The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Russia Goes Rogue

friends of America - are right
rivals of America - are wrong.

OK. I've understood your position.

American history is full of barbarism. The genocide of Indians, the humiliation of afro-americans, the anti-Darwian trials, the epoch of McCarthy.

Your FBI and CIA are not much better than our KGB. Edgar Hoover wanted to imprison 12 000 Americans.

You obviously do not understand my position if that is what you got out of my entire post.

Your comparison of America with Russia as to their scale of barbarism is not germane, as America has over time been growing from its past mistakes and moving forward, while Russia is actually going backwards and becoming more autocratic and more belligerent and bullying of others. Read up on the history of Tsar Alexander III, and I believe that you will see many similarities between him and Putin, and the direction in which Russia is headed today bears an eerie similarity to the Russia of Alexander's reign insofar as its relations with other countries, its usurpation of civil liberties, and its treatment of people with opposing viewpoints.

I will not get into a discussion here regarding comparing security and intelligence apparatuses, as that would be going WAY off topic.
 
Sadly - there seems to be no practical difference between the vermin/vulures that suck blood and those that just suck money

Except that one leaves you broke while the other leaves you dead.

It is true that the Taliban and Osama Ben Laden were largely financed by US taxpayers and most of the other "aggresive US interventions" you quote also occured.

The Talaban weren't financed by the U.S.; during the conflict in Afghanistan in which the U.S. supported Afghan forces fighting the Soviets, the Talaban did not yet exist. They did, however, inherit substantial amounts of U.S. arms and materiel.

In this case I don't think Russia wanted a war in Georgia - nor had they planned for this. The situation in the two "separatist" parts of Georgia is one that it is hard for Westerners to understand.

I don't believe that for a minute. Russia's forces were sitting there ready to go, organized for this operation.

On the other hand - I think the Russians have acted in this case in the legitimate interest of the people.

If they'd stopped in the "breakaway" regions where they had peacekeepers, that might be a valid claim. As it is, they have to be judged as rapacious invaders.
 
Your FBI and CIA are not much better than our KGB. Edgar Hoover wanted to imprison 12 000 Americans.

That's ridiculous.
The KGB regularly did to Russians what Hoover only dreamed of. They were a power unto themselves, answerable ultimately to no one. The FBI has to go to judges to get authority to do any "spying" on anyone -- the KGB spied on people on the least suspicion, and didn't have to ask anyone.

The CIA is a different matter, but even so, accounts of their "dirty" exploits are exaggerated -- and they've since been reined in.
 
I must beg your forgiveness in advance, as this will be a very long post. Please bear with me, though.

I actually agree with you in that it normally does take two to tango, and the history of the Albanians and Serbs of Kosovo has been a long one of each side oppressing the other.

No problem with the long post and I completely agree that Milosevic used Kosovo and serbian nationalism in his climb to power but in matters like this when each side cites grievances going back hundreds of yrs I'm inclined to believe that whatever solution is currently in vogue is a temporary one and that eventually the battle will be rejoined.

You make a fine case but as I believe you know you could never convince the serbs because clear logic is no match for heated emotion.

If there is a solution to such problems it would probably involve a common enemy which would unite the previously warring sides to ensure their common survival. Sadly in the balkans, as in Israel/Palestine, such a common enemy would most likely involve invading aliens from outer-space.




Chalchalero said:
As to your comments regarding Georgia, I am frankly at a loss. What you are saying here is that Georgia, because it did not engage in ethnic cleansing, simply didn't do it because they couldn't but surely they wanted to.

Do you have any evidence of this? Can you verify this in any way? You cannot possibly justifiably accuse Georgia of wanting to commit ethnic cleansing if there has been no indication of this whatsoever. It makes no sense.

I'm not saying that surely they wanted to only that since they did not have a free hand to act how they would have acted had they possessed that free hand is a matter of speculation.



Chalchalero said:
I agree with you that Georgia as a member of NATO could not possibly be a threat to Russia. But as the Russians are a paranoid bunch, it is highly unlikely that they will ever see such a scenario in any other light.

