Cyprus-Forum.com

[Simon]

You have insulted me many times and you still don't get it Paphitis. I will not have time to reply fully until tonight. But just look at something which practically ends your argument anyway.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid ... re+in+1914

Go down this Google link and look at the maps of the BRITISH EMPIRE IN 1914. EVERY ONE INCLUDES AUSTRALIA. WHEN AUSTRALA WAS FIRST GIVEN DOMINION STATUS, IT WAS REGARDED AS A SELF-GOVERNING DOMINION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. So obviously it wasn't fully independent. Today there is no Empire and all ties have been cut except the ceremonial Monarch. But I was never talking about today's situation. As I have repeated, Australia was only given legislative equality in 1931, so how is that full independence in 1901? You're only argument is that all these powers were ceremonial. But that is rubbish. Back in the early 20th century these powers weren't ceremonial, they were real. Australia fought for the Empire in the First World War under British command (as Imperial forces) as I've already showed. You're just not making sense Paphitis. I will deal with the rest later.

[shahmaran]

I'm glad the penny has finally dropped Shah. Much of the above I can agree with. I took issue with your boast that implied all the Great Powers attacked Turkey with their full forces simultaneously but invincible Turkey was simply indestructable. This is the impression I think many would have been left with from what you said. But now you are saying things along the same lines I am; such as, Britain did not do the fighting itself, but got others to do it. This was largely because of a lack of public support at home for another war. The British Army was never itself defeated. The turning point of the war was when the supplies to Greece ceased (which was partly to do with the infamous monkey bites to King Alexander which caused his death). This is when Turkish nationalists took the initiative and the war tipped in their favour. This is what I was saying all along. France and Italy did not fully support Greece's ambitions anyway, and the parties in Turkey were never truly fighting a co-ordinated effort. Like I said, Greece was abandoned in the end, which led to total Turkish victory. Things were nowhere near as simplistic as you originally tried to paint them.

I never painted them to be "simplistic" all I said initially was that they lost 2 times, you being the extreme nationalist quickly wanted a piece of the action and jumped in with all sorts of interpretations of what I had originally said.

Face it my friend you just like to argue

I have not said anything new above that I was not saying before, but take it however you wish...

[cymart]

Can you all please avoid using foul language on these postings as it destroys their value and is also a poor reflection on the authors!

[Paphitis]

You have insulted me many times and you still don't get it Paphitis. I will not have time to reply fully until tonight. But just look at something which practically ends your argument anyway.

You have insulted me many times by challenging Australia's sovereignty and independence.

Don't bother replying to me, because you are a British Imperialist swine.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid ... re+in+1914

Go down this Google link and look at the maps of the BRITISH EMPIRE IN 1914. EVERY ONE INCLUDES AUSTRALIA. WHEN AUSTRALA WAS FIRST GIVEN DOMINION STATUS, IT WAS REGARDED AS A SELF-GOVERNING DOMINION OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

WRONG!

Self Governance occurred in the 1850s and independence in 1901.

Australia was not a Self Governing territory of the Empire but was formerly Federated as The Commonwealth of Australia and a Dominion of the Empire and with its own Royal Crown, just like Canada.

The Australia Act (1986) also had to be ratified within the UK and then Australia in order to prevent Britain from interfering with the Australian States and consequently undermine the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia's Constitution is very complex and includes within it many safeguards.

Furthermore, Australians have had the right to completely abolish The Australian Constitution and the Crown at any time, thus removing any complex structures in which the UK could interfere from any lurking Constitutional Laws and powers that were remnants of the Colonial Years.

Britain could not legislate anything for Australia, as ALL laws can only be passed by Australia's Parliament and then the Senate.

So obviously it wasn't fully independent.

Yes it was/is.

Go to the Australian High Commission in London and ask a Consular official on whether Australia was fully independent from 1901 or not?

Today there is no Empire and all ties have been cut except the ceremonial Monarch.

Thank heavens for that!

Well actually, this is not quite true.

Australia still does rule over some territories so technically Australia has a small empire in the true sense of the definition. Norfolk Island, Christmas and Cocos Islands are part of this small "empire".

But I was never talking about today's situation. As I have repeated, Australia was only given legislative equality in 1931, so how is that full independence in 1901?

