Expansionist States of Today

Originally posted by Neoptolemos Originally posted by Southerneighbr 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have already posted it. 4.P.S.: "oh i know Greece is afraid Turkey will do the same it did in Cyprus...which is  only  outdated thinking" I had to pick that out... So, what Turkey did in 1974 is outdated thinking and what Greece did in 1912-23 in not outdated.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...

Edited by Southerneighbr - 19-Jul-2007 at 00:01

Originally posted by Southerneighbr 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 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 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.

Originally posted by Southerneighbr 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.

Originally posted by Neoptolemos Originally posted by Southerneighbr 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?

Edited by Southerneighbr - 18-Jul-2007 at 00:37

Originally posted by Southerneighbr 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?

Originally posted by Neoptolemos Originally posted by Southerneighbr Originally posted by Neoptolemos Originally posted by Southerneighbr Originally posted by Neoptolemos 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.

Originally posted by Southerneighbr    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;

1. In the mind of the Turkish patriot that believes the defence budget supporting stories of their military on face value.
   
2. 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
3. and you.

 

Originally posted by Josip LMAO ok sorry i was replying to the other guy too, which was a Turk, and then when i replied to Leonida's post i mistook him for Turk :)))) OK, oi oi oi mr Australian, I'm sorry :) Originally posted by Mortaza Zagros, I never heard such thing.we believe, A muslim husband dont have any right to force women. Quran: "As for those [wives] from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them." (4:34) Originally posted by Leonidas You find the whole country guilty and deserving of war, and also expansionism. A big leap in logic  and smacks of chauvinism Are you reading my posts partially on purpose or? I didn't accuse anyone of expansionism because of one assassination, i posted facts why I said that. what does a Bosnian Serb hit on the Austrian emperor has to do with the modern state of serbia? A lot, considering that pro-expansionistic and nationalistic party won cca 33% of seats in Parliament. Yes, the same guy who wants a piece of other countries to be incorporated in Great Serbia. You know, you should really not discuss those topics you know nothing about. first defence of an apologists, 'everyone else was doing it'. Big deal every one else guilt doesn't wash away anyone else's. A Nazi is a Nazi from any angle. I'm sorry, what's your point? Did i say that Ustashe weren't pro-nazi? Yes i did. Did i say that majority of Croatia was leader anti-nazi movement in former Yugoslavia (meaning, whole region)? "Everyone else was doing it" is a good argument against those who want to single someone out and then use it as an argument "oh look you did that!" as everyone else is different. Don't get me started about Australia, the ex-convict colony. Mind your own business, your countries troops are invading Iraq, unlawfully, and helping the biggest criminals among current world countries = americans. Clean your own backyard first, as you can see, Croatia is not waging any wars now, and if you ever find a single conquesting war that (independent) Croatia led (in 13 centuries of history), let me know. All wars we had, ALL, were in self defense. Are you now claiming the partisans as a Croatian movement? For start, im claiming you're utterly clueless. As second, yes, that's what I'm claiming. Partisan movement was led by Josip Broz Tito, wow wait, a Croat. 'All of the partisan leaders were Croats, (and unlike the ustashe oposition in Croatia) the chetnik pro-nazi regime had no opposition whatsoever.' Of course, I'm sure you will accuse me again of using biased logic, the other guy will accuse me of taking things out of the context, and no one will care about historical facts. irrelevant were he came from No, it's not irrelevant where he came from. If someone invades your country, conquers it, installs puppet regime and as the puppet head of state puts some guy who wasn't even living in Croatia but in Italy (which was Axis) - then yea, that's relevant. Not to you, you're not a friend of truth. BTW Tito's ethnicity is also irrelevant. Yea, I suppose Hitlers ethnicity isn't relevant either, the ethnicity of Nazis isnt relevant either. What's relevant is that Leonida needs to be right, and those who disagree with him wrong. The methods don't matter, the tools don't matter, the truth matters not. Being right, that does matter. ok now they were supported, 'but only by a little bit' . But an apologist couldnt help but to justify such support anyway. I have zero respect of people who can't see shades of gray but