QuoteReplyTopic: Expansionist States of Today Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 09:13
Originally posted by Leonidas
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
To regards of what Turkey is claiming in general over the disputes,here is what the Turkish Embassy in the U.S says:
So it is interesting to see that Turkey also views us as an expansionist country
interesting? This is nothing other than predictable. Stuff like that gets cut and pasted in here and on other forums.
During a past debate long long time ago* i posted thisstudy^, that outlines each others position in the most neutral one ive seen on the web (which admittedly is not hard)
Greece expansionism effectively died in the deserts of Anatolia and the birth of the Turkish Republic, and had its politically death when the students in Athens stood up to the junta. Everything else is just perception and conjecture
Leonidas to me that is a typical Greek response to deny Greece's politics.Here in Greece the things are much more different that some of the hardcore elements of the Greek diaspora where you live want us to believe.
Greece's expansionism is alive and kicking i reassure you.Its about time the Greeks stop playing victims of an alleged danger from Turkey,it is both outdated and kinda phobic,we the Greek citizens inside Greece are way past this mentality(or at least most us compared to the hardcore Greek diaspora which lives in another past era).
Leonidas to me that is a typical Greek response to deny Greece's politics.Here in Greece the things are much more different that some of the hardcore elements of the Greek diaspora where you live want us to believe.
Greece's expansionism is alive and kicking i reassure you.Its about time the Greeks stop playing victims of an alleged danger from Turkey,it is both outdated and kinda phobic,we the Greek citizens inside Greece are way past this mentality(or at least most us compared to the hardcore Greek diaspora which lives in another past era).
Excuse me, your using very typical Turkish arguments to back your theory, nothing from Greek or neutral sources. I'm hardly 'hardcore' nor do mix with those types. The victim mentality is pretty much typical of the whole region, we have all screwed each other somewhere, somehow. its hardly a Greek phenomenon (but yes it does exist there), so maybe apply it to all sides for your analysis.
Airspace and maritime agreements are over international space nothing in those two items takes away anything from turkey. turkey chooses two link resources to those items, so no one gets anything or can even talk about sharing arrangements of the one thing that is tangible to both countries. They are hardly 'expansionist' policies.
Greece is not a expansionist threat, even with 12 miles around each island. Expansionism is not easy or natural, Greece cannot expand into Turkish territory without risking so much more. We haven't the demographics, the money, ambition or even the military to do it, simple as that. So such thoughts are only existent in three imaginations;
In the mind of the Turkish patriot that believes the defence budget supporting stories of their military on face value.
In the mind of the Greek patriot that thinks Alexander was the best thing since slice bread and that miracle military feats like the 300 can be repeated
2. The problem at the moment is not the interpretation of the Treaty, it is that Turkey has not signed and is not binded by the Treaty in the first place. In this sense I agree that Turkey is leggally covered. If they sign it, we can discuss about finding a common interpretation.
Oh, yes she has.She has signed many bilateral agreements with Greece except the 1982 Treaty.Based on those Treaties Turkey finds legal excuses to oppose our interpretation of the Treaties we have signed with her.She finds legal binding the bilateral treaties she signed with Greece and NOT a Treaty she hasnt signed.So in my mind Turkey is leggally covered.Covering her expansionism that is....Exactly the same way Greece is doing.
Which are those bilateral agreements and Treaties that you speak of? (Which have to do with terittorial waters that is)
I didnt refer to the waters but to the bilateral treaties singned in the meantime,which makes Turkey consider their is a ''package'' of disputes in the Aegean,thus refusing to talk only about the waters.I am not a lawyer but Turkey as far i see is legally covered of what it says.
Oh, but I thought we've been discussing about the waters all along, and when discussing about territorial waters UNCLOS is THE Treaty (unless you find me another one). There's obviously a problem of understanding here... If you want to shift the discussion to the whole "package", sorry, but I want follow you (not in this thread). I could follow the easy path and copy/paste what the Greek Foreign Ministry has to say on these issues (as opposed to Turkish Embassy's claims that you posted), but I choose not to do so, because it will get as nowhere.
2. The problem at the moment is not the interpretation of the Treaty, it is that Turkey has not signed and is not binded by the Treaty in the first place. In this sense I agree that Turkey is leggally covered. If they sign it, we can discuss about finding a common interpretation.
Oh, yes she has.She has signed many bilateral agreements with Greece except the 1982 Treaty.Based on those Treaties Turkey finds legal excuses to oppose our interpretation of the Treaties we have signed with her.She finds legal binding the bilateral treaties she signed with Greece and NOT a Treaty she hasnt signed.So in my mind Turkey is leggally covered.Covering her expansionism that is....Exactly the same way Greece is doing.
Which are those bilateral agreements and Treaties that you speak of? (Which have to do with terittorial waters that is)
I didnt refer to the waters but to the bilateral treaties singned in the meantime,which makes Turkey consider their is a ''package'' of disputes in the Aegean,thus refusing to talk only about the waters.I am not a lawyer but Turkey as far i see is legally covered of what it says.
Oh, but I thought we've been discussing about the waters all along, and when discussing about territorial waters UNCLOS is THE Treaty (unless you find me another one). There's obviously a problem of understanding here... If you want to shift the discussion to the whole "package", sorry, but I want follow you (not in this thread). I could follow the easy path and copy/paste what the Greek Foreign Ministry has to say on these issues (as opposed to Turkish Embassy's claims that you posted), but I choose not to do so, because it will get as nowhere.
