NationStates Jolt Archive

So here is the question of the century. Alot of people are saying we need to pull our troops out of Iraq. Let's put aside the "but you went there for WMDs crap, for the sake of the argument at hand.

Anyways, Sudan doesn't want us there, and that seems to be the main argument people use in saying we need to pull out of Iraq. It's basically the same situation, hundreds of thousands are dead, and more die every day.

So should we go in anyways, or mind our own business, and not be the "world police" that everyone seems to think we have no right to be?




LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_re_af/sudan_darfur)

I want the UN to put as many troops there as it takes to protect the people on the ground. And that is consistent with what I say about Iraq.

I want the UN to put as many troops there as it takes to protect the people on the ground. And that is consistent with what I say about Iraq.

*claps* A side of you I would never dream of seeing.

The UN will be useless. They have accomplished nothing and will never accomplish anything.

I want the UN to put as many troops there as it takes to protect the people on the ground. And that is consistent with what I say about Iraq.The UN isn't in Iraq. The US and few token others are.

But I do agree with you on Sudan, the UN should have had troops in there a year ago.

The UN isn't in Iraq. The US and few token others are.
I know, but the principle is the same. It's troops on the ground, meant to protect the people and provide stability. They are doing a really terrible job in Iraq, but that's not so much due to principle as it is due to the fuckups on all sort of levels in the US Military Complex.

Sadly, the UN can only be invited into a country for those types of situations. Otherwise it would be called interfereing with 'internal disputes' with which the UN has no real business doing. Sucks. But thems the rules.

Otherwise, the UN should have been in Chechnya, Northern Ireland, South Africa etc etc

Edit: whoops hee hee. Meant to say UN not US... my bad. *blushes*

Sadly, the UN can only be invited into a country for those types of situations. Otherwise it would be called interfereing with 'internal disputes' with which the UN has no real business doing. Sucks. But thems the rules.

Otherwise, the US should have been in Chechnya, Northern Ireland, South Africa etc etc
Perhaps the rest of the world doesn't want the US to poke it's nose into their internal affairs? Northern Ireland, for example, is our business and nobody elses. I don't see why America should have a say in it, and the idea of sending the US military in is ridiculous, unless you want half of Belfast to be flattened. Same with all the other examples. If people are that determined to kill each other then sometimes you just have to leave them to it. It might not be particularly pleasant, but you can't always be the world's police.

However, I have a different view of the conflict in Sudan. Muslims killing muslims is one thing (They don't like us anyway), but over there there are so many cases where non-muslims are the victims of islamic barbarity. So I think the west should invade Sudan, topple and summarily execute the government, then give independence to the non-muslim areas.

Sadly, the UN can only be invited into a country for those types of situations. Otherwise it would be called interfereing with 'internal disputes' with which the UN has no real business doing. Sucks. But thems the rules.

Otherwise, the UN should have been in Chechnya, Northern Ireland, South Africa etc etc

Edit: whoops hee hee. Meant to say UN not US... my bad. *blushes*
Actually, if the UN were to as they should declare it a genocide they would have the wherewithal to go in, but because of *spit*Fwance*spit* and China, that ain't gonna happen.

Whatever. Its their right as a sovereign nation to do as they please.

I may not like it, but we’ll only cause more problems if we go in. That’s always how it happens.

I want the UN to put as many troops there as it takes to protect the people on the ground. And that is consistent with what I say about Iraq.but if sudan doesnt want the un troops there and attacks them/doesnt let them in, should the un then fight a war with sudan?

Whatever. Its their right as a sovereign nation to do as they please.

I may not like it, but we’ll only cause more problems if we go in. That’s always how it happens.

Would you have had the UN invade Germany to prevent the Holocaust? 'Cause that's essentially the same as what's happening in sudan.

Would you have had the UN invade Germany to prevent the Holocaust?
No.
War is worse than genocide.

No.
War is worse than genocide.

That's almost a Bushism.

What about a war strictly between military powers, with no civilian casualties? Like a naval war? Is that worse than genocide?

*spit*Fwance*spit*
What's with the bashing again? If you were gonna go down that road, you better mention Britain too. And Russia.

but if sudan doesnt want the un troops there and attacks them/doesnt let them in, should the un then fight a war with sudan?
If the appropriate decisionmaking processes are used, yes, of course. I was in favour of the Kosovo war too, FYI.

