dutch or Danish in the context of a large number of Middle Eastern immigrants.

Nick wrote: <snip examples of legitimacy/illegitimacy>

One of the common characteristics of these nations, is that they no longer condone the bloodshed involved in their formation - but they can't go back and change that now. The big difference is that, with Israel, it is happening right now and everyone keeps going on about how evil and nasty those damn Arab terrorists are, and not bothering to keep track of just who invaded who.

See above. Those nations that have had their wars of expansion already have the luxury of condemning those types of actions now. Does their current disdain for their founding principles whitewash the sins of the past? If it does, why should new nations think the rules are any different?

Nick wrote: I suspect this is going to end up turning into a terminology debate, though: What does it mean to say a nation is legitimate? The definition you give that term is going to determine which nations you consider legitimate.

Yes, this discussion is shaping up into a terminology debate. However, rather than being sterile and pedantic, I think that it has some real potential. Anyway, thanks for writing.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:

Nick wrote: Hey, he wants to sue me for libel - he earned that Village Idiot title fair and square. . .

The sad thing is, I think that he is in substance right more often than he is wrong. It's just that his poor proofreading skills and his incredible belligerence put everyone off.

That's actually what the Village Idiot title is intended to denote - it isn't a question of the substance of their opinions, its a question of whether or not they are able to debate rationally. With Azeron and the other VI's, the signal-to-noise ratio is so low, it just isn't worth the time it takes to read their ravings.

I define a legitimate nation as one which has the right to exist. Mike believes that neither Israel nor any feasible Palestinian state is legitimate. On the grounds he has chosen to make that argument, I think that he must then condemn nearly every nation in existence.

"Has the right to exist" is just as poorly specified as "is legitimate". Still, you seem to get a bit closer to a proper definition below.

The roles that you have ascribed to the legitimate state are not ones that I would disagree with, as far as I understand them. However, the point to my history digression is that almost all the nations that practice those morals now do so upon a power base built from racist expansionism.

This is incredibly important. If the past is irrevelant, then the smart thing for would-be nation builders to do is to embark upon a crash program of racist genocide. After they are successful, and have eliminated claimants to the throne of their nations' power, then they can go about earning legitimacy.

I argue that some other criteria must be established for legitimacy. That is why I mentioned the British version of citizenship. If racism is the primary problem with the ideology of most nations, then it would follow legitimacy comes from eschewing racism in favor of a more inclusive ideal of citizenship; one based upon ideals rather than culture, shared history or genetics. This is a real problem, even for nations that we would both agree are legitimate under your definition.

For example, if you have been following the news from Europe lately, you will have noticed that there are large anti-immigrant movements building in several traditionally laid-back countries. I know that Denmark and Holland, in particular, are having trouble defining what it means to be Dutch or Danish in the context of a large number of Middle Eastern immigrants.

Yeah, I have been hearing bits and pieces of the stuff from Europe - usually along the lines of them looking at Australia's refugee program as an example of 'good policy'. That doesn't make it morally right, of course.

My definition of legitimacy does NOT say that the past is irrelevant - the nations that I cite as examples of legitimate government are generally those that are attempting to make amends for past mistakes. The thing is, the idea that the common identity of being human is more significant than the differences that arise from being of a different race or culture is a relatively recent concept - at least as far as widespread perceptions go. Events such as the Geneva Convention and the formation of the United Nations indicate a groping towards some sort of standard of "appropriate conduct for a nation state".

See above. Those nations that have had their wars of expansion already have the luxury of condemning those types of actions now. Does their current disdain for their founding principles whitewash the sins of the past? If it does, why should new nations think the rules are any different?

The rules are different because our understanding has changed. From the point of view of those who view the commonality of being human as far outweighing any petty differences of religion, race or nationality, then the idea of waging war on the basis of any of those differences is abhorrent.

The fact that the nations didn't realise those invasions were wrong at the time, doesn't change the fact that they were wrong.

Let me see if I can think of a good analogy. . .

OK, suppose a parent tells their children "OK, you can play on the slide now". As the older child slides down, the parent notices that there is a jagged piece of metal on one edge, and a couple of screws are loose. They then tell the younger child, "Sorry, it's too dangerous". Naturally, the younger child is going to complain - "He got a go, why can't I have a go?", and a tantrum will probably ensue.

