Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Expansionist States of Today

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>
Author
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Expansionist States of Today
    Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:44
Originally posted by kurt

Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz

There is a big difference between countries that want to expand purely out of imperialistic ideas and ones that have rightful claims on some regions,due to ethnical or historical reasons.Many countries have been mentioned but it wasn't specified WHY those countries have such intentions.
 
Nation A ruled territory C 1000 years ago. Nation B ruled territory C 500 years ago. Both claim ownership of territory C today. Who is the rightful owner?
 
 
The one that inhabits it today,has contributed it culturally the most AND has inhabitted it for a few centuries already.For example,european colonists in Australia couldn't say the land is only theirs a few centuries ago,because they were there for just a few decades.Nowadays however they have lived there for many generations already,BUT have also contributed and developed the land more than the aborigens.So they should have rightful claim on the land,because the aborigens simply lived there more than the europeans but didn't create a developed state as todays Australia.A land is yours not when you simply live on it,but when you also create a civilization on it,which contributes to whole humanity somehow.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 16:06

We are straying from the geopolitical aspects here once again.

Whether states are "expansionist" or are attempting, without control, to influence other geographies to their own advantage can be argued ad nauseum.  How do these variations on a theme affect the broader aspects of geoplitical landscapes (its geographical after all)?
 
How about:
 
1)  Influence and leverage over states in critical geographies.
 
2)  Positioning, with or without military assets, along cultural/political "fault lines" and at "flash points."
 
3)  Perceptions of physical security and of the protection of economic and commercial interests.
 
Isn't there a lot more here than who ruled whom, and where, 1000 years ago and who claims them now?  I think there is.
 
 
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 06:35
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz

There is a big difference between countries that want to expand purely out of imperialistic ideas and ones that have rightful claims on some regions,due to ethnical or historical reasons.Many countries have been mentioned but it wasn't specified WHY those countries have such intentions.
 
Nation A ruled territory C 1000 years ago. Nation B ruled territory C 500 years ago. Both claim ownership of territory C today. Who is the rightful owner?
Karadenizli
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2008 at 17:30
There is a big difference between countries that want to expand purely out of imperialistic ideas and ones that have rightful claims on some regions,due to ethnical or historical reasons.Many countries have been mentioned but it wasn't specified WHY those countries have such intentions.
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Aug-2008 at 16:40
Russia was already on the list Tongue
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 15:21
sorry to dig up and old threat but surely russia should added to this list after reccent event in georgia, they could end up dewarfing the countries listed here who it seems by inlarge have expanded only very minimally in reccent years.
 
moreover the reason behind this lack of expansion in the reccent year is the banding together of nations i.e. EU and NATO which act as a detterent against war when they hayday of empire making was going on war was looked at in a positive light. this is combined with the lack of development outside europe with incourage other countries to invade wereas today even the poorest countries had a creditable army, with serious wepaons which would make invasion incour huge humanitarian cost. all of this had stop expansionisation as a policy.   
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 468
  Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 12:23
Originally posted by Flipper

 
 Also sometimes you learn things from Albanians like for example what "cifliqar" refers to. Also, think again, which was the most favoured non-Turkish group (not ethnicity nor Jennitsari) during Ottoman rule. Just a hint, because i see you and neoptolemaios speak about enlightment.
Ok give an explanation on that.The most interesting would be on which was the most favoured non-Turkish group.As far as i know Serbs,Bulgars and Greeks were the most favoured non-Turkish ethnic group,having made it so high up in the empire as to have Sultans of their origine.( Serbs and Greeks) ,it is ridicoulous that now Serbs and Greeks pretend to have been the most anti-Ottoman rule in the Balcans when their aristocracy always mixed with the Turkish,unlike the Albanians who did not.Greece and Serbia turned against Turkey at a time when the empire was ruined ,having exesive debts to the British and the French.On the other hand almost all the Albanians who made it as high as to be Pashas in the empire always turned against the Ottoman Rule,Ali pash Tepelena,and Mehmet Ali pasha in Egypt are the example.And the example of not so favoured policy towards Albanians was the crimes comited in the late 1870-s early 1880-s against the albanian populations,specially in the Kosova Vilajet ,on the war that the Turkish declared on the League of Prizren.It proved to be the de facto independence of all rural areas.
Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 20:58
Yes, obviously its a joke.  LOL
 
 
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 20:13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_Canadian_provinces_and_territories

