Disastor Waiting to Happan

[Black Dog]

Well, duh. That's not really the issue. But a poster stated that "the occupation" (meaning the post 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) was a "smokescreen" and that the real motivation was the destruction of Israel. I merely stated the viewpoint that , given the historical realities of Israel's formation, such antipathy is understandable.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

I don't recall hearing that Canada gained ground in 1812, much less that we occupied part of present day America post 1812, experienced decades of worldwide condemnation and later withdrew

Oregon was ceded to the US to avoid war, in the Treaty of Oregon. There really wasn't any mechanism for 'worldwide condemnation' until this century.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

I don't recall hearing that Canada gained ground in 1812, much less that we occupied part of present day America post 1812, experienced decades of worldwide condemnation and later withdrew

Oregon was ceded to the US to avoid war, in the Treaty of Oregon (1846). There really wasn't any mechanism for 'worldwide condemnation' until this century.

[BHS]

Well, duh. That's not really the issue. But a poster stated that "the occupation" (meaning the post 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip) was a "smokescreen" and that the real motivation was the destruction of Israel. I merely stated the viewpoint that , given the historical realities of Israel's formation, such antipathy is understandable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see. Well, it's bound to be a source of interesting conversation for the next little while. My bet: Gaza degenerates into a low intensity civil war within 6 months of the Israeli army leaving.

[BHS]

Oregon was ceded to the US to avoid war, in the Treaty of Oregon (1846). There really wasn't any mechanism for 'worldwide condemnation' until this century.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was Oregon taken in 1812?

[crazymf]

But if you launch an attack and win, then its okay to keep the land? So conquest and invasion should be rewarded?

BD, you missed the point here. If you win, you WIN, W-I-N. You make the rules, you won, they lost. Conquest is rewarded by territory. That's what it's about.

[Guest eureka]

That;s what Napoleon thought. That's what Hitler thought, Crazy.

And yes, BHS. Britain and Canada on more than one occasion occupied American terrirory after driving them out. There was never any thought of keeping it.. Perhaps we should have kept Washington after burning the White House.

But, if you want to turn a sarcastic remark about the notion that it is okay to go to war and annex territory of the victims, then go ahead. We can argue the morals and legality of military adventurism.

[BHS]

That;s what Napoleon thought. That's what Hitler thought, Crazy.

And yes, BHS. Britain and Canada on more than one occasion occupied American terrirory after driving them out. There was never any thought of keeping it.. Perhaps we should have kept Washington after burning the White House.

But, if you want to turn a sarcastic remark about the notion that it is okay to go to war and annex territory of the victims, then go ahead. We can argue the morals and legality of military adventurism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're saying the British attacks on America in 1812 weren't an attempt to regain control of renegade colonies?

Replace "victims" with "defeated" in your last paragraph and you've got it right. Particularly in a thread where we're discussing the "occupation" of lands that Israel took from those who perpetrated the war. The Arabs attacked the Jews. The Jews defended themselves and gained ground. Why should Arab risk and loss be removed from the equation?

[Black Dog]

you missed the point here. If you win, you WIN, W-I-N. You make the rules, you won, they lost. Conquest is rewarded by territory. That's what it's about.

So why was Saddam Hussein ousted from Kuwait? He won (that's W-O-N) and so should have been allowed to keep the spoils of war. Yet somehow I expect you supported his ouster from Kuwait. In both cases, we have an example of territory seized in a war of aggression, so why the hypocricy?

[crazymf]

Ok hold on here you guys.

In every case, the conquered land was retaken by conquest. The victors then perhaps chose to unoccupy it, but that was by choice. My remark was not sarcastic at all.

It's the real world out there guys. Survival of the fittest. If I conquer you and take your land, it's mine unless I choose to give it up or someone else comes and takes it away from me.

I get the feeling like you guys think there's rules for this kind of stuff. It's truly like the playground. The toughest guy makes the rules.

