History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedExpansionist States of Today

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>
Author
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 358
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kurt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 07:57
You guys, I am absolutely certain that neither Turkey nor Greece is expansionist. If they were, Greece would not support Turkey's EU bid. I've made that point a couple of times now but its been ignored.
 
Besides which, i hardly think a legal dispute over a few petty islands counts as expansionism.
 
As for Cyprus, it is not Turkey's territory, so how can Turkey be expansionist in this regard? Similiarly, Greece has never showed interest in union with South Cyprus, in spite of the fact that the opportunity has had forty years to be recognised, so Greece is not expansionist either.
 
Don't you Greeks remember when you were about to kick the Italians out in World War Two; the Italians offered the Dodecanese Islands to Turkey because they didn't want to actually lose territory to Greece, to which Turkey replied no and subsequently the islands became Greek? The Turks learnt their lessons from the Ottomans: maintain peaceful relations with your neighbours, for expansion breeds counter-expansion which will ultimately doom us. I can't remember who made that quote but it was one of the ideals on which the Turkish Republic was founded. As for the Greeks, i know there are still some ultra-nationalists who speak of "greater Greece" but on a political level Greece is friendly to most of its neighbours. I still remember Greek aid workers helping Turkish victims of earthquakes in 1999.
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 3705
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 09:35
As for Cyprus, it is not Turkey's territory, so how can Turkey be expansionist in this regard? Similiarly, Greece has never showed interest in union with South Cyprus, in spite of the fact that the opportunity has had forty years to be recognised, so Greece is not expansionist either.
 
Lets follow real politics. Cyprus is most important island at eastern meditarian sea.
 
If they have chance, Both will annex cyprus.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 09:57
Quote If they have chance, Both will annex cyprus.
 
Yes. In fact, the Cyprus problem still exists because the island was under British rule until 1960.
 
Look at Crete. It was just like Cyprus, mainly Greek with Muslim minority. But today there is no Crete problem or a 'Republic of Crete', because the problem was 'solved' when Greece annexed it and the Muslims there were cleansed.
 
If the British were not in Cyprus in the early 20th century, it would have become part of either Turkey or Greece, and there would be just one community in the island now (through ethnic cleansing or population exchange).
 
Turkey and Greece still consider this matter unresolved. However, recently Turkish position is more of 'Taksim' (division) rather than the earlier 'Kibris Turktur'. Greek position is Enosis through EU. And the British want to keep their large military bases. Because all are expansionistic.


Edited by Beylerbeyi - 20-Jul-2007 at 09:58
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 10:55
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

You guys, I am absolutely certain that neither Turkey nor Greece is expansionist. If they were, Greece would not support Turkey's EU bid. I've made that point a couple of times now but its been ignored.
I think most of us noticed. We just got carried away..

It is true they want Turkey to be in the EU at least at the top level.

But my reading of that policy is this; Greece doesn't like the Turkish military and understand that this is a state within the state, with its own agenda (power-relevance). They would essentially be reformed out of influence by the EU membership. This will then overcome a major blocking force (as they see it) to resolving the old sticking points, which the Greeks want to solve diplomatically. lower the defence budget, feel secure and go on living life. This would be the best case scenario. So it is self interest first, but it does align with that of its neighbor (if you think the EU and reform is a good thing)

Overall i think the Greek government has made a very responsible far sighted (not populist) policy. they must keep supporting this membership even if they get the sh*ts every so often.


Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

The Turks learnt their lessons from the Ottomans: maintain peaceful relations with your neighbours, for expansion breeds counter-expansion which will ultimately doom us. I can't remember who made that quote but it was one of the ideals on which the Turkish Republic was founded. As for the Greeks, i know there are still some ultra-nationalists who speak of "greater Greece" but on a political level Greece is friendly to most of its neighbours. I still remember Greek aid workers helping Turkish victims of earthquakes in 1999.
I share your sentiments. More good will from both sides is needed, but the recent past has shown it is there.Smile

 Most ultra nationalist on our side, i feel exist more so in the diaspora than at home. Which is typical of many ethnicities judging from this forum.