Like I said, find me one law which was imposed and I will agree with you.

Britain has never acted on Australia's behalf and would not have been allowed to. The Australian Constitution and Crown could be abolished if the Australian people wanted to. Australia could engage in Foreign Affairs, raise an army, so how more independent can you get?

You're only argument is that all these powers were ceremonial.

You still don't get it do you? The Crown is ceremonial as it is in the UK, but The Westminster(1931) and Australia(1986) Statutes were ratified by Australia to close any loop holes which could potentially allow the UK to interfere in Australian Affairs. The Australia Act (1986) was the final statute ratified to unambiguously deal with any Colonial legal or Constitutional remnants within the States of the Commonwealth, which could have potentially been used to undermine the Federation's authority over the States.

But that is rubbish. Back in the early 20th century these powers weren't ceremonial, they were real. Australia fought for the Empire in the First World War under British command (as Imperial forces) as I've already showed. You're just not making sense Paphitis. I will deal with the rest later.

You're the one not making sense Simon.

I have shown you the department of Foreign Affairs website which clearly stated that Australia was independent in 1901 when The Australian Constitution Act was implemented.

This all started because I politely asked you to not categorise the ANZACS as British. I am being very honest with you when I say it is most insulting, to all Australians, because we can not fathom your stupidity and incompetence which killed thousands of Aussies because your officers were absolute arseholes.

This is what I said:

This offense stems from the arrogance and the incompetence of the British Officers who managed tp land their Royal Navy at the wrong location, along a certain beach that had hills and sand dunes.

The British Blunder cost thousands of ANZAC lives within the first day alone...

Australians are unanimous when they tell you that they do not want the ANZACS to be associated with the British, Yanks or anyone else for that matter.

It is the Aussies that should have been in command and Ataturk for one was grateful they were not. He speaks very fondly about the ANZACS as if he admired them more than his own.

So stop behaving like a porked chop and please understand the fact that Australian Federation occurred in 1901, and the ANZACS were a force in their own right and are not to be categorised as British or Anglo, but Australian. Capish sunshine???????

[Simon]

Right I am now ready to reply and trash your silly arguments once more.

I have not attacked you at all, but just politely asked you to not categorise ANZAC troops as British, because if you ever did that in Australia, you would be risking your health.

You have not attacked me? Do you want me to dig up your posts, where you called me British scum amongst other things, completely unprovoked? I didn't think so... I included ANZAC troops with the British forces, because they were a part of the Imperial Forces that fought for the British Empire, UNDER BRITISH COMMAND. End of story. You obviously hate the fact that the British ruled Australia and therefore try to deny the undeniable. Well tough shit. You cannot change history just because you don't like how it sounds.

It is insulting, and Australia today is not part of any Empire, because there is none, and the sooner this gets through your Imperialist mind the better. Australia has absolutely no associations with Britain other than being an ally and sharing the same Crown.

What on earth are you talking about? Where did I say Australia is part of any Empire today? You sound like a rambling wreck. Of course Australia is not part of any Empire today. The British don't have an Empire. I'm talking about the time of the First World War. Have you not even grasped that yet. Australia shares historical and cultural links with Britain, as well as a language, and is a close ally. You are clearly a racist. You hate the British and therefore the thought of Australia in any way associated with them churns your stomach. Well again I say, tough shit racist! Facts are facts.

Those of Anglo heritage are 30% or less, and most of them would whack you if you dared called them British. The Irish heritage is more prevalent than the British. Australians are a different species to the Poms. Much less conservative, more outgoing, and egalitarian.

The English are the single largest group by far, at around 31% claiming English heritage. Only 9% claimed Irish heritage in the 2006 Australian consensus. Not that any of this matters, you are just showng your racism. Who called them British? I said the majority of them are settlers from Britain, when you tried to make out that all Australians are racist like yourself. Obviously today they regard themselves as Australian.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa remained in the Empire as independent DOMINIONS. Australia remained a Dominion after independence because it decided to retained the British Monarch as head of state, and as the Crown of Australia.

