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  <1234 11>
Author
Sparten View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Totalitarian Iconoclast

Joined: 18-Mar-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sparten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 09:12
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

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

There is no such thing as an "Indian Nation." Its a state.
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
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: 24-Jun-2007 at 09:14
Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:



     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.


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, and that is why the international community continues to consider it  an integral part of the sovereign Azeri state which Armenian forces continues to occupy illegally despite numerous UN resolutions. The Armenian regime back then actively aided the secetionist insurgents in Karabakh and participated in the ethnic cleansing of the region from its indigenous Azeri population.

your confirming the original point. The loss of karabagh was due to secession not expansion (with aid or not with aid).

edit. Sparten your correction is, well, spot onEmbarrassed




Edited by Leonidas - 24-Jun-2007 at 09:17
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 21:10
Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

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 Mortaza wrote:

I am sure you know difference between PKK and north iraq.


     I do, but that has nothing to do with Ankara's intentions in the region. This is the same state which denied the existance of Kurds in their own country, and banned their language from 1923-1991. If they deny the existance of Kurds in their own country, I don't think they will treat Kurds from another country any better.


Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

I dont care If you call Turkey as expansionist but I dont like double standarts.. It is funny you protect ROA and accuse Turkey..


     Well, lets think about it, ROA has no troops stationed outside its borders, while Turkey has troops stationed in Cyprus.

 
Originally posted by Mortaza Mortaza wrote:

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 bg_turk wrote:

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.
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 22:34
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:


     
     Well, lets think about it, ROA has no troops stationed outside its borders, while Turkey has troops stationed in Cyprus.

 
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
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
Aleksey Groz View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Jun-2007
Location: Antarctica
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aleksey Groz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 22:43
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.....
Historia magistra vitae est
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1460
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2007 at 23:44
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

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.
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
white-wolf View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote white-wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 06:58
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

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.
 
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?
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-Jun-2007 at 07:54
^ actually lets just drop karabagh out of this for the sake of this thread

 we have a whole thread dedicated to that conflict and is a much better format to get into the details. 
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 14:42
Originally posted by white-wolf white-wolf wrote:

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? Confused

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 Leonidas wrote:

^ 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 mamikon - 25-Jun-2007 at 18:46
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2007 at 17:52
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

I was wondering, almost all of the world's powers today aren't concerned with territorial acquisitions at all. It seems the age of conquest is over.



Well I wouldn't say that. There are different forms of expansionism. One of them is irredentism, which is as alive as it ever was.

Colonialism was a particular kind of expansionism that hasn't been relevant or beneficial for over a century now (with a few exceptions, such as Imperial Japan). Britain began a process of deliberately disinvesting itself of colonial possessions as early as the Imperial Conferences of the 1920s. It's actually more expensive to colonize a country - and pay for things like defence, internal security, and so on - than it is to simply dominate it economically and politically. It is now possible to get all the benefits of conquest without actually having to hang around, pay to clean up the mess, and fund defence and security. All these costs - monetary, political, social, the whole lot - can be passed on to the inhabitants through a fiction of sovereign rule. It's not even strategically important since military bases are frequently established in such countries by dominating foreign powers.

Edited by edgewaters - 25-Jun-2007 at 17:55
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: 27-Jun-2007 at 08:50
Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:

Originally posted by white-wolf white-wolf wrote:

[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
 
Yes, you caught me. In my spare time i like to make threads about broad topics such as this one only to hide my true intent of discussing Armenian politics in an attempt to "blatantly provoke" people who live hundreds of kilometers away from me and who i have never met. However, i never suspected a genius such as yourself would see my "hidden agenda" and expose it. Nice work, Sherlock Holmes.
 
I was actually thinking of Serbia and whether or not that nation has an expantionalist policy today, however if i made such a thread it would simply degenerate into rabble where nationalist insults rather then knowledge was exchanged. So instead i made a thread concerning the entire globe and a rather vague reference to Serbia so as to gain a response about Serbian policy. Besides which, other interesting nations might be discussed, such as Israel and her occupation of the Golan Heights.
 
In future, you should try substantiate your claims rather then pull ______.
 
**Edited for inappropriate language**
 
PS. Next time I won't be so kind.


Edited by Seko - 27-Jun-2007 at 09:27
Karadenizli
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 2218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jun-2007 at 13:44
Oh right, you were actually thinking about Serbia but wrote Armenia...whoops

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:


I was wondering, almost all of the world's powers today aren't concerned with territorial acquisitions at all. It seems the age of conquest is over. However, there are still expansionist states in the world today. I think Morroco is one, having annexed Western Sahara, Armenia is another, having taken territory from Azerbaijan in 1994, 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.

