Epiktitos wrote:Paphitis wrote:Your analysis is extremely unrealistic and based on many assumptions such as the willingness of Turkey to fight Greece, and the willingness of NATO or the US to allow this to happen. 50,000 casualties are way over the top and unfounded, as you seem to believe that any campaign will be allowed to continue beyond 2 weeks.
Epiktitos wrote:I'm a pretty crappy armchair general, but I am certainly pessimistic about the outcome of an attempted liberation using force.
I think you should put a cork in it, and speak to the real arm chair General Get Real! Those forumers that know me in real life, also know that I have spent most of my adult life serving, now pensioned off by the Commonwealth for serving in 2 war zones, including the Persian Gulf. I still work in Defense and still get a pension check to boot, tax free.
Your idol, Get Real! is the forums very own irrational arm chair warrior, so why don't you kiss his arse some more....
Epiktitos wrote:First off, NATO as an alliance would not get involved. NATO only concerns itself with attacks on members by outside parties. Any US involvement would not be positive from the Greek side because they have consistently backed turkey in this dispute and in any dispute involving Greece or Cyprus.
Oh really! NATO won't get involved should these 2 NATO allies go to war!
Mate, you a a resounding lunatic who has absolutely no idea.
Epiktitos wrote:As for the casualties and the potential for a catastrophic outcome, some things to think about: the turks have (I believe) 2 armored divisions garrisoning cyprus, admittedly with most likely older equipment, but they will take some beating nonetheless. Also their resupply and reinforcements are say 100km away whereas the CNG needs to be resupplied from as far away as Crete, and under hostile conditions. The other major problem is that the turks would not hesitate to counterattack across the Evros and in the aegean, so Greece would have to hold the majority of her naval and air force assets (to say nothing of armour) back in Greece to prevent the loss of 50 times as much territory as might be liberated in Cyprus.
Once again, you have derailed this thread and turned it into something it is not.
The above is all irrelevant nonsense since the topic at hand is not one of Get Real's war threads. This is a thread about Greece projecting its considerable might in the Middle East by taking advantage of the legal obligations and thus hopefully strengthening the RoC leverage in the peace process or not.
Furthermore, and military person will tell you that success is measured in terms of the military objectives. You provide the objectives for any military objectives in Cyprus and then we could hypothetically discuss the chances of success or not, which in itself is still too difficult to do.
Epiktitos wrote:If the kataxoumena are to be liberated, it will take the intervention of the great satan, or turkey to realise that a settlement is in her best interest.
There are many countries that could potentially send Turkey packing if they wanted to. Greece is one such country, which could possibly achieve the same thing under the right conditions.
So should Greece deploy its troops, aircraft and naval elements on Cyprus, which will change the balance of power in the region and give Turkey something to think about, or should we just continue as we are.
It's OK to be a partitionist. Just admit it and let's move on!