Is It Acceptable to Take the Land of a Country after Winning a War?

2006-12-19 06:30:43

#1

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7007|Argentina

In the past, a lot of wars took place and after those, the winner usually took control of the land of the defeated side. It happened in the American-Mexican war when America defeated Mexico and took California and New Mexico. In that time it was considered Ok to do so. In fact, Mexico and America have no major problems in their today's relationship (despite the illegal immigration).
Today is a different story. For instance in 1967 Israel took the West Bank from Jordan, and now, 40 years later, the situation of Palestine and Israel is one of the main crisis in the World. Even the WWII started because of the invasion of Poland, and America would never keep Iraq's territory although it won the war.

When do you think the situation changed? Why is no longer cool keeping the territories won in a war?

Last edited by sergeriver (2006-12-19 06:44:24)

2006-12-19 06:43:25

#2

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6966

Spoils of war.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-12-19 06:48:43

#3

Marlboroman82: Personal philosophy: Clothing optional.; +1,022|6873|Camp XRay

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Spoils of war.

yes that and their women

https://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l250/marlboroman82/Untitled-8.png

2006-12-19 06:49:32

#4

Parker: isteal; +1,452|6644|The Gem Saloon

i think that is appropriate when we are in a "real estate" war.
however that being said, i think the last war that was that way was probably korea.
by the time we made it to vietnam we werent fighting for land anymore. victory was measured in the number of dead.

2006-12-19 06:57:22

#5

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6805

These days land acquisition by force is deemed unacceptable because it is tantamount to imperialism. Did people think Hitler's acquistion of most of Europe was acceptable? No, and with good reason. In the old days if you took a land you generally drove the original inhabitants out. That didn't happen in WWII Europe, in Palestine, in El País Vasco, in Chechnya, in Tibet or in Ireland. The original habitants remain in their homelands, fight their corner and resist disenfranchrisement, oppression and attempted stealth of their properties and possessions. Inhabitants of a region cannot be held collectively responsible for the acts of their governments. Many people live under dictatorial regions over which they have little or no influence: why should they have their land ceded to another country when they neither elected their leader nor even desire to be led by him/her. Every example of annexation is different from the other but generally what I'm saying holds true: the days of expansionism are OVER, borders are largely stable - vanquish a foe and leave them to tend to their wounds, don't create a problem that will fester for eternity by annexing the vanquished foe and lording it over them - it will eventually blow up in your face (or on a Jerusalem bus).

IMPORTANT STIPULATION: It very much depends on the particular nuances and details of the conflict in question. Each case must be taken on its own merits.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-19 07:02:34)

2006-12-19 07:12:47

#6

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6808|Hungary

You guys mean the treaty of Trianon ?

https://vmek.oszk.hu/00000/00099/00099.jpg

https://www.historicaltextarchive.com/hungary/hungtria.gif

https://www.webenetics.com/hungary/images/trianon2.gif

In short its NOT acceptable and Trianon is also NOT acceptable and we wont agree with this !
JUSTICE FOR HUNGARY !!

Read more:
http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/trianon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon

Last edited by venom6 (2006-12-19 07:15:30)

2006-12-19 07:12:57

#7

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6769|Πάϊ

CameronPoe wrote:
the days of expansionism are OVER, borders are largely stable

Today's wars are about controlling the defeated's energy sources, market and economy. Not land.

_ƒ³

2006-12-19 07:20:47

#8

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6966

venom6 wrote:
You guys mean the treaty of Trianon ?

http://vmek.oszk.hu/00000/00099/00099.jpg

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/hu … ngtria.gif

http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/images/trianon2.gif

In short its NOT acceptable and Trianon is also NOT acceptable and we wont agree with this !
JUSTICE FOR HUNGARY !!

Read more:
http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/trianon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon

Go fight another war and win it back.

2006-12-19 07:48:43

#9

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6799|Southeastern USA

what i don't get is how people get upset when country A invades country B, country A gets their ass beat, and country B helps themselves to country A's resources/land/assets, especially in cases like israel, created where a sovereign state no longer existed by britain (oversimplification i know) after the fall of the ottoman empire, then continually invaded and attacked by other nations and, after every successful victory being told they're evil and they have to give the land back to their aggressors

2006-12-19 07:54:00

#10

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6895

venom6 wrote:
You guys mean the treaty of Trianon ?

http://vmek.oszk.hu/00000/00099/00099.jpg

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/hu … ngtria.gif

http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/images/trianon2.gif

In short its NOT acceptable and Trianon is also NOT acceptable and we wont agree with this !
JUSTICE FOR HUNGARY !!

Read more:
http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/trianon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon

justice for splitting Hungary Hungary had no right in controlling all of those other states, that would be like saying England should still control U.S. or Hitler should still maintaining all of the land he conquered. The information you provided is irrelevant, and therefore you are guilty of false dilemma.

2006-12-19 07:58:24

#11

Lisik: Member; +74|6751|Israel

Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.

2006-12-19 08:08:35

#12

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|6799|EUtopia | Austria

blademaster wrote:
venom6 wrote:
You guys mean the treaty of Trianon ?

http://vmek.oszk.hu/00000/00099/00099.jpg

http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/hu … ngtria.gif

http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/images/trianon2.gif

In short its NOT acceptable and Trianon is also NOT acceptable and we wont agree with this !
JUSTICE FOR HUNGARY !!

Read more:
http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/trianon.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon
justice for splitting Hungary Hungary had no right in controlling all of those other states, that would be like saying England should still control U.S. or Hitler should still maintaining all of the land he conquered. The information you provided is irrelevant, and therefore you are guilty of false dilemma.

