Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

The violation of logic here says Germany expanded by 75% after the collapse of USSR.

What an expansionist state!

[erolz]

The violation of logic here says Germany expanded by 75% after the collapse of USSR.

What an expansionist state!

Quite apart from your woefully inaccurate figure of 75% the simple fact is that the Federal Republic of Germany DID expand following the incorporation of the German Democratic Republic into itself.

What would be a violation of logic and all sense and reason would be the idea that the FRG could incorporate the former GDR WITHOUT expanding.

[bigOz]

Indeed one can rightfully claim that Turkey of present and the last few decades shows very strong signs of an expansionist country! Setting aside the fact that it invaded and continues to occupy north Cyprus for purely expansionist and geo-strategic reasons -and not those it claimed to have once existed, or still do; it shows expansionist trades by the way it reacts to the RoC's right to exploit its continental shelf (even the one south of Cyprus;) by the way it reacts to Greece’s right to expand its territorial waters in the Aegean, to the internationally recognised by treaties 12 miles; and by the way it "barks" and goes about the situation in Northern Iraq and the oil reserves in it, using the minority Turkmen population there as a stepping stone.

Back to your allegory, do you mean to say that had the 1821 Greek revolution successfully liberated the whole of today's Greece, instantaneously (all at once,) instead of only a small part first (presumably due to lack of means or due to the existence of a very powerful ottoman colonial force) and then a gradual liberation of more territories in the course of time; that this would not have "qualified" Greece as an expansionist country? Is the criterion only the scope of time it took, since the first section was liberated and gained its independence; or is it whether one country legitimately increased its territory due the existence of majority ethnic populations, besides the existence of whatever historical rights?

As far as I know, expansionism, as the term is used in international politics and law, has a rather negative connotation! It is usually -if not always, associated with colonialism and /or imperialism, i.e. the illegitimate expansion of one country into areas that legitimately should belong to another country or nation. "Expansionism" of one country always occurs in the illegitimate expense of another country or nation! To whose expense did Greece "illegitimately" expand its territories over the years? Wasn’t it in the expense of the former Ottoman Empire? Was the Ottoman Empire a legitimate possessor those primarily Greek populated areas, or in fact it was the opposite? Was it an illegitimate expansionism on the part of Greece, or it was the bringing to an end of an already existing illegitimate expansionism by a then existing colonial empire? What does time, i.e. the scope of years during which this end was brought, has to do in this equation?

Now that's waffle

Fucking right it is! Man, there is no end t this...
In any case since Cyprus is also the country for TCs, no one has expanded.

Something tells me some of our GC compatriots genuinely believe their ancestors were the first discoverers / occupiers of all Greek populated areas in the World!

By the way, Iraq is made up of many populations - the Turkmen population referred to above had always occupied that part of Iraq and have more right to claim it as their homeland than any EXPANSIONIST Kurdish claim thay may exist for that part of Iraq!

[the_snake_and_the_crane]

Indeed one can rightfully claim that Turkey of present and the last few decades shows very strong signs of an expansionist country! Setting aside the fact that it invaded and continues to occupy north Cyprus for purely expansionist and geo-strategic reasons -and not those it claimed to have once existed, or still do; it shows expansionist trades by the way it reacts to the RoC's right to exploit its continental shelf (even the one south of Cyprus;) by the way it reacts to Greece’s right to expand its territorial waters in the Aegean, to the internationally recognised by treaties 12 miles; and by the way it "barks" and goes about the situation in Northern Iraq and the oil reserves in it, using the minority Turkmen population there as a stepping stone.

Back to your allegory, do you mean to say that had the 1821 Greek revolution successfully liberated the whole of today's Greece, instantaneously (all at once,) instead of only a small part first (presumably due to lack of means or due to the existence of a very powerful ottoman colonial force) and then a gradual liberation of more territories in the course of time; that this would not have "qualified" Greece as an expansionist country? Is the criterion only the scope of time it took, since the first section was liberated and gained its independence; or is it whether one country legitimately increased its territory due the existence of majority ethnic populations, besides the existence of whatever historical rights?

As far as I know, expansionism, as the term is used in international politics and law, has a rather negative connotation! It is usually -if not always, associated with colonialism and /or imperialism, i.e. the illegitimate expansion of one country into areas that legitimately should belong to another country or nation. "Expansionism" of one country always occurs in the illegitimate expense of another country or nation! To whose expense did Greece "illegitimately" expand its territories over the years? Wasn’t it in the expense of the former Ottoman Empire? Was the Ottoman Empire a legitimate possessor those primarily Greek populated areas, or in fact it was the opposite? Was it an illegitimate expansionism on the part of Greece, or it was the bringing to an end of an already existing illegitimate expansionism by a then existing colonial empire? What does time, i.e. the scope of years during which this end was brought, has to do in this equation?

