Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lit]

Y-Fred, if you don't mind me saying so, your logic is completely ridiculous regarding which island belongs to who. I will not even justify it with a response.

Just because Turkey had more numbers it does not mean it would have won the war. Look up some of history's battles, the largest force does certainly not always win. Greece has more modern equipment than Turkey, for example. Strategy is the all important thing. Turkey's performance when invading Cyprus showed the world the poor state of its armed forces. Anyway, all this is besides the point, has anyone heard similar to me regarding the US threat?

I must say, it is you who live on cloud 9 if you think Turkey would have sunk America's sixth fleet! That would have been a declaration of war on a superpower. You're crazy if you think Turkey's third world military could possibly take on America Some of you Turkish nationalists make me laugh

What ? Like those funny little Vietnamese, Iranian, Afghan, Somali and Iraqi nationalists ...

In these conflicts you mention above. The US would not of had a problem if it applied the Turkish model of ethnic cleansing and moving in settlers. What kind of guerrilla war would the US have suffered following the Turkish model? War is nasty and keyboard warriors like yourself havent a clue about it. If you think you can defeat the United States military head on then try it. Rest assure if this ever happened, the next day i would click on my television and turn to CNN international to view Kurdish horseback fighters "liberating" Ankara. I kid you not.

[Get Real!]

The problem with a lot of people discussing military confrontations is that they always seemingly think of an absolute “TOTAL VICTORY”! In other words, who would TOTALLY destroy who in the event of a conflict, but most wars are never fought like that… they are always limited in scope, aims, and even what constitutes “victory” can have a wide range of meanings.

ie: In 2006, Hizbollah is regarded to have defeated the IDF but that doesn’t mean that Israel is now destroyed, or that Hizbollah would’ve won had the IDF gone nuclear!

[Simon]

GR,

It depends how you define victory. I do not believe the IDF was defeated, but it was prevented from fulfilling its objectives (largely due to political reasons). There is a difference.

[Get Real!]

GR,

It depends how you define victory. I do not believe the IDF was defeated, but it was prevented from fulfilling its objectives (largely due to political reasons). There is a difference.

It is the general international consensus that the IDF lost that war. Even the Israelis admitted it, and I’m not interested in debating something I already did with Arabs and Jews to death back then!

[Simon]

The point is GR, is that the bar is so high for Israel, and so low for others. Israel must almost completely eradicate its enemies to consider itself victorious; where Hizbollah merely consider 'surviving and inflicting some damage' a victory. Like I said, it depends how you define victory. The IDF does not/did not look like a defeated force to me. Although I accept it was an unsuccessful mission.

[Get Real!]

The point is GR, is that the bar is so high for Israel, and so low for others. Israel must almost completely eradicate its enemies to consider itself victorious; where Hizbollah merely consider 'surviving and inflicting some damage' a victory. Like I said, it depends how you define victory. The IDF does not/did not look like a defeated force to me. Although I accept it was an unsuccessful mission.

One can also criticize that Israel has been spoon-fed since its creation which is why it had/has a superior quality and quantity of military hardware so the war wasn’t fair in the first pace yet Hizbollah managed to get them to retreat to their credit.

Israel’s major goal was to create a “buffer zone” again to start fucking around in Lebanon again, but Hizbollah bitch slapped them back to where they came from.

[Simon]

I agree, Israel has been spoon-fed, which is why it sets its targets so high when dealing with groups like Hizbollah. They were taking too many casualties against Hizbollah and therefore retreated, although, to be fair, Hizbollah also agreed to pull back.

[Simon]

You are right GR, most wars are limited in scope, aims etc. Let us consider this if Turkey attempted to sink the US Sixth Fleet.

