Unless North Korea turns out a modern, concentration-camp free democracy and Jacob Zuma is actually turning his palace into a hospital then yes, I'd say you're right. :-)

@ Thucy: "yo jamie can you link me something about these icelandics serving in afghanistan? never heard of that"

Certainly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Crisis_Response_Unit

Redhouse got his facts wrong. I always knew Zmaj was from the former Yugoslavia since his name means "snake" in Srpski. Who you're referring to is ILN and he was born after the Cold War ended so therefore doesn't really have the authority to speak for every eastern European on what communism was like. I have no idea when Zmaj was born, but for every Zmaj in Croatia there are 10 people living elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia who I have spoken to who thought Yugoslavia was a fine place to live. Even many imperialists have nice things to say about what Sarajevo was like in the 80s But Redhouse, as is his habit, thinks that whenever he finds one solitary person who agrees with his view about a country, the entire country is therefore represented by that one person.

As for being called ignorant about Iceland, I haven't figured out what exactly I got factually wrong. You just confirmed exactly what I said when you claimed that the US is responsible for Iceland's defense if anything goes wrong. How is that any different than Scotland & Wales deferring its security issues to the British government?

Seems like in this age of entitlement countries want rights but no responsibilities, and the rest of the world is expected to just hand these privileges over. The purpose of statehood is the right to make war and be sovereign over its foreign affairs.

"It's always quite interesting when Putin33 discusses a country, or a situation, and then someone pops up who actually lived in that country or situation and sets him straight. "

This is kinda ironic from someone who mistakenly bashed all Lithuanians living in the Netherlands, only to correct himself and bash all Latvians.

Somebody who can't tell Lithuania from Latvia shouldn't be chuckling about others' alleged "ignorance" about other countries.

Putin,

I apologize,

I mistook Bob Genghiskan for you on page 3 of threadID=862217 where he says "Neither has Zmaj." For some reason, I remembered that as a comment coming from you.

Again, my apologies. Badly recalled that one :S

"Many city states were only viable due to the allies they had. Consider the multitude of city states that existed in Italy or Germany. They remained alive due to a web or alliances.
"

They also had substantial militaries in most cases. In the first war for Italian independence, the Two Sicilies fielded an army that was half as large as the behemoth Sardinia. The Papal States & Tuscany also contributed non-trivial numbers of troops.

In the German civil war, Hannover defeated the Prussians at Langensalza right before it was annexed. But the larger point is, I don't get the point of statehood if you're going to rely on the goodwill of foreign powers to defend yourself.

'Don't worry about redhouse'
-Okay Putin

Anyways, what exactly is your problem with Icelandic home rule? How is that not the most normal thing in the world, particularly given their history? And I don't understand how you can seriously think that the United States should live under British rule today. "Most liberal government in the world?" Weren't they rapidly bringing half the planet under their "liberal government" and didn't the Yankees limit their expansion plans to the area between two oceans and two straight line? What would you call it today, the United Shires of America?

*'Don't worry about it, redhouse'
-Okay Putin.

The international system's awarding of statehood is completely arbitrary. Lots of non-viable islands with a miniscule population are given statehood, like Nauru, who has basically nothing but an airstrip - and Maldives - which doesn't even have roads; but populations suffering under exploitative arrangements are not. Many states are simply states on paper but don't do anything that states do in practice. We're setting up countries for failure, by having absolutely no requirements for independence other than 'goodwill'. Why is Congo a state? It has never been able to defend itself. Mobutu used to hire Moroccan mercenaries to defend against internal unrest in the East. The fact is Congo's population distribution - which is very spread out - with a huge city in the West and a number of large cities in the East but not much in the middle - combined with a poor transportation infrastructure, make statehood a fiction. The East will always rebel, because its basically on the other side of the planet from the capital. Rwanda could probably govern it more effectively, if it was interested in governing and not just raising hell.

