Does this post fly in the face of logic?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

The emperor Qin, created China by wars and under a very authoritarian regime.

Was it legitimate? I don't know, but the fact were here, and he created China. Shouldn't we recognize China?

Damn that would make a lot of water in more in the ocean, good for ecology.

Facts are facts, no matter judgments.

Those who are non happy have to create their states and recognize who they want as legitimate.

I just heard about the creation of a possible state in Minneapolis...

[Franzl]

Anyone with a simple knowledge of the history of western civilization understands the special status of the Vatican and why it is treated as a state.  It has more historical legitimacy than many other nation-states out there.

Its independence was granted by Mussolini, so no in my view it is not legitimate unless you consider Mussolini legitimate.

Mussolini was the legitimate leader of Italy, so anything that he did was legitimately a government action.

Yes, FTR.

What makes a leader legitimate or illegitimate?

[Keystone Phil]

And no one recognizes Mount Athos, despite it being in a similar state.

And those are for political reasons!

Again, if you want to argue that we should not recognize the Vatican for political reasons, go ahead. It's idiotic and only based on your hatred of Catholicism but whatever.

I'm saying your argument that we shouldn't recognize them because their population is smaller than your neighborhood, therefore, they are not an actual state is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to say that because your city has more people that they should then have diplomatic relations with countries.

You're a dope.

[Purple State]

The first line was directed at you. The second part was directed at BRTD. The bit about Mussolini is absurd. Plenty of horrible people have created and run nations. We don't simply refuse to recognize them and hope to wish them away. And of all places, Vatican City is not some place of horrid crimes. It is recognized as an independent state, so what does it really mean to deny its existence?

What you refer to is a very common practice. Plenty of countries including the US refuse to call Burma by the name the junta calls it (Myanmar). Liechtenstein won't even recognize the Czech Republic and Slovakia because of a land ownership dispute.

Um, no. Governments usually refuse to acknowledge that a ruling entity (e.g. junta) exists, not the country itself. When a government believe that a nation rests on territory that belongs to them that is usually considered occupation, not refusal to acknowledge their existence. It still exists and so is considered a nation.

Not to mention refusal to recognize states really does not prove effective most of the time. Nor does it preclude anyone from recognizing the presence of the government, only the legitimacy.