I'm thinking mainly of the balkans when i ask this, but which nations of today have expansionist policies?
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 08:53
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

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 kurt wrote:

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? Confused
 
Provide a link to the thread on Karabakh. We can discuss it there.
 
The party in power now may have denounced expansionalist intentions, but that was only two years ago, and who's to say that after the next election a pro-expansion party will come into power?
 
They have nothing to do with anything. Repeat that statement to yourself a couple of times. Do it again, just to be sure. Perhaps you now understand why i will not respond to such an inane prompt.
 
These are things i've read mainly from www.bbc.com and www.turkishdailynews.com.
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 09:02
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

     As for expansionist countries, I think some obvious ones are the U.S., Israel, Turkey and Russia.
 
US - please specify
Israel - i assume you're speaking of the golan heights?
Turkey - Not expansionist, full stop. There are ultra-nationalists who speak of creating a turkmen state in northern Iraq, but the government has no expansionalist intentions. Ataturk himself denounced expansion after the anatolian heartland was recovered and stated "Every nation has the right to demand proper treatment and no country should violate the territory of any other country. "
Russia - please specify. Are you speaking of Chechnya?


Edited by kurt - 29-Jun-2007 at 09:03
Back to Top
olvios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 20-Apr-2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 561
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote olvios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 09:52
Turkey is  claiming  greek thrace the aegean  and already occupies european territory that  is half of Cyprus.
http://www.hoplites.net/
Back to Top
Kapikulu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kapikulu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 11:09
Originally posted by olvios olvios wrote:

Turkey is  claiming  greek thrace
 
No, Turkey has no claims over Western Thrace. 
 
Originally posted by olvios olvios wrote:

the aegean 
 
I assume you are talking about the issue of continental shelf. That is absolutely a legal issue.
 
But if you wanna know what the issue is; Greece insists on 12 miles for its territorial waters, 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. Another dispute which is regarding the Continental Shelf has been taken to International Court of Justice in 1970s and the court stated that it has no jurisdiction over the issue.
 
Originally posted by olvios olvios wrote:

and already occupies european territory that  is half of Cyprus.
 
I can understand your point of view regarding Cyprus, and around here we usually have a different one then yours. but I don't get what the usage "european territory" is trying to imply.  


Edited by Kapikulu - 29-Jun-2007 at 23:20
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
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2406
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DayI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 11:59
His youtube account says what kind of "historian" he is. 
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 12:19
Kapi is right, cyprus , aegean (i think) are black banned and i dont think most members here can give a quick mention without throwing darts at each other.

  • Cyprus has already been mentioned and point is taken
  • Thrace is about minority rights- legalities over their status not territory.
  • Aegean is a legal question but really is over resources with some politics when you get down to it
  • Karabakh has another thread and i have had enough of its mention in  this thread

 No one ethnicity really has a high ground when you think about it in a honest way, so lets talk about everything other than Balkans/Asia Minor politics. move on to countries like Ethiopia - eritria  or Sudan- CAR/Chad type expansion examples.






Edited by Leonidas - 29-Jun-2007 at 12:22
Back to Top
Antioxos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Apr-2006
Location: Hellas
Status: Offline
Points: 337
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Antioxos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:10
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

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.
 
 
When a Turkish jet pass over a Greek island (happen 1 or 2 times per year), when Turkey dispute the ownership of many small islets-islands even Gaydos (behind Crete) (and all these after 1974) dont you think that we can call this expansionism? (rhetorical question i m not waiting for an answer)
Well anyway i know that this is blacklisted issue i just wanted to mention the above ,personally i would be very happy  if it was just a legal dispute (of continental shelf) (easy job to be share)but the reality give us other conclusions (the undeclared battle over the Aegean) and when the Greek government is ready to negotiate for the continental shelf Turkey put  "everything" (only God knows the content of "everything") on the table  and negotiations never start.

By antioxos at 2007-08-20
Back to Top
Frederick Roger View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jan-2005
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 661
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frederick Roger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jun-2007 at 15:32
Spain is yet unmentioned. They are constantly claiming soveregnity over portuguese territory in the border and the islands, and are eagerly looking for the anexation of Gibraltar...
 
EDIT - Oh, the irony! I have just reached 500 posts with a post on Spain... Dead


Edited by Frederick Roger - 29-Jun-2007 at 15:33
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 11>
  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 0.078 seconds.