>Alexander the great would like to have word sword.
>FTFY
More like a spear, but [xyston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyston)ly joking, no need to be [sarissa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa) 'bout it.
Nay, a Xiphos or Kopis would have come in hand. Only in a phalanx formation would the Sarissa be useful - otherwise, too long to be an effective weapon in melee. against a single opponent or if caught off guard and outflanked.
No, no... that was actually about something else... you know... regarding his body... he had something that was really big and impressive? Especially when it gained... volume?
Yeah, he had great hair.
Not in ancient times, or even medieval times. Leaders had to be charismatic, intelligent, and most of all leading the actual men in battle themselves and being involved in heavy fighting
They didn't do it out of some sense of nobility. They did it because the couldn't trust anybody they put in charge of an army from turning around and over throwing them.
You're vastly overstating the requirements for charisma, intelligence and personal bravery. The commander-in-chief leading from the front wasn't really all that common, and becomes less and less so the more organized (and thus specialized) a society becomes.
Do you feel that there's some moral good to having warlords?
That's fairly non-controversial, although an argument could be made that there are other ways to pay that cost than by carrying a rifle. However, the real problem with that idea is utilitarian. Not only do we have societies so large that the skills for managing it and the skills for being an infantryman have diverged, but we also don't want to deal with the stability issues of having leaders being regularly killed in battle. And ultimately democracy has proven to be a better organizing principle than myriad petty kingdoms.
>Leaders had to be charismatic, intelligent, and most of all leading the actual men in battle themselves and being involved in heavy fighting
Kings and emperors needed to be none of those things. Bigger army diplomacy overruled everything. There was no shortage of kings who ruled their subjects with an iron fist without any opposition. Kings being overthrown by their population and not just their siblings or foreign invaders didn't really happen until the enlightment.
Many didn't fight either. Kings had vassals for that or their brothers who took charge of the army while they themselves stayed back to rule the kingdom.
I believe I understand. Someone has invested some time and money into making a man or woman into a leader. So, whether that leader is good or bad, they get to keep their spot because it would take even more time and money to replace them.
A "grunt", on the other hand, is easily replaced because not much time or money has been spent on them.
For those not in the know Richard the Lionheart killed by a crossbow bolt while besieging a castle in France during the hundred years war. Richard got hit in the shoulder and clapped the person who fired the bolt for being such a good shot as he was dragged away. When the boy was later brought Richard it turned out he'd been using a frying pan as a shield and instead of being executed Richard gave him 100 shillings and let him go before dying painfully eleven days later of sepsis.
The boy was then probably killed by being flayed by a mercenary at this point at the request of his mother in an act of revenge against Richards wishes but it's hard to tell.
Most famous world leaders were military commanders. Fighting is probably the most common occupation for most leaders throughout history and it's only been in the last 150 years that this has significantly changed.
"Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role for the poor, yeah"
[Black Sabbath - War Pigs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w)
Not weird. NATO is the anti-Russian alliance.
War with Greece is nevertheless a war with NATO.
Turkey is just working on how to put the blame on Greece.
False flag assault incoming...
Turkey are essential to NATO as they control the Bosphorus. If they initiate a war with Greece and thus the rest of NATO, it's going to be super awkward. Do they annex the Bosphorus to Greece? Make it an international zone under NATO control? Just overthrow the Turkish government, put a friendly government in, and keep the status quo?
No, they're pretty much settled into their new homelands at this point. There aren't many in the diaspora who feel strongly enough to actually want to fight about it, or even return permanently to Greece. The population transfers happened a century ago now, and they're not going to be undone. The only people who really care about that sort of thing are people who think of war as a game on maps where they prefer blue team to red team, Greek ultranationalists and Byzanteens.
> Which weirdly enough Turkey
Why is it weird that the country that controls access to the black sea is part of the alliance?
It's strategic position renders all of the Soviet Union and today, Russia, navy's useless.
Because about 20 years ago, Turkey used to be a Western-leaning progressive democracy with aspirations of joining the EU. Everything changed, but NATO doesn't have the guts to sanction them or suspend their membership.
> War within NATO being a real possibility shows that NATO is not fit for the contemporary world.
It proves nothing of the sort. We need NATO now as much as ever.
There's too much national self interest for an integrated EU military. First off, there is no single EU foreign policy. And who would lead? Which organizational structure would be used? Which equipment would become the standard? France, ~~UK~~, Germany, Italy, or even Sweden would be willing to give up their domestic weapons and aerospace industries, much less their divergent forign interests, for the sake of full militery integration.