Sometimes I feel it's right to intervene, as long as it's done using the proper procedures, properly and multilaterally.

In my view, sovereignty is dependent on human rights. I would wholeheartedly support an invasion of Sudan.

Whatever. Its their right as a sovereign nation to do as they please.

I may not like it, but we’ll only cause more problems if we go in. That’s always how it happens.By your logic the rights of a country supersede basic human rights. I vehemently disagree. War is not worse than genocide. War is a conflict between nations that can and has taken a great human toll. Genocide is simply the human toll without reason. Killing of innocents by a government should not be excused simply because that killing happened within it's own border.

That's almost a Bushism.
Shove it up your ass.
What about a war strictly between military powers, with no civilian casualties? Like a naval war? Is that worse than genocide?
There are always civilian casualties.
A nation lying to its people (as is always the case to some extent) in order to fight their fellow man is despicable and reprehensible.

"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."~ Francois Fenelon

There are always civilian casualties.
A nation lying to its people (as is always the case to some extent) in order to fight their fellow man is despicable and reprehensible.

"All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers."~ Francois Fenelon

So you'd rather let millions of innocent people, than invade to stop the genocide, with some civilian casualties?

but if sudan doesnt want the un troops there and attacks them/doesnt let them in, should the un then fight a war with sudan?

The main issue here is that it is the Sudanese government that is purpotrating these acts of genocide. Then they are turning around and saying to the world community: "We don't want interference."

Of course they do not want interference, the voice of the country is not the voice of the persecuted, it is the voice of the powerful. The UN must not listen to the oppressors in power if it wishes to be a benevolent force of good in the world. It must act to shield the weak and to quell the power of those who seek to harm them.

By your logic the rights of a country supersede basic human rights.
Not at all. I believe in self-determination. If a nation's people are not willing to stand up to their rulers if they are oppressive, they deserve that government.
The vast majority of Sudanese obviously approve of the slaughter. We would only become involved in a quagmire if we went in and end up fighting those we are trying to "liberate." We would ultimatly cause the deaths of far more than have been taken in the genocide.

So you'd rather let millions of innocent people, than invade to stop the genocide, with some civilian casualties?
We don’t have a great record of limiting civilizing casualties and property damage.
Hell, we’d probably end up killing plenty of the persecuted in the cross fire.

Not at all. I believe in self-determination. If a nation's people are not willing to stand up to their rulers if they are oppressive, they deserve that government.
The vast majority of Sudanese obviously approve of the slaughter. We would only become involved in a quagmire if we went in and end up fighting those we are trying to "liberate." We would ultimatly cause the deaths of far more than have been taken in the genocide.
You think the people are going to try and rise up against a government that does this stuff? The government has better weapons, and no qualms about murdering its own citizens.

And if the vast majority of Sudanese support the slaughter, then that changes my response from "invade with ground troops" to "drop nukes on their cities".

the un seems to be largely ineffectual whenever it goes into a wartorn area on peace keeping missions - their involvement with west african conflicts a case in point - mainly because they have so many restritions placed on them to do with a state's 'sovereign rights' which means they often have to answer to local government's wishes. now don't get me wrong, i'm not saying such wartorn countries and their governments have less right to self determination than others - i think any state/government must be made accountable to 'international law' however it may be coceived. however, if the un were any good then they could probably solve, or atleast significantly ameliorate, the situations in both iraq and sudan and i would strongly support the un taking over from the us/britain in iraq (also dependent on un not being largely controlled by western 'democracies'). as it stands, there is the league of african nations, or whatever it's called, which has a much better track record for peace keeping than the un, so they would probably be more preferable to the un. i don't know if there is a muslim or middle eastern equivalent (i'd've thought there must be considering the strong religious bonds between the states in that region and the common concern of israel) but if there is then maybe they should form a peace keeping force and take over from the occupying us/uk/other forces.

You think the people are going to try and rise up against a government that does this stuff? The government has better weapons, and no qualms about murdering its own citizens.

And if the vast majority of Sudanese support the slaughter, then that changes my response from "invade with ground troops" to "drop nukes on their cities".
What's the difference between the genocide they are perpetuating and the genocide that would result from multiple nuclear attacks?
I’ll tell you. The nukes create more casualties.

