How Widespread is this Point of View?

[Occhidiangela]

Hoping the tags don't blow up on me.

Yes I know this sounds a whole lot like the murmurous 'World Peace' that those beauty queens stutter forth when asked about their wish had they one free. but on the other hand - who would have guessed that a thing like the EU was possible back in the days when Napoleon and the 2 times the Krauts tried to rule this continent alone?

If you look at it with lateral thinking, and a good beer down your throat, the current EU is an attempt to rebuild the Holy Roman Empire without the Holy. :-) And with a lot less horse manure, since European rail service is so excellent. (Note the touch of envy in my post here.) So was the Third Reich, though this is NOT an attempt to invoke Godwin's law.

Concerning your other assertions:

You mean like, let's say a new state declares itself - take the kurds - and 60% of the governments of the UN accept it and 40% don't?

That is what happened with Israel. A few nations recongnized it, and over time more did. Some still don't.

Unfortunately, that'll never happen, because that would possibly create a field of tension inside of the UN.

There is already a field of tension. If enough governments recognize a new nation, and yes, a few of the big ones like Germany, India, US, Russia, China would surely help, it is the government of record. Yes, a war will probably ensue, as did the war post-Yugoslavia's break up, when Germany was one of the first to recognize Croatia. *shrugs* The world's a bloody place.

I fear, my friend, the right question is 'why was it recognized?'. And I'm telling you the answer from my p.o.v.: Because it was the best for all economic super-powers.  It was tolerated as the 'lesser' evil considering the hunger for oil that these states had (and have), and considering the menacing islamic revolution that had just took place in Iran on the one side, and the menace of communism on the other.

Your argument falls down with the Iran example, among others. One of the few nations who has had continual grief wth Iran since '79 is the US. Everyone else has pretty much dealt with them, and are they not UN members still?

No, I was not. But yet the next sentence makes clear what I mean: 'used politically'. Do you see were we're heading at? Let's leave it at that: the UN is not neutral. It has an opinion of its own, which is majorly influenced by the (economically and politically) strongest nations being members.

You are right about the UN. There are three tiers of UN. Permanent SC members, rotating SC members, and the great unwashed General Assembly, or as I call them in my blacker moods, the terminal wogs and the temporary wogs.

Hezbollah is what it is. Today is 2005, November 9. Hezbollah was never anything OTHER THAN an extranational organization. Your note of it supporting Khomeini was extranational, vis a vis the Shah, the government of record at the time. QED.

Yes, I do understand what an extranational organization is. But... what is your point exactly? To Me, the main criteria (since jahcs quoted it from wiki) is the fact that terrorists try to get public attention, while secret services usually don't.

No, that is NOT the main criterion. Wiki is full of the usual sh**. The E.N.O. is a free agent with no responsibility other than to its own existence. The secret agency is an agent of a legitimate government with responsibilities for an entire population. That is the critical functional and legal distinction.

When the U.S. do such things as actively supporting rebellions and assassins all over the world, they do nothing else than states like Afghanistan did - fuel illegal networks of fanatics (partly), but surely not of future leaders. You wouldn't want a man to lead a country that killed 200 people in the past, because you'd suspect him to be violent and crazy. As long as the U.S. (and not only the U.S.) actively but secretly support nationalistic yet capitalistic groups against what you call 'legit' governments, as long as there is so much intriguing with weapons and cash etc. these cabalist states will be no better than the states that they populistically like to call 'axis of evil'.  You recognize by now how disturbed I am by that phrase

Working through proxies has been done for ages. Millenia. That is international politics at work. America got some help in that regard, from Louis XVI. Washington was no terrorist, but Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty were certainly close to the modern definition.

BTW: The Axis of Evil speech was one of the great political stupidities of all time, in American political rhetoric. We agree on that, you and I. It pissed me off at the time, as I had felt that our relationship with Iran had been effed up for long enough. We are getting better and working with Viet nam, why not Iran? Then, the "up yours" speech.

STUPID. (At the time of the speech I was a serving officer and could not thus post some of my sentiments without breaking the law.)

Thanks, Frag, that you reminded me of my original intention NOT to turn this into an Occhi attacks Europeans, we've had enough of that, and for your insights. All welcome, if not all agreed. :D

Occhi