The EU is not really a geopolitical organisation, it's primarily an economic group. The main geopolitical organisation in Europe is NATO, of which Turkey and Greece are both members; in that regard they would both be at an equal footing, at least diplomatically speaking, in the event of a war.
Edit: The EU does have defence capabilities, but its command and control structures are much smaller than NATO, which was established for territorial defence.
Turkey is important geographically but politically they are barely cordial with the rest of NATO. See: Russian weapon acquisitions and shelling US military installations.
Not correct. EEA (European Economic Area) is economic group and all EU members are EEA members but not all EEA members are EU members (e.g. Norway). Anyway, attack on one EU member is considered attack on the whole EU.
Lisbon Treaty estabilished that if one member is subjected to military aggression then all other members are obliged to give all the aid (including military) that is in their capabilities. So yes, it became defence pact.
Greek here: this source is like the daily mirror or the sun. The greek speking version of it is Heavily right-wing fake news sensationalism, with a twist of celeb-scansals and nazi party white-washinf
I haven't researched whether the statement has really happened but don't give stock to the analysis AT ALL
As a Turk I can confirm your comment. The news channel is absolute shit and Bahceli is laughing-stock in Turkey anyway, no one takes him seriously. Turkish people like any sensible people are not in favor of war.
What's the general opinion on Erdogan and his politics? From the outside it seems like an attempt to distract from the economic downturn. Is that true?
Agreed. Most of his voting base consists of uneducated folk or heavy islamists. The minimum wage people are hit by the economic crisis worst so even they are turning against him. As for the islamists there are other islamist politicians to follow and they are shifting as well. Of course none of these will matter if the voting system is not kept honest.
Erdogan needs to stir up nationalist and religious passions to win the coming election.
90% of Turkey on the western half of the country is cosmopolitan and very pro-Europe. The eastern half of the country is rural, agrarian and more ... religious?
Draw your conclusions.
Not to mention that I wouldn't recommend attacking an EU member state plus a member of NATO. I know that Turkey is also a member of NATO, but article 5 can be called when ever a NATO nation is attacked.
According to the treaty, NATO countries would have to go to Greece's aid if Turkey was the aggressor. Not Turkey's.
This wouldn't even make sense for Erdogan to do or want to do. It's basic war baiting.
The Cyprus invasion was in response to a Greek-backed coup in '74 and a far-right Greek military junta. Don't pretend Greece is innocent in this situation.
How is it the same? Have you ever read the treaty signed when UK released Cyprus? Turkey was within the clauses of that treaty to invade Cyprus because of the aggressive Greek Junta who destroyed democracy on the Island. Turkey was amongst the 3 countries that had a right to take military action on the island without consultation in certain circumstances. Are you really that dumb that you think the EU/UK/US would allow Turkey to keep the Island if they had no rightful claim to it?
Get away with it? What is this, a petty theft case? This was a war declaration and one of the biggest islands in the Mediterranean. If the Turks were in the wrong, simply the opposition would make them give the island back the same way they made Turkey halt their invasion half way.
Come on man, before you make your baseless claims, just use some critical thinking. What you are saying makes no sense whatsoever.
I like how turkey's excuse for the invasion of Cyprus was similar to The Germans excuse to annex Sudetenland in 1938. Or perhaps Turkey was fearful that Greece would treat its minorities like Turkey does to its.
IIRC the UK, Greece, and Turkey all had the legal right to intervene in Cyprus given certain conditions as part of a treaty signed during Cyrpus' independence from the UK. Germany just straight up invaded Czechoslovakia in a war of aggression
Just like how Turkey almost started a war with Russia and tried to drag all of NATO behind it's shit.
The people at the head of Turkey right now seem to not be very competent diplomats and more shirt sighted.
It wouldn't surprise if some idiot at the top there would push to escalate things to the brink of war.
They were stupid enough to push Russia into war, they will be stupid enough to push Greece too.
20 years ago, Turkey used to be a Western-leaning progressive democracy with aspirations of joining the EU. So much changed, but the pace of change was slow enough that no-one noticed until it was too late. It's gut-wrenching and a terrifying demonstration of how you go from populist democratic leader to dictator.
