[mrtaber]

OK, I don't know what I think about this, but what do you people think? Would it be better for the world if the US, China, and Russia all split up into smaller entities? Should we include India and Indonesia in the list?(no larger than France/Germany/UK/Italy, population-wise?)

Arguments for/against? I'm thinking, I'm thinking...

MarkT

(edited typo)

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: mrtaber ]

[bobette]

Originally posted by mrtaber:
<STRONG>OK, I don't know what I think about this, but what do you people think? Would it be better for the world if the US, China, and Russia all split up into smaller entities? Should we include India and Indonesia in the list?(no larger than France/Germany/UK/Italy, population-wise?)

Arguments for/against? I'm thinking, I'm thinking...

MarkT

(edited typo)

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: mrtaber ]</STRONG>

What?!? It's like thinking you can break up a house in a bunch of stray bricks, a loose bathtub, toilet hanging from a tree, and keep all those morsels functionning as they were before as a whole. Many territories (as a few american states) would become third world countries without the infrastructure a larger state offers.

Then again, some territories would be better off left alone, like Tibet, or Kashmir. You can't generalize something like that. It has to be considered on a one-on-one basis.

In many cases, just a bit of democracy would do fine...

Hail the King of the Rogue state of Vermont! haaarrrrr....

[driven]

Originally posted by bobette:
<STRONG>

What?!? It's like thinking you can break up a house in a bunch of stray bricks, a loose bathtub, toilet hanging from a tree, and keep all those morsels functionning as they were before as a whole. Many territories (as a few american states) would become third world countries without the infrastructure a larger state offers.

Then again, some territories would be better off left alone, like Tibet, or Kashmir. You can't generalize something like that. It has to be considered on a one-on-one basis.

In many cases, just a bit of democracy would do fine...

Hail the King of the Rogue state of Vermont! haaarrrrr....

</STRONG>

And then you have places that WERE split that never should have been ....
(Korea)

[mrtaber]

Good points. I was just thinking in terms of economic and military hegemony...and from the point of view of their neighbors (and, often, "victims").

MarkT

[sproutsie]

so are you suggesting that they need to be split up to limit their power? what about japan? even if you factor in their recent economic dive, they are still huge- geographical strength is, especially in this newest stage of capitalist expansion, not really an issue. actually, thinking backwards, great britain is pretty puny, too- they just expanded outward financially.

um...tangent....what was i thinking....oh, yes- um, i think that some places may be better off splitting, but if you look at the india-pakistan split, that caused untold death and destruction because of the way it was done. rarely do you have an easy way to split a territory- people whose parents may have come from one area may themselves now live somewhere else and still have ties with the original place- so citizenship and employment mobility are issues. nigeria is split (recently quite viciously) between various religions and major ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean that muslims all live in the north and christians or animists all live in the southeast and southwest- nigeria is a big bag of problems, but splitting it now into different countries is going to create some really nasty repercussions for christians employed and living in the north and muslims in the south....

my point isn't that these things aren't possible solutions to stratification within the state, but that it is not a simple geographic divide. and if you say that splitting up states for purposes of controlling hegemony, well, considering that most states in the west are increasingly exporting their manufacturing to the developing world, it won't have the same effect as it would have in the days before multi-national corporate power.

is that valid, or no?

[mrtaber]

I was/am fishing for ideas...I was just sipping my first cup o'joe this morning, wondering how it would be. So far, as usual, my fellow 'NNers are bringing up good points.

And, as usual, reality is messy, resisting simple solutions...

MarkT

[malvolio]

Originally posted by mrtaber:
<STRONG>

And, as usual, reality is messy, resisting simple solutions...

MarkT </STRONG>

Reality is for those who can't face drugs!

[sproutsie]

Originally posted by mrtaber:
<STRONG>I was/am fishing for ideas...I was just sipping my first cup o'joe this morning, wondering how it would be. So far, as usual, my fellow 'NNers are bringing up good points.

And, as usual, reality is messy, resisting simple solutions...

MarkT </STRONG>

actually, i thought this was one of the only discussions that wasn't plugged up with ignorant crap yet. it doesn't look like it will be, either because it isn't sound-bite-ish enough. as in, "gore says terrorism is caused by poverty" to which i think: well, yeah- a person isn't angry for no reason, and this is prolly one of 'em. and the bulk of the responses i see say something to the effect that of course it isn't because bin laden is rich and just hates us. to which i think: wow, yer dum.

anyway, i think i have had enough of la lounge- intelligent conversation is sort of hit or miss here, and that's fine but what i have trouble with is what sometimes looks like deliberate, aggressive ignorance. there is enough of that in the real world without voluntarily subjecting oneself to it electronically.

-sprout