True enough but lets not forget paranoia is not exclusive to the russians. What should we call the american reaction to 9-11 and its policy of pre-emption which says we'll hit you if we even think you may be planing to hit us?

How about the american public supporting to invade a country not because of what they have done to us but because of what they might someday do to us?

While I think they are a little more paranoid than we are we are still more paranoid than say........Denmark.
 
Our soldiers are real heroes.

Right.
Invading another country without cause, stealing everything that isn't nailed down -- good definition of "hero".

They might have been heroes if they'd stopped in the territory where their comrades, the peacekeepers, were attacked, and if all they'd done was stop the atrocities by the Georgians. But the moment they crossed into Georgia, and then started looting, they became rogue barbarians.
 
No problem with the long post and I completely agree that Milosevic used Kosovo and serbian nationalism in his climb to power but in matters like this when each side cites grievances going back hundreds of yrs I'm inclined to believe that whatever solution is currently in vogue is a temporary one and that eventually the battle will be rejoined.

You make a fine case but as I believe you know you could never convince the serbs because clear logic is no match for heated emotion.

If there is a solution to such problems it would probably involve a common enemy which would unite the previously warring sides to ensure their common survival. Sadly in the balkans, as in Israel/Palestine, such a common enemy would most likely involve invading aliens from outer-space.

Sadly, I have to agree with your final assessment here. It would take a monumental act of God or a common enemy to bring these groups together, as their interests at present are so diametrically opposed to one another.

This is why I have come to believe that in certain cases peace is far more desirable than justice or even fairness. Say what one will about Tito's Yugoslavia, but al of the ethnic and religious groups were able to live in a degree of harmony with one another because he willed it so. Were there injustices committed? Of course. But that is the nature of any system that is being run by human beings. We are an imperfect lot and so, therefore will be our systems and their applications thereof. But at least there was peace, and not the madness that took place after Tito's demise.

I'm not saying that surely they wanted to only that since they did not have a free hand to act how they would have acted had they possessed that free hand is a matter of speculation.

I am afraid I still must disagree with you here. If the Georgians truly wanted to engage in ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia, they could have done so subsequent to the 1996 Russian and OSCE-mediated negotiations which resulted in both sides agreeing to renounce the use of force, when they could very easily have prevented the refugees who had fled to the North during the 1991-92 conflict from returning to the South, but they did not.

True enough but lets not forget paranoia is not exclusive to the russians. What should we call the american reaction to 9-11 and its policy of pre-emption which says we'll hit you if we even think you may be planing to hit us?

How about the american public supporting to invade a country not because of what they have done to us but because of what they might someday do to us?

While I think they are a little more paranoid than we are we are still more paranoid than say........Denmark.

While I believe that Denmark can afford not to be paranoid in a way that the US cannot, I do see your point. However, I do wish that people would stop equating my position on Russia as an endorsement of American foreign policy, because a) these are two different things and b) I do not endorse the policies of the US in very many respects, including but certainly not limited to Iraq and the all of the rest of its post 9/11 madness.

I will, however, say that the US at least makes attempts at appearing to adhere to a rule of law, whereas the Russians never have and never will. To them, every action is unilateral and based upon their own self interest at the expense of everyone else around them. The US has only been blatantly guilty of this policy under the Bush Administration and thankfully, that is coming to a long overdue end very soon.
 
Western countries put a blind eye on ethnic cleansing of more than 250,000 Serbs from Krajina in Croatia. The UN peacekeepers hadn't done anything to stop it. What's the shame!

We, Russians, didn't let Saakashvili to make the ethnic cleansing of Ossetains. Our soldiers are real heroes.

About ethnic cleansing in Krajina:
http://arirusila.blogactiv.eu/2008/08/05/forgotten-pogrom-operation-storm/

This was an horrific event, and one which was perpetrated by (with American and NATO assistance) Franjo Tuđman and his former Ustaša allies, many of whom were early leaders in his HDZ party, in the HOP, and emigrés living abroad who financed much of Tuđman's political career.

Tuđman was no better than Milošević insofar as they both manipulated nationalist sentiments and fomented ethnic hatreds for heir own personal political gains. This was why it is highly likely (and has been commented upon by several prosecutors) that he would have been indicted for war crimes at the Hague had he lived longer than he did.

