Expansionist States of Today

Originally posted by Leonidas with india, like the PRC in non Han area's, there is territory that probably doesn't really fit in to the broader "Indian" nation.  generally Sikkim and most While Ladakh is culturally a part of Tibet. I'll throw in Ethiopia in this mix, it occupation of parts of Somalia is just an extension of its occupation of the Ogaden. Sudan on Chad and CAR. Georgia in Sth Ossetia Nth ossetia in ingush

Originally posted by Mortaza Like greece. Should I remind you close relation within ROA and Karabag? I think no need to double standard.

     Close relations have nothing to do with military aid. Karabagh Armenians were the ones fighting the war, while the Turkish Cypriots only won due to the active participation of tens of thousands of Turkish troops. If Turkish Cypriots had fought the war on their own (like the Karabagh Armenians did) then there would be no need to keep all those Turkish troops in Cyprus for 30+ years. If you want to compare, the ROA has no troops stationed in Karabagh, they have their own army, made up of people who live within Karabagh's borders.

Originally posted by Mortaza Some people have expansionist ideas at north iraq but elected goverment has no interest with occupying north iraq..

     Even with all those oilfields in the region? Plus, Ankara probably thinks Iraqi Kurdistan is populated by "mountain Turks" who need to be liberated.

Originally posted by bg_turk The secetionists in Karabakh can ask for whatever they like, but the fact of the matter is that the Soviets never recognized Karabakh as an independent state

     The Soviet union gave Azerbaijan the Armenian territories of Nakhichevan and Karabagh, even though for decades this was opposed by every form of popular and political protest. Even the Azeri leader at the time wanted to give these regions back to Armenia, but the Soviet regime did not let him because they wanted to get in good with Turkey. Basically, the Soviet Union was the only entity that was keeping this Armenian-populated region part of the Azerbaijan SSR, so naturally when the Soviet Union faded away, so did Azerbaijan SSR's hold on Karabagh. Plus, as Leonidas said, you just confirmed that Karabagh seceded, and was not the result of ROA's expansion.

I really think that today, in modern political constelation, is very hardthat any state has any seriouse atenttion to be expansionistic. Today, that's possible only for few of them ( nuclear power coutries, for example Pakistan). But, today, I don't think.....

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival Originally posted by Kapikulu Just out of curiousity, as I don't hold much info about the current situation. Armenia does not have any single soldier or any piece of ammonution or rifle in Karabag      Karabagh has its own army which works independent of the ROA's army. It is made up of people who actually live in Karabagh. Although their interests coincide mainly because both nations are isolated, this does not mean that the ROA has troops stationed in Karabagh. Karabagh can defend itself against Azerbaijan without military support from the ROA.      During the war, the only support that Karabagh recieved from Armenia was some electricity and a few gallons of petrol here and there. Armenia had just gained independence, was blockaded from both sides, and just had an earthquake in 1988 which killed 25,000 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless, so they were not in a position to give much material support to Karabagh.

Originally posted by white-wolf So, Kocaryan, The current Armenian President, was not Karabagh President?    It is very comic to say Armenian did not do anything at the war back then.   Please, answer; how much percentage of Azerbaijan is under Armenian (or Karabagh) occupation apart from Karabagh?

According to your logic, if Vartan Oskanian (the Armenian FM, born and raised in Syria) becomes next president of Armenia, then Armenia has expansionist ideals on Syria?

Yes, Armenia gave some material support, not much, but it did nevertheless. Its also true that Armenian volunteers went and fought in the Karabakh war. Azeri side also had foreign troops fighting on its side, such as Chechens (basaev) and Afghan mujahadeen...does this mean that Afghanistan was an expansionist state? or Chechnia?

Lands apart from Karabakh are under the control of Armenians (of Karabakh) not the state of Armenia. Moreover, in case you do not follow the peace discussion of the two nations, Armenians have stated multiple times that lands outside of Karabakh would be given back to Azerbaijan, if Azerbaijan recognizes Karabakh as an independent state.

Originally posted by Leonidas ^ actually lets just drop karabagh out of this for the sake of this thread

That would be great, but I believe the hidden agenda of the person who started this thread was to "discuss" Karabakh...even though I believe this was just another blatant provocation.

EDIT: Spelling

Originally posted by mamikon Originally posted by white-wolf [QUOTE=Leonidas] ^ actually lets just drop karabagh out of this for the sake of this thread That would be great, but I believe the hidden agenda of the person who started this thread was to "discuss" Karabakh...even though I believe this was just another blatant provocation. EDIT: Spelling

Edited by Seko - 27-Jun-2007 at 09:27

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival Originally posted by kurt Armenia is another, having taken territory from Azerbaijan in 1994,      Its been said many times on this forum that the Karabagh war was between the Azeri state and Karabagh Armenians, not against the Armenian army. Karabagh was an autonomous region within the Azerbaijan SSR, and it declared its independence from the Soviet Union through a democratic vote and it never formed part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan invaded the region and got beat by a numerically and technologically inferior force. But we shouldn't get into this since theres already a thread about this somewhere in the modern history section (but its important to correct the false premise of your post). Originally posted by kurt and from what i've read aparently they wish to take territory from Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Syria as well, although the party in control right now has denounced expansionist intentions      So if the party in power has denounced expansionist intentions, on what basis do you brand them as expansionist?      Armenia wants to annex lands from Syria? How did you manage to include Syria? They have nothing to do with anything.      Kurt, I must ask, where did you get this information?

Turkey is  claiming  greek thrace the aegean  and already occupies european territory that  is half of Cyprus.

His youtube account says what kind of "historian" he is. 

Originally posted by Kapikulu But if you wanna know what the issue is; Greece insists on 12 miles for its continental shelf, Turkey, as a persistent objector to 12 miles rule, insists that it is 6 miles. This blacklisted issue will not be discussed, but nothing to do with expansionism, for both sides. This is a legal dispute. Dispute has been taken to International Court of Justice in 1970s and the court stated that it has no jurisdiction over the issue.