Talk:Bir Lehlou: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:'''The UN''' lists Western Sahara as a territory not a country. A country is like France, Germany and the US. The Polisario Front is considered by the UN as a "one of the conflict parties". The SADR is the self-proclaimed republic that the UN does not recognize. The comparison with China is at least ridiculous because China is not a territory but a country and is seated in its own territory. There is no country in all the world that has its government seated abroad.--[[User:A Jalil|A Jalil]] ([[User talk:A Jalil|talk]]) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
:'''The UN''' lists Western Sahara as a territory not a country. A country is like France, Germany and the US. The Polisario Front is considered by the UN as a "one of the conflict parties". The SADR is the self-proclaimed republic that the UN does not recognize. The comparison with China is at least ridiculous because China is not a territory but a country and is seated in its own territory. There is no country in all the world that has its government seated abroad.--[[User:A Jalil|A Jalil]] ([[User talk:A Jalil|talk]]) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::'''Oh really?''' Where did you get a list of "countries" from the UN? You clearly do not know what the word means, and there is [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/country no one definition of the word]. Obviously, Western Sahara fits most of those definitions, the SADR others, and both of them for some of those definitions as well. As I have told you many times before, and you have apparently ignored, there is not one Chinese state, and the two Chinese states claim overlapping territory and control only part of their claimed territory. You also did not address the actual argument I made, so I will change it and see if you can respond to that: saying Polisario controls the Free Zone is like saying the Republican party controls the United States. States control territory, not parties, regardless of the constitutional and practical relationship between a state and a party. And, as you also know, the SADR has a [[temporary capital]] in their own territory, just like the [[Republic of China]]. Again, you know all this and your arguments are spurious nonsense. -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
::'''Oh really?''' Where did you get a list of "countries" from the UN? You clearly do not know what the word means, and there is [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/country no one definition of the word]. Obviously, Western Sahara fits most of those definitions, the SADR others, and both of them for some of those definitions as well. As I have told you many times before, and you have apparently ignored, there is not one Chinese state, and the two Chinese states claim overlapping territory and control only part of their claimed territory. You also did not address the actual argument I made, so I will change it and see if you can respond to that: saying Polisario controls the Free Zone is like saying the Republican party controls the United States. States control territory, not parties, regardless of the constitutional and practical relationship between a state and a party. And, as you also know, the SADR has a [[temporary capital]] in their own territory, just like the [[Republic of China]]. Again, you know all this and your arguments are spurious nonsense. -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯ 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::'''Oh yeah''' the link you provided gives the meaning of the word 'country' in different contexts (it can also mean the public). It is ridiculous to go that long in trying to justify your POV. 'country' here means entities like France, ...etc, if need be to repeat it. WS is a territory not a country. In your dear examples of China where you compare Taiwan which is seated in its own territory with the SADR which is seated in Algeria is nonsense. Taiwan is not claiming the rest of China and as far as I know they are happy if they can get away with the independence of what they control actually. As to the temporary/de jure/de facto/de falso/de loco/ capitals, that is another joke. Simply why they still prefer 'the exile' than the 'liberated temporary capital'?. As to the analogy Republican party/USA and Polisario/SADR, the answer is simply that what is recognized internationally is the USA not the republican party, the SADR on the other hand is not recognized internationally (the UN and more than 150 countries do not), while the Polisario is recognized as a party of the conflict. The cease-fire agreement which tolerates the presence of Polisario troops to the east of the berm was signed under the auspices of the UN between Morocco the Polisario front not the SADR. If you think you are right call an administrator to judge. If you revert, you will be reverted.--[[User:A Jalil|A Jalil]] ([[User talk:A Jalil|talk]]) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:31, 8 April 2008
Country
Again Western Sahara is a country because that word is ambiguous and has no precise meaning. Calling it a territory while pipelinking to List of countries (which includes Western Sahara) is a little silly to me. Also, Polisario are a political party and independence movement; they are not a state. The SADR is a state and controls territory. While Polisario and the SADR are constitutionally united during the period of occupation, it is no more appropriate to write than saying that the Communist Party of China controls Beijing. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- The UN lists Western Sahara as a territory not a country. A country is like France, Germany and the US. The Polisario Front is considered by the UN as a "one of the conflict parties". The SADR is the self-proclaimed republic that the UN does not recognize. The comparison with China is at least ridiculous because China is not a territory but a country and is seated in its own territory. There is no country in all the world that has its government seated abroad.--A Jalil (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh really? Where did you get a list of "countries" from the UN? You clearly do not know what the word means, and there is no one definition of the word. Obviously, Western Sahara fits most of those definitions, the SADR others, and both of them for some of those definitions as well. As I have told you many times before, and you have apparently ignored, there is not one Chinese state, and the two Chinese states claim overlapping territory and control only part of their claimed territory. You also did not address the actual argument I made, so I will change it and see if you can respond to that: saying Polisario controls the Free Zone is like saying the Republican party controls the United States. States control territory, not parties, regardless of the constitutional and practical relationship between a state and a party. And, as you also know, the SADR has a temporary capital in their own territory, just like the Republic of China. Again, you know all this and your arguments are spurious nonsense. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yeah the link you provided gives the meaning of the word 'country' in different contexts (it can also mean the public). It is ridiculous to go that long in trying to justify your POV. 'country' here means entities like France, ...etc, if need be to repeat it. WS is a territory not a country. In your dear examples of China where you compare Taiwan which is seated in its own territory with the SADR which is seated in Algeria is nonsense. Taiwan is not claiming the rest of China and as far as I know they are happy if they can get away with the independence of what they control actually. As to the temporary/de jure/de facto/de falso/de loco/ capitals, that is another joke. Simply why they still prefer 'the exile' than the 'liberated temporary capital'?. As to the analogy Republican party/USA and Polisario/SADR, the answer is simply that what is recognized internationally is the USA not the republican party, the SADR on the other hand is not recognized internationally (the UN and more than 150 countries do not), while the Polisario is recognized as a party of the conflict. The cease-fire agreement which tolerates the presence of Polisario troops to the east of the berm was signed under the auspices of the UN between Morocco the Polisario front not the SADR. If you think you are right call an administrator to judge. If you revert, you will be reverted.--A Jalil (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh really? Where did you get a list of "countries" from the UN? You clearly do not know what the word means, and there is no one definition of the word. Obviously, Western Sahara fits most of those definitions, the SADR others, and both of them for some of those definitions as well. As I have told you many times before, and you have apparently ignored, there is not one Chinese state, and the two Chinese states claim overlapping territory and control only part of their claimed territory. You also did not address the actual argument I made, so I will change it and see if you can respond to that: saying Polisario controls the Free Zone is like saying the Republican party controls the United States. States control territory, not parties, regardless of the constitutional and practical relationship between a state and a party. And, as you also know, the SADR has a temporary capital in their own territory, just like the Republic of China. Again, you know all this and your arguments are spurious nonsense. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)