Oh gosh. Austria and Hungary once was one large monarchy, of which Hungary itself was the biggest united part. The rest was more or less like a puzzle, but with a german-speaking majority. However, Hungary did not rule these countries, they were never conquered by them. If you want it like that, whole Hungary was taken over by the Habsburger family, who were Austrian. If one had no right to reign over these countries, it was Austria, but not Hungary.
Thus comparing the history of Hungary to Nazi-Germany is extremely inappropriate.

2006-12-19 08:09:11

#13

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6831|SE London

It used to be acceptable. Until everyone agreed it wasn't and brought in laws against it.

It used to be legal (and quite common practice), these days it's illegal and it doesn't get done (except by Israel - anyone else gets in trouble for it).

The days of empires are long since past.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-19 08:10:05)

2006-12-19 08:09:45

#14

JahManRed: wank; +646|6878|IRELAND

Lisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.

If you had stayed in your respective countries and not immigrated to a land were you were not welcome, no one would be killing anyone.

2006-12-19 08:25:18

#15

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6805

Lisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.

Where are you gonna keep occupying strategic points up to? It's the whole of Palestine & Golan today, Jordan next? Then the Iraq-Iran border? Then one final push towards China? The whole 'occupation being vital for our defence' is zionist spin. Don't overstretch yourself now!!

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-12-19 08:26:11)

2006-12-19 09:36:24

#16

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi: Why walk when you can dance?; +77|6837|sWEEDen

You can keep it if you kill enough of the original citizens...

2006-12-19 09:51:40

#17

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6851|132 and Bush

If it is terms of a cease fire agreed to by all sides yes. Every situation and conflict is unique and can not be answered definitely.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2006-12-19 10:25:44

#18

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6769|Πάϊ

kr@cker wrote:
what i don't get is how people get upset when country A invades country B, country A gets their ass beat, and country B helps themselves to country A's resources/land/assets, especially in cases like israel, created where a sovereign state no longer existed by britain (oversimplification i know) after the fall of the ottoman empire, then continually invaded and attacked by other nations and, after every successful victory being told they're evil and they have to give the land back to their aggressors

Well, in the case of Israel, country A never invaded country B because there never was a country B to begin with. There was only country A which ended up being occupied by the B people and their terrorist organizations. For further info refer to post #113 of the relative sticky thread.

_ƒ³

2006-12-19 10:34:29

#19

Fancy_Pollux: Connoisseur of Fine Wine; +1,306|6896

CameronPoe wrote:
Lisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.
Where are you gonna keep occupying strategic points up to? It's the whole of Palestine & Golan today, Jordan next? Then the Iraq-Iran border? Then one final push towards China? The whole 'occupation being vital for our defence' is zionist spin. Don't overstretch yourself now!!

What's the alternative then? Just sit there and let the rockets fly in?

2006-12-19 13:18:42

#20

Fen321: Member; +54|6747|Singularity

iii. Lima Declaration of No recognition of the Acquisition of Territory by Force (1938)

I would mark this as the start of a movement towards the non acceptance of accuqusition of land through the use of force, hence the land taken by Israel to be in violation of this declaration and that of the UN charter.

2006-12-19 13:22:33

#21

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7022|PNW

Dismemberment in excess of a defeated nation's resources can come back and bite you in the ass. The years after WWI leading up to WWII is one huge example that will live on as testimony to that fact.

2006-12-19 13:29:45

#22

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6831|SE London

Fen321 wrote:
iii. Lima Declaration of No recognition of the Acquisition of Territory by Force (1938)

I would mark this as the start of a movement towards the non acceptance of accuqusition of land through the use of force, hence the land taken by Israel to be in violation of this declaration and that of the UN charter.

Exactly. That's what I was getting at earlier. I couldn't remember the name of the agreement though.

+1

2006-12-19 13:46:39

#23

Elamdri: The New Johnnie Cochran; +134|6896|Peoria

Macht Politics tells us when we fight wars with countries, we shouldn't do anything to completely ruin a country.

You checkmate your enemy. You don't destroy them.

2006-12-19 13:51:58

#24

wah1188: You orrible caaaaaaan't; +321|6710|UK

CameronPoe wrote:
These days land acquisition by force is deemed unacceptable because it is tantamount to imperialism. Did people think Hitler's acquistion of most of Europe was acceptable? No, and with good reason. In the old days if you took a land you generally drove the original inhabitants out. That didn't happen in WWII Europe, in Palestine, in El País Vasco, in Chechnya, in Tibet or in Ireland. The original habitants remain in their homelands, fight their corner and resist disenfranchrisement, oppression and attempted stealth of their properties and possessions. Inhabitants of a region cannot be held collectively responsible for the acts of their governments. Many people live under dictatorial regions over which they have little or no influence: why should they have their land ceded to another country when they neither elected their leader nor even desire to be led by him/her. Every example of annexation is different from the other but generally what I'm saying holds true: the days of expansionism are OVER, borders are largely stable - vanquish a foe and leave them to tend to their wounds, don't create a problem that will fester for eternity by annexing the vanquished foe and lording it over them - it will eventually blow up in your face (or on a Jerusalem bus).

IMPORTANT STIPULATION: It very much depends on the particular nuances and details of the conflict in question. Each case must be taken on its own merits.

Wow good response +1

2006-12-19 13:52:26

#25

ELITE-UK: Scratching my back; +170|6724|SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

whats the point of defeating a country, without occupying their land so they cannot rebuild and become stronger and more powerful, i personally think taking land of your defeated enemy is a wise choice and ensure peace and stability on your home land.

BF2S Forums Is It Acceptable to Take the Land of a Country after Winning a War?

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

venom6 wrote:

venom6 wrote:

blademaster wrote:

venom6 wrote:

Lisik wrote:

Lisik wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Lisik wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Board footer