The previous post i posted covers you fine,you obviously wanna downplay the differences the two countries have.Besides i provided one neutral and one Turkish source.Dont twist my words.
1.Excuse me, your using very typical Turkish arguments to back your theory, nothing from Greek or neutral sources.
2. They are hardly 'expansionist' policies.
3. We haven't the demographics, the money, ambition or even the military to do it, simple as that.
1.That is a weak argument or an non-argument indeed.I was very carefull in firsty providing a neutral link from wikipedia before providing the Turkish side.So this argument has zero validity.
2.Or so you want to believe.I for once consider it expansionistic given Greece's expansionistic history in Macedonia,Thrace,Cyprus and now on the Aegean.
3.That is not true,the way you want to present it.Greece's military is perfectly capable to defend its sovereignity and expand to neighbouring countries,let alone our airforce which is one of the most modern in the world.
you obviously wanna downplay the differences the two countries have.
I certainly don't want to downplay the differences, how did you figure this out? The two countries have BIG disputes: territorial waters, continental shelf, national airspace (where Greece is acting stupid IMHO), FIR Athens, demilitarization of some Aegean islands and "grey zones". The first two are, by far, the most important ones; once they're solved, the rest will be a piece of cake IMO. Oh, there's also Cyprus of course.
Besides i provided one neutral and one Turkish source.
Regarding terr. waters, your neutral source says pretty much what I already told you:
Originally posted by wikipedia
Turkey has refused to become a member of the convention and does not
consider itself bound by it, although it has applied the customary 12
miles on its other coastlines outside the Aegean. Turkey considers the
convention as res inter alios acta, i.e. a treaty that can only be binding to the signing parties but not to others.
The only treaty that is mentioned in this "chapter" is (surprise) UNCLOS.
1.That is a weak argument or an non-argument indeed.I was very carefull in firsty providing a neutral link from wikipedia before providing the Turkish side.So this argument has zero validity.
apologies didnt notice the wiki link, but posting 'neutral' links and cherry picking its facts and focusing on the turkish position does nothing for your own bias. You never answer any of the good points raised. I posted a very good neutral take on the conflict and will use that to explain the poistions of both sides better if you like.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
2.Or so you want to believe.I for once consider it expansionistic given Greece's expansionistic history in Macedonia,Thrace,Cyprus and now on the Aegean..
Linking these events is disengenous.Ok, I can agree with the balkans wars and asia minor campaigns but what this has to do with international flight zones and the like is purely your own personal speculation. It has as much relevance as turkey's ottomon past.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
3.That is not true,the way you want to present it.Greece's military is perfectly capable to defend its sovereignity and expand to neighbouring countries,let alone our airforce which is one of the most modern in the world.
Sorry you need to understand the greece defence force better than that. Its is designed for defence, it can counter attack and retake islands, it cannot land a suffeicent force on Turkeys coast, let alone sustain them. Turkeys aegean islands are at risk, but then agian so are many more of ours. If you think we are a real threat to the mainland, then your dreaming. The greek airforce is dam strong for a country that size, the strongest part of the Greek defence and where the Greeks have close parity to the turks. however Turkeys airforce is still the stronger of the two. I am dead sure the turks would not take us on where they are just close in size, they would take us on in every way possible where we cant match them. That is a logical expectation, hence why Greece cant pick a fight and expect it to be clean and limited where it has a good chance
Greece cannot sustain a total war against turkey longer than a few months, take a look at how many men become of military age every year between the two countries and you will see why Greece couldn't attack if they wanted to. Here is a another piece miltary logic; rule of thumb -you need three to one numbers advantage to attack a defender and have a chance to be succeful. Thats why we can only think of ourselves to ever be successful in defence. In turn Turkey would need disproportiante chunk of its force to take us on successfully, but then expose and risk its rear when doing so. The damage and risk taken is big enough, that no sane person could want war from either side.
Go and get your calculator out, look at our forces, then see what ships and planes we have to transport them, and then take a look at the turkish aegean army thats sits over the other side. BTW maritime or airspace zones doesnt disturb this balance.
Without a war fighting capability to match, no 'expansionism' policy can actually be real.
you obviously wanna downplay the differences the two countries have.
I certainly don't want to downplay the differences, how did you figure this out? The two countries have BIG disputes: territorial waters, continental shelf, national airspace (where Greece is acting stupid IMHO), FIR Athens, demilitarization of some Aegean islands and "grey zones". The first two are, by far, the most important ones; once they're solved, the rest will be a piece of cake IMO. Oh, there's also Cyprus of course.
Besides i provided one neutral and one Turkish source.
Regarding terr. waters, your neutral source says pretty much what I already told you:
Originally posted by wikipedia
Turkey has refused to become a member of the convention and does not consider itself bound by it, although it has applied the customary 12 miles on its other coastlines outside the Aegean. Turkey considers the convention as res inter alios acta, i.e. a treaty that can only be binding to the signing parties but not to others.
The only treaty that is mentioned in this "chapter" is (surprise) UNCLOS.
Dont twist my words.
Which words of yours did I twist?