Explain this to me Paphitis, because what you wrote above really made me laugh. You are in fact backtracking and now stating that Australia was part of the Empire. So how can they be independent and part of the Empire at the same time? They were an independent PART of the Empire, yes, but not independent FROM the Empire. This is where you are tying yourself up in knots. You keep banging on about the Crown, but Britain still had extensive rights in Australia after 1901. Australia's forces were Imperial (i.e. Empire) Forces!

Quote:
Although Australia is an independent nation, Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain is also formally Queen of Australia.

Today this is correct. The situation was different in the years I am talking about. You still have not grasped this.

Therefore, the Commonwealth of Australia has its OWN independent Crown, which is the nations head of state (soon to be deposed, requiring another Statute no doubt).

Again, you are talking about the situation today, which is irrelevant.

Britain had absolutely NO authority over Australian Governance since 01 Jan 09, so before you start making sweeping statements, please enlighten me with a link of just 1 piece of legislation Britain legislated or ratified on Australia's behalf, because the fact of the matter is, Australia did ask Britain on one occasion to intervene in Australian affairs, before the Statute of Westminster was ratified, because Western Australia (one of the former colonies/states) wanted to sever itself from the Federation. Britain declined, stating that it has no desire to intervene into any matters of the Commonwealth of Australia.

What you post above actually proves what I have been saying all along. Australia was self-governing, but not fully independent. For if it was fully independent, why would Western Australia even bother Britain with it? This is not the actions of an independent nation. Britain refused to intervene because it made Australia self-governing and it was an internal Australian matter! Read below:

"Between 1855 and 1890, the six colonies individually gained responsible government, managing most of their own affairs while remaining part of the British Empire. The Colonial Office in London retained control of some matters, notably foreign affairs, defence, and international shipping. On 1 January 1901, federation of the colonies was achieved after a decade of planning, consultation, and voting. The Commonwealth of Australia was born and it became a dominion of the British Empire in 1907. The Federal Capital Territory (later renamed the Australian Capital Territory) was formed from a part of New South Wales in 1911 to provide a location for the proposed new federal capital of Canberra. (Melbourne was the temporary seat of government from 1901 to 1927 while Canberra was being constructed.) The Northern Territory was transferred from the control of the South Australian government to the Commonwealth in 1911".

It became a dominion in 1907, not 1901. Another error on your behalf. Again I ask, how was Australia fully independent when it was a dominion "OF" the Empire. It was "of" the Empire, so how is it fully separate from it, i.e. independent?

The Statute of Westminster only removed the last "theoretical" avenues in which Britain could intervene within Australian affairs, and a further Statute was required in 1986, because "theoretically", Britain still had the ability to intervene and legislate for any Australian State (former colonies) within the Federation and undermine the Commonwealth of Australia (Federal).

The Treaty of Westminster was British involvement in Australian affairs. It gave Australia legislative independence. Australia did not even have proper legislative independence before 1931, yet you want to tell me it was fully independent and separate from the Empire.

Don't start playing games Simon. Everyone in Australia knows that Australia became fully independent when the Australian Constitution Act was implemented on 01 Jan 01.

The Australian Federal Government also states quite clearly that Australia became fully independent on 01 Jan 01.

I hope that The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a good enough source for you!

Quote:
One of the oldest continuous democracies in the world, the Commonwealth of Australia was created in 1901 when the former British colonies—now the six states—agreed to federate. The democratic practices and principles that shaped the pre-federation colonial parliaments (such as ‘one man, one vote’ and women’s suffrage) were adopted by Australia’s first federal government


http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html

Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Everyone in Australia knows it, and yet you cannot provide one link that says it. This article states the Commonwealth of Australia and its democracy was born. I never disputed this. What it it not saying is that this meant all ties were severed with the British Empire, because they weren't! You have even posted links that confirm this!

In fact, Australia has ALWAYS been more democratic than Britain itself, because The Commonwealth of Australia has its OWN Constitution (since 1901) and Britain doesn't even have that!

Britain DOES have a constitution. What it doesn't have is a codified constitution, i.e. codified in one document, because its democracy never developed that way. Magna Carta and various other British constitutional documents are the basis of many constitutions around the world, including the American one. The British Parliamentary system and been copied around the world, and Britain has helped establish many democracies, including Australia's! So get off your high horse please!

