Thanks for the reply to my other post BB, I see some people did indeed comment negatively on the right to exist. Forgive my pedantry, but I still wonder what it actually means though. I wonder what 'not having a right to exist' would mean. Would it mean rubbing the lines off the map and / or redrawing them; Would it mean renaming a state; or would it mean killing everyone and physically destroying the state? The last sounds pretty horrible, and I'm not sure I like the first either unless there are absolutely sound sterling reasons for it. The second seems fairly pointless unless it achieves some greater good for all involved.
In Iraq's case it didn't mean rubbing the lines out - Iraq's borders are still there much as they were almost 100 years ago. But the regime has changed. Once it was a Baathist dictatorship, now it's a US muppet. Lots of Iraqis did die there too, and their country was destroyed. On the other hand Montenegro was literally 'wiped off the map' after WW1 though no one was even injured as a result. It simply disappeared off maps as it was absorbed into a makey-uppy state called Yugoslavia. 90 years later it popped up again like one of those Billy Divers or Tufted Ducks.
Just some philosophical musings.