Poll

Is annexing territory to counter aggression politically acceptable?

Yes9%9% - 3
No51%51% - 16
Maybe16%16% - 5
I would quick Bon Jovi square in the balls.22%22% - 7
Total: 31
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

Should borders automatically revert back to pre-war status following conflicts? Is annexing territory to counter aggression politically acceptable? Must both sides agree?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 865970.ece
https://i11.tinypic.com/85vzeb7.jpg
It was in accord with earlier agreements between Allied powers and one of the conditions of the USSR to enter in war with Japan.
The Kuril Island dispute is a dispute between Japan and Russia over sovereignty over the southernmost Kuril Islands. The disputed islands are currently under Russian administration as part of the Sakhalin Oblast, but are also claimed by Japan, which refers to them as the Northern Territories (北方領土 Hoppō Ryōdo) or Southern Chishima (南千島 Minami Chishima).

On July 7, 2005, the European Parliament issued an official statement recommending the return of the territories in dispute[1], to which Russia protested immediately.

As of 2006, Russia's Putin administration has offered Japan the return of Shikotan and the Habomais (about 6% of the disputed area) if Japan renounce its claims to the other two islands. The Soviet-Japanese joint declaration of 1956 signed by the USSR and Japan promised at least Shikotan and the Habomais to be returned to Japan before a peace agreement could be made.

On 16 August 2006, a Russian border patrol boat found a Japanese vessel fishing near the disputed islands. The Japanese vessel allegedly defied several orders to stop, and made dangerous maneuvers. A Russian patrol opened preventive fire on the Japanese vessel to stop it. A Japanese 35-year-old crab fisherman, Mitsuhiro Morita,[2] was wounded in the head unintentionally (according to Russian sources) and died later. It was the first fatality related to this dispute in 50 years.[3] Nevertheless, the diplomatic fallout from this incident was minimal.[4]

As of late, Russia's economic boom has spread to the Kurils, leading islanders to turn their backs on Tokyo's trump card of financial aid in a deadlocked territorial row.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
https://i19.tinypic.com/82y2l90.jpg
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, refers to the officially-titled Treaty of Non-aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, signed in Moscow in the early hours of August 24, 1939, dated August 23. The Pact is known by a number of different titles. These include the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Hitler-Stalin Pact and German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact. It remained in effect until Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 in Operation Barbarossa.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania into spheres of Nazi and Soviet influence, anticipating "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries' territories. All were subsequently invaded, occupied, or forced to cede territory by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-Am … c_of_Texas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_war
https://i15.tinypic.com/6oq1x68.jpg
Mexico lost more than 500,000 square miles (about 1,300,000 km²) of land, about 40% of its territory. The annexed territories contained about 1,000 Mexican families in Alta California and 7,000 in Nuevo México.[citation needed] A few relocated further south in Mexico; the great majority remained in the United States. Descendants of these Mexican families have risen to prominence in American life, such as U.S. Senator Ken Salazar, and his brother, U.S. Rep. John Salazar, both from Colorado.

General Grant's views about the War:"Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
chittydog
less busy
+586|7272|Kubra, Damn it!

The leaders should get together and roshambo for it.
jord
Member
+2,382|7115|The North, beyond the wall.
I'd kick Bon Jovi in the balls... Don't think I'd quick him.

The guy in the first picture looks like Jasper Carrot
Jepeto87
Member
+38|7122|Dublin
There should be consequences if you get involved in a war. It would be strange if you wound up in a situation where the loss of war cost a nation nothing. But a nation shouldnt be capable of taking another nations territory and the people in it for a pro-longed period of time, maybe countries should just hold on to the territory until the dispute is settled or reparations are re-paid?

What do I know im a  electrician!?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992
The answer to that question is no. Trapping an unwilling ethnic minority inside a newly extended-by-force country is unacceptable. Hand the aggressors asses to them on a plate and sue them for every penny they've got in UN courts instead.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-17 12:23:53)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6928|Northern California

chittydog wrote:

The leaders should get together and roshambo for it.
Seriously, nothing wrong with an arm wrestling contest or some sort of dual between two people to settle such things.

