What the US learns from history is that the US never learns from History. It’s the US way, it’s filtered all the way down to the street where deadly force is the answer to a suspect pointing a ham sandwich at a cop, or shooting “morons in a log cabin.” Somehow I think many things could be changed for the better and unfortunately, the US is too big, and too deaf, to ever change.
So, still nothing in it for the rest of us?
please explain to me again (I know you think you’ve explained it many times already, but I’m just not getting it) how peace and security (which some people call defense) will work?
I will stipulate education, environment, natural resources and health and medicine.
The rest I still have questions about but are secondary to peace and security.
Also, what sort of activities would you categorize under peace and security?
eta scabpicker does raise the point more directly, what are you going to do to appease the rest of the US whose way of life and the very country that makes it possible you are threatening?
I was born in Ithaca, NY. 18% of American-born CA residents were born out of state like me. Another 27% were foreign born. What makes a Californian? The other 55%?
You keep glossing over the word “territories,” which in the context means non-organic parts of a country. It means, in practice, colonies (or whatever term of art a particular country may wish to apply) and not states, provinces, cities, etc. that are fully integrated into a country.
So the article refers to COLONIES that have not yet been either made independent or fully integrated into a country.
I’ve cited the UN list of non-self governing territories. I’ve cited that countries that achieved independence after being fully integrated with another country were never on the list. You’ve cited nothing to back up your mistaken opinion. You’re quite literally arguing a fantasyland opinion, in which you have determined, without any expertise, that a treaty means something it doesn’t and refuse to face facts that your interpretation is erroneous, unsupported, without historical basis, and rather absurd.
By the way, here’s a UN webpage that in layman’s terms describes the state of post-WW2 decolonization. It includes this quote:
And I’m sure Californians will be far better suited to manage this on their own, without that wasteful old federal government interfering.
The UN page listing those territories is called “The UN and Decolonization”.
The wikipedia page about the Trusteeship Council is also enlightening:
I’m sure they’re all waiting in the wings, though, for the moment when the oppressed peoples of the “non-self governing territory” of CA apply for protection from the body that has the US, Great Britain and France as 3 of its 5 current members.
You’re mistaken. The Ukrainian SSR declared independence in 1991 (and later passed a new constitution and changed its name), it was not dissolved.
So, does that mean that Russia is also not a signatory to the UN Charter?
Although, just to play devil’s advocate a little bit here, an attempt at secession by CA does open some interesting possibilities.
Despite the continued protests that it wouldn’t happen, armed conflict is inevitable.
I can picture a scenario where it is “bush league” fighting by secessionists and loyalists in the streets and “hedgerows”. I would imagine, in such a scenario, that however unlikely this is to be, there would be a possibility for independent, private military units to come into play.
If a certain poster, with a military history were to somehow be able to form such a unit, fully equipped, I’d sign up to be part of his maintenance section, just so I could say I was part of the
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
wait for it
*
*
*
*
*
*
man I’ve been looking for an excuse to use this line somewhere
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DinoR’s Chrome Brigade
ok, this thread has peaked for me.
exits, thread left
I’m afraid some folks have been duped by the YesCalifornia website, which goes on about UN Charter Chapter XI as if it existing in a vacuum and was ripe for interpretation. I guess those guys didn’t realize there was a Chapter XII and XIII :smack:. OTOH, it’s understandable, though, since it’s totally believable that the US would sign onto a document that would require it to allow states to secede by simply voting to do so. Totally believable. I also just read that 20% of CA recently bought the Golden Gate Bridge. Now they’re fighting over whose claim is the most legit.
You know you’ve done it right when…
I love the comment, California has been moving politically from the rest of the country.…
That makes me proud.
Never mind the movement predates Trump’s success, when did they let facts interfere with a good news story.
yanno, I checked back in just cause I’ve had a lot of fun with this thread, but I gotta say Morgenstern
wow,
I knew you were arguing from a naïve, short-sighted, ill-informed, magical-thinking point of view of how the world works, but you’re a part of or supportive of that?!?!
My god, man!
These people think California is heading in the opposite direction of the rest of the country politically? Are these people folks that never venture more than a block or two from their own home, never talk to anybody outside their own family and coworkers? don’t watch any form of news? This article you linked to depicts a group of people that go beyond bubble thinking, these people created their own little hole in the universe, went inside and pulled the hole in behind them.:smack:
Morgenstern please, for your own well being, and a happy healthy future, run, don’t walk, run away from these people.
WHAT ABOUT OUR WATER AND AGRICULTURE?
Even with the water shortages we faced in 2014, California’s 76,400 farms
produced $54 billion that year - a more than five percent increase in cash
receipts from 2013. No other state in the county has a larger agricultural
output than California so it is no doubt that this industry is a very important
part of California’s economy.
About half of California’s water is used for environmental purposes such
as maintaining habitats and scenic rivers or keeping seawater out of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, which is an important source of
our drinking water. Another 40 percent of California’s water is used for
agricultural irrigation while urban usage represents the remaining ten
percent of water usage.
Technological innovation has allowed for agricultural and urban water usage
to decline although farm production and the population continues to grow
each year. This is good news for the environment as well as the economy.
