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  <12345 11>
Author
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 15:33
Originally posted by DayI DayI wrote:

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

I beg your pardon? I am not a historian nor claimed to be one.I am into economics.
http://www.hoplites.net/
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: 29-Jun-2007 at 16:39
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

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 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.

Not planning to discuss the blacklisted, just want to correct some inaccuracies.
6-12 miles issue has to do with the territorial waters and not the continental shelf.
Continental shelf is indeed a legal dispute open to negotiations, interpretations etc. Territorial waters is a different issue; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is pretty clear on the subject. Greece took the issue of continental shelf (not 6/12 miles) to the ICJ on 1976. Turkey claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction. On 1978 the Court decided that, under the conditions at that moment, it had no jurisdiction.
Finally, I don't understand how Turkey is a "persistent objector to 12 miles rule", when she has exercised that right herself.
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 23:13
Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:


. Territorial waters is a different issue; UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is pretty clear on the subject. Greece took the issue of continental shelf (not 6/12 miles) to the ICJ on 1976. Turkey claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction. On 1978 the Court decided that, under the conditions at that moment, it had no jurisdiction.
Finally, I don't understand how Turkey is a "persistent objector to 12 miles rule", when she has exercised that right herself.
 
Excuse me, you are right, I used the wrong terms, confusing them up, as we learn them in Turkish in our international law courses, I mix up the English legal terms sometimes when I write things hastily.
 
Turkey is not a party to 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, nor it is obliged to be one. In any case, 12 miles is not defined as the actual and certain territorial waters. It is the "maximum" it can be. 
 
For Aegean Sea, 12 miles leave Turkey in fact no area to even breath, blocks free passage to the international waters. Simply makes Aegean Sea a Greek sea due to 3000 islands Greece has on the sea. In 1920s, the territorial waters of both sides were set at 3 miles. In 1936, Turkey accepted the Greek decision of increasing the territorial waters to 6 by staying silent(Covert acceptance). In Aegean Sea, Turkey is keeping its position since then, objecting any attempts to further increase the territorial waters. It is not a party to the convention,too. Persistent objection in the Aegean Sea comes from there.In Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea, it has set the territorial waters on principle of reciprocity. There are no objections by or disputes with any related country in in both seas.
 
So it is still a legal issue, not much different.
 
 


Edited by Kapikulu - 29-Jun-2007 at 23:32
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
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 02:51
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

Turkey is not a party to 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, nor it is obliged to be one.
I know, Turkey is one of those few countries that don't want to sign the Treaty (unfortunately for Greece).
 
Quote For Aegean Sea, 12 miles leave Turkey in fact no area to even breath, blocks free passage to the international waters. Simply makes Aegean Sea a Greek sea due to 3000 islands Greece has on the sea.
UNCLOS Article 17: "Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea." So, no, free passage to international waters will not be blocked.

I don't continue it, because it's not only blacklisted as you said, but also off-topic. Territorial waters in the aegean have nothing to do with expansionism.
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 04:56
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:


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


Was the loss of the six surrounding territories whose total area by far surpasses that of Karabakh province, and was the ethnic cleansing of around a million Azeri citizens, also part of a secession? Secession by whom? By the non-existent Armenian population in those provinces?

Also regarding the Aegean, I really do not understand how it is possible that Turkey is the expansionist country, when it is Greece that is trying to expand its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles?



Edited by bgturk - 30-Jun-2007 at 04:58
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 07:18
Originally posted by Neoptolemos Neoptolemos wrote:


UNCLOS Article 17: "Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea." So, no, free passage to international waters will not be blocked.
 
I don't continue it, because it's not only blacklisted as you said, but also off-topic. Territorial waters in the aegean have nothing to do with expansionism.
 
We can go on with the legal issue of it, it is no real problem as long as we keep it there on the legal part. I agree that it is not a matter of expansionism,too.
 
OK, convention brings a procedure about free passage, through the territorial sea, however there are some conditions for it in international law..Like; the ships passing through others' territorial water shall not create problems of security to the owner of the territorial water. For example, this can be interpreted very broadly and still if the owner of the territorial state is not good willed at individual events, this can bring huge crisis.
 
By the way, have you also studied law, I was wondering, we've had several discussions before about international law.Smile
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
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 09:06
Quote 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?


Source? you still have not given any sources for any of the claims you have made.

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

These are things i've read mainly from www.bbc.com and www.turkishdailynews.com.


