has not happened since iraq, 1990Fen321 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.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Is It Acceptable to Take the Land of a Country after Winning a War?
Yeah, sure. Works great for Israel.ELITE-UK wrote:
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.
e.g. the Moors (Italian+Moors=Sicilian)Marlboroman82 wrote:
yes that and their womencyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Spoils of war.
It has happened since 1938 though. 1948 and 1967 being prime examples.smtt686 wrote:
has not happened since iraq, 1990Fen321 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.
Reminds me of True Romance.jsnipy wrote:
e.g. the Moors (Italian+Moors=Sicilian)Marlboroman82 wrote:
yes that and their womencyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Spoils of war.
Your thinking in terms of a permanent enemy. But in the real world, your enemies are not your enemies forever.ELITE-UK wrote:
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.
right. taking control of land through force is SOMETIMES acceptable. IF the war if fought and the victor has won, thne land being annexed( the technical term for it) is fine, AS LONG AS IT IS PART OF THE PEACE TREATY AT THE END OF THE WAR. ( as an aside, there was no peace treaty for iraq, as technically it was a military victory, not a surrender.) in other words, isreal/palastine would NOT be legal, wheras something like the hungarian treaty WOULD be.
Apparently. Those who hate Israel want to see them wiped off the map, so of course they push for Israel to just take it and do nothing. This has become yet another Israel/Palestine thread, I vote close unless it gets back on track.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
What's the alternative then? Just sit there and let the rockets fly in?CameronPoe wrote:
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!!Lisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.
Mmmm I agree, persicution and all the rest is an entirely different matter.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Spoils of war.
Martyn
sorry, my badStingray24 wrote:
Apparently. Those who hate Israel want to see them wiped off the map, so of course they push for Israel to just take it and do nothing. This has become yet another Israel/Palestine thread, I vote close unless it gets back on track.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
What's the alternative then? Just sit there and let the rockets fly in?CameronPoe wrote:
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!!
Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. The Arab Higher Committee immediately ordered a violent three-day strike on Jewish civilians, attacking buildings, shops, and neighborhoods, and prompting counter-attacks organized by underground Jewish militias like the Lehi and Irgun. These attacks soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.
1947_UN_Partition_Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
1947_UN_Partition_Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Last edited by Lisik (2006-12-19 14:28:50)
Palestinians don't have a border at all.
And BTW I'm for releasing territories... just stop firing.
And BTW I'm for releasing territories... just stop firing.
Last edited by Lisik (2006-12-19 14:31:32)
Ahhhhhh, Jews have no historical right to be in the Middle East, or Jerusalem.....got it.JahManRed wrote:
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.Lisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.
You knew what this thread was going to be AND what serge was driving at just be reading the heading.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently. Those who hate Israel want to see them wiped off the map, so of course they push for Israel to just take it and do nothing. This has become yet another Israel/Palestine thread, I vote close unless it gets back on track.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
What's the alternative then? Just sit there and let the rockets fly in?CameronPoe wrote:
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!!
Bottom line........If you don't want to risk loosing your land..........DON"T attack your nieghbors from that land, if you ya might lose.
Perhaps to keep them at bay, take WWII for example, the US, GB & Russia won over Germany but they didn't take their country.ELITE-UK wrote:
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.
As always, you are making assumptions. I'm asking a legitimate question here, when did it stop being cool to take the land of the country you defeated?lowing wrote:
You knew what this thread was going to be AND what serge was driving at just be reading the heading.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently. Those who hate Israel want to see them wiped off the map, so of course they push for Israel to just take it and do nothing. This has become yet another Israel/Palestine thread, I vote close unless it gets back on track.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
What's the alternative then? Just sit there and let the rockets fly in?
Bottom line........If you don't want to risk loosing your land..........DON"T attack your nieghbors from that land, if you ya might lose.
Ever heard of diplomacy? That's something Israel won't try.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently. Those who hate Israel want to see them wiped off the map, so of course they push for Israel to just take it and do nothing. This has become yet another Israel/Palestine thread, I vote close unless it gets back on track.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
What's the alternative then? Just sit there and let the rockets fly in?CameronPoe wrote:
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!!
Bottom line.......If you annex someones land the UN should turn up and chuck you out, just like in Kuwait. Though sometimes having friends on the UN security council stops that from happening.lowing wrote:
You knew what this thread was going to be AND what serge was driving at just be reading the heading.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently. Those who hate Israel want to see them wiped off the map, so of course they push for Israel to just take it and do nothing. This has become yet another Israel/Palestine thread, I vote close unless it gets back on track.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
What's the alternative then? Just sit there and let the rockets fly in?
Bottom line........If you don't want to risk loosing your land..........DON"T attack your nieghbors from that land, if you ya might lose.
1938.sergeriver wrote:
As always, you are making assumptions. I'm asking a legitimate question here, when did it stop being cool to take the land of the country you defeated?lowing wrote:
You knew what this thread was going to be AND what serge was driving at just be reading the heading.Stingray24 wrote:
Apparently. Those who hate Israel want to see them wiped off the map, so of course they push for Israel to just take it and do nothing. This has become yet another Israel/Palestine thread, I vote close unless it gets back on track.
Bottom line........If you don't want to risk loosing your land..........DON"T attack your nieghbors from that land, if you ya might lose.
Thanks. I want to be informed, nothing else. So, after that any annexation would be considered illegal, right?Bertster7 wrote:
1938.sergeriver wrote:
As always, you are making assumptions. I'm asking a legitimate question here, when did it stop being cool to take the land of the country you defeated?lowing wrote:
You knew what this thread was going to be AND what serge was driving at just be reading the heading.
Bottom line........If you don't want to risk loosing your land..........DON"T attack your nieghbors from that land, if you ya might lose.
Beginning a war with the intention of annexing land is generally known as a war of agression.
Beginning a war of agression is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
Beginning a war of agression is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yup.sergeriver wrote:
Thanks. I want to be informed, nothing else. So, after that any annexation would be considered illegal, right?Bertster7 wrote:
1938.sergeriver wrote:
As always, you are making assumptions. I'm asking a legitimate question here, when did it stop being cool to take the land of the country you defeated?
Depends. No situations is exactly alike, usualy it depends on who the agressor is, if the agressor loses then it is right for the "victim" country to take over and set up a good working country, then give it back. Though go back 100 years or more and it was just who ever gets it keeps it.sergeriver wrote:
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?
Yea, that pisses me off, its like people are trying to turn war into something....well I dont even know how to describe it, pussified?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
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Is It Acceptable to Take the Land of a Country after Winning a War?