15% of Canadians for Bush

[Platypus]

I meant dividing the nation into conservative/liberal/moderate

[Gustaf]

I meant dividing the nation into conservative/liberal/moderate

Aha! Did MiamiU put iowa into the wrong column?

[Platypus]

No, he put it as moderate. Although I think Minnesota is in the wrong one.

I just think we should stick together as a country, especially after 9/11.

[minionofmidas]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

That is exactly what happened. The British didn't give Kashmir to either Pakistan or India, so the Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Indians fought it out among themselves. The result is a partition along some ceasefire line that really pleases no one.
Of course the whole concept of two nations on the Indian subcontinent was absurd from the beginning, and causes a lot of evil both between the nations and within India to this day. There were only two reasonable options for India: Union or Balkanization on linguistic lines.

[minionofmidas]

You want the Liberal and Conservative nations to be coterminous? But that's easy! Just use the 2000 election result as a starting point, have the Cons annex NM and the Libs NH, and you're almost there! Obviously there are still three Liberal nations, though the midwestern one might join Canada or something, and I don't see the Eastern and Western nations as such a problem. Alaska is also separated from the rest of the Conservative nation, which should give a boost to the Alaskan Independence movement...
All entirely academic of course, (though I saw the question discussed during the 2000/1 crisis) but then so is (right now) the question of any part of Canada joining the US. No reason to feel threatened in your Independence, as it's not going to happen.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Dividing India into India and Pakistan was a very, very bad idea...
I would like to apologise on behalf of us brits for Mountbattons' stupid decision.

Would a Subcontinental version of the E.U work?

[minionofmidas]

Dividing India into India and Pakistan was a very, very bad idea...
I would like to apologise on behalf of us brits for Mountbattons' stupid decision.

Would a Subcontinental version of the E.U work?

They were actually talking about it recently, but no, it wouldn't work. Forget it. India would be way too dominant.

[Gustaf]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

That is exactly what happened. The British didn't give Kashmir to either Pakistan or India, so the Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Indians fought it out among themselves. The result is a partition along some ceasefire line that really pleases no one.
Of course the whole concept of two nations on the Indian subcontinent was absurd from the beginning, and causes a lot of evil both between the nations and within India to this day. There were only two reasonable options for India: Union or Balkanization on linguistic lines.

A union would not have worked, we would've had a civil war there instead, which is usually worse. The best thing is always to simply keep cool, but having countries with people who do think that they belong together usually helps.

[minionofmidas]

Congress and the Muslim League polled roughly equal among Muslims in the forties. The very idea of India's Muslims being a separate nation wasn't aired (by a Muslim, not by some Hindu nationalist) until 1930. That fad would have waned away, I'm quite sure of that. And there was a civil war in 1947. Hundreds of thousands of people died, 6 Million became refugees.

[Gustaf]

Congress and the Muslim League polled roughly equal among Muslims in the forties. The very idea of India's Muslims being a separate nation wasn't aired (by a Muslim, not by some Hindu nationalist) until 1930. That fad would have waned away, I'm quite sure of that. And there was a civil war in 1947. Hundreds of thousands of people died, 6 Million became refugees.

I maintain that a union most likely would not have worked, too much hatred for that. The radicalization of Islam would not have helped either.

[minionofmidas]

There's still about 120 Million Muslims living in India now, so effectively we still have a union. In the neighborhood of Bangalore where I'm living it's more like forty percent muslims. It's working, most of the time.

[Michael Z]

Congress and the Muslim League polled roughly equal among Muslims in the forties. The very idea of India's Muslims being a separate nation wasn't aired (by a Muslim, not by some Hindu nationalist) until 1930. That fad would have waned away, I'm quite sure of that. And there was a civil war in 1947. Hundreds of thousands of people died, 6 Million became refugees.

I maintain that a union most likely would not have worked, too much hatred for that. The radicalization of Islam would not have helped either.

Unfortunately Hinduism also appears to be going through a process of radicalisation at present. In essence, India currently has a semi-fundamentalist government under the BJP.

[Gustaf]

There's still about 120 Million Muslims living in India now, so effectively we still have a union. In the neighborhood of Bangalore where I'm living it's more like forty percent muslims. It's working, most of the time.

Well, a division was made and accepted by all parts. I think that if the Muslims in Kashmir had been allowed to decide, instead of the Rajah, the problem might never have occured.

[minionofmidas]

There's still about 120 Million Muslims living in India now, so effectively we still have a union. In the neighborhood of Bangalore where I'm living it's more like forty percent muslims. It's working, most of the time.

Well, a division was made and accepted by all parts. I think that if the Muslims in Kashmir had been allowed to decide, instead of the Rajah, the problem might never have occured.

For the Congress leadership, it was the prize to pay to get the British out. And at that time they believed they might take Pakistan back at the ballot box. That option was effectively killed by the war, of course.
Gandhi never accepted it. That's why the Hindu nationalists murdered him.
And yes, of course the BJP hardliners are fundamentalists.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

You don't think there would've been a colonial war if the British had tried to keep India?? *VIETNAM, ALGERIA, KENYA, EVERY OTHER COLONY IN THE WORLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION*

Of course there would have been, but it would've been the only thing that would've prevented the muslims from fighting the hindus, India vs. Pakistan, etc.  They could've fought the British, then each other later, assuming they didn't lose.  The point is war is part of human affairs and political development.