But Neoptolemeos you want to confine the discussion around waters.I distinctly said that the Treaties interpretation involves all the disputes the countries face,so the twisting is right there.
Besides the as res inter alios acta argument Turkey gives is pretty much what i am talking about....a solid legal argument(we are not examining whether it is valid or not).
So,unless you are a judge in the International court or a lawyer,i consider your comments on Greece's alleged non-expansionism as ''Greek'' biased.
1. apologies didnt notice the wiki link, but posting 'neutral' links and cherry picking its facts and focusing on the turkish position does nothing for your own bias. You never answer any of the good points raised. I posted a very good neutral take on the conflict and will use that to explain the poistions of both sides better if you like.
2 Linking these events is disengenous.Ok, I can agree with the balkans wars and asia minor campaigns but what this has to do with international flight zones and the like is purely your own personal speculation. It has as much relevance as turkey's ottomon past.
3. Sorry you need to understand the greece defence force better than that. Its is designed for defence, it can counter attack and retake islands, it cannot land a suffeicent force on Turkeys coast, let alone sustain them. Turkeys aegean islands are at risk, but then agian so are many more of ours. If you think we are a real threat to the mainland, then your dreaming. The greek airforce is dam strong for a country that size, the strongest part of the Greek defence and where the Greeks have close parity to the turks. however Turkeys airforce is still the stronger of the two. I am dead sure the turks would not take us on where they are just close in size, they would take us on in every way possible where we cant match them. That is a logical expectation, hence why Greece cant pick a fight and expect it to be clean and limited where it has a good chance
Greece cannot sustain a total war against turkey longer than a few months, take a look at how many men become of military age every year between the two countries and you will see why Greece couldn't attack if they wanted to. Here is a another piece miltary logic; rule of thumb -you need three to one numbers advantage to attack a defender and have a chance to be succeful. Thats why we can only think of ourselves to ever be successful in defence. In turn Turkey would need disproportiante chunk of its force to take us on successfully, but then expose and risk its rear when doing so. The damage and risk taken is big enough, that no sane person could want war from either side.
Go and get your calculator out, look at our forces, then see what ships and planes we have to transport them, and then take a look at the turkish aegean army thats sits over the other side. BTW maritime or airspace zones doesnt disturb this balance.
Without a war fighting capability to match, no 'expansionism' policy can actually be real.
1.Leonidas we are already doing rounds around the subject.I cannot be convinced that Greece is right nor Turkey for that matter.A blind person can easily see through both Greece's and Turkey's expansionism.What about this argument of ''cherry'' picking?Where did that come from?Specially regarding the neutral wiki link i didnt mention anything,i just suggested it as a background reading.While ONE single Thesis you provide is helpfull...i on the other hand provided a totally neutral source of what many neutral observers have to say.That is what an encyclopedia is anyway...collection of neutral info in order to systematically promote knowledge.Your argument still has zero validity.Provide a neutral source that shows Greece is right so as to consider your arguments debatable.
2.Yet the issues i am afraid are interlinked.A country that out of nowhere tripled in size the last 100 years,while all its neighbours shrunk is hardly non-expansionism.That is an excellent starting point to understand future claims Greece might be doing.The key issue off course always being Cyprus for future claims or geopolitical control of the island,merely masked TODAY under the pretext of the Turkish troops leaving the Island.Knowing the fascisto right wing mentality of a big number of Greek Cypriots,that today indeed govern the Greek part i am not at all convinced that the Greek side will ever be satisfied in anything less than the Turks being a minority on the island.I cant imagine the Greek side ever allowing them to play on equal terms.
3.While your effort to ''educate'' me around Greece's army is cute,none the less i did my millitary service in the Greek Airforce( i got my apolytirio late last year) and i strongly protest what you arbitrary claim to be only ''defence'' tacticts against Turkey.In my mind it is absolutely not withstanding scrutiny.Firstly and foremostly due to Greece's denial to demillitarize the Aegean Islands(oh i know Greece is afraid Turkey will do the same it did in Cyprus...which is only outdated thinking).
The rest you say i concur....Greece cannot sustain a war more than a few weeks against Turkey,but neither can Turkey.I never actually talked about war though.Something that you also fail to address is the fact that today a war is taking place firstly and foremostly over the sky.
I am pretty confident from my experience in the Greek Airforce that Greece has one of the most advanced airforce's in the world,which not only can defend its sovereignity but can easily help her expand in neighbouring countries.
But Neoptolemeos you want to confine the discussion around waters.I distinctly said that the Treaties interpretation involves all the disputes the countries face,so the twisting is right there.
Yes, I confine the discussion around waters, because it was one of the two main arguments (the 2nd being Cyprus) that YOU used in your first post to "prove" Greece's expansionism. If you go back and check our discussion from the beginning, you will see that the first posts had to do with t.waters. Only after you started speaking about treaties in general and putting other issues in the table as well. Still you implied that there are bilateral treaties that legally cover Turkey on the issue of expanding the waters. What I'm trying to tel you is this: on the issue of territorial waters, the only relevant Treaty (that I know of) is UNCLOS. If you know of any other, please let me know. What you are basically claiming is that all the issues are a "package" and there are bilateral treaties (which you have yet to identify) that legally cover Turkey on ALL the disputes (therefore t.waters dispute as well). Well allow me to disagree with this.