Not at all. I believe in self-determination. If a nation's people are not willing to stand up to their rulers if they are oppressive, they deserve that government.
The vast majority of Sudanese obviously approve of the slaughter. We would only become involved in a quagmire if we went in and end up fighting those we are trying to "liberate." We would ultimatly cause the deaths of far more than have been taken in the genocide.
It doesn't take a vast majority or even a majority, all it takes is control of the military. You honestly believe hundreds of thousands of poor tribal people deserved to die simply because they didn't have effective means to fight for their own lives? They did stand up against their government.


Right up until they were shot dead...

Its not really internal any more. Chad has made incursions into Darfur to try to to protect refugees from Janjaweed militia who are actively trying to clense the ethnic black population from the area. There have been reports of sudaneese gunships aiding in this. How the world can turn its back on this part of Africa again is unfathomable after Rawanda and Burundi.The U.N needs to get involved here very quickly before a genocide is covered up.

The underlieing cause of this conflict is the nature of Sudan as a state and this applies to other african nations as well. Like every other African nation except Ethiopia and Mauritious (for different reasons) Sudan is not a "nation" state or "Westphian" country as occurs in Europe, some of the Middle East and much of Asia. This in itself is not a problem, Britain, America, Russia, and all of South America are not "Westphilian states". What I mean is it does not have a relatively homogenius identity (as in French or German people are French or German first and whatever other other identity second - except Corsicans). In Africa, our identites are more directly the result of Race, Tribe, religion or language than nationalistic identies. Because these identies have been, historically, haphazardly hewn by colonial borders and thrown into unnatural nations we lack national identities. examples of this are the Ndebele, who on their own could constitute a viable small nation and are in Southern Africa numerically dominat over Shona, have their nation divided between South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe and are a significant and marginalised minority in all three. Sudan has the problem of being an unnatural combination of a Muslim Arab(esque) North, Christian African South and Mulsim African West. Each of these could exist as seperate viable state. Unfortunately the OAU, which was the African Union's predesessor, ruled out shifting Africa's boarders becasue of the bloodshed and destabalising effects such a process would have created, not to mention the loss of power. Wether or not that was the right course of action for Africa as a whole debatable, but in the case of Sudan, DRC (Congo) and Nigeria this has lead to perpetual destabalision. When you add Oil, Chinesse business and "advisors" to the mix you have a serious problem.

So you'd rather let millions of innocent people, than invade to stop the genocide, with some civilian casualties?

So, you would advocate the international invasion in the near-past, of Chechnya, Northern Ireland and South Africa? (even though it went against the govts. of those regions?)

So, you would advocate the international invasion in the near-past, of Chechnya, Northern Ireland and South Africa? (even though it went against the govts. of those regions?)

YES! Why not! Shit's happening and nobody's handling it good!

YES! Why not! Shit's happening and nobody's handling it good!

Wow... so who in your opinion should have been the main force to invade Northern Ireland and fight Britain?

Wow... so who in your opinion should have been the main force to invade Northern Ireland and fight Britain?

To be honest, I didn't really read your question. Actually, no. N.Ireland was no where near as bad as sudan is now. South Africa I don't know about. Chechnya, I need to watch more.

Those situations can't really be compared to sudan.

I'm a big believer in letting people sort out their own problems.



However, most of the problems in modern Africa have been caused either directly or indirectly by the West. So we do indeed have a responsibility to them, whether we want it or not.

To be honest, I didn't really read your question. Actually, no. N.Ireland was no where near as bad as sudan is now. South Africa I don't know about. Chechnya, I need to watch more.

Those situations can't really be compared to sudan.

Right. So, is it merely numbers then that defines action? a few hundred dead before action is taken? A few thousand, tens of thousands? What defines the start of the action, and how do you piuck and choose what region gets to be 'saved' and what region is told 'Sorry, you don't meet the requirements?'

Right. So, is it merely numbers then that defines action? a few hundred dead before action is taken? A few thousand, tens of thousands? What defines the start of the action, and how do you piuck and choose what region gets to be 'saved' and what region is told 'Sorry, you don't meet the requirements?'