Also I never said the US would be better off now under British rule. I imagine if the war didn't happen we'd have some kind of arrangement like Canada, non-violent independence.

By liberal government I'm simply stating facts. France in 1775 was effectively an absolute monarchy which hadn't had an Estates-General in 150 years. The Holy Roman Empire was admittedly an enlightened absolute monarchy but still an autocracy. Spain was under a similar arrangement. Most of Europe was under enlightened despots. Britain actually had parliamentary rule with competing parties by 1775.

"Weren't they rapidly bringing half the planet under their "liberal government""

And? Democracies tend to be Empires. See: Attica; Rome.

@Octavious

It may not be something that is often the number one reason behind violence, but it is *always* a prerequisite. If you don't believe someone is inferior to you, it is almost impossible to justify violence against them unless they are already attacking you.

Thucy, nationalism isn't about others being inferior to you, it's about desire for control over your own affairs. Without nationalism Europe and much of the planet would be governed by 7 or 8 empires. Would that be a good or bad thing?

Nationalism in the relevant context is a belief that your nation is the greatest nation there is. It is not referencing the closely related but different nationalism for self-determination, which is righteous.

That's not a definition of nationalism.

There are not two nationalisms, there is one nationalism. Belief that your national community is entitled to political power, including and most especially the right to control territory. All else is people imputing things they don't like on a word.

@ Thuc

Isn't what you are referring to called "exceptionalism"? Nationalism is a multi-faceted word that can mean different things in different contexts. So is patriotism.

Also, if someone is voluntarily living in a country, doesn't that mean that they believe their country is the best? Otherwise they would not be living there.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20435778.html

Well I thought we were talking about that type of nationalism, i.e. the one that destroyed Europe.

Nationalist like these guys. In the press these days they're called "ultra-nationalist," but in reality it is we who became less nationalist, and these assholes are still the same.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/12/03/montreal-golden-dawn-greek-montreal-update.html

You're using nationalism to describe fascism, which is really problematic.

It doesn't have to be associated with fascism, it's just that in Europe today it always is.

@gunfighter

You seem to be imputing a lot more freedom of movement to people than they actually seem to have.

Us first-worlders tend to do that.

"I haven't figured out what exactly I got factually wrong." Well then, let me help. You started out by stating: "Why should Iceland be a nation? It's been Danish since time immemorial," and when you were called on it added: "I don't doubt it's a nation, I just don't get the rationale for it. Were the Danes abusive? What's the point?"

The first point you got wrong is that Iceland is somehow Danish since forever, when Iceland was settled by a mixture of Norsemen from Norway and Celtic slaves in around 870 AD. None of the settlers to speak of had any connection with the territory that is now known as Denmark. The earliest settlers did not even define themselves as Norwegian since nationality was not really the same thing that you see today. This lot remained independent under a specific system of law known as the Commonwealth in English until 1262 when a civil war forced us to swear allegiance to the king of Norway. When Norway in turn became the property of Denmark, Iceland sort of followed in the bargain.

So why indeed should an indigenous population which shares a common language, history and values not be ruled by some bureaucrats in a country on the other side of an ocean which share none of the above? Well for starters the Danish did not take good care of their "possession" here in the North Atlantic. Sir Joseph Banks, an English traveller to Iceland in the 1790s commented that the Danes had kept Iceland "in a form of Egyptian bondage", and was appalled at the state of many Icelanders. You don't seem to see the rationale for Iceland because you believe it to be Danish, which it is clearly not.

The second part of your rationale that "Iceland has no point" seems to come from the fact that officially Iceland has no armed forces apart from a coast guard and police forces. Those forces, along with our allies secure our independence. Your definition of independence: "You have to be able to defend yourself if another entity challenges your independence by invasion or some other means," the implication being that a country must be able to do so on its own in every case. By that standard you could say that most of Western Europe hardly qualifies as independent seeing their dependence on the United States for most of the past sixty years for their defence.