The fact is though, the parent is right - the slide is dangerous, and it was a mistake to let either of the children play on it. The only reason the first child got to have a go was because the parent hadn't realised the danger.

Similarly, the established nations, with bloody conquest in their past, got to do it because nobody had realised that maybe, just maybe, that wasn't the right way to go about things. Now society does know better - and the fact that established nations did it once in no way justifies any nation trying to do it now.

Yes, this discussion is shaping up into a terminology debate. However, rather than being sterile and pedantic, I think that it has some real potential. Anyway, thanks for writing.

Trying to decide what makes a nation legitimate is at least an interesting term to discuss

[quote="Nicholas Stipanovich
The sad thing is, I think that he is in substance right more often than he is wrong. It's just that his poor proofreading skills and his incredible belligerence put everyone off.
[/quote]

That's actually what the Village Idiot title is intended to denote - it isn't a question of the substance of their opinions, its a question of whether or not they are able to debate rationally. With Azeron and the other VI's, the signal-to-noise ratio is so low, it just isn't worth the time it takes to read their ravings.

I define a legitimate nation as one which has the right to exist. Mike believes that neither Israel nor any feasible Palestinian state is legitimate. On the grounds he has chosen to make that argument, I think that he must then condemn nearly every nation in existence.

"Has the right to exist" is just as poorly specified as "is legitimate". Still, you seem to get a bit closer to a proper definition below.

The roles that you have ascribed to the legitimate state are not ones that I would disagree with, as far as I understand them. However, the point to my history digression is that almost all the nations that practice those morals now do so upon a power base built from racist expansionism.

This is incredibly important. If the past is irrevelant, then the smart thing for would-be nation builders to do is to embark upon a crash program of racist genocide. After they are successful, and have eliminated claimants to the throne of their nations' power, then they can go about earning legitimacy.

I argue that some other criteria must be established for legitimacy. That is why I mentioned the British version of citizenship. If racism is the primary problem with the ideology of most nations, then it would follow legitimacy comes from eschewing racism in favor of a more inclusive ideal of citizenship; one based upon ideals rather than culture, shared history or genetics. This is a real problem, even for nations that we would both agree are legitimate under your definition.

For example, if you have been following the news from Europe lately, you will have noticed that there are large anti-immigrant movements building in several traditionally laid-back countries. I know that Denmark and Holland, in particular, are having trouble defining what it means to be Dutch or Danish in the context of a large number of Middle Eastern immigrants.

Yeah, I have been hearing bits and pieces of the stuff from Europe - usually along the lines of them looking at Australia's refugee program as an example of 'good policy'. That doesn't make it morally right, of course.

My definition of legitimacy does NOT say that the past is irrelevant - the nations that I cite as examples of legitimate government are generally those that are attempting to make amends for past mistakes. The thing is, the idea that the common identity of being human is more significant than the differences that arise from being of a different race or culture is a relatively recent concept - at least as far as widespread perceptions go. Events such as the Geneva Convention and the formation of the United Nations indicate a groping towards some sort of standard of "appropriate conduct for a nation state".

See above. Those nations that have had their wars of expansion already have the luxury of condemning those types of actions now. Does their current disdain for their founding principles whitewash the sins of the past? If it does, why should new nations think the rules are any different?

The rules are different because our understanding has changed. From the point of view of those who view the commonality of being human as far outweighing any petty differences of religion, race or nationality, then the idea of waging war on the basis of any of those differences is abhorrent.

The fact that the nations didn't realise those invasions were wrong at the time, doesn't change the fact that they were wrong.

Let me see if I can think of a good analogy. . .

OK, suppose a parent tells their children "OK, you can play on the slide now". As the older child slides down, the parent notices that there is a jagged piece of metal on one edge, and a couple of screws are loose. They then tell the younger child, "Sorry, it's too dangerous". Naturally, the younger child is going to complain - "He got a go, why can't I have a go?", and a tantrum will probably ensue.

The fact is though, the parent is right - the slide is dangerous, and it was a mistake to let either of the children play on it. The only reason the first child got to have a go was because the parent hadn't realised the danger.