His own parents were murdered by the Ustaša shortly after the end of World War II, while he at the same time was a Tito partisan fighting against them during the war. But for political expediency, and in return for the financial support he later received from former members of the Ustaša, he later claimed that it was the Communists who killed his parents.

This man was a pure opportunist through and through, without a moral bone in his body.

However, this does not take away from the fact that the events which you mention (or Operation Storm, which was the code name it was given) were brought on by five years of aggression and ethnic cleansing of Croats on the part of the RSK and the Serbs' refusal to accept the Z-4 plan which would give Serbs autonomy inside Croatia.

THe RSK leadership under Milan Martić was expecting the military support of Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić in Bosnia as well as Milošević in Serbia to assist the RSK agaiunst any Croat military action, and so refused to accept any deal that was less than complete independence for the Krajina Serbs.

Apparently the West had these same concerns. In his book My Life, former President Bill Clinton wrote that he believed the Serbs could only be brought to the negotiating table if they sustained major losses on the ground, while Germany's Chancellor at the time, Helmut Kohl, agreed with him according to an article on the Croatian language web page of VOAnews.com, that he "was also aware that peaceful diplomacy will be successful only when Serbs experience significant failure on the battlefield."

There were other concerns as well. After the Srebrenica Genocide, there were concerns over the re occurrence of the massacre in the Bihac pocket area, where the population of Bosniaks was four times larger then in Srebrenica and which was surrounded and under attack by Bosnian Serb and Croatian Serb forces.

Also what Mr. Rusila fails to mention in his article is that the enormous bulk of Serbs, between approximately 150,000 to 200,000, according to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia's indictment against Ante Gotovina, one of the Croatian generals alleged to have been involved in the planning and execution of Operation Storm, had fled the area to Serb controlled parts of Bosnia and Serbia before the Croat forces had even arrived.

Also, Serbia refused to allow a great many refugees to cross the border after a few days into the operation, and either conscripted the able bodied men into its forces in Bosnia and eastern Slovenia.

On August 12th, Serbia also announced that men of military age would no longer be allowed to cross from Bosnian Serb-controlled territory into Serbia proper, claiming that it had accepted 107,000 refugees from Krajina since August 4.

Some of the RSK refugees were declared illegal migrants by FRY authorities and many were deported. Some were reportedly turned over by the police to paramilitary units of Željko Ražnatović, a.k.a. Arkan, in the latter's base in the village of Erdut in eastern Slavonia and reported being mistreated by Arkan's men. Reportedly, conscripted refugees taken to eastern Slavonia had been beaten and humiliated in public because they "surrendered Krajina to the enemy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Storm#Refugees

Just for the record, Željko Ražnatović was a Serbian career criminal and later a paramilitary leader who was notable for organizing and leading a paramilitary force in the Yugoslav Wars. He was on Interpol's most wanted list in the 1970s and 1980s for robberies and murders committed in a number of European countries and was later indicted by the UN for crimes against humanity, including his role as a leader in acts of genocide. His bio makes for some very interesting reading, I can assure you...

If anything, the Serbs were just as responsible as the Croats for many of the deaths and displacements that occurred during this time, from what I see. And against their own people, for Heaven's sake!

As to your final statement, there is no evidence to purport that the Georgians had any intention of engaging in ethnic cleansing. And the brutal and barbaric acts of the Russian soldiers and the filth they dragged into Georgia with them to murder and loot the country would hardly be considered heroic even in the most generous definition of the word.

Are they thugs and criminals? Quite so. But heroes? Not even close.
 
Originally Posted by AsianDream
I think the Dalai Lama is a total waste of space - who did nothing meaningful to protest the occupation of his country by China - except run away to somewhere else.

For the first time I find myself agreeing with you on something. I believe that he is a coward for signing the Seventeen Point Agreement and then for fleeing to India afterwards. I am in total disagreement with his Middle Way approach and believe that if he is to be a leader, then he should be a full leader and advocate for the full independence of his homeland and nothing less.

China has already various times proven itself to be a poor steward of Tibet and should be deprived of it forthwith.