Countries and territories that some have suggested should join Canada

[edit] Current or former British territories

  • Turks and Caicos Islands - A British overseas territory in the Caribbean. There is some support for it to join Canada, although the islands' small economy and Canada's involvement in Haiti has made this controversial.
  • Jamaica - In the late 19th century, there was some discussion of some form of political union between Canada and Jamaica.
  • Barbados - In 1884, the Barbados Agricultural Society sent a letter to Sir Francis Hincks requesting his private and public views on whether the Dominion of Canada would favourably entertain having the then colony of Barbados admitted as a member of the Canadian Confederation. Asked of Canada were the terms of the Canadian side to initiate discussions, and whether or not the island of Barbados could depend on the full influence of Canada in getting the change agreed to by Britain. Then in 1952 the Barbados Advocate newspaper polled several prominent Barbadian politicians, lawyers, businessmen, the Speaker of the Barbados House of Assembly and later as first President of the Senate, Sir Theodore Branker, Q.C. and found them to be in favour of immediate federation of Barbados along with the rest of the British Caribbean with complete Dominion Status within five years from the date of inauguration of the West Indies Federation with Canada.
  • Bermuda - In 1949 Henry Vassey, then Chairman of the Bermuda Trade Development Board, urged the House of Assembly of Bermuda to pursue a political union with Canada. Four Methodist church congregations in Bermuda are part of The United Church of Canada, forming Bermuda Presbytery of the United Church's Maritime Conference headquartered in Sackville, New Brunswick.
  • The West Indies Federation In a 1952 letter by T.G. Major, a Canadian Trade Commissioner in Trinidad and Tobago, it was stated to the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs that the respective leaders of the British Caribbean could not reach a clear consensus for the exact style of a Federal Union with Canada. During a Parliamentary Conference held in Ottawa, it was also noted though that the colony of British Honduras showed the most interest in a union with Canada exceeding that of the other British Caribbean colonies.

Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden and his delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 put pressure on British Prime Minister David Lloyd George to give most of the above territories to Canada as sub-dominions or League of Nations mandates, citing the concessions made to Billy Hughes' Australian delegation with regard to New Guinea and Nauru. Lloyd George eventually declined [4].

[edit] Other political entities

  • Alaska - Some Canadians and Alaskans have discussed the possibility of the state of Alaska seceding from the United States and joining Canada under an autonomy plan allowing for a U.S. sphere of influence. This is comparable to what some Quebec separatists have advocated for in the past (sovereignty-association, Quebec Autonomism). The issue has been discussed on various forums, such as the Alaska Independence Party forum, and has its own site, which claims Alaska as the "lost province." However, no formal movement in favor of this proposal exists, nor does any political party currently advocate it.
  • Cascadia - Proposals for the independent state of Cascadia often include parts of British Columbia in their boundaries

draw your own conclusions 

Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762
  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 14:33
This is a joke, right?
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
The_Jackal_God View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 157
  Quote The_Jackal_God Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 12:16
did anyone mention Canada and the Carribean?

it's not so much expansionism on Canada's part, as certain islands have entertained the idea of joining Canada, the Turk Islands for example.

I think such a move projects danger on the US, since Canada would have us surrounded, and be able to launch a 2-pronged invasion. God knows they've been eyeing Alaska for a long time.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 08:13
I agree with kapikulu, spain and argentina are more border disputes. but i would add Russia to his list. Not only Chechnya but that whole region 
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
  Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 13:25
Originally posted by MarcoPolo

 

I think, truly expansionist countries of the world:
 
Russia - Chechnya, Island dispute with Japan
 
Spain - Gibralter
 
Argentina - Falkland Island
 
India - Kashmir, Sikkim, Hyderabad, Junagadh & Munawer, Greater India etc.. border disputes with nearly all of its neighboors (Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, China)
 
China - mmm this might fall under a gray area as the issue of Taiwan is between Chinese Communist and Nationalist with the added complexities of 50 years of politics.
 
Israel - Golan Height, West Bank, Gaza Strip
 
 
 
I shall agree totally with the cases of China, Israel and India,for example, however; some of the rest, are rightful claims.
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 09:12
Originally posted by Southerneighbr

  Plus about Epirus,Albania lost it even though it had majority population of the Chams.The rest is Greek bs to justify the annexation of Epirus.
 


During the 17th century there was a noticable migration of Epirotans towards Thessaly and south-western Macedonia (and some to Romania). I suggest you have a look on turkish records and greek letters and you will see why those people moved. Also sometimes you learn things from Albanians like for example what "cifliqar" refers to. Also, think again, which was the most favoured non-Turkish group (not ethnicity nor Jennitsari) during Ottoman rule. Just a hint, because i see you and neoptolemaios speak about enlightment.


Edited by Flipper - 31-Jul-2007 at 09:23


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 09:36
Israel is expansionist in the west bank, its policy around the settlers is basically annexation by creep.
Back to Top
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 358
  Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 07:00

Spain has designs on gibraltar? Please elaborate - so far as I know, they once controlled the straits, but I very much doubt a member of the Europeon Union actually intends to annex former territory.