Similarly, the established nations, with bloody conquest in their past, got to do it because nobody had realised that maybe, just maybe, that wasn't the right way to go about things. Now society does know better - and the fact that established nations did it once in no way justifies any nation trying to do it now.

Yes, this discussion is shaping up into a terminology debate. However, rather than being sterile and pedantic, I think that it has some real potential. Anyway, thanks for writing.

Trying to decide what makes a nation legitimate is at least an interesting term to discuss

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: The sad thing is, I think that he is in substance right more often than he is wrong. It's just that his poor proofreading skills and his incredible belligerence put everyone off.

That's actually what the Village Idiot title is intended to denote - it isn't a question of the substance of their opinions, its a question of whether or not they are able to debate rationally. With Azeron and the other VI's, the signal-to-noise ratio is so low, it just isn't worth the time it takes to read their ravings.

I define a legitimate nation as one which has the right to exist. Mike believes that neither Israel nor any feasible Palestinian state is legitimate. On the grounds he has chosen to make that argument, I think that he must then condemn nearly every nation in existence.

Is "Has the right to exist" really clear enough to serve as a definition? Still, you seem to get a bit closer to a proper definition below.

The roles that you have ascribed to the legitimate state are not ones that I would disagree with, as far as I understand them. However, the point to my history digression is that almost all the nations that practice those morals now do so upon a power base built from racist expansionism.

This is incredibly important. If the past is irrevelant, then the smart thing for would-be nation builders to do is to embark upon a crash program of racist genocide. After they are successful, and have eliminated claimants to the throne of their nations' power, then they can go about earning legitimacy.

I argue that some other criteria must be established for legitimacy. That is why I mentioned the British version of citizenship. If racism is the primary problem with the ideology of most nations, then it would follow legitimacy comes from eschewing racism in favor of a more inclusive ideal of citizenship; one based upon ideals rather than culture, shared history or genetics. This is a real problem, even for nations that we would both agree are legitimate under your definition.

For example, if you have been following the news from Europe lately, you will have noticed that there are large anti-immigrant movements building in several traditionally laid-back countries. I know that Denmark and Holland, in particular, are having trouble defining what it means to be Dutch or Danish in the context of a large number of Middle Eastern immigrants.

Yeah, I have been hearing bits and pieces of the stuff from Europe - usually along the lines of them looking at Australia's refugee program as an example of 'good policy'. That doesn't make it morally right, of course.

My definition of legitimacy does NOT say that the past is irrelevant - the nations that I cite as examples of legitimate government are generally those that are attempting to make amends for past mistakes. The thing is, the idea that the common identity of being human is more significant than the differences that arise from being of a different race or culture is a relatively recent concept - at least as far as widespread perceptions go. Events such as the Geneva Convention and the formation of the United Nations indicate a groping towards some sort of standard of "appropriate conduct for a nation state".

See above. Those nations that have had their wars of expansion already have the luxury of condemning those types of actions now. Does their current disdain for their founding principles whitewash the sins of the past? If it does, why should new nations think the rules are any different?

The rules are different because our understanding has changed. From the point of view of those who view the commonality of being human as far outweighing any petty differences of religion, race or nationality, then the idea of waging war on the basis of any of those differences is abhorrent.

The fact that the nations didn't realise those invasions were wrong at the time, doesn't change the fact that they were wrong.

Let me see if I can think of a good analogy. . .

Right, let's suppose a parent tells their children "OK, you can play on the slide now". As the older child slides down, the parent notices that there is a jagged piece of metal on one edge, and a couple of screws are loose. They then tell the younger child, "Sorry, it's too dangerous". Naturally, the younger child is going to complain - "He got a go, why can't I have a go?", and a tantrum will probably ensue.

The fact is though, the parent is right - the slide is dangerous, and it was a mistake to let either of the children play on it. The only reason the first child got to have a go was because the parent hadn't realised the danger.

Similarly, the established nations, with bloody conquest in their past, got to do it because nobody had realised that maybe, just maybe, that wasn't the right way to go about things. Now society does know better - and the fact that established nations did it once in no way justifies any nation trying to do it now.