Australia is still part of the non existent (apart from SBAs in Cyprus and Gibraltar because that is all we have) Empire as a Dominion you imbecile, and so is Canada. This has not changed, but both are independent, and more democratic than Britain itself.

How can it be part of anything today when the Empire no longer exists? You're still confusing today's reality to the situation before WW1. Read:

"Four colonies of Australia had enjoyed responsible government since 1856: New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.[22] Queensland had responsible government soon after its founding in 1859[23] but, because of ongoing financial dependence on Britain, Western Australia became the last Australian colony to attain self-government in 1890.[24] During the 1890s, the colonies voted to unite and in 1901 they were federated under the British Crown as the Commonwealth of Australia by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.The Constitution of Australia had been drafted in Australia and approved by popular consent. Thus Australia is one of the few countries established by a popular vote.[25] Under the second Balfour Declaration, the federal government was regarded as coequal with (and not subordinate to) the British and other Dominion governments, and this was given formal legal recognition in 1942 (when the Statute of Westminster was retroactively adopted to the commencement of the Second World War 1939). The governments of the states (called colonies before 1901) remained under the Commonwealth but retained vestigial links to the British Parliament until the passage of the Australia Act 1986."

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

Australia was federated "under the British crown" which back then meant something. Today is doesn't. The above also confirms that Australia was only "recognised as coequal with the British" at the SECOND Balfour Convention, which was in 1926, AFTER WW1. Two points hear, "recognised coequal". Well if Australia was fully independent and separate from the Empire, why did it have to worry about being equal with the British? Secondly, this by implication means that before 1927, Australia was regarded as subordinate to the British. It is ok, I'm not expecting an apology.


Simon wrote:
Quote:
With regards to Australia's forces, the clue is in IMPERIAL. If they were imperial forces, they were obviously forces of the Empire. Not independent. Plus these forces were under BRITISH COMMAND. THIS SAYS IT ALL. I wish you wouldn't continue going around in circles on things I've clearly refuted.

The fact that Australia is a Dominions to this very day, should also say something to you sunshine. Having Australian commanders is a prerequisite to success and this is proven throughout history! Because every single time the British and especially the Americans have their finger in the pie, we have a disaster on our hands. So stay away from our ADF you incompetent nincompoops, because you are a danger to our safety and were a danger to our AIF in the past!

Our status has not changed within this so called non existent Empire.

I have already dealt with this above. You cannot compare today, when Britain has no Empire, to back then, when it did, and say "Dominion" means the same thing. HERE, THIS IS WHAT WAS, AND IS NOW, MEANT BY DOMINION

"A dominion, often Dominion,[1] refers to one of a group of semi-autonomous polities that were nominally under British sovereignty, constituting the British Empire and British Commonwealth, from the late 19th century.[2] They included (at varying times) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and the Irish Free State. After 1948, the term was used to denote independent nations that retained the British monarch as head of state; these included India, Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Kenya."

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

KEY WORDS BEING SEMI-AUTONOMOUS, WHICH INCLUDES AUSTRALIA. AFTER 1948, THE TERM 'DOMINION' WAS USED TO DENOTE INDEPENDENT NATIONS. NOT BEFORE. UNDERSTAND?

Australian Armed Forces were defined as "Imperial" because by default Australia was ALSO deemed to have an EMPIRE. Technically, all British subjects were also the subjects of the Dominion Powers (Australia, Canada, NZ, South Africa etc) because we shared a Crown which ruled over the Empire, and this Crown was not just Great Britain's but was also the Crown of the Dominion Powers. In other words, Australia's Crown, Canada's Crown etc etc ruled over the Empire's "subjects"!

Australia was deemed to be PART of the Empire, that is why "Imperial" was used. British subjects were subjects of the same Empire that Australia was a part of. All this is yet more proof that Australia was not independent of the Empire!

The Statute of Westminster needed to be ratified by the Australian Parliament and it was designed to remove any technicalities or theoretical powers which Britain could manipulate and use to intervene within the Australian Commonwealth, which it never did.

So Britain did NOT legislate the Statute of Westminster as it was ratified by the Australian Parliament.

READ MORE CAREFULLY NEXT TIME!