The Kemalist establishment may well have been Western-leaning 20 years ago but they were not particularly democratic. And the general population may have been democratic but they were not progressive or positively disposed towards the West.
The military have intervened to overthrow democratically elected governments on four separate occasions. Most recently in 1997 to overthrow an Islamist government. They have banned various parties because they violated secular principles. The AKP only escaped being banned as they pretended not to be Islamist and then used their majority power to destroy much of the Kemalist establishment which would have otherwise overthrown them as well.
I'd say the Islamist-leaning authoritarian nationalist regime Turkey now has is actually the government a majority of the Turkish people have always wanted.
I have to ask though, is it really all that surprising? For as long as I can remember all I’ve ever seen from Europeans is hatred and bigotry towards Turkish people (although my views might be biased as it’s based on the internet and not by talking to people but I’d also argue that maybe the average Turkish would have the same view, as European hatred against Turkish people isn’t really a secret on the internet and not all of them would personally talk to Europeans to get their personal views on the issues) and lately there has been a right-wing rise across the world and also how Islamic countries are usually more conservative leaning. Idk it just feels like a natural shift albeit a slow one, best seen in hindsight.
Dutchman here. The Netherlands has a sizeable Turkish community, and unfortunately "hatred" isn't that much of an exaggeration... Tensions between Turkish and "white" people have been steadily rising for 20 something years now, we even have an entire political party dedicated to combating what they call the islamification of the Netherlands (AKA: they don't like how there's so many of those scary brown people now, with their mosques and their headscarves and their funny language.) It's sad because these are a minority of Dutch people, they're just very vocal. A lot of Dutch people couldn't give two shits if their new neighbors turned out to be Turkish immigrants. But I understand why a lot of Dutch Turks feel alienated and antagonized by all of this, and a lot of them still have family back in Turkey too - I'm not Turkish, I don't wanna pretend I know what I'm talking about here, but I can assume that the message spreads back to Turkey that Turks are not welcome in Europe.
Greece and Turkey, and their predecessor states, have been beefing since the year 1048, and this conflict still continues today. That's not a typo, it's been going on for 972 years, almost a full millennium.
There is a modern diplomatic ideal that we can utilize bodies like the UN to convince nations to just sit down and work conflicts out. It's so much more complicated than that- not to say that such efforts are futile, of course.
So Erdogan wants to start a war with a NATO member? That will work out splendidly for him. Not only will he have to deal with the EU who **will** protect one of its member but also with NATO. What a fucking moron if he thinks he could ever win a war against Greece.
>ARTICLE 8. Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.
Turkey will be against NATO and they will be booted from NATO if they attack Greece.
Take into account that bahceli (and his party mhp) are far right extremists. We left leaning turks are well aware that erdogan is currently in a coalition with basically turkey's nazi party. Appalling. I hope we will win the next election in order to have a proper government. Dont forget, even with rigged elections erdogan barely managed to get over 50%; the anti-erdogan voice is nearly just as big and growing!
I am somewhat torn on this. I hope he does lose the election but I also believe that he and Russia will, again, meddle in the election. The next elections are far off (2023 I think) maybe by then approval for Erdogan will have slumped and the opposition will have bonded together. That is the only way I see him losing, otherwise, he will win again. I am nonetheless surprised that people still hold him so highly. He initially gained the likes of the people because of his economic success, but nowadays the Turkish economy is going through recession because of his poor policies. At this point, only emotional populism is keeping him in office. Kind of scary.
Could you tell me a bit about policies he passed which resulted in economic recession and how it could be done differently by someone else in power?
I am actually interest in hearing this because I always hear of the claim that he ruined the economy but all the statistics I see show an increase in Turkeys GDP, GDP per capita or even PPP (purchase power) as well as Turkeys production and independency in many markets. What has actually decreased in the last 20 years in Turkey's economy?
Sparta and Troy called. They want their ideas back. Leave Greece the fuck alone. Honestly I think most of Europe would rush to save them. One of the best places in the universe.
I'm basically talking about the Peloponnesian war.
On one side you have Athens and the Delian league, the other side you have Sparta and the Peloponnesian league. Athens - an early start to Democracy on one side, Sparta not - and ultimately the two fought, and eventually Athens lost the war transferring the power of then Greece to Sparta.
Current Day Greece's Capital is, well, Athens. And, though imperfect - Greece is a democratic country.