Numbers and motives. N.Ireland, well, it's a volatile area. Need military presence. And the military presence makes it volatile. It's a vicious circle. But there's no genocide, no killing because of race or religion.

sudan is just a genocide by islamofascists. We invaded Iraq for less than that.

N.Ireland..... no killing because of race or religion.


You're having a laugh aren't you? Please tell me you are not serious....

You're having a laugh aren't you? Please tell me you are not serious....

You know what I mean. N.Ireland doesn't have organised armies hunting down and systematically murdering people of certain religions. Unlike sudanese forces.

You know what I mean. N.Ireland doesn't have organised armies hunting down and systematically murdering people of certain religions.

Now I know you're taking the piss.

Now I know you're taking the piss.

So, you're basically implying that IRA have an army marching through Belfast, finding Protestants, pulling them out of their homes, shooting them, and moving on, in a systematic, organised fashion?

What's with the bashing again? If you were gonna go down that road, you better mention Britain too. And Russia.

Actually, neither Britain or Russia voted no on that. Russia might have if France and China hadn't, but Britain wouldn't have.

You're having a laugh aren't you? Please tell me you are not serious....

Actually, he's quite right. Religion was only a small and relatively unimportant part of what was going on in Northern Ireland.

The situation was astonishingly complex, with political influences from Great Britain, the United States, France and Russia intermingling with homegrown difficulties between Orangemen, extremist Protestants, extremist Catholics, Provisional IRA, various Eirean factions...I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Comparatively, the situation in the Sudan is painfully clear. The Northern Government is paying mercenaries to exterminate a group of people they don't like.

If the UN can solve this one, whether by use of force or not, they'll go a long way towards restoring a lot of the credibility they lost when they bumped up against the US pre-Iraq.

You're right of course. Whenever I get called Taig it's thepolitical influences from Great Britain, the United States, France and Russia intermingling with homegrown difficulties between Orangemen, extremist Protestants, extremist Catholics, Provisional IRA, various Eirean factions.
and not religion.

I never said religion didn't have a part. But only a small part.

I want the UN to put as many troops there as it takes to protect the people on the ground. And that is consistent with what I say about Iraq.
The UN can't, or won't, protect shit! They'll stand around with their damned fingers up their collective ass, just like they did in Bosnia where they watched the slaughter of innocent civilians. Or worse yet, they'll rape women and children and indulge in corruption and bribery, just like they've done in numerous places in Africa. :headbang:

The UN can't, or won't, protect shit! They'll stand around with their damned fingers up their collective ass, just like they did in Bosnia where they watched the slaughter of innocent civilians. Or worse yet, they'll rape women and children and indulge in corruption and bribery, just like they've done in numerous places in Africa. :headbang:
You make it sound like the United States is absolved of that....

You make it sound like the United States is absolved of that....
Why do I get the feeling that you're going to do the same thing you always do: blame everything wrong in the world on America? You really should consider basing your posts on, you know ... facts!

I'm a big believer in letting people sort out their own problems.



However, most of the problems in modern Africa have been caused either directly or indirectly by the West. So we do indeed have a responsibility to them, whether we want it or not.

yes, but western government are ran by..... by....... politicians. so it's not going to happen, and trying to make things right is bound just to fuck things up even more.



Actually, neither Britain or Russia voted no on that. Russia might have if France and China hadn't, but Britain wouldn't have.

yea, but Russia would vote against intervention in Chechnia, China would vote against intervention in Tibet and UK would vote against intervention in N. Eire.



So, you're basically implying that IRA have an army marching through Belfast, finding Protestants, pulling them out of their homes, shooting them, and moving on, in a systematic, organised fashion?

the IRA to the best of my knowledge is more nationalist/secular, but there are more religiously extreme groups on both sides that do partipate in systematic violence. and organization's got nothing to do with it, cause when you demand that your enemy by "organized" basicly what you're doing is wossing out and refusing to confront those whose tactics you don't understand.

Why do I get the feeling that you're going to do the same thing you always do: blame everything wrong in the world on America? You really should consider basing your posts on, you know ... facts!
*looks behind*
Huh? :confused:

Quite the contrary- i'm in agreement with you- the ineffectivness of the United Nations has caused the deaths of many.

However, I merely wished to point out that if you place blame on the United Nations, you also place blame on the United States (as well as all other members of the organisation).