Edited by Leonidas - 20-Jul-2007 at 11:27
Back to Top
Southerneighbr View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jun-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Southerneighbr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 19:54
Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:

Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:

Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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! Shocked 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." [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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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.

Q.E.D.
 
 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.
 
 Anyway that is what i call...and correct me if i am wrong...Greek complexized attitude...most Greeks would agree with me.
 
No level headed Greek citizen is to believe that Greece is a victim to Turkey or that Greece is the absolute good guy.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.
  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.
 
 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


Edited by Southerneighbr - 25-Jul-2007 at 20:00
Back to Top
Southerneighbr View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jun-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Southerneighbr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:12
Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

As for Cyprus, it is not Turkey's territory, so how can Turkey be expansionist in this regard? Similiarly, Greece has never showed interest in union with South Cyprus, in spite of the fact that the opportunity has had forty years to be recognised, so Greece is not expansionist either.
 
Lets follow real politics. Cyprus is most important island at eastern meditarian sea.
 
If they have chance, Both will annex cyprus.
 
 Totally agree.Neither Greece nor Turkey will have the slightest doubt about annexing Cyprus when geopolitical circumstances are in favour of such an event.
Back to Top
Southerneighbr View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jun-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Southerneighbr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:18
Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:



Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

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.

Q.E.D.
 
 Regardless of what a friend of yours,a family member or your neighbourhood might say on Cyprus i am waiting for a proof that Turkey considers the invaded parts as officially a part of Turkey.
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 22:57
Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

 
 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 Southerneighbr wrote:

 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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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?


Edited by Leonidas - 25-Jul-2007 at 23:00
Back to Top
Southerneighbr View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jun-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 68
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Southerneighbr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 01:21
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

 
 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 Southerneighbr wrote:

 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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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
 
 
 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.
 
 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.
 
 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.


Edited by Southerneighbr - 26-Jul-2007 at 01:37
Back to Top
bgturk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 04-Jun-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bgturk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 03:50
Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:

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.




Edited by bgturk - 26-Jul-2007 at 03:52
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 08:42

I find the whole TRNC charade pretty ridiculous.

- The unification of Cyprus....I mean common, has there been some mass memory loss? There was a unified Cyprus, it was a total failure.
The Greeks sensing their opportunity along with EOKA and a Greek Junta started a genocidal policy of Enosis. The Turks wern't happy with the deal and started becomming rebels and forming groups like TMT which also attacked Greek Cypriots. The Turks were stripped of power and made into not even second class citizens but a people who must be wiped off the island.
The Greek Junta tried its chance to annex the island to Greece.
 
From 1960-1974 this occured, then Turkey using her legal guaranteur right intervined and this time the Turkish millitary seperated the two communities creating ethnically homogenous states.
 
And now today...
 
How is it that some people can come up with such catostrophically derranged ideas such as "UNIFIED CYPRUS".
 
It';s a recipie for disaster, history shows this.
 
And besides. Most Greek Cypriots don't even want to live with Turkish Cypriots.
 
 
 
Little support for unification

ONE OF THE findings of a survey presented by the CyBC on Monday night should give us food for thought. According to the survey, the majority of Greek Cypriots would rather live separately from the Turkish Cypriots. Of those polled, 48 per cent said they were in favour of living separately and 45 per cent were in favour of living with the Turkish Cypriots; the remainder were ‘don’t knows’.

This is not a very encouraging trend if the political objective is re-unification and the end of the 30-year partition. As Rauf Denktash always liked to say, there could not be a successful marriage by force. When one of the partners is opposed to the marriage it should not take place. And if the majority of Greek Cypriots are opposed to living with the Turkish Cypriots, the only solution they would accept is partition. Neither the unitary state solution, supported by the presidential camp, nor the illusory, European solution, supposedly pursued by the small nationalist parties, would satisfy the majority of the Greek Cypriots because the two communities would have to live together.

It could be argued that supporters of separation were only marginally more than the opponents and that there could be a swing of opinion if conditions improved, but it is difficult to see this happening under current circumstances. Numbers of those in favour of living together has steadily declined – in a similar survey conducted in 2003, 67 per cent were in favour (28 per cent against) and in 2004 supporters dropped to 51 per cent (47 per cent against). No survey was carried out last year.