I'm glad to agree with you on something as well!

I've got no huge complaint about the way China has administered Hong Kong.

But China has done a very poor job in Tibet - Personally I think my countries rule over Tibet is something which does shame us.
 
Your first point is actually inaccurate. In most (but not all) cases international law tends to favour territorial integrity over self determination. I have no idea why this is, but that is the way it is. This is no one maintains embassies in Taiwan, for example, but rather "interest sections" and such other nonsense.

I agree with your second point and believe that China has no right to be in Tibet.

I also agree with your third point. The problem is that when such a referendum was attempted, the Georgians who live in the region were not permitted a vote, and the process was flawed and thereby unrecognised by the international community.

If they wish to have another such referendum it must be free and fair with the participation of the Georgians and it must be done acording to international standards.

International Law is rather a misnomer – as the concept tends to be almost completely about the rights of “States” rather the rights of people.

In many ways it is the same as when the “Divine Right” of Kings was assumed.

Yes you are right – a flawed process that didn’t allow all people to vote would be just a charade. Also peace within a region does imply that the rights of minorities should be protected.

The Tibet situation is more complicated. This is country invaded by the Chinese – which they subsequently flooded with ethnic Han Chinese immigrants.
No one (except for the Chinese government) knows the current population balance – but it is quite likely that Tibetans are now a minority in their own country – which is one of the issues that caused the recent conflicts.

A purely “Democratic” referendum in Tibet on Chinese rule would not produce the result many in the West would expect.

The issue of an invading population taking over a country is not a new one – even if they hadn’t been exterminated en-masse – the American Indians and Australian natives etc would still have been a minority in the country that was taken from them
 
I'm glad to agree with you on something as well!

I've got no huge complaint about the way China has administered Hong Kong.

But China has done a very poor job in Tibet - Personally I think my countries rule over Tibet is something which does shame us.

Ahh...the gentle breeze of reconciliation and harmony...:-)

Hong Kong has the great fortune of having been administered quite well by the British for over 150 years. It is worth more to the Chinese as a stable democracy and economic powerhouse, something which Chinese meddling could very well imperil. That is the only thing that would have inclined the Chinese to agree to sign the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984.

My question is what happens in 2047 when the terms of the agreement have expired? What will China be like then? What will be the implications for Hong Kong if China remains with the same autocratic tyrannical regime it has today? This is something which does concern me.

However, it is highly likely that things will be very different by then and could very well turn out for the best after all. We shall see.
 
International Law is rather a misnomer – as the concept tends to be almost completely about the rights of “States” rather the rights of people.

In many ways it is the same as when the “Divine Right” of Kings was assumed.

Yes you are right – a flawed process that didn’t allow all people to vote would be just a charade. Also peace within a region does imply that the rights of minorities should be protected.

The Tibet situation is more complicated. This is country invaded by the Chinese – which they subsequently flooded with ethnic Han Chinese immigrants.
No one (except for the Chinese government) knows the current population balance – but it is quite likely that Tibetans are now a minority in their own country – which is one of the issues that caused the recent conflicts.

A purely “Democratic” referendum in Tibet on Chinese rule would not produce the result many in the West would expect.

The issue of an invading population taking over a country is not a new one – even if they hadn’t been exterminated en-masse – the American Indians and Australian natives etc would still have been a minority in the country that was taken from them

While your characterisation if international law is correct insofar as it concerns nations rather than private citizens, this does not make it a misnomer. It is he job of individual nations themselves to codify laws which will protect their private citizens and people living within their borders. It is the job of international law to provide a framework wherein all nations may live and act under a common structure of rights and responsibilities in order to provide for the peace and stability necessary to prevent conflicts from seeping beyond those borders.

This is why international law tends to favour territorial integrity over self determination. The system as we know it today was designed to formulate globally accepted standards of human behaviour as pertains to sovereign nations and international organisations primarily. It is to provide stability.

Actually, in the days of the "Divine Rights of Kings", such a system would have been impossible, as rulers like Louis (L'État, c'est moi) XIV and Friedrich II (der Große) believed themselves to be above any laws they did not themselves create. The present system seeks to set a general accepted standard in comparison.