Just making sure no one mistakes the two for seperate entities. :)

They don't want us there but as soon as we leave and they can't handle the insurgents that are entrenched there they'll start crying for us back.

They don't want us there but as soon as we leave and they can't handle the insurgents that are entrenched there they'll start crying for us back.
What... are....you talking about...

american revolutionarys were "insurgents" too.....

*looks behind*
Huh? :confused:

Quite the contrary- i'm in agreement with you- the ineffectivness of the United Nations has caused the deaths of many.

However, I merely wished to point out that if you place blame on the United Nations, you also place blame on the United States (as well as all other members of the organisation).

Just making sure no one mistakes the two for seperate entities. :)
Sorry about that. Had you confused with someone else. My bad! :(

Sorry about that. Had you confused with someone else. My bad! :(
Thas ok. :D Happens.

Of course they were. Insurgent is a neutral term; unlike "terrorist" or "Freedom Fighter" there's no emotional content. Whether you're for or against the insurgents is all that really matters.

In the case of Sudan, the term "insurgent" is probably a misnomer, however. Since anyone with half a brain can see they're backed by the northern government, the proper term would be "irregular troops".

No.
War is worse than genocide.

Yikes...Now if that isn't the attitude of an appeaser...

Honestly, how is a battle between soldiers worse than the wholesale rape and slaughter of civilians based upon their ethnicity or religion?

I'm no interventionist, but there are a handful of things I believe that the international community has both an interest and a responsibility to address. Genocide is one of those things. It is a horror so terrible that a civilized world simply cannot tollerate it's existance. Allowing acts of genocide to continue is a mark of babarism and fear, it diminishes the humanity of those who stand by.

Besides, what is stopping the UN from going in and doing something? International law, the rules of the UN? Everyone knows that those are jokes. What use is an international cooperative if it is so crippled by appeasement and red tape that it cannot lift a hand to stop an act of genocide? Screw the Sudanese government's refusal of help, its the government comitting the acts. That would be like asking Stalin if he would like the UN to come in and help him bring an end to the purges.

Not at all. I believe in self-determination. If a nation's people are not willing to stand up to their rulers if they are oppressive, they deserve that government.
The vast majority of Sudanese obviously approve of the slaughter. We would only become involved in a quagmire if we went in and end up fighting those we are trying to "liberate." We would ultimatly cause the deaths of far more than have been taken in the genocide.

Funny, its thought patterns like that which always made me a little nauseous when I read Mill. Think about what you are advocating for just a second. You are saying that rape and murder are ok because enough of the society supports it and some of the animals who are in favor of such actions will get hurt.

All human lives are not equal. One who supports rape and murder is not a human but an animal, their lives are worth inherantly less than the lives of their victims. I do not care if 99.9% of the population supports genocide against the other 0.1%, the violation of individual rights comitted by that vast majority makes their lives less valuable than the lives of those they seek to oppress.

At some point a civilized world must make certain moral judgements because allowing barbarians free reign in the dark territories of the world where they only hurt people you'll never know might be easy, but eventually they will be at your gates. Tollerating crimes against humanity makes the likelyhood of them occuring again greater. It might be less immediately painful to stand by and let these things happen, but eventually you will have to fight them. Infections don't just go away because you would wish them to, the longer you allow them to fester the more difficult it will be to burn them out.

The underlieing cause of this conflict is the nature of Sudan as a state and this applies to other african nations as well. Like every other African nation except Ethiopia and Mauritious (for different reasons) Sudan is not a "nation" state or "Westphian" country as occurs in Europe, some of the Middle East and much of Asia. This in itself is not a problem, Britain, America, Russia, and all of South America are not "Westphilian states". What I mean is it does not have a relatively homogenius identity (as in French or German people are French or German first and whatever other other identity second - except Corsicans). In Africa, our identites are more directly the result of Race, Tribe, religion or language than nationalistic identies. Because these identies have been, historically, haphazardly hewn by colonial borders and thrown into unnatural nations we lack national identities. examples of this are the Ndebele, who on their own could constitute a viable small nation and are in Southern Africa numerically dominat over Shona, have their nation divided between South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe and are a significant and marginalised minority in all three. Sudan has the problem of being an unnatural combination of a Muslim Arab(esque) North, Christian African South and Mulsim African West. Each of these could exist as seperate viable state. Unfortunately the OAU, which was the African Union's predesessor, ruled out shifting Africa's boarders becasue of the bloodshed and destabalising effects such a process would have created, not to mention the loss of power. Wether or not that was the right course of action for Africa as a whole debatable, but in the case of Sudan, DRC (Congo) and Nigeria this has lead to perpetual destabalision. When you add Oil, Chinesse business and "advisors" to the mix you have a serious problem.

