3 ms·

Even if it was stolen long ago then it is not a valid or good reason to start a war.

by matkoniecz 3y ago

pastacacioepepe 3y ago
[flagged]
- _dain_ 3y ago
  yes, those countries, because the alternative is a war of all against all. there were winners and losers a century ago, the lines on the map are what they are now, you don't get a do-over. deal with it.
  - penneallagricia 3y ago
    I wonder what kind of logic is that where the wronged party has to "deal with it" and not the thieves. If the goal is to avoid war of all against all, can't the US suck it up for once?
  - beaeglebeach 3y ago
    But the schomburgk line author stated it wasn't intended to include legitimate territory. This is reflected for instance on Google maps not showing a solid border. The line was a rough survey with an explicit agreement between Britain and Venezuela that didn't establish territorial borders and agreed to not colonize vicinity of either side. To this day the area disputed is largely lawless jungle with no agreed territorial line. It is very much a modern question due to this loosely defined state.
pastacacioepepe 3y ago
[flagged]
pastacacioepepe 3y ago
Who decides if it's justified or not? The same countries that stole the land? The countries that waged countless unjustified wars of oppression based on lies? The countries who would now like to exploit that land?
- matkoniecz 3y ago
  In this case: it was my opinion, person with minuscule influence on foreign policy. But "war is pretty bad idea" is a widely shared opinion, as war is pretty bad one. > The same countries that stole the land? The countries that waged countless unjustified wars of oppression based on lies? Yes, these countries. Approximately all countries stole land (even if this land was stolen from Venezuela: guess how Venezuela acquired it? and "give it back to local tribes" does not work, because they stole it from other tribes). Also, approximately all countries waged some unjustified wars of oppression based on lies.

Even if it was stolen long ago then it is not a valid or good reason to start a war.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago

[flagged]

_dain_ 3y ago
yes, those countries, because the alternative is a war of all against all. there were winners and losers a century ago, the lines on the map are what they are now, you don't get a do-over. deal with it.
- penneallagricia 3y ago
  I wonder what kind of logic is that where the wronged party has to "deal with it" and not the thieves. If the goal is to avoid war of all against all, can't the US suck it up for once?
- beaeglebeach 3y ago
  But the schomburgk line author stated it wasn't intended to include legitimate territory. This is reflected for instance on Google maps not showing a solid border. The line was a rough survey with an explicit agreement between Britain and Venezuela that didn't establish territorial borders and agreed to not colonize vicinity of either side. To this day the area disputed is largely lawless jungle with no agreed territorial line. It is very much a modern question due to this loosely defined state.

pastacacioepepe 3y ago

[flagged]

pastacacioepepe 3y ago

Who decides if it's justified or not? The same countries that stole the land? The countries that waged countless unjustified wars of oppression based on lies? The countries who would now like to exploit that land?

matkoniecz 3y ago
In this case: it was my opinion, person with minuscule influence on foreign policy. But "war is pretty bad idea" is a widely shared opinion, as war is pretty bad one. > The same countries that stole the land? The countries that waged countless unjustified wars of oppression based on lies? Yes, these countries. Approximately all countries stole land (even if this land was stolen from Venezuela: guess how Venezuela acquired it? and "give it back to local tribes" does not work, because they stole it from other tribes). Also, approximately all countries waged some unjustified wars of oppression based on lies.