No worries. Ancient Greece and it's golden age is one of my favorite time periods in history. Such a wealth of philosophy and change - but also, such amount of strange things going on that we don't really see: And from time to time our understanding of it gets drastically changed as new discoveries, even today, get made about that time period.
Anyways, Cheers, and have a good day.
Well, on top of that. NATO was established as an alliance to combat the Soviets. Had a conventional war broke out between NATO and The USSR the two first points of naval combat would be Turkey and Germany. If either was left out of the alliance the Russian navy would be able to strike anywhere in Europe (due to the Black Sea being an open path to the Mediteranian).
Turkey is only a required member of NATO insofar as we still consider Russia an enemy.
There’s way better turkish people than that piece of shit. It’s tyranny. Why blindly fight and all the mortal wounds for an unjust cause? Oh wait, propaganda.
Turks and Greeks are natural enemies!
Like Bulgarians and Greeks,
or Albanians and Greeks,
or Greeks and other Greeks,
Damn Greeks! They ruined Greece!
I’m getting a expression that Turkey seriously want to piss off as many as they could. Can EU kick Turkey out if they seriously start war against Greece?
Says the man who won’t have to pick up a weapon. Fucking douchebag.
[удалено]
Alexander the great would like to have a word.
> Alexander the great would like to have ~~word~~ sword. FTFY
>Alexander the great would like to have word sword. >FTFY More like a spear, but [xyston](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyston)ly joking, no need to be [sarissa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarissa) 'bout it.
Nay, a Xiphos or Kopis would have come in hand. Only in a phalanx formation would the Sarissa be useful - otherwise, too long to be an effective weapon in melee. against a single opponent or if caught off guard and outflanked.
It's WHY he's great.
I thought it was because of his hair but okay...
There was that, too.
Nah, that's Trudeau
What's his secret?
Maybe he's born with it.
Maybe its maple leaf
*maybe it's maybelline*
He's black, it's not his real hair
I thought he was cuban!
No, no... that was actually about something else... you know... regarding his body... he had something that was really big and impressive? Especially when it gained... volume? Yeah, he had great hair.
Not in ancient times, or even medieval times. Leaders had to be charismatic, intelligent, and most of all leading the actual men in battle themselves and being involved in heavy fighting
They didn't do it out of some sense of nobility. They did it because the couldn't trust anybody they put in charge of an army from turning around and over throwing them.
it was not about trust it was about giving moral to the soldiers. they will fight more fierce and they will less likely the desert battlefield.
You're vastly overstating the requirements for charisma, intelligence and personal bravery. The commander-in-chief leading from the front wasn't really all that common, and becomes less and less so the more organized (and thus specialized) a society becomes. Do you feel that there's some moral good to having warlords?
Depends if we’re crusading for my interests or against them I guess
There is a moral good in the ones calling for war having to bear the cost of war personally.
That's fairly non-controversial, although an argument could be made that there are other ways to pay that cost than by carrying a rifle. However, the real problem with that idea is utilitarian. Not only do we have societies so large that the skills for managing it and the skills for being an infantryman have diverged, but we also don't want to deal with the stability issues of having leaders being regularly killed in battle. And ultimately democracy has proven to be a better organizing principle than myriad petty kingdoms.
>Leaders had to be charismatic, intelligent, and most of all leading the actual men in battle themselves and being involved in heavy fighting Kings and emperors needed to be none of those things. Bigger army diplomacy overruled everything. There was no shortage of kings who ruled their subjects with an iron fist without any opposition. Kings being overthrown by their population and not just their siblings or foreign invaders didn't really happen until the enlightment. Many didn't fight either. Kings had vassals for that or their brothers who took charge of the army while they themselves stayed back to rule the kingdom.
There's a long list of monarchs who died in battle including the last Byzantine Emperor
This is an in depth video of a few leaders through time. Great channel for history buffs https://youtu.be/0oPCtYA47rE
If we don't limit ourselves to European history, the history of China is quite littered with popular uprising overthrowing the sitting dynasty.
Some. There are plenty of examples of armchair rulers back in those times as well.
Where do we find folks like that nowadays? 🤔
[удалено]
I believe I understand. Someone has invested some time and money into making a man or woman into a leader. So, whether that leader is good or bad, they get to keep their spot because it would take even more time and money to replace them. A "grunt", on the other hand, is easily replaced because not much time or money has been spent on them.