There are not sources, you merely cited two very large news organizations...where is the specific article that justifies your claims?

Originally posted by Turk Turk wrote:


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?


US - are you serious? Confused
Turkey - not expansionist because Ataturk said so 80 years ago? Confused
Russia - again, are you serious? Confused

Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:

Was the loss of the six surrounding territories whose total area by far surpasses that of Karabakh province, and was the ethnic cleansing of around a million Azeri citizens, also part of a secession? Secession by whom? By the non-existent Armenian population in those provinces?

-1 million is an Azeri overestimation (International bodies give 850,000 max)
-dont forget the 350,000 Armenian refugees
- The territory outside of Karabakh is not far larger than Karabakh
- Karabakh side has stated over and over again that lands outside of Karabakh would be given back if Karabakh is recognized as an independent state, and is no longer under Azeri threat. In which case the Azeri refugees would come back to their lands (maybe except the 30,000 who fled karabakh proper), whereas the Armenian refugees would remain so...I don't think they would be too welcome in Baku.

EDIT: Spelling


Edited by mamikon - 30-Jun-2007 at 09:09
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 10:19
Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:


Also regarding the Aegean, I really do not understand how it is possible that Turkey is the expansionist country, when it is Greece that is trying to expand its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles?

 
This subject has been discussed several times ,make a small search to this forum and you ll find all the answers to all the questions(also about the legal rights of every country that comes from the international laws) that you might have on this matter.


Edited by Antioxos - 30-Jun-2007 at 10:20

By antioxos at 2007-08-20
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-Jun-2007 at 11:18
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

 
OK, convention brings a procedure about free passage, through the territorial sea, however there are some conditions for it in international law..Like; the ships passing through others' territorial water shall not create problems of security to the owner of the territorial water. For example, this can be interpreted very broadly and still if the owner of the territorial state is not good willed at individual events, this can bring huge crisis.
 

 if your interested kapikulu, I'll try and find find a report (which i posted looong ago about this topic) by an American. he did a good job describing both sides positions from a neutral stand point. legalities over defining maritime boundaries is at best complicated and I know  that from what ive read about the Iran - uk sailors scandal let alone the Aegean.

www.un.org > UNCLOS


edit:
there right of innocent passage is defined in article 19




Edited by Leonidas - 30-Jun-2007 at 11:24
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-Jun-2007 at 12:01
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

Israel - i assume you're speaking of the golan heights?

and the west bank. They only left southern Lebanon after heavy and ultimately successful Shiite resistance. They left Gaza because it simply too densely populated, has no resources and is to hard and expensive to occupy. This country is clearly a expansionist state, making its occupied areas as Jewish as possible via illegal settlements.

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

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.

hang on, not that simple in relation to North Iraq. true that the government officially hasn't followed a claim, but individuals in government have come close or crossed that line. It seems there is a  last resort card Turkey uses that puts historic claims, even if this is more political pressure tactics than real ambitions.

yaser yakis almost step over the line in Jan 2003, it must be noted his claims were economic not purely territorial, but it pissed the Arabs off either way.

"
Alarm bells began to ring loud among Turkey's neighbours when Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis announced that Turkey was inspecting old treaties to find out whether or not we have lost our rights to this region. Mosul and Kirkuk lie just outside the semi-autonomous region of Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Turkey claimed Mosul and Kirkuk for itself when it declared its borders after the collapse of the Ottoman empire in 1920. Even then the area's oil wealth was evident. But Turkey never secured the territory. It recognised Iraqi control of the area in a treaty signed with Britain in 1926." Link

but there is there was a territorial claim by another individual (the prime minister) in 1995 even for a very brief moment

"In 1995, then-president Suleyman Demirel suggested that Iraq's northern boundary be revised so that Kirkuk and Mosul became parts of Turkey. Although Demirel eventually retracted, he failed to convince public opinion in Arab countries that Ankara had no views over its former Ottoman possessions. Yet, it seems that security concerns rather than neo-imperialistic ambitions prompted Demirel's remarks, which were made at a time when northern Iraq was serving as a rear base for some PKK fighters." www.atimes.com

Link










Edited by Leonidas - 30-Jun-2007 at 12:08
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 12:41
Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:


-1 million is an Azeri overestimation (International bodies give 850,000 max)

It is not an overestimation, becuase it also includes those two hundred thousand ethnic Azeris that were Armenian citizens but were ethnically cleansed from Armenia during the conflict, as I explained to you for the millionth time.