Yes, this discussion is shaping up into a terminology debate. However, rather than being sterile and pedantic, I think that it has some real potential. Anyway, thanks for writing.

Trying to decide what makes a nation legitimate is at least an interesting term to discuss

Nick wrote:

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: I define a legitimate nation as one which has the right to exist. Mike believes that neither Israel nor any feasible Palestinian state is legitimate. On the grounds he has chosen to make that argument, I think that he must then condemn nearly every nation in existence.

"Has the right to exist" is just as poorly specified as "is legitimate". Still, you seem to get a bit closer to a proper definition below.

In my view, that is the functional definition of legitimacy. Conversely, you can think of it as the fact that all legitimacy gets a country is the moral right to exist. Any further useful definition hinges upon what it means to have the right to exist, which I tried to define later on in my earlier post. In short, I don't think my original definition is evasive or circular.

Nick wrote:

The roles that you have ascribed to the legitimate state are not ones that I would disagree with, as far as I understand them. However, the point to my history digression is that almost all the nations that practice those morals now do so upon a power base built from racist expansionism.

This is incredibly important. If the past is irrevelant, then the smart thing for would-be nation builders to do is to embark upon a crash program of racist genocide. After they are successful, and have eliminated claimants to the throne of their nations' power, then they can go about earning legitimacy.

I argue that some other criteria must be established for legitimacy. That is why I mentioned the British version of citizenship. If racism is the primary problem with the ideology of most nations, then it would follow legitimacy comes from eschewing racism in favor of a more inclusive ideal of citizenship; one based upon ideals rather than culture, shared history or genetics. This is a real problem, even for nations that we would both agree are legitimate under your definition.

For example, if you have been following the news from Europe lately, you will have noticed that there are large anti-immigrant movements building in several traditionally laid-back countries. I know that Denmark and Holland, in particular, are having trouble defining what it means to be Dutch or Danish in the context of a large number of Middle Eastern immigrants.

Yeah, I have been hearing bits and pieces of the stuff from Europe - usually along the lines of them looking at Australia's refugee program as an example of 'good policy'. That doesn't make it morally right, of course.

No, the morality of the debates is not the point. The point is that those debates are occuring because of the ideology of the nation (nationalism) in Europe. Why does Holland exist? To be a nation for the Dutch people. Who are the Dutch people? The descendants of those who have lived in the region for several centuries, and share a language, culture and certain biological characteristics (a race or ethnicity). How can immigrants or refugees become Dutch? Major problem.

The whole issue of immigrant assimilation strikes at the heart of Dutch nationalism, and in fact at the legitmacy of the Dutch state. Note that this has nothing to do yet with how the immigrants are treated; rather, it is only a matter of classification. (Disclaimer: I use Holland as a representative example for Continental Europe. I am not trying to single out any nation here.)

Nick wrote: My definition of legitimacy does NOT say that the past is irrelevant - the nations that I cite as examples of legitimate government are generally those that are attempting to make amends for past mistakes. The thing is, the idea that the common identity of being human is more significant than the differences that arise from being of a different race or culture is a relatively recent concept - at least as far as widespread perceptions go. Events such as the Geneva Convention and the formation of the United Nations indicate a groping towards some sort of standard of "appropriate conduct for a nation state".

Your definition does say that the past is irrelevent, if it does not strip countries who were built illegitimately of the right to exist. As I said above, the right to exist is the only function of legitimacy.

Nick wrote:

See above. Those nations that have had their wars of expansion already have the luxury of condemning those types of actions now. Does their current disdain for their founding principles whitewash the sins of the past? If it does, why should new nations think the rules are any different?

The rules are different because our understanding has changed. From the point of view of those who view the commonality of being human as far outweighing any petty differences of religion, race or nationality, then the idea of waging war on the basis of any of those differences is abhorrent.

I don't buy it. If an action was wrong, it was always wrong. It is the height of hypocrisy to build poweful nations upon an ideology, and then turn around later and disavow it without disavowing the nations that ideology built. Because of the demands of Realpolitik, all this does is provide an incentive for new nations to be built faster (meaning more bloodshed). In short, the rules never change. Only our knowledge of the rules change.

