russia/ georgia

Beemnseven

Also, there would be chaos if anyone could declare independence. Hawaii, those nuts in the Michigan militias, and a bunch of others would secede from the U.S. Pockets inside of states, cities, and neighborhoods would be independent countries. Needless to say, everything would be f'ed up.[QUOTE]

Yes, I'd call the Civil War a huge mistake. Other countries were able to phase out slavery without getting over 600,000 people killed.

As to secession, does a battered wife not have the right to 'secede' from an abusive husband? Do you have a problem with declaring independence from an abusive government? In colonial times, you'd have been a Tory I suppose, right?

Let's also consider the words of the 'hero of the union' Abraham Lincoln:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Beemnseven

I've lost you? Doesn't seem like we've ever been on the same page with this issue. If fact, your response here doesn't seem to fit anything that I've said in the first place.

I've said nothing about the beginnings of NATO, or the reasons for setting it up. Given the circumstances that we helped create, I understand the need to begin an alliance to deter aggression.

In general, I favor a foreign policy of non-intervention. That means we would never have gotten involved in World War I -- we would never have tipped the balance of power in favor of the allies; there would never have been a Treaty of Versailles, the German people would never have been crushed to the point of giving rise to Adolf Hitler, the Russians wouldn't have fallen for the promises of Lenin, and World War II as we know it wouldn't have happened. That means no Cold War, and hence, no need for NATO.

With no secret operation in Iran to overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, there would never have been the oppressive Shah, followed by the Ayatollah Khomeni. Iran would have been just another friendly nation -- as they were for eons -- instead of a nation "who has no problem dealing with terrorists" capable (and they aren't) of lobbing ICBMs at Europe.

And no, unless I've missed something, Israel isn't the 51st state so we have no obligation to protect them, or any other European nation.