Kosovo's Independence

[MARX ®]

Guys, are you with or against Kosovo's independence? Justify

For me, im totally against its independence, for a simpe reason, we cant just give each tribe a country, while we must seek for world union

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MARX 92

Guys, are you with or against Kosovo's independence? Justify

For me, im totally against its independence, for a simpe reason, we cant just give each tribe a country, while we must seek for world union

Also, just because you don't like a part of the country doesn't mean you have to split it in two.
What if every political party in Lebanon did the same, the country would be divided in pieces(not that it's too intact right now).

[Gilgamesh]

LOL....I didnt vote for any...it is a religious problem all the way... similiar to bangladesh, kurdistan and many other regions....

Peace

[TAREK®]

I agree with Athegan its a relagion thing

PS: 5allouna n7arir lebnen before we talk about Kosovo

[El-Meghwar]

yes i agree.
every people have the right to build its own state when the majority of its people refuse the state which they are in and want to build their own one.
in Kosovo's case, the majority if not all its people wanted that Independance, so why not agreing on it ? and why must we force them to accept Serbia as their country since they hate it and doesen't want the serbian nationality ??!

[Gilgamesh]

Originally Posted by El-Meghwar

yes i agree.
every people have the right to build its own state when the majority of its people refuse the state which they are in and want to build their own one.
in Kosovo's case, the majority if not all its people wanted that Independance, so why not agreing on it ? and why must we force them to accept Serbia as their country since they hate it and doesen't want the serbian nationality ??!

By the same token, Iraq will be three countries(at least), Jews in Iran will have a city named a "country" and so forth in the whole world....

You will get what is similar to the Indian-Pakistani situation, instead of having two groups of people of two religions who hate each other living in the same country, you now have two countries (nuclearly armed) keeping the fate of the millions who live their hostage to any clashes at that bloody border....

I don't believe in borders and countries, but splitting countries along religious lines have proven to be the most twisted application of the concept of borders...

Peace

[El-Meghwar]

Originally Posted by athegan

By the same token, Iraq will be three countries(at least), Jews in Iran will have a city named a "country" and so forth in the whole world....

You will get what is similar to the Indian-Pakistani situation, instead of having two groups of people of two religions who hate each other living in the same country, you now have two countries (nuclearly armed) keeping the fate of the millions who live their hostage to any clashes at that bloody border....

I don't believe in borders and countries, but splitting countries along religious lines have proven to be the most twisted application of the concept of borders...

Peace

if those who you mentionned wanted to have an independant country and were able to establish it, why not ??

[Gilgamesh]

Ofcourse why not ?

We are talking if it is a move that usually carries positive consequences or negative ones....statistically speaking, it is overwhelmingly negative....

Peace

[El-Meghwar]

Originally Posted by athegan

Ofcourse why not ?

We are talking if it is a move that usually carries positive consequences or negative ones....statistically speaking, it is overwhelmingly negative....

Peace

if they were able to establish their country and assure its permanance in the future, the negative effects of their move will disappear with time.
don't forget that declaring Independance and a new country is not easy, a city cannot form a country if it doesen't have enough strong ressources that can make a good economy. a weak state cannot survive, so not if a small city declared its independance it means that it became a state and it can survive.
my answer was if they were able to establish their own country why not ??
establishing the country needs the capacity of assuring its permanence in the future by the ability of having a good economy and a strong self defence system.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally Posted by El-Meghwar

if they were able to establish their country and assure its permanance in the future, the negative effects of their move will disappear with time.
don't forget that declaring Independance and a new country is not easy, a city cannot form a country if it doesen't have enough strong ressources that can make a good economy. a weak state cannot survive, so not if a small city declared its independance it means that it became a state and it can survive.
my answer was if they were able to establish their own country why not ??
establishing the country needs the capacity of assuring its permanence in the future by the ability of having a good economy and a strong self defence system.

When you look at Tibet and Bangladish, your definition of a "country" will change maybe...or even better, wait and watch kosovo

Bangladish for example, can be starved to death in a week or so if both india and pakistan wanted to do that

You asked "Why not?" and I told you the conseqeunces are why....But let me give a hypothetical example (that probably will be real sometime in the future)... Let's say the 800,000 palestinians in lebanon get naturalized and they choose to move all to one area(lets say beka3 for example)....eventually more will move their and more lebanese will move out..Palastinians are well known for their high birth rates....Don't be surprised if they decide to split a part of lebanon to make it their own,but there is one element missing..Instead of being sunni muslims, imagine they are hindus(or anything else)....They can live of agricalture like Tibet... and AS kosovo they will lack an appropriate defense mechanism (even if the U.S. backs them)...they will have their country however

Peace