quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 interesting article from what i've read. His conclusion runs counter to your previous statement that recognition is what forms a state. Specifically the conclusion states, "...the status of an entity as a state is, in principle, independent of recognition..." Although it seems clear that he is suggesting that a state may exist without being recognized, i'm sure he weakens that conclusion somewhere in the article.

Yes, he later admits that there is no standardized bar by which to judge statehood, so international law inevitably falls back on recognition as the ultimate determination of statehood.

So basically, it SHOULD be independent of recognition, but in reality it is not.

Also, I dug up this on the Holy See mission - they are an observer mission only, but it appears to be by choice.

quote:

According to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Holy See Permanent Observer, "We have no vote because this is our choice." He added that the Holy See considers that its current status "is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it."

___________________

The only threads that can generate that many pages in such a short time are Tiesto discussions.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo :HAHA: again with the nearsightedness. give this about 8 more years and another 10 UN resolutions if you want to draw LEGITIMATE parallells between Iran and Iraq, Krypton. until then at least respect the ******* process.

I'm only "nearsighted" because I don't agree with your imperialist worldview... Heh, nearsighted, what a load of dog doo doo...

Again, the UN approval did not mean anything once it was known they would not approve the invasion. But now, the UN is all important. More hypocrisy...

quote:

thats a fallacy. Iran doesn't want nukes because they're jealous of Israel. thats absurd. you don't invest as much time and money and clandestined effort in something like obtaining and weaponizing nuclear weapons for something as simple as spite. you don't subject your country to the penalties that Iran has had to endure over 5 years for something as petty an emotion as jealousy or gamesmanship. ya just don't. you want nuclear weapons for something much more.

Tell me, what fallacy did I use oh student of logic?

Ever heard of an Arms Race? When your enemy has a superior weapon to you, you are strategically obligated to match that technology with a counter-weapon. What you, the US and Israel want, is to keep Israel as the sole nuclear monopoly of the Middle East.

And this notion that, "The Iranians will actually use nuclear weapons against Israel because they are crazy suicidal maniacs," is complete BS. Mutually-assured destruction doctrine should tell you something... That if Iran was to ever launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Israel, it would mean the end of Iran. Do you actually think any sophisticated country would ever consider their own national suicide by nuking another nuclear power. Iran KNOWS Israel has first AND second strike capability far more powerful than anything Iran could muster.

I find it funny how you try to label me a fear-monger, yet, here you are assuming Iran would start World War III by nuking Israel. Hardly any strategic analysis on your part is really a shame...It's all about US/Israeli interests, what's best for them. And you people wonder why there is terrorism in the Middle East... Shame...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov In other words, he argues that peace is a result of structural similarities that preclude violent conflict, and that conflict between democracies is resolved peacefully due to the structural realities of liberal democracies - not that policy-makers say "hey, that's a democracy, we should agree with everything they do."

I'm not saying the US policy makers are saying, "Hey Israel is democracy, and Iran is not. Let's go after Iran."

I'm am making the assertion that because the West identifies more with Israel than Iran, there is an inherent bias against Iran. The proof for this would be the continuing disregard for Israel WMD program. What it says to me is, "As long you're a liberal democracy, or enemy of my enemy (Saddam's WMD program against Iran), WMD programs are fine."