Posted on 10/01/2017 2:04:52 PM PDT by Nextrush
a federation is self serving and sustaining. Don’t look for clauses that allow it to break up. That is a defat for the federalists who put it together. The primary rights belong to people who band together and establish their own political entity.
Let;’s try the pot a little. iraq should have been divided into Kurd, Shite and Sunni three countries. but no, we had to try to keep it together. Now what is the big issue? The kurds have fought for and want their own country. What is the right or concept of freedom that denies the kurds independence? And the same question for Barcelona?
>>> Catalonia was ‘won right to statehood’ <<<
“Is English your second language?”
It’s a quote from Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont who said that. Puigdemont reportedly speaks Spanish, Catalan, English, French, German, and Italian.
Also, you’re very rude to insult someone without fully understanding what you’re insulting them about.
“What is the right or concept of freedom that denies the kurds independence? And the same question for Barcelona?”
An overwhelming force to stop it.
In these cases, might makes right.
That is why Slovenia, Croatia, the U.S., Eritrea, Ireland, Indonesia, Indochina, Bangladesh, and all of S. America are independent, while Chechnya, Corsica, Tamil Eelam, Tibet, and Cabinda are not.
The former fought harder and wore down the nation they are succeeding from. The later weren’t so lucky.
PREDICTION: Catalonia will the Europe’s first “Islamic Republic.”
Might doesn’t make right it never does. Would the british have been right had they won the war for independence. would all of Jeffersons words been wrong? What every force you exert on them, free people have the right of self-governance. did you go to school in the soviet union?
” Would the British have been right had they won the war for independence.”
It isn’t an ethical question, as war has two sides equally wanting to be victorious. Just because the reasons are good, doesn’t mean you will win the armed aspect of an independence movement.
War vetoes or ratifies the rationality for the two combatants. When I say “right makes right”, it isnt a personal value of mine, it is the reality of the situation. Rush has said the same when he said that the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Not that the force is right or wrong, just that it IS.
You can easily say as well that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For ever move for secession, that isnt a mutual decision with the central government, there will be an attempt to stop it.
Free people dont have the right of self-governance, they have a right to TRY. A right denotes a permission for independence without interference, which we know is not how this really ever has worked.
“did you go to school in the soviet union?”
Now, now, don’t straw man. I honestly just see the dynamic of this from both sides.
Oh, duh. Sorry. The credit for #13 goes to livius.
Quebec ‘95 was 49.42% YES 50.58% NO. Absolutely ridiculous situation either way. I believe a region should get perhaps 66% or more YES out of all the voting age people for the independence.
Makes sense.
there are two sides to war but not two sides too self-governance. War destroys legal rights and claims of independence and defaults to force for the decision,. your acceptance of war as a valid determinant of representation is puzzling and shows a value of villanelle over human rights as dod the Nazi, the soviet and the chinese.
The british ruling India and parts of China was not legitimate. it just showed power. And finally the brits had to admit it.
” War destroys legal rights and claims of independence and defaults to force for the decision”
Exactly! Which is the reason why active secessionist attempts are not generally suppressed with diplomacy. The CSA went down by the musket, Texas achieved independence from Mexico via the same.
“your acceptance of war as a valid determinant of representation is puzzling and shows a value of villanelle over human rights as dod the Nazi, the soviet and the chinese.”
War is a tool. It doesn’t feel, it is just a means to an end. Yes, a Hitler uses it for evil, and a Washington uses it for good. In the end, whomever uses it the most effectively decides the question in their favor.
It’s like when Franklin said that we have a “republic if you can keep it”. If Catalonia goes UDI, then it is up to them to keep it. I hope it isnt via war, but I suspect that it wont be pretty.
“The british ruling India and parts of China was not legitimate.”
In whose eyes though? The British held India through force of arms (with local help), and they saw it as “good”. We held the Philippians via the same rationale with intense opposition both at home and in the islands at the time.
Morally is it right? No, especially in hindsight. But was it the “law of the land”, and the reality of the situation? just as much so. They both are opposites, and can exist at the same time.
well at least i think you admitted that the rights exist. Now you only have to realize that force is the antithesis of human rights and you can rewind to the issue at hand the people in Spain have the right to secede. As does California and as did the south.
I still dont think that secession is a “right” like we have a right to freedom of speech and to bear arms. It is merely an opportunity to be taken if people have the courage to try, and the numbers to back it up.
National integrity is something that a sovereign state has a duty to protect. Maybe in this case, Spain may find the juice is not worth the squeeze, but if they offer no challenge, then they admit that Spain is not an entity that has the will to exist, and that it is de facto permission for the disintegration of the Spanish state.
the right is not secession the right is self governance. secession may be necessary to exercise that right. You don’t have basic understanding or agreement of what I say about freedoms. read the declaration if you don’t believe me. i tire of this verbal masturbation on an issue that seems so obvious to those who value freedom.
One last try. How can Nevada NM AZ and Oregon unite to keep Cal in a union they don’t vote to be in? Do you seen how ridiculous your positions is?
Statehood as in nation state.
Oh stop trying to crown yourself with some wreath of virtue on this.
The fact is simply that you can try to seccede from a nation, but without the ability to survive a challenge via armed conflict, this right you insist exists, is purely academic.
If you don’t have a basic understanding of this reality then go ahead and vote to seccede from something and see what happens. Maybe write the secretary of state from the CSA for tips.
That entity won’t give a damn if you “value freedom”, they will just see someone trying to steal their territory, and they will move to stop it.
Franco was a leftist according to this Green Berret...
https://www.funker530.com/history-lesson-green-beret/
geez, really? Just look at the videos online. There are several.
I was referring to that one specific pic.
I was referring to the one specific pic on Drudge’s main page.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.