the nation-state as an ideal is just that, an ideal. there are no true nation-states (i.e. a state that comprises one 'nation' and nothing more), well maybe 1 or 2, can't remember the exact figures - all my notes for uni on that subject are scattered about the place. especially not france - anyone outside the ile de france didn't consider themselves french until well after the revolution - and usa is not a nation-state by any stretch of the imagination. anyway the fact that the state of Sudan includes more than one 'nation' is not the problem. the main problem as far as i see it is how the state was formed. before the european empires divided up africa between them there were no, or very few, definitely bounded states as we know them today, political organisation was mainly along the lines of tribal systems or chiefdoms ('nations' as they are known to us) with a few multi-tribe empires. ethnic tensions would have been few, except perhaps in the multi-tribe empires where there would probably be a dominant people. when the colonial powers ruled such tensions would have been kept in check by an overbearing military presence and general subjugation of all african 'nations'. the problem is the speed in which the colonial powers left africa after the two world wars dividing the continent up into states according to colonial administrative areas that had no relation to actual ethnies or 'nations' giving power either to the dominant ethnie or to the most sycophantic local leaders. this meant that all these new states had very little internal cohesion and they were given no help in terms of 'nation building', or state building as it should more properly be known, leading to all the ethnic tensions and corruption we have seen in the last 60 odd years.

the nation-state as an ideal is just that, an ideal. there are no true nation-states (i.e. a state that comprises one 'nation' and nothing more), well maybe 1 or 2, can't remember the exact figures – all my notes for uni on that subject are scattered about the place. especially not france - anyone outside the ile de france didn't consider themselves french until well after the revolution”
But after the Revolution, Napoleon, The Second Empire and the Resistance how did French citizens identify themselves?!?! Remember at some point no nations existed and we were all random tribal groupings… No country can ever truly be a “Nation State”, but the closer nations come to that the less internally fractious they are (and potentially dangerous if Germany in 1945 is anything to go by). Also I tied the idea of a Nation State and a “Westphilian” state together – for those who don’t know, prior to the peace treaty of Westphilia, there were no “nations” in Europe, only fiefdoms handed out by the pope based on semi religious claims, at the Treaty of Westphilia the proponents justified their claims in national terms rather than the existing terms.

and usa is not a nation-state Nor did I claim it was, in fact the opposite
“Britain, America, Russia, and all of South America are not "Westphilian states"


“ anyway the fact that the state of Sudan includes more than one 'nation' is not the problem. the main problem as far as i see it is how the state was formed.” Same thing

“before the european empires divided up africa between them there were no, or very few, definitely bounded states as we know them today, political organisation was mainly along the lines of tribal systems or chiefdoms ('nations' as they are known to us) with a few multi-tribe empires. ethnic tensions would have been few, except perhaps in the multi-tribe empires where there would probably be a dominant people.”
Actually, modern Sudan is more directly the result of Ottoman and later Egyptian Imperialism rather than British Imperialism. There were some nations, Egypt, Ethiopia, KwaZulu, are the largest that come to mind, Matebele, Rozvi, Tswana, Iow and less well know and there were plenty more (especially in the South and West)


“when the colonial powers ruled such tensions would have been kept in check by an overbearing military presence and general subjugation of all african 'nations'.” Not true. The British Empire (which really was neither British nor an Empire) was usually run (through habit rather than policy) by simply bending the existing political structures and tribal differences – in many ways why former British colonies had less revolutions but more civil wars “divide and conquer”. France on the other hand dissolved most existing structures used assimilation and the Republican ideal until it realised that was only empowering and uniting its enemies, then it turned to force. Portugal predominantly used assimilation, only when they were being kicked out did the predominantly rely on force, but after all they had been major colonial players for longer than most of the others combined. King Leopold and the German Empire used force, but they were not very good colonisers and didn’t last long or have tremendously long reach.