Besides the as res inter alios acta argument Turkey gives is pretty much what i am talking about....a solid legal argument(we are not examining whether it is valid or not)..
A solid legal argument which reads as "this Law does not apply to me". We agree in this, as I have already posted it.
So,unless you are a judge in the International court or a lawyer,i consider your comments on Greece's alleged non-expansionism as ''Greek'' biased.
No, I'm not a judge nor a lawyer (in fact I have never studied Law). Neither are you, I assume. You can consider my comments whatever you wish.
P.S.: "oh i know Greece is afraid Turkey will do the same it did in Cyprus...which is only outdated thinking" I had to pick that out... So, what Turkey did in 1974 is outdated thinking and what Greece did in 1912-23 in not outdated. I see a MAJOR inconsistency there...
3.While your effort to ''educate'' me around Greece's army is cute,none the less i did my millitary service in the Greek Airforce( i got my apolytirio late last year) and i strongly protest what you arbitrary claim to be only ''defence'' tacticts against Turkey.In my mind it is absolutely not withstanding scrutiny.Firstly and foremostly due to Greece's denial to demillitarize the Aegean Islands(oh i know Greece is afraid Turkey will do the same it did in Cyprus...which is only outdated thinking).
The rest you say i concur....Greece cannot sustain a war more than a few weeks against Turkey,but neither can Turkey.I never actually talked about war though.Something that you also fail to address is the fact that today a war is taking place firstly and foremostly over the sky.
I am pretty confident from my experience in the Greek Airforce that Greece has one of the most advanced airforce's in the world,which not only can defend its sovereignity but can easily help her expand in neighbouring countries.
Because i did my military service for 23 months in the infantry as dea and i did participate in one big military exercise i can assure your ignorance from inside that all the plans of the Greek army are defensively.I was not for holidays in the army my friend.
I dont think that you personally can educate nobody about Greece more that the other Greeks all over the world.
Your view represent only yourself (and your imagination) and nobody else.
Instead waste our time make a small tour in Allempires and there you can find all your answers.
1.Leonidas we are already doing rounds around the subject.I cannot be
convinced that Greece is right nor Turkey for that matter.A blind
person can easily see through both Greece's and Turkey's expansionism.
neither side is guilty of expansionism on the Aegean. This is a boundary dispute, not a land grab.
Turkey is insecure of being locked out of the Aegean and having Greeks right on its coast. Hence why it wants as much space between the islands free and open, otherwise pushing the status quo 'grey zone'. Greece is insecure about its islands. Hence why it wants a nice big line in the sand, no more "Grey zones" no more uncertainty.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
What about this argument of ''cherry'' picking?Where did that come from?Specially regarding the neutral wiki link i didnt mention anything,i just suggested it as a background reading.While ONE single Thesis you provide is helpfull...i on the other hand provided a totally neutral source of what many neutral observers have to say.That is what an encyclopedia is anyway...collection of neutral info in order to systematically promote knowledge.Your argument still has zero validity.Provide a neutral source that shows Greece is right so as to consider your arguments debatable.
cherry picking maybe was a but harsh, your just very selective. Nor does my source say the Greeks were right, it doesn't take sides. It may explain their POV better but i found it more helpful to understand the Turkish POV.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
2.Yet the issues i am afraid are interlinked.A country that out of nowhere tripled in size the last 100 years,while all its neighbours shrunk is hardly non-expansionism.
all its neighbors shrunk! apart from an unwanted empire, how manycountrieslost territory to Greek aggression, that actually was already theirs in the first place? was Greece the only country to expand through irredentism? They expanded because they won a few wars at a time when everyone else was doing the same thing. Yes its expansionist but they were both victims and victors in one.
Just because you say they linked doesn't mean they are. How are they linked? heres a tip, you would need to provide a common clear and logical thread between them all. using one word to describe it isn't strong enough. So far, just confusing personal interpretations and theory.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
That is an excellent starting point to understand future claims Greece might be doing.The key issue off course always being Cyprus for future claims or geopolitical control of the island,merely masked TODAY under the pretext of the Turkish troops leaving the Island.
its Ok for Turkish troops to be there because you think Greece wants the island for itself! that is rich and all because you know Greece wants it. Without your common thread, we can assume your still guessing all of this and stating it as fact
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Knowing the fascisto right wing mentality of a big number of Greek
Cypriots,that today indeed govern the Greek part i am not at all
convinced that the Greek side will ever be satisfied in anything less
than the Turks being a minority on the island.I cant imagine the Greek
side ever allowing them to play on equal terms.
Turks are a minority, equality as a individual is fundamental to any true democracy along with strong and real cultural rights.
The communal thing gave the nationalist Greek side something to fight against. It really helped the British divide the island so well, to this day they get their base. Its not the ottoman days of the millet system, no one expects Greece or Turkey to do the same, so no one should expect the Cypriots to hang on to such pointless legacies.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Firstly and foremostly due to Greece's denial to demillitarize the Aegean Islands(oh i know Greece is afraid Turkey will do the same it did in Cyprus...which is only outdated thinking).
with such a confident start to the point, this is what i got? militarization of the island happened after the formation of Turkeys 4th army (Aegean army). which BTW occurred in reaction to the Cyprus conflict, outdated thinking right? Now i would imagine, in your service you would know they have the largest non ocean-going amphibious landing fleet on top of a pretty strong airlift strength. Such a force is considered "defensive" by turkey, but the troops sitting on the island facing them (because of them) is offensive . BTW Greece doesn't deny its militarizations.