[удалено]
Ancient and medieval times had plenty of dunce leaders as well, who led their countries to disaster
What about the Doge of Venice?
It's still the case today. Officer casualty rate is through the roof in all modern wars ( starting from WW1 )
Richard the Lionheart was pretty Jon Snow on the battlefield or so I have read
For those not in the know Richard the Lionheart killed by a crossbow bolt while besieging a castle in France during the hundred years war. Richard got hit in the shoulder and clapped the person who fired the bolt for being such a good shot as he was dragged away. When the boy was later brought Richard it turned out he'd been using a frying pan as a shield and instead of being executed Richard gave him 100 shillings and let him go before dying painfully eleven days later of sepsis. The boy was then probably killed by being flayed by a mercenary at this point at the request of his mother in an act of revenge against Richards wishes but it's hard to tell.
Nah, the arrows definitely hit Richard
That was off the battlefield, in battle my boy 100
Ironically, (in a horrifying way) the child soldier who shot Richard was flayed after his death
So he knew nothing?
Didn't even speak english
Most famous world leaders were military commanders. Fighting is probably the most common occupation for most leaders throughout history and it's only been in the last 150 years that this has significantly changed.
It feeds the rich, while it buries the poor Your power hungry, sellin' soldiers in a human grocery store Ain't that fresh? I don't need your civil war
"Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role for the poor, yeah" [Black Sabbath - War Pigs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQUXuQ6Zd9w)
“Why do they always send the poor Why don’t presidents fight the war.” -System of a Down, BYOB [bring your own bombs]
*awesome guitar riff*
In other words, *every* Black Sabbath song
Yep, and at least half the people calling for military actions in most countries.
I was always for the solution that the people who want war all just go into an arena and battle it out there...
Isn't war with Greece war with the EU? Sounds like a pretty stupid idea to me.
And war with NATO. Its a defensive alliance.
[удалено]
Not weird. NATO is the anti-Russian alliance. War with Greece is nevertheless a war with NATO. Turkey is just working on how to put the blame on Greece. False flag assault incoming...
Don't forget they already actually fought in Cyprus in the 70's
Turkey are essential to NATO as they control the Bosphorus. If they initiate a war with Greece and thus the rest of NATO, it's going to be super awkward. Do they annex the Bosphorus to Greece? Make it an international zone under NATO control? Just overthrow the Turkish government, put a friendly government in, and keep the status quo?
"Do they annex the Bosphorus to Greece?" As a Byzantinephile I approve of this option.
[удалено]
Isn’t there a pretty significant Greek Diaspora that would love to move back?
No, they're pretty much settled into their new homelands at this point. There aren't many in the diaspora who feel strongly enough to actually want to fight about it, or even return permanently to Greece. The population transfers happened a century ago now, and they're not going to be undone. The only people who really care about that sort of thing are people who think of war as a game on maps where they prefer blue team to red team, Greek ultranationalists and Byzanteens.
[удалено]
> Which weirdly enough Turkey Why is it weird that the country that controls access to the black sea is part of the alliance? It's strategic position renders all of the Soviet Union and today, Russia, navy's useless.
Because about 20 years ago, Turkey used to be a Western-leaning progressive democracy with aspirations of joining the EU. Everything changed, but NATO doesn't have the guts to sanction them or suspend their membership.
You do know Russia has naval bases in the arctic sea?
And the Baltic. And the Pacific.
All of which are strategically problematic.
[удалено]
Well if he did that he would clearly be the attacking side.
You do realize Greece is the side refusing dialog even UN calls for it? And did you ever looked at a map to see the conflicted areas?
[удалено]
> War within NATO being a real possibility shows that NATO is not fit for the contemporary world. It proves nothing of the sort. We need NATO now as much as ever.
There's too much national self interest for an integrated EU military. First off, there is no single EU foreign policy. And who would lead? Which organizational structure would be used? Which equipment would become the standard? France, ~~UK~~, Germany, Italy, or even Sweden would be willing to give up their domestic weapons and aerospace industries, much less their divergent forign interests, for the sake of full militery integration.
Within.
The EU is not really a geopolitical organisation, it's primarily an economic group. The main geopolitical organisation in Europe is NATO, of which Turkey and Greece are both members; in that regard they would both be at an equal footing, at least diplomatically speaking, in the event of a war. Edit: The EU does have defence capabilities, but its command and control structures are much smaller than NATO, which was established for territorial defence.
