• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, you said:

    I would simply win the civil war instead of losing

    Which indicates quite clearly that you believe military power should decide whether a nation has the right to independence. You don’t get to try to deflect that ex post facto. You either admit that this is what you genuinely believe in spite of its obvious morality problem, or you admit that you were wrong to make such a statement and acknowledge that your ideas about national independence need changing.

    • CascadeOfLight [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The Chinese Nationalists thought that military power should decide that they were in charge of China, right up until the People’s Liberation Army fucking bodied them and they fled to their little island with their tails between their legs (and then conducted massacres against the native population and anyone remotely leftist).

      This “”“independence dispute”“” would have been resolved seventy years ago had the US Navy not stuck their fucking imperial beak in and stopped the communists chasing down these fascist war criminals and finishing the job.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The outcomes of civil wars is widely acknowledged by both state practice and opinio juris as being a legitimate factor in the determination of sovereignty over a territory. If you don’t believe me, ask the Confederate States of America and the Republic of Vietnam about their experiences and get back to me.

      There is no “morality problem” because there is no issue of morality here. Morality is not a factor in international law.