Nick wrote: The fact that the nations didn't realise those invasions were wrong at the time, doesn't change the fact that they were wrong.

Let me see if I can think of a good analogy. . .

OK, suppose a parent tells their children "OK, you can play on the slide now". As the older child slides down, the parent notices that there is a jagged piece of metal on one edge, and a couple of screws are loose. They then tell the younger child, "Sorry, it's too dangerous". Naturally, the younger child is going to complain - "He got a go, why can't I have a go?", and a tantrum will probably ensue.

The fact is though, the parent is right - the slide is dangerous, and it was a mistake to let either of the children play on it. The only reason the first child got to have a go was because the parent hadn't realised the danger.

That is a bad analogy for two reasons. The children on the playground are not rivals in an arena where major injury or death is a possible consequence, and the eldest child did not get a major advantage in this competition as a result of his trip down the slide.

A better analogy would be if you had a lawless schoolyard with several powerful bullies. Extortion and beatings are common. One day, a bully slides down the dangerous slide. After he gets off, he magically gains the physique of an adult athlete. Now, he is the king of the schoolyard. When everyone else tries to slide down the slide to gain a similar advantage, the teachers step in to take the slide away.

The other kids would not just throw a tantrum; they would fear for their lives.

Admittedly, this is not a terribly good analogy either. However, it captures the power difference nationalism brings to the table, which is very important.

Nick wrote: Similarly, the established nations, with bloody conquest in their past, got to do it because nobody had realised that maybe, just maybe, that wasn't the right way to go about things. Now society does know better - and the fact that established nations did it once in no way justifies any nation trying to do it now.

The justification for nation-building is the current existence of the powerful nations. If one can retroactively make a racist state built upon illegitmate wars legitimate simply through "making amends," then the incentive is to become powerful and only then become moral.

This leads to what is, I think, the major ramification of not having the right to exist. If a nation does not have the right to exist, then it is immoral to take up arms to defend it or advance its interests. This means that no such nation can fight a just war by definition. In the end, this is why I don't think that Israel can be condemned on these grounds. They damn essentially everyone, to the extent that nations which try to incorporate morality into their basic structure will weaken or collapse.

Three copies of one post. . . I blame the server

Anyway, I wasn't intending to accuse you of being evasive with the legitimacy/right to exist thing. I was just pointing out that they are both terms/phrases which are likely to require definition.

And so, I'd like to present my definition of "right to exist":

"A nation state has the "right to exist" if it's continued existence results in a greater net good than the abolition of that state and its replacement with something else."

A nation state, by virtue of its existence, is assumed to have the right to exist. In order to remove that right, it is necessary to have a reasonable belief that whatever will replace that nation state will result in a net increase of 'good'.

Obviously, this is a purely pragmatic definition. Expected future good is all that matters. History is irrelevant, except insofar as it affects our judgment of future good. Note that Nation State is considered to be 'a nation, including its current system of government'

Also, any such revocation of the right of any nation to exist is going to be hotly debated (and rightly so). The concept of 'future good' is intangible, and hard to evaluate. The costs of actually doing something about it are real and immediate (to both the inhabitants of the nation and the people trying to bring about change).

Recent examples where the 'right to exist' was revoked:
The democratisation of Japan after World War II.

The merging of East Germany into the democratic West Germany.

The replacement of Russia's communist state with a democratic one. Economies are too complex for efficient central planning - while the transition was managed badly, the change still promises greater net good for Russia.

The East Timorese vote for independence. These were people being ruled by Indonesia, who did not wish to be ruled by Indonesia. It is reasonable to believe that their independence is likely to lead to greater good.

The US-led assault on Afghanistan. It is reasonable to believe that the replacement of the Taliban with a more democratic form of government is likely to lead to greater good.

For definitions of 'good', go read the 'where do atheists get their morality' thread

So that's the pragmatic definition. What about a moral one? On that score, if forgiveness of historical violence is not allowed (since pragmatic forgiveness is essential to the definition above), then you aren't likely to find many legitimate states. But a categorisation that fails to differentiate is a useless categorisation - so I'd consider the pragmatic definition more useful.

Interesting discussion!