Firstly, after your 'permanent seat on the United Nations debacle' I think it is pretty rich for you to tell me to read more carefully. Secondly, this was British legislation made for Australia and other dominions. How can this happen if Austraia is fully independent? Australia had to ratify it because Britain made it self-governing and it had its own Parliament. But that fact Britain had to make such a law proves Australia was not fully independent. You can argue it was theoretical all you like, but I do not consider a document that gives legislative independence all that trivial.

ALL Australian colonies had self Governance from the 1850s you nincompoop. I'm not associating self governance with independence!

These self governing colonies united to form The Commonwealth of Australia when the Australian Constitution (something you don't have) was implemented on 01 Jan 01!

You clearly are confusing the two ignoramus. This is evidenced in ALL of your posts.

Australia had what Scotland has from the 1850s to 01 Jan 01 you incompetent British Imperialist!

Complete and utter rubbish. Did Australia have a national Parliament before 1901? I didn't think so. It was still made up of separate colonies.

Simon wrote:
Quote:

You then proceed to tell me the statistics of Australia. The funny thing is, you reply as if you refuted what I said, but actually you supported my statement. In every area, Australia was ranked lower than Britain. A few corrections: Australia is NOT the 6th biggest defense spender, nowhere near. It is 14th. It is also the 14th largest economy measured by GDP. PPP is not an accurate way to measure the size of an economy. The preferred method by most is GDP (nominal).

If that is the case, then Australian GDP is 40% the size of Britain's and yet Australia's population is a mere 21 million compared to Britain's 63 million. So the magnitude of the Australian Economy outstrips the magnitude of Britain's economy on a per capita basis, and this is the preferred option (per capita) of measuring GDP output when comparing different economies, and not GDP (nominal) as you would then not be comparing apples with apples.

This desperate attempt to try to get one up on Britain is hilarious! What a clown! Britain's economy is more than twice as big, end of story. Britain has 61 million people by the way.


Simon wrote:
Quote:

Then you mention aircraft carriers. Firstly, can you point me to a credible link that states Australia is building 2 carriers, because I know of no such procurement programme. I suspect this is just more assumptions by you. In any event, the UK has 2 carriers, not 1 (they did have 3 but 1 has recently been decommissioned). So Australia will have an equal amount IF they do build 2 carriers. However, the UK is building 2 huge supercarriers, displacing 65,000 tons each. The Australian Navy cannot hope to compete with the Royal Navy. So don't even go there, I will rip you to shreds. Britain have recently developed the best air defence ships in the world, the Type 45 Destroyer, not even the Americans have anything like it. The Royal Navy is a bluewater navy that can project power around the globe. Only the Americans, French and possibly Russians can currently say the same thing. Australia certainly do not have this capability.

In 2007, an Australian Defence White paper was leaked, which outlined plans to procure 2 Spanish or French Aircraft Carriers. There was some political controversy about this and the Department of Defence was reeling. The Defence Minister then declared the construction of the Canberra Class, and decided that 2 ships will be commissioned by 2013.

http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class

These Ships are depicted as Helicopter Decks, but are easily modified to take Sea Harrier Jets and up to 12 F-18s. It is planned to do this down the track.

They will also be fitted with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

Paphitis, please stop, you are cracking me up. You are now tryng to pass a Helicopter Landing Dock as an aircraft carrier. This just gets better. In that case I forgot to mention the Royal Navy's HMS Ocean, which under your definition would also be an aircraft carrier.

Whilst Australia needs to use Helicopter Docks as carriers, the UK builds its own purpose built aircraft carriers that can each carry 40 aircraft. No comparison really. The Canberra class is replacing Tobruk, and Tobruk was no aircraft carrier.

Australia too is considered a strategic power due to the Collins Class(most advance conventional subs) and F-111 etc. And we have been projecting our power for decades now. In fact, it is well and trully proven that the ADF is far more competent than both you and the US.

If you want to now how to really fight a war, then mimmick the ADF and what it did in East Timor. I believe that only the Israeli's are capable to match or even outperform the Aussies with clever no nonsense strategy and psychological warfare.

This is pure nationalist nonsense. Yes Australia is a regional power, in the Pacific. Britain historically, and still today, can project power around the globe. Its power projection capabilities are second only to the US. I can't even believe you're trying to compare the two.

