In the recent debate over the capture of the English Sailers- there is great debate over whether Iran or Britain was correct in it's claims of boundries.

On one hand- we want to enforce "international law" and, on the other hand, we ignore it when we feel like it.

I am wondering if this is the reason for so much instability post super power stand off- all the artificle boundries created by the break up of the Ottoman empire, then the MASSIVE relocation of populations post WW2, now we seem to be dealing with the British and western nations ignoring of regional issues from way back in 1917?

I believe Iraq had a very, very legitmate claim to Kuwait, and Iraq should be broken up into three countries etc-

So, my question is this:

Are the boundries, really drawn by the west, a main source of instability post cold war?

These boundries- are they legitimate, should we re-visit these boundries with more thought and knowledge?

Can a claim be made for Iraqi borders, regarding the siezure of the british sholders- considering that the nation has really ceased to exist, and is now only an artificle construct of the US and Britain?

Since these borders are were drawn "under duress" of the poeples they occupied- are these borders any more legitimate than a confession from a prisoner "under duress"?

Yes, it is proven when you set two or more hostile cultures/tribes together in artificially made boundaries and supposively want to unite them under one nation and borders, they don't like eachother and will want to kill one another in a power struggle. Exactly what's going on in Iraq.

They are not legitamite- the U.K. made them up with no former knowledge and consideration into the groupings of cultures, religious sects, when they formed the boundaries. Yes, they need to be completely redone and redrawn by cultural interests and to make stability.

Technically, it still is a country, so border claims can be made. Only the whole world knows its now a puppet, but is still recognized as a not-so-sovereign country.