see all in black and white, and I have serious doubts of their IQ. Utashe apologist is no different to those in serbia  that are chetnik apologist I am not Ustashe apologist. I am apologist with other Croats who weren't Ustashe, and whom you treat equally because your bias doesn't allow you to see the whole picture. One mans terrorist is another freedom fighter Being terrorist doesn't make you wrong. Being on the wrong side and doing wrong things, does. Being a terrorist can be good, in certain cases. Celebrating the hit on a Serbian king, than comparing the Serbian hit on a Austrian king with 9/11. No your not biased in anyway...... I'm biased towards truth and justice. I don't equalize all murders. Some are good, some are not. Some I celebrate, some I mourn. Originally posted by GoldenBlood i have evidence that serbs claim in Croatia were over 35% serbs and you croats cleansed...now should believe we about it? Serbs also claim that 2 million Serbs died in Jasenovac in WW2. Personally, I wish they did, but I guess they just haven't found as many because not as many existed. 35% of Serbs cleansed? I don't know the exact number (which is much less than that one), but IMO we didnt clean enough of em, judging from the online posts they are still making, and things they are still saying. If it was up to me, I'd deport half of them who still live in Croatia. what about expulsion of Albanians and Colonisation of Serbs from Kosova 1912-1945 have you hard about it? we have 3-5 milions albanians in Turkey (why are there those magnificient albanians? And what of the pre-Turk invasion of Kosovo? And Bosnia? How many muslims did we have then? The reason I mentioned Kosovo was as an example of hyperpopulation. I have no intention to debate thousand of years of history, and who smacked whom first. If i wanted to do that, I'd debate Israeli Palestine issue :) why you dont compare the most the populaion density?? Because the population density is irrelevant, since hyperpopulation over the decades makes the initial density no issue. Truth, what truth?...why you dont say your truth about your Krajina and Slavonia? What do you want to know about this? Slavonia and Krajina were always Croatian, except during wars against Ottoman empire when we sheltered Serbs there. Then they got haughty, Serbia populated Krajina on purpose (in organized manner) with Serbs in former Yugoslavia even further, and after the break of Yugoslavia they got haughty.. except they miscalculated their (and our) strenght. They got what they deserved, now they can go back to their barbaric country, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want any Neanderthal tribes in my country. If you like them so much, we can send them over to your country, and they can continue shouting "Serbia to Tokio". Originally posted by Yugoslav Of course Croatia should've handed them over - for if not, then the ICTY would not exist at all (what, to put non-Croatians on trial)? That's right. Haven't you heard of WW2? And other wars? Victorious side, being Allies, judged the losing side, being Axis powers. What do you think, that they were both convicted? No, just those guilty. Axis. Same thing here, Serbs were guilty of invading Slovenia Bosnia Croatia and Albanians on Kosovo. Croats beat the **** out of them, and that's pretty much it. No Croat, not a single one, should be sent to some political court. I do not understand that which you say about Carla del Ponte. I think she's a great and energic person Birds of a feather flock together. The rebellion in Croatia (celebrated as national liberation day today) was initiated by - guess who - Serb Partisans. Yea, I assume you read that in Serbian schoolbooks. Quite interesting how all partisan leaders were Croats, and anti-nazi movement had a huge support in Croatia but none in Serbia. Saying that the rebellion was initiated in Croatia by serb partisans is so disgusting, and the very fast that Tito was a Croat should be enough to prove this wrong. Up to 1943 most Croats were behind the Ustashas (either willingly, or through intimidation) Interesting. Then how come Partisans won? Oh wait, I get it, Serbs came here and beat the crap of Ustashe, while Croatian partisans were busy hunting deer in the forest? it isn't accident that in NDH most of the rebelled territories mostly had Serb majority early on You mean Chetniks? Yea. Who else would oppose Ustashe more than Nazies. Chetniks collaborated with Nazies and it was in both interest they had conflcit with Ustashe I would also like to point out the massive celebration and greeting in Zagreb to the German forces in 1941, they were welcomed by the mass with cookies, flowers I know nothing about that, but I would assume this is correct. See, after decades of your Serb hegemony, people thought that Nazies would liberate them and Croatia would prosper. In other words, we got so sick of you Serbs that even Nazies were a better solution because they treated us better.

So, just because an opposition party managed to enter the parliament you base that opinion?

