To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (192751 ) 7/23/2006 5:23:14 PM From: neolib Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500 They were interested in acquiring defensible borders - wouldn't you be in their shoes? The partition lines of 1947 and the armistince liens of 1949 are both nearly indefensible. Israel is 9 miles wide at Nahariya. Then make a mile wide landmine invested buffer. Don't build houses. One works as a deterrent to aggression, the other encourages it.Why should Israel owe them a do-over on the results of the war? So their children might live in peace.Everywhere else, and I do mean EVERYWHERE else, if you attack a neighboring country and lose land, you're out of luck, buddy. I don't recall either Japan or Germany being American states. Both occurred about the same time as the establishment of the Jewish state, so the morals of the time are equal.What about them? Was Serbia rewarded for its aggression? Serbia was fighting a terrorist war, against Muslims. We backed the terrorists, because we didn't like the harsh tactics used by those fighting to keep Yugoslavia a united country, and because we didn't like the political leanings of the Serbs. I have often wondered what the western response would have been if Serbia at been very anti-communist. I distinctly remember young Muslim men going to Jihad in Kosovo from the USA, actually being featured as something akin to heros in US news magazines of the time. They were quite the Dudes. IIRC, many of them went from the NYC Muslim community. The USA didn't do much to halt them. Imagine that! However, you have hopped sides here. Using your logic, Serbia should have been allowed to keep all the territory they took or would have taken if outsiders had minded their own business. They didn't start the war.