Or what I'll term the Third Option: just kill a lot of people. That was, at one time, quite effective - rather frowned upon nowdays, though. At least, if you're a First World country, and not in Africa or, possibly, the Balkans. Or Tibet. But, again, different day's discussion - you make a good point in that the point of war has changed. With the advent of death on the megascale, priorities change. No one has yet been dumb enough to start a war of pure genocide (again, focusing on the First World anyhow), and the wonders of capitalism, globalism, and "public support" make wars of territory/resource gain rather moot too.
Occupational wars just get... messy. Generally, if you're in a position to occupy that means you *started* in a position where the two people's beliefs are offset, and any occupation (no matter how peaceful) won't exactly change that fact. Couple that with the rather odd trend against assimilation in modern times, and, well... yeah. On the other hand, there is one notable case of an occupation battle that was wholly and completely won: the Native Americans. Now, granted, there are some considerations there, but in the end it was still basically a long, long occupation that went astoundingly quickly given the distances involved on all sides, and the fact that the occupiers were outnumbered for a long while.