posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 05:56 AM
Haven't seen this up anywhere so I thought I'd bring it to light:
"International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes
an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace
and war. "
Now in my opinion this is a bizarre notion. The Allies did alot of messing about in the Middle East post WW1 and WW2, and now someone is putting
forward an idea to screw it up again under the notion that "If everyone lives in their own ethnic state, they'll all get along"!
It strikes me as a very simplistic view of human character, how will some nations (i.e.Pakistan) respond to losing around half it's territory? "The
most difficult question (for Iran) being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State." and
therefore have no access to the Gulf? Access that they've had since Achaemenid times! The changes (even though they are probably conjectural) would
be unlikely to go down well, and probably only exacerbate the strife we have now.