"J. van Baardwijk" wrote:
>
> At 09:45 28-12-01 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> >Do you think France and Poland should adjust their borders to the way they
> >were before WWII, or are you holding Israel to a higher standard than the
> >rest of the world?
>
> See above.
>
> Besides, if we were to insist that countries like France and Poland should
> return land they ended up with after WWII, we would also have to insist
> that the US return all that land they conquered in the war against Mexico.
> IIRC, much if not all of Texas and a few other states used to belong to
> Mexico. Somehow, I do not think that is going to happen.
Texas was a country independent from Mexico before the war between the
U.S. and Mexico. It became part of the U.S. via treaty, not as a result
of direct conquest. Throwing Texas into that example doesn't help to
make your point there with anyone who knows anything about Texas
history.
The last part of the U.S. to be acquired from Mexico was actually
purchased. Would you propose that the section that was conquered be
returned, but the purchased portion stay part of the U.S.? That would
leave some of the U.S. between two parts of Mexico if the U.S. returned
the conquered land. Should Mexico buy back the purchased part? Does it
make any difference that the borders were pretty much set in the 19th
century, and you're comparing it to 20th century border shifts? Should
someone try to find a web page that explains the expansion of the U.S.
with maps and dates and how each part was acquired for you, so you can
take a crash course in this and come up with the most perfect analogy to
fit the situation you're trying to make an analogy for?
Should everything, in your opinion, just be re-set to 1946 borders? I'm
noticing that you're objecting to borders set after that, but not
borders set before that.
Julia