Anyway this militarization complaint is an outdated petty argument, the old treaty was written when planes and ships were a fraction of the speed and power they are today. Greece can easily comply with that Lausanne treaty and just boost up its planes, missiles and ships. These things are much more dangerous and 'offensive' than some conscript riding around in a truck on some island. would turkey be more secure with a complying Greece? no.
Is the complaint genuine? no
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
The rest you say i concur....Greece cannot sustain a war more than a few weeks against Turkey,but neither can Turkey.I never actually talked about war though.Something that you also fail to address is the fact that today a war is taking place firstly and foremostly over the sky.
well you infer it. You may call boundary disputes as 'expansionism' but this is your stretch of the word. however your negativity over the Greek position and stated belief in its expansionism, infers conflict and war. They cant expand into turkey without a war.
Your perception that the new boundaries are a negative for Turkey also infers this. Why else would they have a threat of war right? So Greece shuts down the Aegean, we can safely assume turkey will attack, you don't need new boundaries to do this but lets suppose they agreed Greece gets 12 miles. Now you also accept that Greece cant win a total war, then why would Greece even bother to use its new boundaries in such a harmful and illegal way? where is the tangible advantage beyond perceptions of ownership? It certainly doesn't make Greece stronger for a a fight it cant win, as an aggressor.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
I am pretty confident from my experience in the Greek Airforce that Greece has one of the most advanced airforce's in the world,which not only can defend its sovereignity but can easily help her expand in neighbouring countries.
air wars cant grab territory, look at Israel vs Hezbollah, US vs Iraq. you need troops on the ground for that, and as you admit, realistically this cant be done by Greece, despite her expansionist ways
3.While your effort to ''educate'' me around Greece's army is cute,none the less i did my millitary service in the Greek Airforce( i got my apolytirio late last year) and i strongly protest what you arbitrary claim to be only ''defence'' tacticts against Turkey.In my mind it is absolutely not withstanding scrutiny.Firstly and foremostly due to Greece's denial to demillitarize the Aegean Islands(oh i know Greece is afraid Turkey will do the same it did in Cyprus...which is only outdated thinking).
The rest you say i concur....Greece cannot sustain a war more than a few weeks against Turkey,but neither can Turkey.I never actually talked about war though.Something that you also fail to address is the fact that today a war is taking place firstly and foremostly over the sky.
I am pretty confident from my experience in the Greek Airforce that Greece has one of the most advanced airforce's in the world,which not only can defend its sovereignity but can easily help her expand in neighbouring countries.
Because i did my military service for 23 months in the infantry as dea and i did participate in one big military exercise i can assure your ignorance from inside that all the plans of the Greek army are defensively.I was not for holidays in the army my friend.
I dont think that you personally can educate nobody about Greece more that the other Greeks all over the world.
Your view represent only yourself (and your imagination) and nobody else.
Instead waste our time make a small tour in Allempires and there you can find all your answers.
No answer in this one unless you tone it down.Besides i can only pressume that you went to the army a few million years ago.Being all defensive about Greece is only typical of bias and greek propaganda and complex.The Greek airforce can expand easily Greek sovereignity with losses (for example Turkey) or without losses(pick any other neighbouring Balkan country).The defensive BS crap i was hearing in the army is just that:BS.
But Neoptolemeos you want to confine the discussion around waters.I distinctly said that the Treaties interpretation involves all the disputes the countries face,so the twisting is right there.
1.Yes, I confine the discussion around waters, because it was one of the two main arguments (the 2nd being Cyprus) that YOU used in your first post to "prove" Greece's expansionism.
2.What you are basically claiming is that all the issues are a "package" and there are bilateral treaties (which you have yet to identify) that legally cover Turkey on ALL the disputes (therefore t.waters dispute as well). Well allow me to disagree with this.
3.A solid legal argument which reads as "this Law does not apply to me". We agree in this, as I have already posted it.
4.P.S.: "oh i know Greece is afraid Turkey will do the same it did in Cyprus...which is only outdated thinking" I had to pick that out... So, what Turkey did in 1974 is outdated thinking and what Greece did in 1912-23 in not outdated. I see a MAJOR inconsistency there...
1.In fact i was intentionally refering to a package.I just picked the waters and slowly moved on.I refuse to downplay it and try to excuse Greece on the waters issue as to make her be a victim of Turkey's expansionism on Greek territory.
2.In fact yes that is what i am claiming.One being the billateral treaties and secondly the rest legal arguments Turkey brings.So it is a package of disputes no matter how hard Greece tries to say other way.At least in this one you dont need to be a lawyer to understand.
3.Thus agreeing that Turkey is legally covered on the waters issue as well,which is what i said.No one is examining who is right or wrong(bsc i am not a lawyer) BUT if they have a legal argument to oppose one another.