Israel - Palestine... arm wrestle for land parcels.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

The answer to that question is no. Trapping an unwilling ethnic minority inside a newly extended-by-force country is unacceptable. Hand the aggressors asses to them on a plate and sue them for every penny they've got in UN courts instead.
Yes, wars usually involve force. Try and take your mind off of Israel for a minute. Europe is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing while creating it's borders.

I think the answer is maybe. Especially since I left the question extremely open ended. Annexation can include many different geo-political aspects.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The answer to that question is no. Trapping an unwilling ethnic minority inside a newly extended-by-force country is unacceptable. Hand the aggressors asses to them on a plate and sue them for every penny they've got in UN courts instead.
Yes, wars usually involve force. Try and take your mind off of Israel for a minute. Europe is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing while creating it's borders.

I think the answer is maybe. Especially since I left the question extremely open ended. Annexation can include many different geo-political aspects.
Are you talking about driving the standing inhabitants out by force or granting them citizenship of the annexing country? Give me an example of where you think it is acceptable. By your rationale Iraq would be entitled to annex part of the USA if it had the military might.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-17 12:53:15)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

Jepeto87 wrote:

There should be consequences if you get involved in a war. It would be strange if you wound up in a situation where the loss of war cost a nation nothing. But a nation shouldnt be capable of taking another nations territory and the people in it for a pro-longed period of time, maybe countries should just hold on to the territory until the dispute is settled or reparations are re-paid?

What do I know im a  electrician!?
There's no greater cost than losing your fellow country men and women in the war.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The answer to that question is no. Trapping an unwilling ethnic minority inside a newly extended-by-force country is unacceptable. Hand the aggressors asses to them on a plate and sue them for every penny they've got in UN courts instead.
Yes, wars usually involve force. Try and take your mind off of Israel for a minute. Europe is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing while creating it's borders.

I think the answer is maybe. Especially since I left the question extremely open ended. Annexation can include many different geo-political aspects.
Are you talking about driving the standing inhabitants out by force or granting them citizenship of the annexing country? Give me an example of where you think it is acceptable.
The Mexican American War.  The Mexicans lost California and New Mexico but they are allowed to live in California freely.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

sergeriver wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:


Yes, wars usually involve force. Try and take your mind off of Israel for a minute. Europe is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing while creating it's borders.

I think the answer is maybe. Especially since I left the question extremely open ended. Annexation can include many different geo-political aspects.
Are you talking about driving the standing inhabitants out by force or granting them citizenship of the annexing country? Give me an example of where you think it is acceptable.
The Mexican American War.  The Mexicans lost California and New Mexico but they are allowed to live in California freely.
lol Stinger!
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The answer to that question is no. Trapping an unwilling ethnic minority inside a newly extended-by-force country is unacceptable. Hand the aggressors asses to them on a plate and sue them for every penny they've got in UN courts instead.
Yes, wars usually involve force. Try and take your mind off of Israel for a minute. Europe is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing while creating it's borders.

I think the answer is maybe. Especially since I left the question extremely open ended. Annexation can include many different geo-political aspects.
Are you talking about driving the standing inhabitants out by force or granting them citizenship of the annexing country? Give me an example of where you think it is acceptable. By your rationale Iraq would be entitled to annex part of the USA if it had the military might.
No, not once did I mention driving the inhabitants out in the OP. I am talking about claiming land as your own after war. Yes, if Iraq had the capacity they could claim certain lands that would jeopardize their sovereignty (Land bordering them would make a little more sense.). I'm not saying that any one particular situation is right or wrong. I just think only a narrow minded fool makes a ruling on what is right or wrong before contemplating all possible scenarios.

