sourmìlk wrote:LaserGuy wrote:It's not a strawman, it is applying the criteria you specified to an equivalent situation.
No, you're not. As I said, just a negative impact on another country doesn't determine a right or lack thereof to sovereignty. I specified several criteria and the only one you're using is the one I explicitly said wasn't a criterion.
I'm going to chalk this one up to partially a reading comprehension fail on my part, although it is still not clear to me what criteria other than "harms another nation" you are actually using, in practice. The problem here is that I'm reading this statement
These are strawmen. I never said that, if the existence of your country harms another country then you don't have a right to sovereignty.
as "I never said that. If the existence...", when you are wanting it to be read as "I never said that if the existence..."
That said, I still contend that you have the situation entirely backwards. A people can assert sovereignty over certain lands, regardless of whether another state already controls those lands. An assertion of sovereignty is almost necessarily unilateral, because the other nation is almost never going to want to lose those territories. Most nations aren't formed by negotiations or by being "given" lands (this latter case has almost never happened, AFAIK). It's not clear to me why you feel that the sovereignty movement of the American colonists was acceptable (or maybe you don't?) and the sovereignty movement of the Palestinians is not.