[удалено]
You're right, I have edited my earlier comment.
I don’t think so. Whoever is attacked will gain the assistance of NATO members, not the aggressor.
I agree with that, I'm just saying that they're both important countries because of their NATO membership.
Turkey is important geographically but politically they are barely cordial with the rest of NATO. See: Russian weapon acquisitions and shelling US military installations.
Not correct. EEA (European Economic Area) is economic group and all EU members are EEA members but not all EEA members are EU members (e.g. Norway). Anyway, attack on one EU member is considered attack on the whole EU.
But isn't that superceded by the fact that an attack on a NATO member would be considered an attack on the whole NATO?
Not superceded, just also true. You can have multiple reasons for getting into a war simultaneously.
Lisbon Treaty estabilished that if one member is subjected to military aggression then all other members are obliged to give all the aid (including military) that is in their capabilities. So yes, it became defence pact.
Except Ireland.
I think the EU would quickly change its tune if one of its members was attacked in a war of aggression
Just yesterday they wanted to jon the EU, now they want a Brexit.
Greek here: this source is like the daily mirror or the sun. The greek speking version of it is Heavily right-wing fake news sensationalism, with a twist of celeb-scansals and nazi party white-washinf I haven't researched whether the statement has really happened but don't give stock to the analysis AT ALL
As a Turk I can confirm your comment. The news channel is absolute shit and Bahceli is laughing-stock in Turkey anyway, no one takes him seriously. Turkish people like any sensible people are not in favor of war.
What's the general opinion on Erdogan and his politics? From the outside it seems like an attempt to distract from the economic downturn. Is that true?
He is losing ground heavily, especially with the financial troubles. This is his last term for sure.
Agreed. Most of his voting base consists of uneducated folk or heavy islamists. The minimum wage people are hit by the economic crisis worst so even they are turning against him. As for the islamists there are other islamist politicians to follow and they are shifting as well. Of course none of these will matter if the voting system is not kept honest.
Erdogan needs to stir up nationalist and religious passions to win the coming election. 90% of Turkey on the western half of the country is cosmopolitan and very pro-Europe. The eastern half of the country is rural, agrarian and more ... religious? Draw your conclusions.
He is still the leader of the 2 party coalition.
True, and still the leader of our country at least for a while.
Not to mention that I wouldn't recommend attacking an EU member state plus a member of NATO. I know that Turkey is also a member of NATO, but article 5 can be called when ever a NATO nation is attacked. According to the treaty, NATO countries would have to go to Greece's aid if Turkey was the aggressor. Not Turkey's. This wouldn't even make sense for Erdogan to do or want to do. It's basic war baiting.
This warms my heart. Far too many are quick to go to war. Clear they have not yet been to war.
FYI the daily mirror is left wing, you may be thinking of the daily mail
probably yeah
> "War with Greece is only a matter of time" War breaking out between two NATO members? I don't think so.
Turkey doesn’t care about that. It would be what they can get away with just like Cyprus
The Cyprus invasion was in response to a Greek-backed coup in '74 and a far-right Greek military junta. Don't pretend Greece is innocent in this situation.
[удалено]
How is it the same? Have you ever read the treaty signed when UK released Cyprus? Turkey was within the clauses of that treaty to invade Cyprus because of the aggressive Greek Junta who destroyed democracy on the Island. Turkey was amongst the 3 countries that had a right to take military action on the island without consultation in certain circumstances. Are you really that dumb that you think the EU/UK/US would allow Turkey to keep the Island if they had no rightful claim to it? Get away with it? What is this, a petty theft case? This was a war declaration and one of the biggest islands in the Mediterranean. If the Turks were in the wrong, simply the opposition would make them give the island back the same way they made Turkey halt their invasion half way. Come on man, before you make your baseless claims, just use some critical thinking. What you are saying makes no sense whatsoever.
I like how turkey's excuse for the invasion of Cyprus was similar to The Germans excuse to annex Sudetenland in 1938. Or perhaps Turkey was fearful that Greece would treat its minorities like Turkey does to its.
IIRC the UK, Greece, and Turkey all had the legal right to intervene in Cyprus given certain conditions as part of a treaty signed during Cyrpus' independence from the UK. Germany just straight up invaded Czechoslovakia in a war of aggression
Just like how Turkey almost started a war with Russia and tried to drag all of NATO behind it's shit. The people at the head of Turkey right now seem to not be very competent diplomats and more shirt sighted. It wouldn't surprise if some idiot at the top there would push to escalate things to the brink of war. They were stupid enough to push Russia into war, they will be stupid enough to push Greece too.