Firstly, such an attack would without question be considered by the US as a declaration of war. The least the US would want is to ensure that Turkey does not have the capacity to harm US interests in the region again. Therefore, the US would have as its aim, the destruction, or at least severe weakening, of the Turkish Navy and Air Force. Conventional war. America could easily ground the Turkish Air Force and ensure that the Turkish Navy does not even attempt to leave its port. The US submarines alone would have ensured that the Turkish Navy would be no more than a sitting duck. Remember the Falklands? The British submarines rendered the Argentine Navy useless (after a British Sub sunk the Belgrano). Then what would be the result? With no substantial Air Force or Navy, Turkey would never have been able to successfully invade Cyprus. Moreover, with the US onside, Greece would have almost certainly intervened against Turkey also.

The US would have also immediately cut off all diplomatic ties with Turkey (including military aid and an arms embargo) which would be very punishing for Turkey, as it gets most of its weapons from the US.

It leads to thinking, IF ONLY Turkey would have attempted such a stupid move, there would be no Cyprus problem today. The reality is, they would never have tried it.

[EPSILON]

I have heard the assertion more than once that Greece was ready to intercept the Turkish invasion force, and was capable of defeating it; with supporting Phantom jets also attacking the Turkish fleet from Crete. However, the US threatened to sink the Greek Navy if it left its port. I cannot actually find a link, although I know that I have read it in a book regarding Cyprus' history and heard it via word of mouth. How true is it and does anybody have any evidence for this? Did the Americans really threaten to sink the Greek Navy? If so, how can people like GR criticise Greece for doing nothing during the invasion?

I do know this much:

"On the day of the invasion, the Greek government ordered a general call up to mobilise its armed forces. On July 21, the Greek President and the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Galatzanos, Arapakis and Papanikolau, met and decided that the following day, under Bonanos' supervision, the Greek Armed Forces would:

a. begin shooting in Thrace, to divert Turkish attention;
b. sink the Turkish landing craft outside Kyrenia and
c. fly 6 Phantom jets from Crete to attack the Turkish forces in Cyprus

However, due to "anglo-american rumours that there was a Bulgarian build-up on the border with Greece", it appears the plan was aborted.

The above quotation is paraphrased from "A Modern History of Cyprus" by William Mallinson.

You must be in cloud nine. Divert who? They sent 40000 to Cyprus and had 500000 ready for Greece and that is without mobilisation. If they mobilesed, they would have bigger Army then the whole of population of Greece.
I heard the oposite that the Turks were worried about the 6th Fleet intefering with the operations and they drew up plans ready to sink it and believe me they would have sunk it, the Pilots had the courage and the knowhow to dive into the ships fully loaded. 6th Fleet wouldn't have seen them coming.
Greece's worst fear was losing Northern Greece and the rest of the so called "Greek Islands", which is why they did nothing.

Your joke is very good. very good beieve me

[Nikitas]

I did not imply that Americans sell their allies "watere down" versions of the F16 or other systems. I simply hinted at the possibility that their own F16s are "watered up". And the reactions of the arms sales people at the Defendory confirmed it for me.

I do not for a minute doubt that the Americans like to retain an edge over anyone who might conceivably be fighting them at some point. Their technique is obvious. They "collaborate" with allies in developing systems and give them a token order for the US armed forces. The true aim is always to have a hand in everyone's weapon technology. Just look up how many joint British- Israeli- German- US etc projects are going at any one time.

The other side of the policy is to sell weapons in such numbers and with such terms that no other weapon trader can stand the pace. So the competitors cannot keep up.

Even when the system is a lemon the US sales people still manage to wangle deals through fair means and otherwise, which explains how Greece and Turkey both bought that Apache. Remember how the Apaches could not fly from Italy to Albania because of the weather? How they could not land in Albania because of the mud? How they could not engage Serb tanks because of the fear of cheap Russian made heat seeking missiles? The only way the Apache could enter battle (this said by a US general with a serious face!!!) was to use another weapon system to kill all Serb soldiers first. That is how the Apache functions, when all the enemy are dead. Some lemon!!!