Simon wrote:
Quote:

Australia the next permanent member of the Security Council?
THE LINK YOU GAVE ME IS ABOUT AUSTRALIA APPLYING FOR A SEAT FOR 2013-14. 1 YEAR YOU FOOL. NOT A PERMANENT MEMBER! DO YOU EVEN READ YOUR LINKS? This is rubbish. Australia does not have a hope of a permanent seat. India and Brazil will be well before Australia. Britain on the other hand has been a permanent member from the start, and you think Australia spits on Britain? You're a joke man. You call Britain an irrelevant minnow? It has 3 times as many people as Australia! I think you're taking the piss, you must be.


Sorry, but I got confused with Alexander Downer's (former Foreign Affairs Minister) proposal for Australia to gain permanent security council membership - a proposal which was rebuked by Australian Prime minister John Howard, who basically said something like "fuck the UN".

I am glad you realised your mistake here. Now you need to do the same with the rest of your argument.

There are no Aussies that regard Britain as a mother country. People who fantasise about "mother countries" are immature fucks (apart from those that only recognise cultural similarities). There are many Cypriots like that and you maybe one of them.

How can an idiot like you speak for every single Australian? I have heard this term from an Australian's mouth! So there you go, they must be "immature fucks" according to you .

But you have definitely proven yourself to be a great Imperialist, so well done sunshine!

And you have definitely proved what a racist you are.

So you should!

They are legends in their own right, and are highly regarded by many nations, including former foes.

I respect them because I do not disrespect anyone who has served and sacrificed in the Armed Forces of any States. Shame you can't say the same.

Simon wrote:
Quote:

The Royal Marines undertake the longest period of training in NATO. The Paras are legendary. The SAS are regarded as the best on earth. The Gurkhas bravery is the stuff of legend.

OUR SAS is regarded as the best as well. So who is the best then?

The Australian SAS is based on the British SAS. Traditionally, the British SAS has been referred to as the best in the world.

Then why have you lost every war apart from the Falklands?

The British and American Armed Forces can stay right away from the superior ADF, because unlike you lot, we don't like you guy's behaving like Hollywood Rambo's endangering our men and women in suicide missions and futile wars!

Your incompetence throughout history is legendary, apart from a few isolated instances.

What a load of nonsense. What wars have Britain lost? They have taken casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan due to ongoing occupations. Any Forces would lose troops this way. None of these enemies take Britain head on, because they lose everytime in conventional war!

We don't want their memory tarnished through associations with the wrong crowds...Britain needs help, so may God save the Queen, because Australia sure as hell won't from now on!

Why do you think you have the authority to talk on behalf of Australia? You would get bitch-slapped by the monarchists in your OWN country, who voted to keep the Queen!

P.S. I noticed you didn't comment about the links I provided which clearly included Australia in the British Empire in 1914. Wonder why?

[Simon]

I'm glad the penny has finally dropped Shah. Much of the above I can agree with. I took issue with your boast that implied all the Great Powers attacked Turkey with their full forces simultaneously but invincible Turkey was simply indestructable. This is the impression I think many would have been left with from what you said. But now you are saying things along the same lines I am; such as, Britain did not do the fighting itself, but got others to do it. This was largely because of a lack of public support at home for another war. The British Army was never itself defeated. The turning point of the war was when the supplies to Greece ceased (which was partly to do with the infamous monkey bites to King Alexander which caused his death). This is when Turkish nationalists took the initiative and the war tipped in their favour. This is what I was saying all along. France and Italy did not fully support Greece's ambitions anyway, and the parties in Turkey were never truly fighting a co-ordinated effort. Like I said, Greece was abandoned in the end, which led to total Turkish victory. Things were nowhere near as simplistic as you originally tried to paint them.

I never painted them to be "simplistic" all I said initially was that they lost 2 times, you being the extreme nationalist quickly wanted a piece of the action and jumped in with all sorts of interpretations of what I had originally said.

Face it my friend you just like to argue

I have not said anything new above that I was not saying before, but take it however you wish...

Nonsense. You were boasting about the Turkish Army's invincibility until I put you straight and forced you to clarify yourself.