[BHS]

So why was Saddam Hussein ousted from Kuwait? He won (that's W-O-N) and so should have been allowed to keep the spoils of war. Yet somehow I expect you supported his ouster from Kuwait. In both cases, we have an example of territory seized in a war of aggression, so why the hypocricy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Kuwait had attacked Iraq, I'd say let the Iraqis have whatever they gained. No question.

It's a totally different situation in Israel. The Euros and the UN have taken the Arab side and expect Israel to comply with their demands that Israel give every gain back, just because. To the loser go the spoils, in the topsy turvy world of international politics.

[Black Dog]

The Arabs attacked the Jews. The Jews defended themselves and gained ground. Why should Arab risk and loss be removed from the equation?

Israel attacked first in 1967. That is beyond dispute.

If Kuwait had attacked Iraq, I'd say let the Iraqis have whatever they gained. No question.

But the situation between 1967 and 1990 are analagous. Iraq and Israel both attacked first. One was allowed to keep its spoils, the other condemned and forced out by a multinational force. Again: why the hypocricy.

It's the real world out there guys. Survival of the fittest. If I conquer you and take your land, it's mine unless I choose to give it up or someone else comes and takes it away from me.

Barbarism.

[Guest eureka]

I am saying that "The British 'attacks' in 1812 were an attempt to regain renegade colonies." That would really make me a revisionist.

The attacks were made by the Americans. The British and Canadians beat them off and made successful counter-attacks.

[BHS]

I am saying that "The British 'attacks' in 1812 were an attempt to regain renegade colonies." That would really make me a revisionist.

The attacks were made by the Americans. The British and Canadians beat them off and made successful counter-attacks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Battle of New Orleans was an American attack on Britain?

[Black Dog]

The Battle of New Orleans was an American attack on Britain?

The War of 1812 was and American attack on British territory.

The war formally began on June 18, 1812 with the U.S. declaration of war. The United States launched invasions of the Canadian provinces in 1812 and 1813, but the borders were successfully defended by British and American Indian forces. The United States gained the upper hand in the American Indian part of war with victories at the Battle of the Thames in October 1813 and the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in March 1814, but by this time Napoleon had been defeated in Europe, and the British were finally able to divert more resources to North America. British invasions of American territory resulted in the burning of Washington, D.C. and the capture of part of the District of Maine, but the British counteroffensive was turned back at Lake Champlain, Baltimore, and New Orleans. The Treaty of Ghent (ratified in 1815) restored the status quo ante bellum between the combatants.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Was Oregon taken in 1812?

No, but it was

much less that we occupied part of present day America post 1812,

crazymf,

BD, you missed the point here. If you win, you WIN, W-I-N. You make the rules, you won, they lost. Conquest is rewarded by territory. That's what it's about

Might I refer you to the thread "What is land ownership anyways", where this notion was covered extensively.

The UN was created mostly to put and end to the idea of gaining territory by conquest. Most of the world wished that WWII would be the last time territory was gained by conquest.

[crazymf]

Dear BHS,

Was Oregon taken in 1812?

No, but it was

much less that we occupied part of present day America post 1812,

crazymf,

BD, you missed the point here. If you win, you WIN, W-I-N. You make the rules, you won, they lost. Conquest is rewarded by territory. That's what it's about

Might I refer you to the thread "What is land ownership anyways", where this notion was covered extensively.

The UN was created mostly to put and end to the idea of gaining territory by conquest. Most of the world wished that WWII would be the last time territory was gained by conquest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may refer me because I didn't read that thread. Thanks, and I will.

My basic point was that when the bombs come out, there are only the rules of who wins by force. Even the UN is toothless as the USA demonstrates regularly.

[Black Dog]

My basic point was that when the bombs come out, there are only the rules of who wins by force. Even the UN is toothless as the USA demonstrates regularly.

In other words: might makes right.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Black Dog,

In other words: might makes right.

Essentially, yes. Or, if one wishes to add a sprinkle of morality to the soup, then there is 'choice' as well.