PDA

View Full Version : A new nation is born


joz
07-09-2011, 08:50 PM
I simply find this to be very interesting and historical. Does anyone know how many nations have been created in the past two decades?

Independent South Sudan "free at last" - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/south-sudanese-dance-celebrate-independence-030414204.html)

DrunkN
07-09-2011, 09:01 PM
Wikipedia:
South Sudan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Flag_of_South_Sudan.svg/125px-Flag_of_South_Sudan.svg.png

If I'm correct, this is the newest country since Bosnia, but don't quote me on that.

Dudebro
07-09-2011, 09:49 PM
Actually there's a lot of new countries in the last twenty years. I was gonna list them but the list was turning out to be huge. Most were formed with the collapse of the soviet union and the rest were usually parts of other nations that collapsed. A few were left overs of British colonialism as well.

A couple notable ones are Iraq and Kuwait. One had it's government defeated and rebuilt and the other gained it's independence when that happened.

List of sovereign states by date of formation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


About this newest one I'm honestly skeptical. I'm glad they gained their freedom but how are they gonna make it work? The people are mostly dirt poor and the country barely has any infrastructure. I think it will end up like Somalia, lawless cesspool with the good people fleeing.

Demon-Mask
07-10-2011, 01:20 AM
I don't think this will work out all too well. New nations don't do so well.

RU Joe
07-10-2011, 10:30 PM
My hope is that the formation of this new nation state will benefit the common people of the region and raise their standard of living.

Demon-Mask
07-10-2011, 10:33 PM
The problem being that the northern and southern parts of Sudan have been in conflict recently, and making them two separate nations could worsen tensions, as opposed to alleviating them.

Dudebro
07-10-2011, 10:45 PM
But regardless of the potential conflict it seems like it was an inevitable split. Maybe it's just what they needed. Like when Massachusetts got rid of that all that useless land we now call Maine.;)

Demon-Mask
07-10-2011, 11:05 PM
It might work out, like when the United States split north and south into the Union and the Confederation, that worked out quite well, don't you think?

Dudebro
07-10-2011, 11:47 PM
That's a good example of a bad decision to split. Maybe a hundred years later would've been different but at the time the south really didn't have much of a chance. Even if the war never happened and they just split it's not like the confederacy could've thrived without the union states.

Demon-Mask
07-10-2011, 11:56 PM
True, both the Confederacy and Union needed one another, the Confederate states needed raw materials from the Union states, and the Union states needed manufactured goods from the Confederate states, or maybe it was the other way around. Either way, neither was able to function properly alone.