This system is one which provides for stability, not individual freedoms or civil rights. That is the job of the individual states themselves. Respect for and adherence to territorial integrity provides for stability. Nationalism and minority self determination do not.

The situation in Taiwan is a peaceful one at present because all parties are willing to accept the status quo as long as there is an acceptance of China's One China policy accepting that Taiwan is a part of China and respecting China's territorial integrity. Can you imagine the bloodshed that would ensue were that delicate balance to become upset?

Yugoslavia under Tito managed the different ethnic minorities with an iron fist and did so for the unity of the country. In his own words, Slaba Srbija jednako jaka Jugoslavija, or a "Weak Serbia equals a strong Yugoslavia". War and instability only erupted when Tito was no longer around and every little ethnic group had to "express it's self determination". It was bedlam and chaos.

The Russians, while at the same time defending the "rights" of the Ossetians and Abkhazians in Georgia, brutally crushed and destroyed Chechnya to its very foundations in order to prevent it from becoming independent, and why? Because they viewed Chechen independence as a threat to Russia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and a magnet for other disgruntled Caucasian peoples chafing under Russian rule. Interesting hypocrisy, no?

A blanket endorsement of self determination by all peoples would be disastrous and cause chaos throughout every country in the world. What would stop the Native Americans from demanding their reservations become independent, for example? The Aborigines in Australia?

What would stop Mississippi from demanding independence over the ineptitude of Washington's handling of Hurricane Katrina? Or what about if conservative states began to feel that the direction of the country was becoming too liberal for their taste, and decided to secede?

What about the Bretons in France? Should they be allowed to secede? There are currently 115 active autonomist and secessionist movements around the world, on every continent except Antarctica. Do you know what a precedent would be set if international law were to favour these movements over territorial integrity? I shudder to imagine it.
 
International Law is rather a misnomer – as the concept tends to be almost completely about the rights of “States” rather the rights of people.

In many ways it is the same as when the “Divine Right” of Kings was assumed.

A good observation! Then it was kings, now it's "territorial integrity".

But that's a term which condones evil, an authorization for oppression, and as in Tibet, for the subjugation and elimination of a native population.

No standard of law based on anything but the root fact of human life, that each individual owns himself, is moral. The other option is what Russia holds, that the individual belongs to -- is the property of -- the State.

Under the rubric of "territorial integrity", Russia's invasion of Georgia was wrong -- but for the wrong reasons. That invasion was wrong because Georgia belongs to the Georgians, and since that is so, the Russians have no business there, for any reason. As Bush Sr. understood in Kuwait, the mandate for legitimate use of force stops at someone else's border. But as Georgia's president did not understand, the mandate for the use of force also stops at a border decided on by the people of a region.

"Territorial integrity" is a principle of tyranny.
 
A good observation! Then it was kings, now it's "territorial integrity".

But that's a term which condones evil, an authorization for oppression, and as in Tibet, for the subjugation and elimination of a native population.

No standard of law based on anything but the root fact of human life, that each individual owns himself, is moral. The other option is what Russia holds, that the individual belongs to -- is the property of -- the State.

Under the rubric of "territorial integrity", Russia's invasion of Georgia was wrong -- but for the wrong reasons. That invasion was wrong because Georgia belongs to the Georgians, and since that is so, the Russians have no business there, for any reason. As Bush Sr. understood in Kuwait, the mandate for legitimate use of force stops at someone else's border. But as Georgia's president did not understand, the mandate for the use of force also stops at a border decided on by the people of a region.

"Territorial integrity" is a principle of tyranny.

Your utopian ideal of individual self determination is sweet. Unfortunately for you, such a vision would swiftly find itself converted into an anti-utopia were it ever to exist at all. Such is the state of human nature that individuals, themselves with their own self interest, greed, and inconsistency would devour the entire system from within. Human nature requires that society needs structure and stability. It needs rules and regulations and it needs order.

It seems that there are those who would like to see us all living in little tribal clans on small pieces of communal property like the Neanderthals of old. The fact is that we have a system of nation-states. It is a system which, for all of its flaws, has worked for the last thousand years or so, and will continue to do so, despite the bleatings of the overly idealistic.