4.I have to be a bastard here.Greece was constantly medling in Cyprus,specially in the pre 1974 period.The Greek Cypriot side killed thousands of Turkish Cypriots and not even compared to the number of Greeks the Turks killed after the invasion.While i dont want the division to stand on the island i come to believe that Turkey's invasion ensured the survival of the Turkish minority on the island and only after the invasion there is peace in the island,prooving the inabbility and denial of the majority Greek Cypriots to co-habit with the minority Turks.Besides i didnt see Turkey accepting the invaded North as it's own sovereignity.So i see no expansionism there(meaning not a str8forward expansionism that is...merely hidden like Greece's)
1.all its neighbors shrunk! apart from an unwanted empire, how manycountrieslost territory to Greek aggression, that actually was already theirs in the first place? was Greece the only country to expand through irredentism? They expanded because they won a few wars at a time when everyone else was doing the same thing. Yes its expansionist but they were both victims and victors in one.
Just because you say they linked doesn't mean they are. How are they linked? heres a tip, you would need to provide a common clear and logical thread between them all. using one word to describe it isn't strong enough. So far, just confusing personal interpretations and theory.
2.its Ok for Turkish troops to be there because you think Greece wants the island for itself! that is rich and all because you know Greece wants it. Without your common thread, we can assume your still guessing all of this and stating it as fact
3. Turks are a minority, equality as a individual is fundamental to any true democracy along with strong and real cultural rights.
The communal thing gave the nationalist Greek side something to fight against. It really helped the British divide the island so well, to this day they get their base. Its not the ottoman days of the millet system, no one expects Greece or Turkey to do the same, so no one should expect the Cypriots to hang on to such pointless legacies.
4. with such a confident start to the point, this is what i got? militarization of the island happened after the formation of Turkeys 4th army (Aegean army). which BTW occurred in reaction to the Cyprus conflict, outdated thinking right? Now i would imagine, in your service you would know they have the largest non ocean-going amphibious landing fleet on top of a pretty strong airlift strength. Such a force is considered "defensive" by turkey, but the troops sitting on the island facing them (because of them) is offensive . BTW Greece doesn't deny its militarizations.
Anyway this militarization complaint is an outdated petty argument, the old treaty was written when planes and ships were a fraction of the speed and power they are today. Greece can easily comply with that Lausanne treaty and just boost up its planes, missiles and ships. These things are much more dangerous and 'offensive' than some conscript riding around in a truck on some island. would turkey be more secure with a complying Greece? no.
Is the complaint genuine? no
5.Your perception that the new boundaries are a negative for Turkey also infers this. Why else would they have a threat of war right? So Greece shuts down the Aegean, we can safely assume turkey will attack, you don't need new boundaries to do this but lets suppose they agreed Greece gets 12 miles. Now you also accept that Greece cant win a total war, then why would Greece even bother to use its new boundaries in such a harmful and illegal way? where is the tangible advantage beyond perceptions of ownership? It certainly doesn't make Greece stronger for a a fight it cant win, as an aggressor.
1.Some countries did exist in the 1910-20-30 era.Well to name a few,Bulgaria(lost Macedonia and specially the solunsko area they were so keen in being the second ethnic element while we were the third or 4rth) Albania lost areas with majority population such as Epirus and Turkey off course as we all know.
Well using history as a pretext and the current situation of the Aegean disputes and Cyprus issue is a proof Greece is not an easy player and is as expansionistic as Turkey is,no doubt in my mind about that..That is the link i provide,history...the same you provide as well,nothing more or less do you provide,apart from one Thesis.....You know i didnt write history....
2.By definition neither Greece nor Turkey cant have the island.That is ridiculous for the time being.I debated geopolitical control which is kind imperialistic......merely a sing of both countries expansionism...What is that story with guarantor powers if neither Greece nor Turkey want to geopolitically control the Island?.And what about the Joint Defence Pact singed in the 90's?Again Greece meddling....My position is no guarantors on the Island and if possible even unilateral withdrawal from Greece being a guarantor power over Cyprus.
3.You need to short this one out with the President of RoCyprus,Mr Papadopoulos.If he feels the same then i would be more than happy to take my comments back.
4.Well Turkey argues the 4th army in the Aegean is only defensive against Greece's expansionism!!!!!!!!!!!!Very funny ha???
How hipocritically BOTH countries hide their expansionistic thirst.Greece denying to demillitarize the Islands and Turkey denying to do the same with their Aegean Army...
5.Well yes it doesnt make easy for Greece to win the war but doesnt make it desirable for Turkey to go to war with Greece,as you correclty point out.
Turkey knows that we are neither Armenia nor the Kurds.They know that by definition they will have to fight their strongest neighbour in the area....
Besides i didnt see Turkey accepting the invaded North as it's own sovereignity.So i see no expansionism there(meaning not a str8forward expansionism that is...merely hidden like Greece's)
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
1.Some countries did exist in the 1910-20-30
era.Well to name a few,Bulgaria(lost Macedonia and specially the
solunsko area they were so keen in being the second ethnic element
while we were the third or 4rth) Albania lost areas with majority
population such as Epirus and Turkey off course as we all know.
Your statements are becoming ridiculous and I think you are doing it on purpose. Keep going
1.Some countries did exist in the 1910-20-30 era.Well to name a few,Bulgaria(lost Macedonia and specially the solunsko area they were so keen in being the second ethnic element while we were the third or 4rth) Albania lost areas with majority population such as Epirus and Turkey off course as we all know.
Greece didn't acquire areas that were majority Greek, the whole region was a patch work of ethnicities. All countries except Albania expanded in the first Balkans war, and mind you at the expense of the ottomans not a non-existant turkey and not from each other (bar albania).
