BF2S Forums Freedom, Independence & Sovereignty

I don't think you could really call those states sovereign. They are very small, the russian influence on them has already been huge. When they get their sovereignity through the overpower of the russian government, they will always be subjected to them.

It pretty much only sounds better than occupation.

at this point them being independant or absorbed into russia is one and the same thing imo, with the latter one actually improving Russia's image, too.

"What about Chechnya?"

everyone is hypocritical.

LATEST NEWS: US President George W Bush has urged Russia not to recognise Georgia's two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

You see this is why I think the US should be more reluctant to intervene in world affairs that have no direct effect on the US itself, they leave themselves open to criticism when inconsistency is shown. The US waded into Iraq to implement a regime change in the name of liberty for those who did not want to live under the incumbent regime and yet now express anger at another country attempting to recognise the sovereignty of a state that has had no desire to be ruled from Tblisi since the early 90's. Why apply one rule for one scenario and another rule in another scenario?

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Everyone is a hypocrite here. Imo, because of this new information/digital age. Another "Cold War" between the US/Russia will only end up damaging both countries. People aren't as stupid/uninformed as they were in the old Cold War, they'll realise just how dumb both countries are in this.

yeah, fuck 'em both, ship everyone to antarctica and canada

Braddock wrote:

LATEST NEWS: US President George W Bush has urged Russia not to recognise Georgia's two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

You see this is why I think the US should be more reluctant to intervene in world affairs that have no direct effect on the US itself, they leave themselves open to criticism when inconsistency is shown. The US waded into Iraq to implement a regime change in the name of liberty for those who did not want to live under the incumbent regime and yet now express anger at another country attempting to recognise the sovereignty of a state that has had no desire to be ruled from Tblisi since the early 90's. Why apply one rule for one scenario and another rule in another scenario?

A more appropriate comparison would be Kosovo, not Iraq. At least with regard to secessionist support or lack thereof. From an invasion standpoint, Georgia and Iraq are completely different: scale, intent, etc.

Regardless, a country's actions/position on any two topics of similar circumstance could easily appear hypocritical (ie, US/Russia WRT Kosovo/Georgia). Why? Because whatever that country's leadership determines to be in that country's national interest will rule the day, not public appearances.

Yeah, I think that's the key difference between the USA and Russia. The USA tend to think of themselves as the leader of the "Free World" and all that, and Russia pretty much at least know that they're not the most moral country in the world and don't try to act like they are. If the US at least toned down the whole Freedom/Liberty crap then I'm sure it would receive less criticism for its actions.

What I don't like is how it's like the UK isn't even an independent country anymore. The US/EU/NATO are influencing the country waaay fucking too much for its own good. That's three fucking big entities all getting in the way/trying to control us.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-26 04:40:39)

Aren't you the same people who said no one should recognize Kosovo's independence?

And Mek: I don't think our government needs to "tone down the whole Freedom/Liberty crap". Our government just needs to act in accordance with its words...or stop talking. I'd rather see the former than the latter, because I don't believe that either freedom or liberty are "crap".

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Aren't you the same people who said no one should recognize Kosovo's independence?

I certainly disagreed with Kosovo, I don't agree with plantationism - if ethnic Albanians want to live in their own country they can fuck off back to Albania as far as I'm concerned. Ossetia and Abkhazia are different though as they are culturally and linguistically distinct and indigenous to the region. They are ethnically neither Russian nor Georgian and they haven't moved their en masse from some other territory.

Regardless of how they got there, it was a cultural enclave that wanted independence from Serbia. Some agreed with it, some disagreed with it. The parties who agreed with it seem to be the same who are disagreeing with S Ossetia and Abkhazia doing the same. The parties who disagreed with it seem to be the same who are agreeing with S Ossetia and Abkhazia doing the same.

The position of people should be the same between the two situations. They are markedly similar. The only difference you can find is how the people who live there got there in the past. I say that is an irrelevant point. They are there now, they want independence now. The central government in both cases doesn't want that to happen.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And Mek: I don't think our government needs to "tone down the whole Freedom/Liberty crap". Our government just needs to act in accordance with its words...or stop talking. I'd rather see the former than the latter, because I don't believe that either freedom or liberty are "crap".

I would concur with you except that I believe the US should stop interfering in complex situations because for every friend they make by intervening they also make an enemy and ultimately they just create more trouble for themselves in the long run. Countries are getting far too quick to intervene these days, people need to sort shit out for themselves sometimes - look at Africa, years and years of handouts and they still haven't got their shit in order.

I'm no fan of interventionism either. My point was that if the US chooses to interfere and says it is doing so for freedom and liberty, then the actions need to reflect that. While that is normally the case, the higher-profile situations tend to devolve into something completely different...or at least apparently contradictory actions get reported a lot more often than those that are in line with what is said.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Regardless of how they got there, it was a cultural enclave that wanted independence from Serbia. Some agreed with it, some disagreed with it. The parties who agreed with it seem to be the same who are disagreeing with S Ossetia and Abkhazia doing the same. The parties who disagreed with it seem to be the same who are agreeing with S Ossetia and Abkhazia doing the same.

The position of people should be the same between the two situations. They are markedly similar. The only difference you can find is how the people who live there got there in the past. I say that is an irrelevant point. They are there now, they want independence now. The central government in both cases doesn't want that to happen.

I don't agree with you that you have to have the same viewpoint on these two issues. Using your logic anyone who agrees with Kosovo would have to agree with the concept of Muslims being allowed their own legal system or mini-state within any Western country they emigrate to, provided they have the numbers.

Plantationism is just a subtle form of invasion, it is not a legitimate means to create a country. The mere concept of plantationism means an indigenous community has to lose out and that's not fair. Whatever about plantation countries that are now 100's of years old (for them there's too much damage done now to try and change things wholesale) plantation tactics should not be allowed to be used in this day and age.

Am I to presume you support the idea of Mexican strongholds in the Southern and South Western States being given independence?

No. I didn't support Kosovo's independence, either.

The origins of an ethnic enclave are far less important in the independence calculus than the current status of the enclave. If it's a recent situation where one power has displaced the ethnic majority in order to consolidate power in that area (a la OT settlements), then the "origin" is certainly in play. If it's hundreds of years later, no one who is alive today ever lived there--nor have their families for generations--then the originating circumstances of the enclave are really quite moot.

Dmitry Medvedev is a pawn.