The decline in support for reunification could be attributed primarily to the general climate created by the Papadopoulos government’s confrontational rhetoric and the unrelenting attacks of the Turkish Cypriot leadership. But there also other factors which may lead people to want to keep things as they are – the probability that things would not work out, concern that living standards would drop, fears that there would be less security etc. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact reasons from a survey.

What gives more cause for concern is the age breakdown of the respondents. Sixty-three per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds are against reunification, as are 59 per cent of 25 to 34-year-olds. Only in the over-55 group was the majority in favour of living together. What hope is there when youngsters are so overwhelmingly in favour of partition, the exact opposite of the trends in the north? There, the majority of the youngsters were in favour of reunification, even though opinion may have changed now.

So when President Papadopoulos insisted that the overwhelming ‘no-vote’ by the Greek Cypriots in the referendum was not a vote against reunification, but a vote against the specific settlement, he may have been wrong. Politicians should perhaps start entertaining the idea that reunification is not what the majority of Greek Cypriots want.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2007
 
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=25256&cat_id=1
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 08:58
That's about it for the Cyprus discussion. No matter how engaging, Cyprus is still a blacklisted topic last I checked. So continue with the talk about expansionist states instead.

Edited by Seko - 26-Jul-2007 at 08:58
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Neoptolemos View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02-Feb-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Neoptolemos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 16:25
Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

 
 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.

What a surprising comeback...
My whole post is Greek BS? It's not working like this. Quote specific parts of my post and prove that it's BS.
My life does not depend on the subject. You asked me what my point is, I answered you. Simple as that.

Quote Anyway that is what i call...and correct me if i am wrong...Greek complexized attitude...most Greeks would agree with me.

No kidding...

Quote No level headed Greek citizen is to believe that Greece is a victim to Turkey or that Greece is the absolute good guy.

Whoever said that Greece is the absolute good guy? Counter the claims that have been made, not the ones that are on your imagination.

Quote 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.

You're just throwing fireworks, don't you? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand and you're just trolling. For the record, yes, I believe that it was the Turks who burnt Smyrna. I am one of those Greeks who haven't seen the light yet.

Quote 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.

Prove it if you can that Chams were majority in Greek Epirus, or else you're just speaking out of your ...imagination again.

Quote 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,

No, please, I don't need your elumination LOL

Quote do your homework and stop twisting my words,its pathetic

I am not twisting your words, I AM QUOTING you. Full quotes; they are there for every level headed person to judge if I am twisting or not. The last word is being returned back to you.

Quote Regardless of what a friend of yours,a family member or your neighbourhood might say on Cyprus i am waiting for a proof that Turkey considers the invaded parts as officially a part of Turkey.
I didn't claim that "Turkey considers the invaded parts as officially a part of Turkey". Other than that, my previous post covers you fine.
Back to Top
MarcoPolo View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2007
Location: Planet Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 185
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MarcoPolo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2007 at 17:12

I read a few times that Pakistan is an expansionist state??  this is far from the truth.  Pakistan if anything is on the defense against a country it has fought 3 wars often being outnumbered sometimes 4 or 5 to 1.  And vis-a-vis Afghanistan.. I dont think there was ever any attempt to physically control Afghanistan or is their any claim to parts of Afghanistan!

 
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 didnt think that either Greece or Turkey were expansionist, i knew that they had a few border issues (as most post colonial countries do) and I still dont think that either of them have expansionist designs on either? unless im mistaken...
 
 
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 762
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 23:08
Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

 
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
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 762
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 23:20
Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:

Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:

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
Status: Offline
Points: 762
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jul-2007 at 23:41
Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

 
 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 Southerneighbr wrote:

 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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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
Status: Offline
Points: 762
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 00:39
Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Thessaloníki should be handed over to them.... 
 
 
Originally posted by Southerneighbr Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

.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 Southerneighbr wrote:

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 Southerneighbr wrote:

 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
kurt View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 358
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   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
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 891011>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.121 seconds.