Quote
- The territory outside of Karabakh is not far larger than Karabakh

The sovereign Azeri territory which is now illegally occupied by Armenian forces is at least 3 times the size of Karabakh province.

Quote
- Karabakh side has stated over and over again that lands outside of Karabakh would be given back if Karabakh is recognized as an independent state, and is no longer under Azeri threat.

What propaganda the Armenian side uses to justify the illegal annexation of ethnically Azeri land is irrelevant to the fact that the annexation of that land was clearly and obviously an act of EXPANSIONISM.


Edited by bgturk - 30-Jun-2007 at 12:42
Back to Top
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 13:10
I think we should limit the defination of expansionist to being simply an active desire to expand territory and influence, not simply pressure tactics and claims based upon "historic boundries".
 
The Germans also take vacations in Paris; especially during the periods they call "blitzkrieg".
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: 30-Jun-2007 at 13:55
Originally posted by Kapikulu Kapikulu wrote:

OK, convention brings a procedure about free passage, through the territorial sea, however there are some conditions for it in international law..Like; the ships passing through others' territorial water shall not create problems of security to the owner of the territorial water. For example, this can be interpreted very broadly and still if the owner of the territorial state is not good willed at individual events, this can bring huge crisis.
Yes, it's also matter of good will and non-provocation from both sides. That could be solved, however, if Greece explicitly leaves a couple of sea-lanes free to all (international waters), denouncing her territorial rights there. Still, though, Turkey would object. Let's face it: both countries want to get as much as they can in the Aegean. Greece wants to do it through the UNCLOS. Turkey doesn't want it because UNCLOS (and geography) doesn't favour her and prefers 'political' negotiations instead. In order the issue to be solved (with peaceful means), both states should accept a specific legal framework (I guess that's one of the basics in International Law, eh?). To be honest, I don't see this happening any time soon. And imagine that the Continental Shelf issue is a much more complex one...
 
Quote By the way, have you also studied law, I was wondering, we've had several discussions before about international law.Smile
No, I've never studied Law. I have read, however, legal documents, Treaties, ICJ desicions etc in the cases that interest me. Most of them have to do, one way or another, with the Greek-Turkish relations. You know, it's better to read a legal document yourself and form an opinion, than just trust somebodie's interpretation. Are you studying (International) Law? If yes, I should be more careful with you TongueSmile
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: 04-Jul-2007 at 01:11
Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:


Originally posted by Turk Turk wrote:


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?


US - are you serious? Confused
Turkey - not expansionist because Ataturk said so 80 years ago? Confused
Russia - again, are you serious? Confused

 
When you are ready to have a discussion or an argument with me on expansionist states, please inform me. In the meantime, do not waste my time with your condescending responses.
 
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: 04-Jul-2007 at 01:14
Originally posted by Frederick Roger Frederick Roger wrote:

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
 
I have never heard of this plan to annex the Gibraltar Straits, and to be honest, it sounds somewhat far-fetched. The Europeon Union condemns expansionism, or so they claim. Please elaborate on these "policies".
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: 05-Jul-2007 at 17:34
Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

When you are ready to have a discussion or an argument with me on expansionist states, please inform me. In the meantime, do not waste my time with your condescending responses.


     Well, in all seriousness, you really don't know how the U.S., Russia and Turkey are expansionist states?

     U.S.- Hawaii, forced Japan to end its isolationist policies, Phillipines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America etc.

     Russia- Chechnya, Dagestan, north Ossetia, etc.

     Turkey- northern Cyprus, soon-to-be northern Iraq.



Originally posted by bgturk bgturk wrote:

What propaganda the Armenian side uses to justify the illegal annexation of ethnically Azeri land is irrelevant to the fact that the annexation of that land was clearly and obviously an act of EXPANSIONISM.


     Actually, I have said many times, and you even said it earlier in this thread, that the Karabakh war was because of secession, not expansionism. If you still disagree, can you please show a source which proves that ROA troops are stationed in Karabakh?
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 822
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 00:48

Can i vote for the martians, the last i heard... they nearly succeeded in wiping out the human population of the world, in their quest for expansion and domination. Like we really need any help from a bunch of aliens! I mean hollywood say's so...