The realities of life are such that, in order for there to be proper order and stability, there can never be a universal state of self determination. Someone is inevitably going to be disappointed, because everyone cannot possibly be satisfied.

You seem to forget that, while favouring territorial integrity, the international system also provides for redress and the proper venues for the negotiations of circumstances and situations when this principle has become untenable to the point of becoming no longer workable. These are the proper procedures to follow wherein one's "self-determination" may be heard and acknowledged to the degree permissible by the prevalent circumstances. In other words, within the realm of possibility.

This is what happened in Kosovo. This is what should have happened in South Ossetia. International law like any legal system is fluid and continues to expand based upon precedents set, adjudications reached and new agreements drawn. The principles of sovereignty and self determination themselves continue to evolve within the framework of the system.

If it were as tyrannical as you claim it to be, that would not be the case. Your claims are empty hyperbole.

I notice that whenever I ask about the American Civil War and the circumstances surrounding it, everyone becomes very quiet. Because they know the answer. The Civil War was a just war fought for the right reasons with the right result ensuing. The Union was saved and the secessionists were defeated.

Or do you, and I shall ask this yet again, believe that the Southern States should have had the right to secede? And if so, do you believe that the Union had the right to defend its integrity? Answer me this and I will have a better understanding of your position on this matter.
 
It seems that there are those who would like to see us all living in little tribal clans on small pieces of communal property like the Neanderthals of old. The fact is that we have a system of nation-states. It is a system which, for all of its flaws, has worked for the last thousand years or so, and will continue to do so, despite the bleatings of the overly idealistic.

The realities of life are such that, in order for there to be proper order and stability, there can never be a universal state of self determination. Someone is inevitably going to be disappointed, because everyone cannot possibly be satisfied.

Well put Chal. While the state of affairs in the Balkans or Georgia may bring us to despair we can still be encouraged by the ability of the Indian state to remain whole despite its many ethnic, religious and linguistic differences.

The occasional violence there reminds us that not everyone is satisfied but the state endures and not like Tito's Yugoslavia via the iron hand but through a vibrant democracy. We are better served by its example than by the warring factions elsewhere.




Chalchalero said:
I notice that whenever I ask about the American Civil War and the circumstances surrounding it, everyone becomes very quiet. Because they know the answer. The Civil War was a just war fought for the right reasons with the right result ensuing. The Union was saved and the secessionists were defeated.

Or do you, and I shall ask this yet again, believe that the Southern States should have had the right to secede? And if so, do you believe that the Union had the right to defend its integrity? Answer me this and I will have a better understanding of your position on this matter.

I'll admit I've always wondered why that which a state joins freely it cannot exit freely. Must it forever become a prisoner of its own decision?

I suppose the problem is allowing a state the right to exit the union is tantamount to giving them veto power over the collective decisions of the whole and a union under such rules is doomed to failure.

The essence of democracy is that after a vote is taken we all abide by its outcome. Allowing a state to quit because it didn't like the outcome of a vote violates the understanding of it joining the union.
 
Well put Chal. While the state of affairs in the Balkans or Georgia may bring us to despair we can still be encouraged by the ability of the Indian state to remain whole despite its many ethnic, religious and linguistic differences.

The occasional violence there reminds us that not everyone is satisfied but the state endures and not like Tito's Yugoslavia via the iron hand but through a vibrant democracy. We are better served by its example than by the warring factions elsewhere.

What a fantastic example! India has numerous groups and subgroups that exist within the two main ethno-linguistic groups which populate the country (Dravidian and Indo-Aryan), as well as some groups that do not fall within these two groups at all and speak completely separate and distinct languages.

India is the second most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the African continent, and its constitution lists 21 official languages, in addition to Hindi (the 'primary' official language) and English (the 'subsidiary' official language). According to the Manorama Yearbook of 2003, there are, as of last count, 1,652 dialects spoken in India.

If these people can live together in a vibrant democracy with a booming and expanding economy and relative stability, then it is difficult to understand why other countries cannot learn from their example.

I'll admit I've always wondered why that which a state joins freely it cannot exit freely. Must it forever become a prisoner of its own decision?

