Plus if it was OK to do so then America would own a big part of the World, and people hate us enough as it is.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.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Is It Acceptable to Take the Land of a Country after Winning a War?
The reason why Allies not occupy Germany today, it's because Nazis do not go jihad after losing the war.
Each possible case is different, and should be evaluated invididually. I do agree that in some circumstances it could be acceptable. An example of such a seizure or occupation (they are different things) of land that I consider acceptable is the Golan Heights after the six day war.
Last edited by Pubic (2006-12-19 23:40:46)
Well in the WW2 Hungary joined the war to get the territory back as it was ours for over 1000 years.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Go fight another war and win it back.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
All the areas which one were conquerd back had in 80% total hungarian populution.
So we had to join Germany and Italy coz we couldnt do it on our own.As they let us to go into the places and remember Jugoslavia and Cheslovakia are no longer existing and my country didnt got justice.
After we lost WW2 and we couldnt jump out like romania did at the end when they saw that Hitler is loosing.
The german troops moved into Budapest and they dont let us do anything...so we lost again and they dont let the "new" border.And today we have over 6 million hungarian abroad in romania,slovakia,serbia.
You just dont know the Hungarian history.Dont talka bout things you dont know !!blademaster wrote:
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.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
palestinians kill israelis because israelis kill palestiniansLisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.
Stop killing palestinians and give the land back to them and the palestinians will stop killing israelis.. thats so simple
perhaps your munificence can point out the last time a sovereign palestinian state existed in "israel"
Wasn't that land used to be owned by the British? Btw, WTF happened between the peace? 2005 peace agreement anyone?[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
palestinians kill israelis because israelis kill palestiniansLisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.
Stop killing palestinians and give the land back to them and the palestinians will stop killing israelis.. thats so simple
same thing that happened every other time israel let jimmy carter, the UN, and anyone else broker a peace deal, israel gave up land in exchange for peace, the opposition saw this as an encouraging sign and continued attacking in hopes for more land. look how pitifully small israel is then explain to me how they are the cause of all the region's problems.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Wasn't that land used to be owned by the British? Btw, WTF happened between the peace? 2005 peace agreement anyone?[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
palestinians kill israelis because israelis kill palestiniansLisik wrote:
Palestinians kill Israelis... so there is no another way then occupy strategic points and close the border.
Stop killing palestinians and give the land back to them and the palestinians will stop killing israelis.. thats so simple
venom6 is right in this one.
All the territory that was taken away in 1921 had been won by Hungary much more earlier than the Habsburgs came...Actually about 80% percent of that territory was already ours in the 11th century...
Back to topic:
When a country is defeated and the triumphant nation/nations decide to make the defeated sign a treaty about giving away land then it is obvious...The defeated country has to sign it, it has no other choice. Is it right? Why not? I think if its YOUR country which is gaining territory then its right
At venom6: Lesz még Párizs magyar falu!
All the territory that was taken away in 1921 had been won by Hungary much more earlier than the Habsburgs came...Actually about 80% percent of that territory was already ours in the 11th century...
Back to topic:
When a country is defeated and the triumphant nation/nations decide to make the defeated sign a treaty about giving away land then it is obvious...The defeated country has to sign it, it has no other choice. Is it right? Why not? I think if its YOUR country which is gaining territory then its right
At venom6: Lesz még Párizs magyar falu!
Lesz még miénk Kassa és Pozsony !!(HUN)Rudebwoy wrote:
At venom6: Lesz még Párizs magyar falu!
"I my country we have problem, and that problem is the jew"
Are you telling me that they have won the war in Iraq?sergeriver wrote:
America would never keep Iraq's territory although it won the war.
Last edited by Sylvanis (2006-12-20 14:24:58)
Of course they won the war in Iraq. They won it damn quick.Sylvanis wrote:
Are you telling me that they have won the war in Iraq?sergeriver wrote:
America would never keep Iraq's territory although it won the war.
There's a big difference between vanquishing a country's military and successfully occupying it.
They invaded Iraq and removed Saddam. They technically won. Now the place is a mess and that is another story.Sylvanis wrote:
Are you telling me that they have won the war in Iraq?sergeriver wrote:
America would never keep Iraq's territory although it won the war.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Is It Acceptable to Take the Land of a Country after Winning a War?