Bulgaria didnt lose anything it didn't already control. It wasn't happy with what it had won, and rightly so in my opinion. It didn't expand as much as it liked, So it attempted by force to win what it wanted and ultimately lost. To the winner goes the territory. Had they won, it would of been the other way around. Of course im starting to suspecting you probably think Thessalonki should be handed over to them....
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Well using history as a pretext and the current situation of the Aegean disputes and Cyprus issue is a proof Greece is not an easy player and is as expansionistic as Turkey is,no doubt in my mind about that..That is the link i provide,history...the same you provide as well,nothing more or less do you provide,apart from one Thesis.....You know i didnt write history....
there is nothing of substance in what you just said. not one logica or clear thread that can link the past with today. Just an opinion
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
And what about the Joint Defence Pact singed in the 90's?Again Greece
meddling...
Greece is 'meddling' with a pact that two
independent nations agreed to (in an enviroment of one being partially
occupied), but you rationlise the Turkish militray presence as
something that is needed to keep out Greek 'expansion'
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
.My position is no guarantors on the Island and if possible even unilateral withdrawal from Greece being a guarantor power over Cyprus.
Are you kidding? This guarantor powers are redundant as far as the
Greeks or Cypriots are concerned. EU has now given Cyprus everything it
needs. It was the turks that want to keep it alive (im sure with the British) and argued for its inclusion to the Annan Plan. Funnily enough
their occupation and attempts to divide the island contravenes it. For
them a new one is a fantastic way to erode Cypriot sovereignty and make
them relevant to its internal politics.
i do concur that the no agreements should be held over the island.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Well Turkey argues the 4th army in the Aegean is only defensive against Greece's expansionism!!!!!!!!!!!!Very funny ha???
How hipocritically BOTH countries hide their expansionistic
thirst.Greece denying to demillitarize the Islands and Turkey denying
to do the same with their Aegean Army...
Greece doesn't deny militarizations of the islands and adds they are necessary. my other very valid points on the forces there were completely ignored.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Turkey knows that we are neither Armenia nor the Kurds.They know that by definition they will have to fight their strongest neighbour in the area....
They will not have to fight anyone, since we now both understand Greece doesn't have the intention to fight or expand at any tangible cost to her neighbors, including the boundary's issues
1.Some countries did exist in the 1910-20-30 era.Well to name a few,Bulgaria(lost Macedonia and specially the solunsko area they were so keen in being the second ethnic element while we were the third or 4rth) Albania lost areas with majority population such as Epirus and Turkey off course as we all know.
Greece didn't acquire areas that were majority Greek, the whole region was a patch work of ethnicities. All countries except Albania expanded in the first Balkans war, and mind you at the expense of the ottomans not a non-existant turkey and not from each other (bar albania).
1.Bulgaria didnt lose anything it didn't already control. It wasn't happy with what it had won, and rightly so in my opinion. It didn't expand as much as it liked, So it attempted by force to win what it wanted and ultimately lost. To the winner goes the territory. Had they won, it would of been the other way around. Of course im starting to suspecting you probably think Thessalonki should be handed over to them....
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Well using history as a pretext and the current situation of the Aegean disputes and Cyprus issue is a proof Greece is not an easy player and is as expansionistic as Turkey is,no doubt in my mind about that..That is the link i provide,history...the same you provide as well,nothing more or less do you provide,apart from one Thesis.....You know i didnt write history....
2.there is nothing of substance in what you just said. not one logica or clear thread that can link the past with today. Just an opinion
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
And what about the Joint Defence Pact singed in the 90's?Again Greece meddling...
Greece is 'meddling' with a pact that two independent nations agreed to (in an enviroment of one being partially occupied), but you rationlise the Turkish militray presence as something that is needed to keep out Greek 'expansion'
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
.My position is no guarantors on the Island and if possible even unilateral withdrawal from Greece being a guarantor power over Cyprus.
Are you kidding? This guarantor powers are redundant as far as the Greeks or Cypriots are concerned. EU has now given Cyprus everything it needs. It was the turks that want to keep it alive (im sure with the British) and argued for its inclusion to the Annan Plan. Funnily enough their occupation and attempts to divide the island contravenes it. For them a new one is a fantastic way to erode Cypriot sovereignty and make them relevant to its internal politics.
i do concur that the no agreements should be held over the island.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Well Turkey argues the 4th army in the Aegean is only defensive against Greece's expansionism!!!!!!!!!!!!Very funny ha???
How hipocritically BOTH countries hide their expansionistic thirst.Greece denying to demillitarize the Islands and Turkey denying to do the same with their Aegean Army...
Greece doesn't deny militarizations of the islands and adds they are necessary. my other very valid points on the forces there were completely ignored.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Turkey knows that we are neither Armenia nor the Kurds.They know that by definition they will have to fight their strongest neighbour in the area....
3.They will not have to fight anyone, since we now both understand Greece doesn't have the intention to fight or expand at any tangible cost to her neighbors, including the boundary's issues
1.In fact Bulgaria lost W Thrace it was controling and it lost the solunsko area(not the actual city of Thessaloniki,since they were never the majority)where they were the majority(even though they never controlled the solunsko area).Only Serbia and Greece(Romania remained the same almost,Turkey lost everything in the Balkans and off course Albania lost Epirus,that had the majority population of Cham Albs) expanded significantly with Greece having expanded more than everyone else.So what you say has no validity.Maybe it would be helpfull to recheck history of the Balkans Wars.