[bigOz]

I'm glad the penny has finally dropped Shah. Much of the above I can agree with. I took issue with your boast that implied all the Great Powers attacked Turkey with their full forces simultaneously but invincible Turkey was simply indestructible. This is the impression I think many would have been left with from what you said. But now you are saying things along the same lines I am; such as, Britain did not do the fighting itself, but got others to do it. This was largely because of a lack of public support at home for another war. The British Army was never itself defeated. The turning point of the war was when the supplies to Greece ceased (which was partly to do with the infamous monkey bites to King Alexander which caused his death). This is when Turkish nationalists took the initiative and the war tipped in their favour. This is what I was saying all along. France and Italy did not fully support Greece's ambitions anyway, and the parties in Turkey were never truly fighting a co-ordinated effort. Like I said, Greece was abandoned in the end, which led to total Turkish victory. Things were nowhere near as simplistic as you originally tried to paint them.

I never painted them to be "simplistic" all I said initially was that they lost 2 times, you being the extreme nationalist quickly wanted a piece of the action and jumped in with all sorts of interpretations of what I had originally said.

Face it my friend you just like to argue

I have not said anything new above that I was not saying before, but take it however you wish...

Nonsense. You were boasting about the Turkish Army's invincibility until I put you straight and forced you to clarify yourself.

Erm! EXCUUSEEE ME ladies!!! But please do not bring the militarily and internationally accepted facts about the heroics of the (handful) Turkish soldiers what could hardly have been called an army during the defence of the Dardanelles (Gallipoli) and the subsequent defeat of the French in Eastern Anatolia, or the defeat of the far superior Greek forces along the central Anatolia and Aegean coast AFTER THE COUNTRY WAS DIVIDED UP AND OCCUPIED BY THE SO CALLED ALLIED FORCES!

I am not a Turkish Nationalist at all but I rather get fucked by an elephant then here the nonsense propaganda or lies by badly educated people!

If you wish to carry on claiming excuses about why you got your arses kicked so badly in Turkey, I shall be more than pleased to educate you all on the matter!

WARNING: My replies do not reflect feelings or hearsay but HISTORIC FACTS as reported by the media at the time of these events. So no silly claims or time wasting arguments please! I will support my claims with appropriate links - I expect you to do the same, otherwise shut up and pack up...

[Simon]

Another Turkish Nationalist idiot.

Even Shitmaran ended up agreeing with my comments, and you have not even addressed them with that stupid post, so you can just go and crawl back under that stone you came from.

Yes, yes, I know, 1 Turk equals the whole world and all that...

[shahmaran]

I'm glad the penny has finally dropped Shah. Much of the above I can agree with. I took issue with your boast that implied all the Great Powers attacked Turkey with their full forces simultaneously but invincible Turkey was simply indestructable. This is the impression I think many would have been left with from what you said. But now you are saying things along the same lines I am; such as, Britain did not do the fighting itself, but got others to do it. This was largely because of a lack of public support at home for another war. The British Army was never itself defeated. The turning point of the war was when the supplies to Greece ceased (which was partly to do with the infamous monkey bites to King Alexander which caused his death). This is when Turkish nationalists took the initiative and the war tipped in their favour. This is what I was saying all along. France and Italy did not fully support Greece's ambitions anyway, and the parties in Turkey were never truly fighting a co-ordinated effort. Like I said, Greece was abandoned in the end, which led to total Turkish victory. Things were nowhere near as simplistic as you originally tried to paint them.

I never painted them to be "simplistic" all I said initially was that they lost 2 times, you being the extreme nationalist quickly wanted a piece of the action and jumped in with all sorts of interpretations of what I had originally said.

Face it my friend you just like to argue

I have not said anything new above that I was not saying before, but take it however you wish...

Nonsense. You were boasting about the Turkish Army's invincibility until I put you straight and forced you to clarify yourself.

No I was not, and no you did not...

[shahmaran]

Another Turkish Nationalist idiot.

Even Shitmaran ended up agreeing with my argument, and you have not even addressed it with that stupid post, so you can just go and crawl back under that stone you came from.

The only argument you had was to clarify your own misunderstanding

I never said anything different at the start of the thread then what I have said at the end, you are the idiot who kept confusing events and needed correcting.