As for Israel, I think we can only speculate, but personally, i feel that if they wished to annex any territory, they would have done so by now. Who can stop them? Not the United Nations, that's for sure.

Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762
  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 00:39
Originally posted by Southerneighbr

Originally posted by Leonidas

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.

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'Confused
 
 
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.

??? Bulgaria also lost territory in E. Thrace. Bulgarian troops fought superbly and took Edirne advancing all the way to the door of Constantinople but they lost all that to the OTTOMANS, not the Greeks, as a result of the Second Balkan War (they faced attacks from all fronts, Romania even attacked from the north and advanced within 30 miles of Sophia). These were do-or-die times. It's like you're accusing only one of the butchers in the slaughter house for being unfair to the animals; even PETA would turn you down ;)
Albania did not loose ALL of Epirus, just the south. Your claim about the Tsamides is questionable: if even today there's a Greek-speaking minority in S. Albania how can you claim that S. Epirus (to the SOUTH of S. Albania) was predominantly Albanian?

 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.
You're over-compensating for afore-mentioned phobias ("psorokostaina"). It's like that today in science: because we have come to revise the Eurocentric approach to most social sciences as written up to 30 years ago, we now have all sorts of "-isms", i.e. Afrocentrism, "Asianism", etc. with everyone claiming that now THEY are better than the rest. Don't fall in that trap.

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.

"Geopolitical goals?" Do you know what country you're living in? Hah! Are you serious? How can you have geopolitical goals without air carriers? Regional goals of course, everyone does.  But last  time I checked, greece's regional goals were for increased cooperation among balkan states, not expansion:  support for Bulgarian, romanian, and turkish membership in the EU; increased economic ties with Fyrom, including investments by greek banks and sales of ATTACK HELICOPTERS to Fyrom (maybe we can see what they can do against greek troops when we attack FYROM in our evil plan to subjugate allWink); recognition of the Muslim minority with parliamentary representation and the allowance to built the Grand Mosque at Spata; lifting of the war status with Albania. Respect for democracy and human rights with ratification of all corresponding UN and UNESCO chapters.
 Give it a chance. Not too bad for a country that was ruled by a cold-war military junta until 1974, did not have electricity in all the villages until 1971, and did not abolish the dowry until 1981.
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762
  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 23:41
Originally posted by Southerneighbr

Originally posted by Leonidas

Originally posted by Southerneighbr

 
 I was on holidays but nothing really to answer other than typical Greek BS.
 Your whole post it typical of Greek bias and BS ,i provided all the evidence to demonstate that Greece has no right to judge Turkey and you do rounds as if your life depends on the subject.
 A judgement is a judgment, yours has not shown to be based on anything other than assumptions. You talk big but provided little and when any rational point was made you ignore them rather than either acknowledge the point made or try to rationaly countering them, just like this post.
 
Claiming Bias and BS does nothing to strengthen your cliams, rather it exposes that the foundations on which you have built them sits on sand.
 
Originally posted by Southerneighbr

 No level headed Greek citizen is to believe that Greece is a victim to Turkey or that Greece is the absolute good guy.
 This is a straw man that attempts to put yourself in the 'fair and reasonable' box seat, no one here ever claimed greece is the 'absolute' good guy. We do argue that some of its positions are warranted or can be explained. You dismiss any of this in the some kind of self rightous way, cliaming you are the 'objective' one. Pff
 
Originally posted by Southerneighbr

I am still suprised that the Greeks even today believe that it was the Turks who burnt Izmir,while almost half of the evidence suggest that the Greek army in collaboration with Armenians burnt the town down. All neutral sources give 50-50% share of responsibilities and the Greeks sleep their Greek sleep....Typical and boring sleep which i assume apply ''ganti'' as we say in Greek to you Neopt..
 a completely different topic start a new thread "Greeks bias on everything A- Z". go crazy and counter every part of greek history.
 
I will tell you one time only, do not attempt to hijack this one with whatever other greek POV you want to argue over.  Stick with the program, if your so right in your postion the subject matter will not have to stray
 
 
 
Originally posted by Southerneighbr

Bulgaria did loose W Thrace which was under their administration and also off course Macedonia which were a majority compared to Greeks even though they never had it under their control.The ''Solunsko area'' was predominantly bulgarian populated,the only BS comes from you...If you dont ''know'' how you define the solunsko area,maybe you should do a background check,i am not gonna elluminate you,do your homework and stop twisting my words,its pathetic
Greece was attacked by Bulgaria which was seeking a more terrirtory that it already had and Greece came off better. How can this be a fair example of Greek expansonsim without at least putting it in context of its neighbours expansonist plans or the regional situation?
 