2.I am sorry but you dont substantiate anything apart of a neutral thesis and a typical Greek ''narrative'' which is only BS in the mind of any level headed Greek or neighbour.I go agaisnt the BS i was taught and expand my views from neutral sources instead of being confined in a Greek boring 'ghetto'' of thinking that is kinda characteristic of Greek phodias and complexes.
3.That is merely your ''understanding'' and not mine.I debated quite reasonably that Greece has geopolitical goals and off course expansionism politics that have nothing to do with Turkey's aggressiveness.But if it suits you to believe that Greece is only protecting the poor fishermen in the Greek islands,it is your choice.Mine is a rather different one,into accepting without any complex attached that my country has been and continues being an expansionistic and opportunistic country that can easily be compared with Turkey.
Besides i didnt see Turkey accepting the invaded North as it's own sovereignity.So i see no expansionism there(meaning not a str8forward expansionism that is...merely hidden like Greece's)
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
1.Some countries did exist in the 1910-20-30 era.Well to name a few,Bulgaria(lost Macedonia and specially the solunsko area they were so keen in being the second ethnic element while we were the third or 4rth) Albania lost areas with majority population such as Epirus and Turkey off course as we all know.
Your statements are becoming ridiculous and I think you are doing it on purpose. Keep going
Your point is?Didnt Bulgaria lost land it had majority population?Or Albania or Turkey for that matter in Greece's favour?
And again on Cyprus?point is?Turkey did not and does not recognize the invaded part as an integral part of her sovereignity rather than an independent state.Proove otherwise if you can.
Besides i didnt see Turkey accepting the invaded North as it's own sovereignity.So i see no expansionism there(meaning not a str8forward expansionism that is...merely hidden like Greece's)
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
1.Some countries did exist in the 1910-20-30 era.Well to name a few,Bulgaria(lost Macedonia and specially the solunsko area they were so keen in being the second ethnic element while we were the third or 4rth) Albania lost areas with majority population such as Epirus and Turkey off course as we all know.
Your statements are becoming ridiculous and I think you are doing it on purpose. Keep going
Your point is?Didnt Bulgaria lost land it had majority population?Or Albania or Turkey for that matter in Greece's favour?
And again on Cyprus?point is?Turkey did not and does not recognize the invaded part as an integral part of her sovereignity rather than an independent state.Proove otherwise if you can.
ok I;ll make it simple for you, like a mathematical proof:
You wrote: "A country that out of nowhere tripled in size the last 100 years,while all its neighbours shrunk is hardly non-expansionism." To this Leonidas replies: "all its neighbors shrunk! apart from an unwanted empire, how manycountrieslost
territory to Greek aggression, that actually was already theirs in the
first place? was Greece the only country to expand through irredentism?
They expanded because they won a few wars at a time when everyone else
was doing the same thing. Yes its expansionist but they were both
victims and victors in one." [my bolding] Your reply to this: "1.Some countries did exist in the 1910-20-30 era.Well to name a
few,Bulgaria(lost Macedonia and specially the solunsko area they were
so keen in being the second ethnic element while we were the third or
4rth) Albania lost areas with majority population such as Epirus and
Turkey off course as we all know."
Considering the above, we have:
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Albania lost areas with majority population such as Epirus
That's BS #1 and #2. Albania did not lose what is today Greek Epirus, because it was not theirs to begin with. Moreover, Albanians did not have majority population in what is today Greek Epirus.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Bulgaria(lost Macedonia
That's BS #3: Bulgaria did not lose what is today Greek Macedonia, because it was not theirs in the first place.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
and specially the solunsko area they were
so keen in being the second ethnic element while we were the third or
4rth)
That's probably BS #4 (considering the amount of your BSing), but I'm not sure how you define the "solunsko area" and what were the demographics in the area at that time.
Originally posted by Southerneighbr
Besides i didnt see Turkey accepting the invaded North as it's own
sovereignity.So i see no expansionism there(meaning not a str8forward
expansionism that is...merely hidden like Greece's)
There are also a couple BSs here. Turkey is expansionist in Cyprus and it's not a hidden expansionism. Turkey invaded and occupied N. Cyprus (you can call it peace operation, it doesn't change much), they have a significant amount of army there which they don't want to withdraw, they brought settlers, the economic survival of N.Cyprus depends on them, Turkey controls this part of the island. And as my Turkish friend Feanor replied to those who were claiming similar things like you about N.Cyprus' sovereignity: "That's just a show. I remember, once a Turkish general scolded CTP
members, the party which formed the N. Cyprus government, for not
playing Turkish national anthem during their congress." "That's a lie." "
Are you joking? Of course it doesn't." You can find those quotes on page 4 of this thread.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Expansionist States of Today
apart from an unwanted empire, how many countries lost territory to Greek aggression, that actually was already theirs in the first place? was Greece the only country to expand through irredentism? They expanded because they won a few wars at a time when everyone else was doing the same thing. Yes its expansionist but they were both victims and victors in one.
. BTW Greece doesn't deny its militarizations.
