It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
You continue to deny the existence of borders in the definition of a nation. You cannot name one nation that is on the map that doesn't have borders.
You're right - arguing with you is pointless.
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
You continue to deny the existence of borders in the definition of a nation. You cannot name one nation that is on the map that doesn't have borders.
You're right - arguing with you is pointless.
There are stateless nations (Palestine), enclave nations (Vatican), and even city-states (Monaco). Why are you insisting on pushing your non-definition? Nobody is going to take your word over Merriam-Webster. Not even if some senile actor who practiced voodoo economics said it.
There are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country (also known as a State with a capital "s") or not.
Let us examine these eight criteria in regard to the Vatican City, a tiny (the smallest in the world) country located entirely within the city of Rome, Italy. The Vatican City is the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church, with over one billion adherents worldwide.
1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
Yes, the Vatican City’s boundaries are undisputed even though the country is located entirely within the city of Rome.
Originally posted by queenofsheba
How do you make a silent decision over a cup of nothing? Sounds like a story to me. Nice words, to be sure. Words are lovely, are they not?
Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
In addition, I did not offer MY 'word', I offered a few references to dictionary definitions.
If you want to ignore what basically every dictionary offers as a definition that's fine, but you look awfully silly in the process.
Dusty old books need to be updated. And you are truly being silly if you discount the borders element.
Your definition is merely esoteric. Technically correct, but useless in today's modern terms. But stick with it...
And why don't you answer my statement about property lines? Because I gotcha, is why!
Originally posted by totalmetal
reply to post by Cuervo
i was born here, and raised here, but it's just land.
You know, I've been thinking about this perspective of yours, and I think I now agree.
Allow me to explain; a nation without borders is really a gobalist ideal, because it refers to vague ideas as a unifying factor, when you have clearly shown that a nation does not exist without borders. borders are what make a country Nation. IF you dont draw lines around everything, then it cant be clearly defined. We need more rules and control and lines, preferably enforced by a massive governmental structure.
great point!
Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Cuervo
Am I an American? First and foremost? No. I am a Pennsylvanian first and foremost. Secondly I am a German American, but thirdly I guess I could call myself an "American".