(**Note**) This is not offical sarcasm from me. Just trying too bring a little levity too a thread that will eventually evolve into a bunch of flaming post's!
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: 06-Jul-2007 at 05:47
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by kurt kurt wrote:

When you are ready to have a discussion or an argument with me on expansionist states, please inform me. In the meantime, do not waste my time with your condescending responses.


     Well, in all seriousness, you really don't know how the U.S., Russia and Turkey are expansionist states?

     U.S.- Hawaii, forced Japan to end its isolationist policies, Phillipines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America etc.

     Russia- Chechnya, Dagestan, north Ossetia, etc.

     Turkey- northern Cyprus, soon-to-be northern Iraq.

 
Look, i specifically stated that i will not enter a disccusion where one incessantly patronizes me. Your insistence to maintain this attitude is extremely irritating. I've already reported you to the moderators.
 
Regarding your points:
 
The US is the most powerful country in the world. If any nation could stop them from annexing pretty much any territory they wanted, why didn't the UN denouncement of the Iraq invasion stop them? Whilst the US is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not annexing these territories, which is a prerequisite of expansion. Please elaborate on American intentions regarding the Phillipines, Hawaii, Japan and Latin America.
 
Russia - Chechnya was Russian territorry, then successfully secceeded into its own nation-state, only to be annexed again by Russia. However, Chechnya as a nation only existed for about three years, and was never legitimized as a state officially in the UN. Despite these factors, i suppose on a technicality, Russia is expansionist. I would appreciate if you would elaborate as to the situations regarding Dagestan and Ossetia, whilst i have never even heard Of Ossetia, I am vaguely familiar with Dagestan and from what i know it have been Russian territory for about two centuries now.
 
Turkey - Northern Cyrpus is its own nation state. If Turkey wished to annex it, they would not have allowed its people to vote for independence, which they did. Regarding northern Iraq, the Turkish government has no intentions of annexing this territory. Government officials are specifically quoted as wishing to maintain an Iraqi government in the territory, which controls its Kurdish minority. Whilst there are ultra-nationalist groups who believe a Turkmen state should be created in northern Iraq, none of the ultra-nationalists are in power and can influence or create an official expansionist policy. Provide a quote from an individual from the party in power in Turkey where an intention to annex northern Iraq is stated, i highly doubt you will find one. Think about it, if Turkey wanted to annex Iraq, sure they would have participated in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Instead, they denounced the Americans for invading. If you like, I will provide a quote from the 1990's where Nixon suggested that if Turkey allowed America to use their airspace in an invasion of Iraq, Turkey would be given Northern Iraq. Yet Turkey did not participate.
 
Like i said, i'm all for discussing this topic, but please maintain a respectful attitude towards me. It requires pure malice to consistently provoke and condescend to me like you have done, and all i want in this thread is to prevent a flame war and to learn to a little about Serbian policy. Maintain respect, ok? I'd appreciate if you could do as such when conversing with me.


Edited by kurt - 07-Jul-2007 at 02:02
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 13:07
China has grabbed a chunk of Kashmir and India, also Tibet and soon Taiwan(although that is just a runaway province)

Japan wants its Kuril Islands back one day by hook or by crook

Pakistan already grabbed 1/3 of Kashmir, Annexed much of Balochistan including Kalat and wants the rest of Kashmir

Afghanistan wants to annex all of western pakistan and if possible the rest of pakistan to reestablish the Durrani empire

India annexed the independent state of Hydrabad, part of Kashmir and wants even more lands up there

Turkey wants to annnex some or all of Cyprus, Azerbaijan and Armenia and dump as many kurds as possible into Iraq

Iran wants to annex southern Iraq or at least rule it by proxy for a few decades first, and also trying to annex Azerbaijan in competition with Turkey.

US wants to annex Mexico and Canada into a North American Union

Greece wants to annex some if not all of Cyprus in competition with Turkey

Libya has been messing with Chad quite a bit, dunno the details

Iraq was trying to annex their province Kuwait back a few years ago.

But besides all that we have a lot of secessionist movements or "contractionist" forces like the Tamil tigers, basque seperatists, Baloch separatists, Kurd separatists, muslims in philipines and of course former Yuguslavia...
Back to Top
aslanlar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 124
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aslanlar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jul-2007 at 15:47
As for the people who say Turkey want Northern Cyprus: Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Turkey one of the only nations to recognize North Cyprus as an independant country, rather then Turkish land?
"The league is alright when sparrows dispute but it can do little when eagles argue" -Mussolini
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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.