While an independent California will continue to foster the technological
innovation and promote the environmental conservation that has led to
the decline in water usage across California, independence means we can
actually increase the water supply. More water means California’s $2.46
trillion economy - the sixth largest in the world - can continue to expand
because farmers will be able to grow more crops and we as a nation will be
able to support an ever-growing population.
In normal years, the snowpack supplies about 30 percent of California’s
water as it melts in the spring and early summer. The larger the snowpack,
the greater the likelihood California’s reservoirs will receive ample runoff.
However, this snow and the associated runoff is on federal lands and
managed by federal agencies subject to the federal budget. The problem is
the federal government is mismanaging these lands by allowing the forests
of the Sierra Nevada mountains to become too dense. Not only does that
negatively affect the health of our forests and increase the likelihood of
forest fires, but more trees means that more water is being consumed and
therefore there is less runoff.
As an independent country, we will take control of our forests. This will put
us in position to increase mechanical thinning and restore meadows. In
doing so, we will allow our beautiful Sequoias to grow and flourish, reduce
the threat of forest fires, and increase the water supply available for
hydropower, agriculture, and urban water usage - the economic benefits of
which would be sufficient to cover the costs of these restoration projects.
Not only has the federal government mismanaged our forests but they have
also been allowing private corporations to extract California’s groundwater
from these forests with permits that have been expired since the late
1980s. While this does not represent a huge portion of our water supply,
every drop counts - especially in a drought.
An independent California will have oversight authority to not only make sure
that private companies extracting our groundwater for profit are operating
with valid permits, but also that they adequately compensate the people of
California for this precious resource. The federal government permits these
companies to extract millions of gallons of our water for just $527 a year!
On top of all this, because we will no longer be subsidizing other states
and also spending less on the military, an independent California will have
more money to pay for the maintenance of existing water infrastructure
facilities - such as those near Sacramento, one of the most “at-risk” areas
for a catastrophic flood resulting from levee failure, as well as new projects,
including Eco-friendly desalination along the coast.
I think it’s kind of cute that the #CalExit people believe the rest of California would let them “increase mechanical thinning” of their forests. When the Healthy Forest Initiative was passed in 2003, California’s Congressional delegation voted against it 29-23. The Sierra Club (headquartered in Oakland) sued and won an injunction against the law in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I just read CalExit’s Water Manifesto, posted by NetTrekker. It reads like a tirade against the liberals in Washington who had too much power under Obama and are mismanaging the states. IOW, like a right-wing Republican screed. Is that what CalExit is about? Or are Hillaryists just trying to pander to anti-federalism because that’s where the votes are?
What is the formal UN process when a member state changes status? The Gouvernement Provisoire de la République Française was not only a founding Member, but given a Permanent seat on the Security Council. Was a special UN vote needed a year later when the GPRF ceased to exist and control passed to the Fourth Republic? And Ethiopia has changed status at least four times since it was a Founding Member; and so on.
All of which is irrelevant, of course. The status of California will be determined by good ol’ boys speaking Yankee, not any soldiers in blue berets.
The formal process is codified in the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect to Treaties (the UN Charter being a multilateral treaty). Unfortunately, the convention relies on a number of distinctions which are generally hard to make. The convention has not been ratified by enough states to render it normative international law, so it’s not really binding on nonparties anyway.
Typically, in the case of a dissolution resulting in multiple new states, the largest or most influential new state will take on the treaty rights and obligations of the old. Russia was the successor state to the Soviet Union in that sense.
It doesn’t always work out that way, of course; Taiwan was the original successor state to the Republic of China, in that the ROC government continued to rule Taiwan, but obviously that didn’t make much sense and the People’s Republic of China (i.e. mainland communist China) took over the ROC’s treaty obligations and duties from about 1970. The Taliban government controlled most of Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, but the relatively small area still held by the prior government in the north retained control of Afghanistan’s UN seat.
Sometimes it doesn’t work out that way because a new state doesn’t want to be burdened with an old state’s obligations.
Why just California? Wheel out the old Jesusland maps from 2004. Or break America down into regions. New England, Dixie, Texas, The Great Lakes, Cascadia, and…whatever you want to call the stuff in the middle. The Empty Quarter.
Grossly misleading.
But if it was true, and Russia got their man elected POTUS…
Facts.
Louis Marinelli was born in New York. He’s a US citizen.
He ran for the CA state assembly last summer, and got 6.4% of the vote. He ran the 80th district, San Diego, etc. He did not run from Russia, he ran from San Diego.
He’s in Russia, now teaching English. Poor guy has to work for a living.
He’s married to a Russian woman. Ask Trump about that. (Yugoslavia)
He’s been a proponent of a separate California since 2014, long before the national nightmare occurred.
Oh, and water…
Arizona just got fucked for water. Seems they agreed to forgo their share or grossly limit it if there was a shortage in the Colorado basin. And guess what.
I’m writing this as it’s pouring rain, expected to rain for the next 12 hours too. We get our water, mostly from the Sierra snow pack. Nothing changes if CA is part of the US or not.