“the problem is the speed in which the colonial powers left africa after the two world wars dividing the continent up into states according to colonial administrative areas that had no relation to actual ethnies or 'nations' giving power either to the dominant ethnie or to the most sycophantic local leaders. this meant that all these new states had very little internal cohesion and they were given no help in terms of 'nation building', or state building as it should more properly be known, leading to all the ethnic tensions and corruption we have seen in the last 60 odd years.” That is quite possibly very true, but does not counter the argument I made, in fact it enforces it.

No country can ever truly be a “Nation State”, but the closer nations come to that the less internally fractious they are (and potentially dangerous if Germany in 1945 is anything to go by). Also I tied the idea of a Nation State and a “Westphilian” state together – for those who don’t know, prior to the peace treaty of Westphilia, there were no “nations” in Europe, only fiefdoms handed out by the pope based on semi religious claims, at the Treaty of Westphilia the proponents justified their claims in national terms rather than the existing terms.

and usa is not a nation-state Nor did I claim it was, in fact the opposite
“Britain, America, Russia, and all of South America are not "Westphilian states"

okay, i wasn't familiar with the term, i thought you were using it interchangeably with nation-state.


Actually, modern Sudan is more directly the result of Ottoman and later Egyptian Imperialism rather than British Imperialism. There were some nations, Egypt, Ethiopia, KwaZulu, are the largest that come to mind, Matebele, Rozvi, Tswana, Iow and less well know and there were plenty more (especially in the South and West)

you're still confusing the words nation and state which was my main issue with your initial post. they're not the same thing: a state is a political entity with fixed borders and territorial claims; a nation is a group of people with a shared notion of common culture, history and origin. I was not denying the existence of 'nations' in africa merely the existence of states as we understand the term to mean today.


Not true. The British Empire (which really was neither British nor an Empire[do you mean cuz the monarch was german and colonising was done seperately by scottish, english and welsh settlers?]) was usually run (through habit rather than policy) by simply bending the existing political structures and tribal differences – in many ways why former British colonies had less revolutions but more civil wars “divide and conquer”. France on the other hand dissolved most existing structures used assimilation and the Republican ideal until it realised that was only empowering and uniting its enemies, then it turned to force. Portugal predominantly used assimilation, only when they were being kicked out did the predominantly rely on force, but after all they had been major colonial players for longer than most of the others combined. King Leopold and the German Empire used force, but they were not very good colonisers and didn’t last long or have tremendously long reach.

fair enough, you clearly know more than me about european colonialism. the point wasn't really that important to what i was getting at except that european colonialism really fucked up the entire continent.

That is quite possibly very true, but does not counter the argument I made, in fact it enforces it.

i wasn't really trying to counter what you were saying, i just wanted to add some points of my own to make it a bit clearer to someone like me.

But after the Revolution, Napoleon, The Second Empire and the Resistance how did French citizens identify themselves?!?! Remember at some point no nations existed and we were all random tribal groupings…

there're still plenty of people in france who don't consider themselves french: bretons, basques, catalans, corsicans (as you said), provencals (i think that's what they're called). don't get me wrong, i'm no primordialist - i believe that nations as we know them today (in europe atleast) resulted from the challenges of the 'enlightenment' to feudal order and the power of the church and the search for some other entity that people could feel loyalty to above their kin groups. the irony being that the romanticists provided the answer that the scholars of the enlightenment were looking for by inventing traditions, rituals and suchlike and writing epic poems about legendary figures stolen from various local mythologies. okay somewhere like scotland was consolidated as a nation before then but a lot ot the traditions that people hold on to (like tartans for example) were invented during the enlightenment.

(and potentially dangerous if Germany in 1945 is anything to go by).

i wholeheartedly agree - nationalism is dangerous.

Same thing


not quite. most states have more than one nation in them, the problem in africa was the speed at which this situation was thrust upon them with no time to adapt. it's one thing being ruled by an alien power that you don't want and quite another to be ruled by your neighbours simply because they got into the seat of government first.

yea, but Russia would vote against intervention in Chechnia, China would vote against intervention in Tibet and UK would vote against intervention in N. Eire.
Which are all irrelevant to the issue at hand. For that matter, genocide is not by any stretch of the term ocurring in those locations.