In many of these situations the defeated countries have willingly given up land following the conflict (Like Mexico and Japan) only to make a fuss about it years later.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

Kmarion wrote:

No, not once did I mention driving the inhabitants out in the OP. I am talking about claiming land as your own after war. Yes, if Iraq had the capacity they could claim certain lands that would jeopardize their sovereignty (Land bordering them would make a little more sense.). I'm not saying that any one particular situation is right or wrong. I just think only a narrow minded fool makes a ruling on what is right or wrong before contemplating all possible scenarios.

In many of these situations the defeated countries have willingly given up land following the conflict (Like Mexico and Japan) only to make a fuss about it years later.
Well I would be an 'eye for an eye' man myself but you're right, you can't have one blanket solution to every type of conflict. But I think, as was the case with Nazi Germany, that the crime of attacking another country simply for 'liebensraum' (and not for a just and legitimate reason) could/should be punished with land acquisition, as happened. The punishment fit the crime although it produced a lot of unhappy homeless Germans. If you willingly cede the land then I have no sympathy for you. Mexico should have stood its ground or propagated an insurgency.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-17 13:54:04)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

No, not once did I mention driving the inhabitants out in the OP. I am talking about claiming land as your own after war. Yes, if Iraq had the capacity they could claim certain lands that would jeopardize their sovereignty (Land bordering them would make a little more sense.). I'm not saying that any one particular situation is right or wrong. I just think only a narrow minded fool makes a ruling on what is right or wrong before contemplating all possible scenarios.

In many of these situations the defeated countries have willingly given up land following the conflict (Like Mexico and Japan) only to make a fuss about it years later.
Well I would be an 'eye for an eye' man myself but you're right, you can't have one blanket solution to every type of conflict. But I think, as was the case with Nazi Germany, that the crime of attacking another country simply for 'liebensraum' (and not for a just and legitimate reason) could/should be punished with land acquisition, as happened. The punishment fit the crime although it produced a lot of unhappy homeless Germans. If you willingly cede the land then I have no sympathy for you. Mexico should have stood its ground or propagated an insurgency.
For the record... I purposely excluded the Israel Palestine issue. There is a major difference, they were never willing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6842|North Carolina
My answer is....  might doesn't make right, but it works.

In other words, if we see it fit to annex parts of Mexico to better defend our border, I'm all for it.  Fuck Mexico.

As for how it applies to other countries....  Well, I can't say that I like what Israel has done to the Palestinians, but if we do any annexing of Mexico, we won't be able to say anything against Israel....
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7038|132 and Bush

jord wrote:

I'd kick Bon Jovi in the balls... Don't think I'd quick him.

The guy in the first picture looks like Jasper Carrot
If you guys haven't figured it out..
NEWS ANCHOR
                         And in other news tonight it appears
                         that everyone is officially SICK OF
                         CHRISTMAS!  In an SPC poll, 38% said
                         they were fred up and tired of the holiday,
                         5% said they were indifferent to it,
                         and a whopping 57% they would quick
                         Bon Jovi square in the balls if given
                         the opportunity.
http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/South- … stmas.html
That explains the typo ..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
T.Pike
99 Problems . . .
+187|6719|Pennsyltucky

To the victor goes the spolis, PLUS they get to write History.

Bottom line - don't lose.
MrE`158
Member
+103|7060
The problem is that if you grab some new territory and draw new borders on it, you cause problems down the line.  Even if you set aside Israel, just look at all those big straight lines in Africa and the problems they've caused.  Just because you won a war doesn't mean it's a good idea to hold onto bits of the land you managed to take control of. 

You end up with places like Alsace, which Rome/Gaul/the Carolignians/the Goths/the Franks/France/Holy Roman Empire/Prussia/Germany fought over for the best part of 2000 years.  Honestly, in situations like this with the islands, unless there's some particularly important strategic or economic reason for Russia to hold onto them, why not give them back?  What do the people on the islands think?  Is there anyone there?  Reverting to pre-war borders is good as long as that's politically stable.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7209|PNW

'Politically' is different than 'morally.'

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard