"I always look at separatist movements like this, is it worth me sending people to die to keep them in the fold. I would just let them go (probably in the US civil war, I would have been a person saying , well if they want to leave bad enough to fight, let them, and leave the door open to coming back into the fold later on).
Though I don't support other countries supporting separatist movements for their own good."
Yours truly, and Candace makes the following comment.
"cube: that argument might be worthwhile if it wasn't for the fact that the whole state is on the verge of disintegration. It's already in a region that's ripe for terrorism, letting Georgia go to pieces is really not a good idea. It isn't like a strong state holding on authoritatively or anything."
I have detailed my support of separatist movements in the past here and here.
first, if a person is willing to die to save their way of life or to live the way of life that they want to live, I am not willing to die to force them to live my way of life. If one thing that people want most in life is freedom? Then I am willing to hand that to them along, with a large does of self determination.
Secondly, I will mention a few separatist movements that I have a brief knowledge of. The IRA, Basque separatist, Kurds in Turkey, Kashmir, Taiwan, and don't forget French Canadians. Here is a link that has a lot more.
How many lives could be saved if people just let others go and do their own thing? Peaceful separatist movements are the way to go. I do not support letting go with no strings attached, but the strings attached should be fair compensation to the State that has lost land, infrastructure, and tax payer money. A country getting it's own government should be handled through the capitalist avenues we have available.
The only way to stop a true separatist movement is to outlast them (The brits and the IRA are a good example of this), destroy them (the Jews are a good example of this one), destroy their cultural identity (can't think of any good examples of this one, though forced marriages to people of others cultures would be an example of this), or to make your country so nice that it undercuts the movements base of support. Some of those options lean toward the violent side, or at least toward removing personal liberty.
To address Candace's statement: "that argument might be worthwhile if it wasn't for the fact that the whole state is on the verge of disintegration."
That fact is what make my argument valid, the entire state is falling apart. Out lasting the movement seems like a bad option, or making the country nice seems impossible. So the only options for keeping that state together lean toward the violent or oppressive.