[Gustaf]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

You don't think there would've been a colonial war if the British had tried to keep India?? *VIETNAM, ALGERIA, KENYA, EVERY OTHER COLONY IN THE WORLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION*

Of course there would have been, but it would've been the only thing that would've prevented the muslims from fighting the hindus, India vs. Pakistan, etc.  They could've fought the British, then each other later, assuming they didn't lose.  The point is war is part of human affairs and political development.

That's ridiculous, if they would just grow up and start acting like sensible democratic nations, that would prevent a war as well. And wars should be avoided unless there's a good reason for them, imo.

[opebo]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

You don't think there would've been a colonial war if the British had tried to keep India?? *VIETNAM, ALGERIA, KENYA, EVERY OTHER COLONY IN THE WORLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION*

Of course there would have been, but it would've been the only thing that would've prevented the muslims from fighting the hindus, India vs. Pakistan, etc.  They could've fought the British, then each other later, assuming they didn't lose.  The point is war is part of human affairs and political development.

That's ridiculous, if they would just grow up and start acting like sensible democratic nations, that would prevent a war as well. And wars should be avoided unless there's a good reason for them, imo.

So what's a good reason for war?  For a muslim who wants a theocratic state or hates hindus or other unbelievers, its well worth war.  War happens whenever there is an issue that two well-armed camps cannot compromise over or agree on.  Sounds natural enough to me.  

[Gustaf]

Border controls would be tough...

Yes, probably...considering Florida borders conservative nation, that could flare up, but it really is only dangerous if liberal nations borders conservative nation.  The WV/KY border could be bad, as could he west coast.

Just get rid of the 'moderate nation'.  Its not going to please anyone - its as if the Brits had made Kashmere independent instead of just giving it to one or another of the newly created enemies.

Yeah, you mean a problem-solver that would have avoided a lot of blood-shed, I can see how that is really stupid.

That wouldn't have solved anything - there would've been a war in which one or the other would've seized Kashmere.  There would've been just as much bloodshed.  Its better to recognize reasonable power relationships when creating states - for example Pakistan was big enough to fend India off, but couldn't hang onto Bangladesh.  

Ah, but the clever way avoided a war, huh? Perhaps allowing people to create the kind of nations they actually want is a way of avoiding conflicts, instead of letting power hungry chauvinism rule the world?

The point is there was going to be war no matter what - unless of course the British had stayed.

You don't think there would've been a colonial war if the British had tried to keep India?? *VIETNAM, ALGERIA, KENYA, EVERY OTHER COLONY IN THE WORLD WITH SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION*

Of course there would have been, but it would've been the only thing that would've prevented the muslims from fighting the hindus, India vs. Pakistan, etc.  They could've fought the British, then each other later, assuming they didn't lose.  The point is war is part of human affairs and political development.

That's ridiculous, if they would just grow up and start acting like sensible democratic nations, that would prevent a war as well. And wars should be avoided unless there's a good reason for them, imo.

So what's a good reason for war?  For a muslim who wants a theocratic state or hates hindus or other unbelievers, its well worth war.  War happens whenever there is an issue that two well-armed camps cannot compromise over or agree on.  Sounds natural enough to me.  

Well, not wanting to live with people who have a different religion would be a bad reason. War happens b/c young men like to fight.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Opebo, The Atlee Government wouldn't have tried to keep India.
In fact they wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible (same with the Palestine Mandate).

[opebo]

Opebo, The Atlee Government wouldn't have tried to keep India.
In fact they wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible (same with the Palestine Mandate).

Oh I agree, the British Empire was a lost (but good) cause by that time.  I was just pointing out to Gustaf that whatever the Brits did with India, etc, war and bloodshed was inevitable.

[Gustaf]

Opebo, The Atlee Government wouldn't have tried to keep India.
In fact they wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible (same with the Palestine Mandate).

Oh I agree, the British Empire was a lost (but good) cause by that time.  I was just pointing out to Gustaf that whatever the Brits did with India, etc, war and bloodshed was inevitable.

I thought that was my point...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I meant dividing the nation into conservative/liberal/moderate

Aha! Did MiamiU put iowa into the wrong column?

ROFL!

[Platypus]

I meant dividing the nation into conservative/liberal/moderate

Aha! Did MiamiU put iowa into the wrong column?

ROFL!

He put Iowa as moderate, which is what it is. I was just commenting that I hate the fractionisation of america. Divided, we fall....

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't think making an anti-gay post to get into heaven would save me.

No, it wouldn't.  And of course I wasn't trying to get you to post something you don't believe.

[Gustaf]

I don't think making an anti-gay post to get into heaven would save me.

No, it wouldn't.  And of course I wasn't trying to get you to post something you don't believe.

Good, then I am sure you can see my problem.