I suppose the problem is allowing a state the right to exit the union is tantamount to giving them veto power over the collective decisions of the whole and a union under such rules is doomed to failure.

The essence of democracy is that after a vote is taken we all abide by its outcome. Allowing a state to quit because it didn't like the outcome of a vote violates the understanding of it joining the union.

That is exactly right! The contrary would, as you pointed out, basically reduce the union to that of a hostage to the caprices of each individual state. The US would be relegated to no more than a Third World country in no time.
 
Your utopian ideal of individual self determination is sweet. Unfortunately for you, such a vision would swiftly find itself converted into an anti-utopia were it ever to exist at all. Such is the state of human nature that individuals, themselves with their own self interest, greed, and inconsistency would devour the entire system from within. Human nature requires that society needs structure and stability. It needs rules and regulations and it needs order.

But the "need" for rules and regulations is always taken as an excuse to continually increase the number of such. The Constitution was an attempt to make a government not permitted to expand its powers without amending the basic document, but we have nevertheless added on huge bureaucracies with no authorization in the Constitution. Bureaucracy inevitably whittles away at freedom, and we've made a bundle of it.
Government may be a necessary evil, but it ought to be bound with chains and shackles to keep it from growing. That's what the Constitution was meant to do, but we have fed the monster Washington warned us against, and now it is consuming us.

I notice that whenever I ask about the American Civil War and the circumstances surrounding it, everyone becomes very quiet. Because they know the answer. The Civil War was a just war fought for the right reasons with the right result ensuing. The Union was saved and the secessionists were defeated.

Or do you, and I shall ask this yet again, believe that the Southern States should have had the right to secede? And if so, do you believe that the Union had the right to defend its integrity? Answer me this and I will have a better understanding of your position on this matter.

They joined freely, and they should have been allowed to leave freely.
 
I'll admit I've always wondered why that which a state joins freely it cannot exit freely. Must it forever become a prisoner of its own decision?

I suppose the problem is allowing a state the right to exit the union is tantamount to giving them veto power over the collective decisions of the whole and a union under such rules is doomed to failure.

The essence of democracy is that after a vote is taken we all abide by its outcome. Allowing a state to quit because it didn't like the outcome of a vote violates the understanding of it joining the union.

The problem is that states can effectively become disenfranchised because the populations of other states totally outnumber them. That's why maintaining a Republic is more important than maintaining a democracy -- Jefferson rightly feared the tyranny of the majority, as can be seen in many states where rural areas are in practice not represented in the government at all because they're so outnumbered by the urban population.
 
Ahh...the gentle breeze of reconciliation and harmony...:-)

Hong Kong has the great fortune of having been administered quite well by the British for over 150 years. It is worth more to the Chinese as a stable democracy and economic powerhouse, something which Chinese meddling could very well imperil. That is the only thing that would have inclined the Chinese to agree to sign the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984.

My question is what happens in 2047 when the terms of the agreement have expired? What will China be like then? What will be the implications for Hong Kong if China remains with the same autocratic tyrannical regime it has today? This is something which does concern me.

However, it is highly likely that things will be very different by then and could very well turn out for the best after all. We shall see.

I don’t think the 2047 expiry date of the Chinese agreement over Hong Kong with the British has much relevance.

What are the British able to do to enforce this in the meantime anyway?– sending a few imperial gunboats no longer looks like a very credible threat – even if the “cash strapped” Brits could afford to do it.

But you are right – the British did run HK very well – their most important legacy is the idea that government administration should not be corrupt and the importance of the rule of law.

In 1997 Hong Kong’s GDP was 15% of that of mainland China with (at the time) 0.7% of their population. Excluding the rather parasitic (Party connected) Chinese “Property billionaires” much of the real industrial growth in China has been driven by people from Hong Kong.

Politically - the fact China hasn’t fucked up HK is more a message to Taiwan – to show that they can be trusted.

Anyway – I’m in danger of straying seriously “off topic” – maybe I should open a thread on the “future of Hong Kong” – but I doubt many people here (predominantly US) would either know enough about it or be interested enough to comment.
 
Back
Top