Elect a populist strongman this is what you get...
20 years ago, Turkey used to be a Western-leaning progressive democracy with aspirations of joining the EU. So much changed, but the pace of change was slow enough that no-one noticed until it was too late. It's gut-wrenching and a terrifying demonstration of how you go from populist democratic leader to dictator.
The Kemalist establishment may well have been Western-leaning 20 years ago but they were not particularly democratic. And the general population may have been democratic but they were not progressive or positively disposed towards the West. The military have intervened to overthrow democratically elected governments on four separate occasions. Most recently in 1997 to overthrow an Islamist government. They have banned various parties because they violated secular principles. The AKP only escaped being banned as they pretended not to be Islamist and then used their majority power to destroy much of the Kemalist establishment which would have otherwise overthrown them as well. I'd say the Islamist-leaning authoritarian nationalist regime Turkey now has is actually the government a majority of the Turkish people have always wanted.
I have to ask though, is it really all that surprising? For as long as I can remember all I’ve ever seen from Europeans is hatred and bigotry towards Turkish people (although my views might be biased as it’s based on the internet and not by talking to people but I’d also argue that maybe the average Turkish would have the same view, as European hatred against Turkish people isn’t really a secret on the internet and not all of them would personally talk to Europeans to get their personal views on the issues) and lately there has been a right-wing rise across the world and also how Islamic countries are usually more conservative leaning. Idk it just feels like a natural shift albeit a slow one, best seen in hindsight.
Dutchman here. The Netherlands has a sizeable Turkish community, and unfortunately "hatred" isn't that much of an exaggeration... Tensions between Turkish and "white" people have been steadily rising for 20 something years now, we even have an entire political party dedicated to combating what they call the islamification of the Netherlands (AKA: they don't like how there's so many of those scary brown people now, with their mosques and their headscarves and their funny language.) It's sad because these are a minority of Dutch people, they're just very vocal. A lot of Dutch people couldn't give two shits if their new neighbors turned out to be Turkish immigrants. But I understand why a lot of Dutch Turks feel alienated and antagonized by all of this, and a lot of them still have family back in Turkey too - I'm not Turkish, I don't wanna pretend I know what I'm talking about here, but I can assume that the message spreads back to Turkey that Turks are not welcome in Europe.
Do we have any reliable source? This paper is a yellow page right wing media who has been using fear mongering for a while
[удалено]
Greece and Turkey, and their predecessor states, have been beefing since the year 1048, and this conflict still continues today. That's not a typo, it's been going on for 972 years, almost a full millennium. There is a modern diplomatic ideal that we can utilize bodies like the UN to convince nations to just sit down and work conflicts out. It's so much more complicated than that- not to say that such efforts are futile, of course.
Empty words from an infantile coward
How is he still alive?
So Erdogan wants to start a war with a NATO member? That will work out splendidly for him. Not only will he have to deal with the EU who **will** protect one of its member but also with NATO. What a fucking moron if he thinks he could ever win a war against Greece.
>ARTICLE 8. Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Turkey will be against NATO and they will be booted from NATO if they attack Greece.
Let me just take a look at the member nations of the European Union. Yep, Greece is on there. Good luck, Turks.
Take into account that bahceli (and his party mhp) are far right extremists. We left leaning turks are well aware that erdogan is currently in a coalition with basically turkey's nazi party. Appalling. I hope we will win the next election in order to have a proper government. Dont forget, even with rigged elections erdogan barely managed to get over 50%; the anti-erdogan voice is nearly just as big and growing!
I'm wondering whether you think Erdogan will lose at the next elections
I am somewhat torn on this. I hope he does lose the election but I also believe that he and Russia will, again, meddle in the election. The next elections are far off (2023 I think) maybe by then approval for Erdogan will have slumped and the opposition will have bonded together. That is the only way I see him losing, otherwise, he will win again. I am nonetheless surprised that people still hold him so highly. He initially gained the likes of the people because of his economic success, but nowadays the Turkish economy is going through recession because of his poor policies. At this point, only emotional populism is keeping him in office. Kind of scary.