New independent Croatia did not exist until 1991/1992-1994/1995, so excluding the 1941-1945 episode, it's not much of an argument. BTW I wouldn't call the genocidal war in WWII self-defense. And by the same logic that Serbia indirectly waged war upon Bosnia and Croatia - so did Croatia in 1993-1994. I'd also reckon certain activities (Medak, Gospic, Flash, Storm,...) not quite "self-defense" from the 1991-1995 war. Or in the Medieval Ages - those interventions in Bosnia, and the two late invasions of Serbia, and the attacks on Byzantine and/or Latin property deemed as "national liberation" nowadays is far from it - for that's the same like the Serbs calling their takeover of southern (Old) Serbia (Kosovo, Metohija, northern Sanjak, Vardar Macedonia) ca 1912 "self-defense" because of very same reasons.

Ante Pavelic only lived for some time in Italy. And also, remember Tito's mixed origin and Yugoslavian affiliation.

I think rebel is more correct than terrorist in this case.

I agree that the world isn't black-white, but I don't think any murder is simply "good".

I've never ever heard Serbs say 2 million died in Jasenovac - but what do you meant by not existing that much? In the Independent state of Croatia alone about 2,100,000 lived.

Quote: "I don't know the exact number (which is much less than that one), but IMO we didnt clean enough of em, judging from the online posts they are still making, and things they are still saying. If it was up to me, I'd deport half of them who still live in Croatia." That's it. I'm reporting you.

Quote: 'What do you want to know about this? Slavonia and Krajina were always Croatian, except during wars against Ottoman empire when we sheltered Serbs there. Then they got haughty, Serbia populated Krajina on purpose (in organized manner) with Serbs in former Yugoslavia even further, and after the break of Yugoslavia they got haughty.. except they miscalculated their (and our) strenght. They got what they deserved, now they can go back to their barbaric country, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want any Neanderthal tribes in my country. If you like them so much, we can send them over to your country, and they can continue shouting "Serbia to Tokio".' Not as racist as the previous one, but still...

So according to your logic, if Slobodan Milosevic won and the HDZ elite and many Slovenes and Albanians forever abandon Yugoslavia, with eventually him becoming the first president of the New Yugoslavia - do you actually think that only Tudjman and the others should've been prosecuted???

No, I read in Jewish and Yugoslavian (before) schoolbooks. It's interesting to say that "all Partisan leaders were Croats" is absolutely incorrect. For instance, proportionally, the greatest number of Partisan high-ranking officers were Montenegrins and Serbs. Yes, Serb Partisans (mostly) raised the anti-Nazi rebellion in Croatia on 27th July 1941. I already mentioned that Tito's not quite a best example for a Croat (being far more a Yugoslavian Slovene than Croat). And remember that Tito went to Belgrade to organize armed resistance - because in the Independent State of Croatia there was no atmosphere (yet) for any resistance. Tito didn't raise the National Liberation War in Croatia - but in Serbia. Quite interesting how all partisan leaders were Croats, and anti-nazi movement had a huge support in Croatia but none in Serbia. Incredibly fallacious. In 1941 the anti-Fascist rebellion liberated Serbia and Montenegro, while there was still nothing in NDH. And only after 1943 serious movements emerge in Croatia, with the March of the Partisans from Uzice to Bihac. Could you please tell me all those famous & famed Croat Partisans before 1943?

After 1943, the war lasted all the way until 1945. Not "the Serbs", but the "Yugoslavs" - which excluded most Croats until '43 and excluded most Slovenes.

To say that all Chetniks collaborated with the Nazis is wrong - only some did, and those that did, cooperated with the Ustashas too. However, most Chetniks cooperated with the Italian Fascists, that's (sadly) true - and some even cooperated with the collaborationist puppet regimes in Montenegro and Serbia of Sekula Drljevic and Milan Nedic.

The Nazis were a better solution? Well I guess they were with the "Final Solution" for the Jews, and a similar one existing for the Serbs. Also this better solution seems to have brought to death almost 1,700,000 Yugoslavs - a figure at least one hundred thousand times greater than the victims of the Serb-hegemony royal Yugoslavia. And please, do not attach me nationalist connotations, and especially connect me with any crime I didn't commit.

In the end you contradict your very self - you point out that the world isn't black & white, and yet you see only to want to put the losers on trial...?

Originally posted by Mortaza Im sorry for being off topic but if the above is true why is there so much strife between adherants of the three abrahamic religions.     Because you only talk about strife. There is both strife and cooperation between abrahamic religions.. It is politics.

 To regards of what Turkey is claiming in general over the disputes,here is what the Turkish Embassy in the U.S says:

Edited by Southerneighbr - 16-Jul-2007 at 23:18