No thats a very elaborate answer to your post Erolz.

[erolz]

No thats a very elaborate answer to your post Erolz.

Even if you say so yourself

You / Kifeas argue that the defintion of expansionsit is a specific certain kind of expansion, defined by opinion, perspective and many other subjective variables.

I define expansionist in a purely objective / scientific way that means how much something has expanded.

Not elaborate. Not needing pages of waffle, just a pure and simple objective defintion of expansionist.

[Get Real!]

Was someone looking for the most accurate definition of the elaborate word "expansionist"???

Well, allow me to first clarify the fine art of...

[Pyrpolizer]

The violation of logic here says Germany expanded by 75% after the collapse of USSR.

What an expansionist state!

Quite apart from your woefully inaccurate figure of 75% the simple fact is that the Federal Republic of Germany DID expand following the incorporation of the German Democratic Republic into itself.

What would be a violation of logic and all sense and reason would be the idea that the FRG could incorporate the former GDR WITHOUT expanding.

What violates every logic is
a)your claim than the FRG "expanded" and not the DDR, given the fact that Germany is and was composed of federal states.
b)That the unification of Germany which was ONE COUNTRY on the first place was an "expansion"
c)that the expansion (without quotation marks) for which we are talking about in this topic refers to acquiring foreign lands by totally alien people, the subordination or ethnic cleansing of locals etc., and NOT your oversimplistic definition of JUST growing larger.

[erolz]

What violates every logic is
a)your claim than the FRG "expanded" and not the DDR, given the fact that Germany is and was composed of federal states.
b)That the unification of Germany which was ONE COUNTRY on the first place was an "expansion"

Your ability to pack so many errors into such a small set of words is truely amazing. Maybe some sort of award is in order ?

From the end of WW2 the previously unitary germany was divided in to two seperate states in every physical and legal sense possible to imagine. Before this neither the FGR or the DDR existed. With renuification the former DDR was legaly incorporated INTO the FGR and what existed afterwards was an EXPANDED FGR. It is all very plain and simple really, just try taking it in slow steps and have a rest inbetween them and you might just get it.

c)that the expansion (without quotation marks) for which we are talking about in this topic refers to acquiring foreign lands by totally alien people, the subordination or ethnic cleansing of locals etc., and NOT your oversimplistic definition of JUST growing larger.

Exactly my point. YOU may well and frequently do talk about expansion without qualifiaction or quotation marks and mean such a narrow , massively subjective and subject to point of view meaning for the word but such unqualifed use in this way is on the whole little more than rhetoric compared to the simple objective defination I give.

[zan]

Zan showing his lack of historical knowledge again. Alexander the Great was way after the Mycaenean, Achaen and Ionian settlements along the western coast of Asia Minor and the Black Sea.

Infact, Zan reminds me of that episode of Only Fools And Horses were Del Boy sets up a tour of 'Ethnic London' and claims that the area of Elephant And Castle in South London got its name because Richard the Lionheart set up his castle there and fought back the emperor Hadrian and his army of elephants.

Full of bullshit to try and con people.

The knowledge of history on this thread seems to come in degrees Snake and I have to admit that I must bow down to erolz superiority in this but I am afraid that you must too. I am impressed that you finally have a subject that you can string more than a couple of words to and seem, on the surface at least, to be able to, although parrot like, regurgetate. The understanding still leaves a lot to be desired though.

[Pyrpolizer]

From the end of WW2 the previously unitary germany was divided in to two seperate states in every physical and legal sense possible to imagine. Before this neither the FGR or the DDR existed. With renuification the former DDR was legaly incorporated INTO the FGR and what existed afterwards was an EXPANDED FGR. It is all very plain and simple really, just try taking it in slow steps and have a rest inbetween them and you might just get it.

Are you still unable to see the fallacy of your definition of expansion as just meaning growing larger,which might or might not be illegal as opposed to reunification which is always legal?

Exactly my point. YOU may well and frequently do talk about expansion without qualifiaction or quotation marks and mean such a narrow , massively subjective and subject to point of view meaning for the word but such unqualifed use in this way is on the whole little more than rhetoric compared to the simple objective defination I give.

We are actually talking for the expansion of Turkey on the expense of Cyprus remember?
What forbits this form of expansion are numerous UN resolutions like the UN definition of agggression, the one adopting the International law for friendly relations among states and possibly many others.
Here are some links:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/3314.htm
http://www.hku.edu/law/conlawhk/conlaw/ ... 4/2625.htm

Just quoting a small part
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,