  In fact it is you who provided nothing more than a thesis and the all time Greek narrative plus your personal assumptions and estimations.Nothing legite to discredit anything i said,appart from your wishfull thinking.Provide proofs that Greece is less of an expansionistic state,apart from what your grandmother might have said.Cause we are already doing rounds

Southern neighbor, the burden lies with you to prove that Greece is following an expansionist, aggressive policy in the Aegean (the rest of your points about the past are mute) today, not the other way around. You are surpassing even the Turkish government who has never stated that Greece is a threat for Turkey's  sovereignty, they are just pursuing their interests in the Aegean. Show me ONE source that claims the Turkish government to be worried about invasion from Greece!

 
 
 Also no attempt to stray,it is just you believing that i might do that out of lack of arguments,just to try and re focus the discussion on my ''alleged'' attempt to stray.Very cheap.
 
Besides i was debating the Greek mentality in that paragraph.It is only your complex that made you react the way you did i pressume.I am Greek i know the Greek complex,specially of the diaspora Greeks,which has no connection of the reality in modern Greece today.
But you claim on another post that Greeks are over the complex, don't care, and live their lives peacefully  (which I totaly agree with). so, which one is it? you seem to switch sides according to the argument
 
 Regarding Bulgaria,save it.Bulgaria did control W Thrace and had majority population in areas of Macedonia.We all know that.Even the Carnegie report claims the above.That is what i claimed,regardless of administrative control,poor attempt to twist my words again out of luck of evidence.

You are so full of it! Yes, Bulgaria lost their exit to the Aegean in the 1912-13 re-shuffling of power  in the Balkans at the onset of the Ottoman demise. So what? It was a result of war which Greece won and Bulgaria lost. The victor writes the contract; look at Cyprus today: the issue will never be solved because the "TRNC" is a result of a powerful military that Greece cannot counter, save for another national disaster. Bulgaria is in the PAST. I don't think there's a single sane Bulgarian (and there are a few on this Forum) who will claim  that Greece today has claims to alter the border on the Rodopi mountains. If that's what you're claiming , you're farther "out there" than even the diaspora!

 
 Plus Greece has attacked Bulgaria as an agressor in the past.The "Stray Dog'' war is an excellent example of Greece's thirst of expansion against Bulgaria since on the pretext that a soldier of ours was shot by Bulgarians,we occupied illegally many Bulgarian villages and we were found guilty in the Legue of nations and had to pay extra ordinery amounts to Bulgaria when we were forced to take our army from Bulgarian territory.
Oh pleeeease! What year are you talking about? League of Nations? It must be immediately after WW I. "Greece has attacked Bulgaria as an aggressor in the past?" If we count Byzantium as Greece, the two have been attacking EACH OTHER for HUNDREDS OF YEARS over and over again. You're taking the past and applying it monolithically to today.
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762
  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 23:20
Originally posted by bgturk

Originally posted by Neoptolemos

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.
Q.E.D.


The Turkish armed forces are in Cyprus primarily in order to meet the security needs of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), which would be eaten up by the South in case of a premature withdrawal. The TRNC is an independent plurarlist democracy and its territories are in no way occupied by Turkey. It has its own constitution, parliament and president, and exists seperately and independently from Turkey. Its existence therefore cannot be used as a justification for your argument that Turkey is expansionist.

Economically the TRNC depends on Turkey primarily because the Southern Greek administred area and Greece are using (some would say abusing) their EU membership to enforce an economic blockade on the North in the hope that by doing so they can reoccupy the territories of the TRNC. It is hypocritical that you would complain about this economic dependence, when in fact all you need to do to get rid of it, is agree to the EU proposal of direct trade with the TRNC which was conveniently blocked by your leadership in the hope of starving the people of the TRNC into compliance with your demands of complete and total millitary and economic surrender.




Bullsh*t! Cyprus is blacklisted and bg_turk is the official propagator of the Turkish government's  stance on the issue!
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 762
  Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 23:08
Originally posted by Southerneighbr

Originally posted by Leonidas

 
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.

Excuse me, but you count Wikipedia as a valid source? How south really are you, southern neighbor ;(
 
 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.

Expansionism in Macedonia, Thrace and Cyprus are all a thing of the PAST. You charge Greece of today with fostering Venizelian plans for "Megali Ellada". Those died around  Eski Sehir, along with my maternal grandfather, in 1921.

 
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.
Well, if the Greek military is PERFECTLY suited to defend Greece's sovereignty as you say, it is because it is organized around SANE DEFENSIVE plans: defense along the Evros, re-taking islands that fell mainly through special forces ops. By accepting that the greek military is capable of defending the country, you also acknowledge, inadvertently, that said military is organized around defense because offense would be disastrous (i.e. 1920-22)
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.