That and a general cultural/international revulsion towards it. The United States could quite easily flatten Cuba and move in if it wanted, but the fallout simply isn't worth it.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That and a general cultural/international revulsion towards it. The United States could quite easily flatten Cuba and move in if it wanted, but the fallout simply isn't worth it.
I would almost say that the aversion to war isn't necessarily a modern thing, but something which has been enabled by modern forms of communications.
Bits of both. I don't want to go out there and put the recent trend towards peace solely at the feet of one thing. Many things have been a factor; cultural shifts, communications improvements, free trade, increasing wealth of society in general, nuclear arms, etc...
Of course there are many factors, but I think that the remote observation has helped to influence people's opinion. I think that it also helps to cement people's prejudices.
Last edited:
tbh at that time the kurds were still all too happy to play as turkish lapdogs and didn't have any national consiousness (well, tbh the arabs didn't have one either which the british got to flare up during the war and then utterly stabbed in the back)
People don't deserve states
People can fight for independence, peacefully or in armed struggle. But in order to succeed with that, a people need to unite and set aside quarrels for a common goal. They need to appeal to the world at large to recognize their struggle and acknowledge them as sovereign once the struggle has reached the appropriate stage. Part of that lies in demonstrating that you share some values with the world at large, that you have some chance at standing on your own feet economically, and that you will be able to keep a peace domestically.
Now consider Kurdish history in the past 100 years, or just the past 10 years, or just the past 4 weeks, and ponder how far along they are with regard to all of that.
in turkey terrorist group PKK, Syria rojava is extremely progressive for middle east country, Iraq split between KDP and PUK, Iran nothing there.
You make a good point.
Doesn't stop the fact the Kurds pre-date Saladin and this argument has been going on just about as long and will continue on into the future.
Of course they predate Saladin but that's neither here nor there for the independence debate.
Yes, but it would have prevented a lot of Nationalistic suffering.
It would have also required foresight- probably a good reason they never did it.
The fact they have existed as long as they have is the primary reason there is an independence debate.
But, like I said earlier, your excellent points on their lack of internal stability sums up the counter-argument quite nicely.
I don't think they're bad. They haven't caused that much trouble really.
The borders in Africa are worse and lead to a lot of ethnic violence but I guess this didn't make the news as much.
The borders in Africa are worse and lead to a lot of ethnic violence but I guess this didn't make the news as much.
I won't argue that at all, save to say that people tend to rag on the straight lines when those tend to be some of the better ones.
But again, it is not the fault of the border drawers that the locals decide to bash each others heads in over them. Fairly natural, as I've said previously, but it is still the independent action and decision making of the local inhabitants which has caused this strife.
I would argue that if the locals do decide to fight due to the decisions of the border drawers then the latter do have a responibility for it, it doesn't absolve the locals but if dysfunctional borders lead to conflict then the ones who drew the borders, by extension, caused the conflict.
So the proper solution would have been to ethnically separate everyone out? Well, it's a nice idea, but (as I keep pointing out) it's damned near impossible. How does one draw an effective map of Africa when one has limited geographical/ethnic knowledge. Even if one does, drawing a border involves a lot more than simply drawing a line; people will be left on either side who do not like the line either for irredentist or personal reasons.
The matter was so complicated that when such a practice was tried in Europe in 1919 all the powers could manage was a series of 'best guess' options, most of which were subsequently overturned by the course of history. Only in 1945 did Europe actually manage anything like a clean up procedure, and there it was only achieved through mass population movement; much of it involuntary and in cases genocidal.