You ask: "How is [The US agreeing in an international treaty to defend Iceland] any different than Scotland & Wales deferring its security issues to the British government?" Because unlike Scotland and Wales the final say in our foreign and domestic policies is not decided in Washington or London. You say that the purpose of statehood is the "right to make war" and to be sovereign over it's foreign affairs. While I disagree somewhat that that is the entire point of statehood (seeing as it completely ignores the right to self-determination of domestic affairs, a lynchpin of Westphalian sovereignty) I will say this: a) Iceland still has the right to make war. It chooses not to use it. If we wanted to, we could raise an army in order to defend ourselves better on our own, but we'd rather try to live in peace with other nations first and use the NATO alliance to our benefit. b) Iceland is completely sovereign over it's foreign policy and does not answer to the United States, Denmark or anyone. The most recent case: Iceland being the first country to recognise Palestinian statehood (Whether that is a good thing or not is a whole 'nother debate).

@ Bob Genghiskhan

I don't expect any nationalistic sentiment out of someone who wants to leave their country but is unable to.

However, someone who has no desire to leave their country and has the resources to do so should consider their country the best in the world, or else why would they stay?

On the first page I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Putin said, in the sense that I agree with him that patriotism and nationalism aren't war like and that there is irony in America rebelling from the worlds most liberal government on account

I'm not going to debate on Iceland because my knowledge of Icelandic history is rather limited.

However what bothered me the most about your comments in the last 2 pages was that you associated a countries worth with its military size. I couldn't disagree more.

City states are beneficial and good.

"City-states cannot possibly be self-sufficient, and an entity that isn't self-sufficient is not, in my view, 'effective' as a form of organization. "
This is my biggest problem with most people, since when is self-sufficiency a good thing? All self-sufficiency does is lead to stagnation, for scarcity breeds innovation, and a perfectly sustainable, self-sufficient country would have no desire to innovate, and as a result would see little to no innovation.

Edo Japan is the best example I can think of to demonstrate the dangers of self-sufficiency.

I like the city state model because, contrary to your belief, it gets rid of the need or a military.

Countries that in the past had no army haven't gone to war. Botswana for the first 20 years of its independence had a defence budget totalling $0. Being in the most unstable region of the world, many are surprised it never went to war. Liechtenstein had no army and in 1938 their leader married a Jew. Despite bordering Germany from the start of the war, having a jew married to the head of state, and having not a single person in their army, they were able to remain neutral throughout the war.

The point is history has shown that the phrase Si vis pacem, para bellum is false, and that countries with small armies are less likely to go to war, not more likely to be annexed despite popular belief.

*there is irony in America rebelling from the worlds most liberal government on account of it not being liberal enough.

typo

@ Fasces

Not to get off topic, but who would even bother invading Liechtenstein or Botswana? Countries with resources have to defend those resources, no?

Well if your a small power rich in resources the trick of the trade is to trade.

If you have multiple trade partners which are larger then you are and you are invaded by a foreign power, it is more then probable that your trade partners (not wanting to lose access to your resources) will side with you in a war.

I'm not advocating for the US to get rid of the pentagon (but I do advocate for some budget cuts) but contrary to Putins belief, there is nothing wrong with being a small power with no standing army, in fact I think that is the best situation.

"I don't expect any nationalistic sentiment out of someone who wants to leave their country but is unable to."

You'd be wrong then. All over Africa there is nationalist sentiment, but people would still leave for the Global North if given the chance. This doesn't mean they like that state of affairs, they would ultimately prefer to stay, but often it is such that there is no opportunity at home, so some must leave.

This is also the case with most Mexican migrants north of the border - a huge number of them did not actually *want* to leave Mexico, but were forced to.

So it depends, I guess, on your definition of "want" or "desire." Many Senegalese I met, for example, were itching to get to Spain or France or Canada or the US and drive trucks or something like that to support their families at home. But they still loved Senegal and thought it was the greatest country in the world.