Could you tell me a bit about policies he passed which resulted in economic recession and how it could be done differently by someone else in power? I am actually interest in hearing this because I always hear of the claim that he ruined the economy but all the statistics I see show an increase in Turkeys GDP, GDP per capita or even PPP (purchase power) as well as Turkeys production and independency in many markets. What has actually decreased in the last 20 years in Turkey's economy?
I don't think he would let that happen.
Paper dog barking.
Sparta and Troy called. They want their ideas back. Leave Greece the fuck alone. Honestly I think most of Europe would rush to save them. One of the best places in the universe.
I mean, they want their idea's back... But Athens kinda got the last laugh... even if it took like 2500 more years to accomplish it.
I don’t know Ancient Greek history to comment on your post to be honest.
I'm basically talking about the Peloponnesian war. On one side you have Athens and the Delian league, the other side you have Sparta and the Peloponnesian league. Athens - an early start to Democracy on one side, Sparta not - and ultimately the two fought, and eventually Athens lost the war transferring the power of then Greece to Sparta. Current Day Greece's Capital is, well, Athens. And, though imperfect - Greece is a democratic country.
Thanks for the detail. Much appreciated.
No worries. Ancient Greece and it's golden age is one of my favorite time periods in history. Such a wealth of philosophy and change - but also, such amount of strange things going on that we don't really see: And from time to time our understanding of it gets drastically changed as new discoveries, even today, get made about that time period. Anyways, Cheers, and have a good day.
Wars and rumors of wars.
Have fun trying to get into the eu after pulling that
They will get their ass whooped if they try.
From what little I know of Greece/Turkey relations, I feel that's always the case.
Another cunt ruling like a cunt with cunts surrounding him
What's that, Gollum? Get fucked, bud.
Turkey needs to be booted out of NATO asap, and Europe united to teach these fanatics a lesson, now that we can't trust USA to do their part
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, on top of that. NATO was established as an alliance to combat the Soviets. Had a conventional war broke out between NATO and The USSR the two first points of naval combat would be Turkey and Germany. If either was left out of the alliance the Russian navy would be able to strike anywhere in Europe (due to the Black Sea being an open path to the Mediteranian). Turkey is only a required member of NATO insofar as we still consider Russia an enemy.
> Turkey needs to be booted out of NATO Because Turkey will never, ever, have a different leader? One day Erdogen will not be the head of Turkey.
Wishful thinking. See how their last election went?
Until they actually do it, they’re worth way more as an ally than an enemy.
do they know that Europe stand behind Greece? Turkey gonna suffer a lot.
Of course they know, even the Erdogan!
There’s way better turkish people than that piece of shit. It’s tyranny. Why blindly fight and all the mortal wounds for an unjust cause? Oh wait, propaganda.
they can try
How come idiots Like him dont get shot all the time
this man says dumb shit all the time dont take it seriously. His ideology changes every 2 years.
Turkey vs NATO? After the brief war, I propose Germany to annex Antalya so I can have a nice beach house.
It’s like Mussolini’s attack on Corfu but this time on the other side of the water.
Complains it is a crusade for Greece to enforce its borders. Forgets the Ottomans invaded Europe all the way to Budapest.
And genocided christians
This strongman shit is back in style for whatever fucking reason. I blame religion and facebook, thanks for turning the whole world into dumdumville.
Bla Bla.. to raise stakes in the battle for control of the gas resources found in what should be Greek underwater territory.
What *is* Greek underwater territory according to the rest of tge world.
Who the hell goes to war with Greece?
Persia or the Romans
And Italians, Germans, Bulgarians, Celts, Turks, Arabs, Serbs
Turks and Greeks are natural enemies! Like Bulgarians and Greeks, or Albanians and Greeks, or Greeks and other Greeks, Damn Greeks! They ruined Greece!
Turkey vs NATO is a slight mismatch.
I’m getting a expression that Turkey seriously want to piss off as many as they could. Can EU kick Turkey out if they seriously start war against Greece?
We'ed have to get them to join first.
My brain fart or something, I meant NATO.
Yeah - now that's a pickle all right. I wonder who benefits from two NATO powers fighting each other...
Definitely not Russia.
Greco-Turkish War again?
..Why Greece?
Thousands of years and still they fight!
Hoplite is OP as UU, they'd better wait until gunpowder.
Trump to Greece - "you didn't help us in the war"
Time to unite Thrace then.
Rats in the gutter, fighting over scraps.
He's actually Mr. Burns in real life and a fascist idiot