Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I thought it was the fault of the US which is looking to start another war.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:Well, I disagree. It was certainly the goal of the United States to weaken or overcome the Soviet Union.

No it wasn't. It was the goal of the ruling political party to do that. Same with the other examples.

Ruling political party != the entire nation.

Er, it wasn't the ruling political party, it was the goal of both parties to oppose the Soviets. Or are you suggesting that the Republicans were Communists in the '60s? Because Kennedy sure as hell was anti-Communist. It's pretty much the reason he was assassinated.

So what interests can a nation have if not self-preservation and destruction/weakening of its enemies?

biccat wrote:
Well, I disagree. It was certainly the goal of the United States to weaken or overcome the Soviet Union. It was the goal of the USSR to spread communism. It was the goal of the British Empire to expand their holdings throughout the world.

If nations can't have goals like the weakening of a neighboring state, what goals can they have? Or are you suggesting that there's no national responsibility for inhumane acts (which I could understand and seemed to be the point of the Nuremburg trials) or acts of war (which seems inconsistent with post-war treatment of vanquished nations, particularly Germany and Japan, but not Italy).

So you're using it in the colloquial sense and not the formal sense. Nation, in the formal sense, does not mean the same thing as state; hence the term nation-state. It was the goal of the United States, the state, to overcome the Soviet Union; this is distinct from claiming that the United States, the nation (or sum total of those people that occupy the region so defined), intended to overcome the Soviet Union. Its the difference between claiming that all members of group X want to do Y, and those people in charge of group X want to do Y.

biccat wrote:
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and until fairly recently, Iraq. Jordan and Egypt, until relatively recently, were very anti-Israel, even going so far as to declare war on her.

Iran isn't an Arabic state, they're Persian and primarily speak Farsi. Syria isn't really interested in weakening Israel any more, though they were about 25 years ago. Iraq was never really interested in weakening Israel, and its widely thought that the missile attacks were an attempt at galvanizing Arab opposition to he invasion by the West. Jordan and Egypt have been neutral, officially, for about half of Israel's life.

You're talking about Israel like its not just 60 years old.

The republicans and the democrats aren't the country. They run the country. There's a difference.

dogma wrote:So you're using it in the colloquial sense and not the formal sense. Nation, in the formal sense, does not mean the same thing as state; hence the term nation-state. It was the goal of the United States, the state, to overcome the Soviet Union; this is distinct from claiming that the United States, the nation (or sum total of those people that occupy the region so defined), intended to overcome the Soviet Union. Its the difference between claiming that all members of group X want to do Y, and those people in charge of group X want to do Y.

If the democratic majority of a nation favors X, then why can't we say that a goal of the nation is to X? And if we can't, then what rationale is there to punish a nation for the actions of their political class?

Lets go with your formal definition of a nation. What goals can the nation have?

biccat wrote:
If the democratic majority of a nation favors X, then why can't we say that a goal of the nation is to X?

Because if we're using collective nouns in the loose sense, then we can also say that the nation of the United States has, as a goal, the establishment of a white, racial homeland in the Pacific Northwest.

Moreover, if your initial point was that many nations in the Middle East want to weaken Israel, then you probably shouldn't use "democratic majority" as a key barometer of desire.

biccat wrote:
And if we can't, then what rationale is there to punish a nation for the actions of their political class?

Good question, maybe there isn't one. Though any argument from pragmatism will hold.

biccat wrote:
Lets go with your formal definition of a nation. What goals can the nation have?

None, if we're using collective nouns in the same sense we use singular ones, or even as collective nouns that relate to organized bodies (nations aren't organized in the normal sense).

biccat wrote:
de facto means "as a matter of fact."
de jure means "as a matter of law."

ChrisWWII wrote:biicat got it right. de facto is what the situation really is, de jure is what the situation is by law. So, de jure Taiwan is part of China, but de facto it's independent.

Thanks.

biccat wrote:
If the democratic majority of a nation favors X, then why can't we say that a goal of the nation is to X? And if we can't, then what rationale is there to punish a nation for the actions of their political class?

Lets go with your formal definition of a nation. What goals can the nation have?

Dogma is quite right here, in International Relations, the formal definitoin of a nation is as a group of peope. Which is why you can have state-less nations, multi-national states, nation-states, etc. Go back through the thread and look at my examples about Absurdistan and Nonsensistan if you want more information.

Nations, do not have goals. Nations are the people who hold to a certain cultural identity. States have goals, which in democratic nation states is often the will of the nation.

Regarding Palestine, people in this thread are confusing the goal and the method proposed to reach that goal. The argument for an independant Palestinian has nothing to do with historical land claims, the argument for an independant Palestine begins and ends with the idea that it is what is best for the people of Palestine, and for the people of the region. The argument against an independant Palestine begins and ends with the idea that it wouldn't help the people of Palestine or the greater region.

All the rest is just junk.