Cyprus-Forum.com

[74LB]

In the first instance it is supposed to be for national security, the defend the soft under belly of Turkey.

If she has the north she effectively conrols the water way betweenthe two. Furthermore, it prevents Greece from getting too close to her.

I would tend to agree here.

If after the coup Samson had remained in power for any length of time then Turkey would have done everything she could to
a) protect the TC's
and
b) prevent Greece being stationed in her southern flank.

[bill cobbett]

It's a difficult one for a normal mind to get to grips with, but if we put on the mind-set of the military dictatorship, hasn't it always been simple expansionism, simple self-aggrandisement by a military/fascist regime who don't need the "normal" justifications of grabbing wealth or getting wider regional influence. Certainly didn't have anything much to do with protecting tissies, given dozens and dozens were killed by the invading army and by the thought that invasion plans may have been drawn up as early as the early '60s.

If you have the "largest army in Nato", when it takes up so much of national wealth, when so many well paid careers depend on it, very tempting to use it.

Would also say a military regime needs its enemies to justify its privileged position, it needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations otherwise it has no reason to continue in existence. Put that together with the extremest sort of nationalism (one we are all familiar with) and think we get a little closer to an explanation.

But why Cyprus ? For a country that "needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations"why not expand into Greece, or Bulgaria, or Georgia, or Armenia, or Iraq, or Syria when you have the "largest army in NATO" ?

Choose the easiest target, one with existing fifth-columnists to prepare the ground and provide believable justification for intervention.

Oh come on Bill, do you really believe that ?

For a country that, quote "needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations" and one with such a big army, why make the only excursion since the Republic was formed into little old Cyprus ? And if you do need these "military adventures and invasions and occupations" why not take the whole island ? And then move on to the Greek islands ? and then other countries on its borders ?

Wouldn't have written it if didn't believe it mate.

The "whole island"? Found it difficult enough to take one-third.

... and bear in mind ... "believable justification" or believable grounds for intervention.

"Greek islands" ... don't think that would have over-impressed the Americans and NATO.

"other countries on its borders" ... the large, well-armed ones???

[DTA]

It's a difficult one for a normal mind to get to grips with, but if we put on the mind-set of the military dictatorship, hasn't it always been simple expansionism, simple self-aggrandisement by a military/fascist regime who don't need the "normal" justifications of grabbing wealth or getting wider regional influence. Certainly didn't have anything much to do with protecting tissies, given dozens and dozens were killed by the invading army and by the thought that invasion plans may have been drawn up as early as the early '60s.

If you have the "largest army in Nato", when it takes up so much of national wealth, when so many well paid careers depend on it, very tempting to use it.

Would also say a military regime needs its enemies to justify its privileged position, it needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations otherwise it has no reason to continue in existence. Put that together with the extremest sort of nationalism (one we are all familiar with) and think we get a little closer to an explanation.

But why Cyprus ? For a country that "needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations"why not expand into Greece, or Bulgaria, or Georgia, or Armenia, or Iraq, or Syria when you have the "largest army in NATO" ?

Choose the easiest target, one with existing fifth-columnists to prepare the ground and provide believable justification for intervention.

Oh come on Bill, do you really believe that ?

For a country that, quote "needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations" and one with such a big army, why make the only excursion since the Republic was formed into little old Cyprus ? And if you do need these "military adventures and invasions and occupations" why not take the whole island ? And then move on to the Greek islands ? and then other countries on its borders ?

Wouldn't have written it if didn't believe it mate.

The "whole island"? Found it difficult enough to take one-third.

... and bear in mind ... "believable justification" or believable grounds for intervention.

"Greek islands" ... don't think that would have over-impressed the Americans and NATO.

"other countries on its borders" ... the large, well-armed ones???

in response to your bolded text, and I dont mean to be antagonistic but how the hell do you figure that? as far as I understand they got to the attila line with minimal casualties.

[Get Real!]

...as far as I understand they got to the attila line with minimal casualties.

What is "minimal casualties"?

[74LB]

Bill Cobbett

Wouldn't have written it if didn't believe it mate.

The "whole island"? Found it difficult enough to take one-third.
In 2 days they advanced east and west, almost the whole width of the island . What would have stopped them going all the way?.

... and bear in mind ... "believable justification" or believable grounds for intervention.

"Greek islands" ... don't think thay would have over-impressed the Americans and NATO.
I thought everyone said the Americans were with Turkey on this one


"other countries on its borders" ... the large, well-armed ones???
In which case it doesn't appear to be looking for "military adventures and invasions and occupations" (imo)

[bill cobbett]

It's a difficult one for a normal mind to get to grips with, but if we put on the mind-set of the military dictatorship, hasn't it always been simple expansionism, simple self-aggrandisement by a military/fascist regime who don't need the "normal" justifications of grabbing wealth or getting wider regional influence. Certainly didn't have anything much to do with protecting tissies, given dozens and dozens were killed by the invading army and by the thought that invasion plans may have been drawn up as early as the early '60s.

If you have the "largest army in Nato", when it takes up so much of national wealth, when so many well paid careers depend on it, very tempting to use it.

Would also say a military regime needs its enemies to justify its privileged position, it needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations otherwise it has no reason to continue in existence. Put that together with the extremest sort of nationalism (one we are all familiar with) and think we get a little closer to an explanation.

But why Cyprus ? For a country that "needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations"why not expand into Greece, or Bulgaria, or Georgia, or Armenia, or Iraq, or Syria when you have the "largest army in NATO" ?

Choose the easiest target, one with existing fifth-columnists to prepare the ground and provide believable justification for intervention.

Oh come on Bill, do you really believe that ?

For a country that, quote "needs its military adventures and invasions and occupations" and one with such a big army, why make the only excursion since the Republic was formed into little old Cyprus ? And if you do need these "military adventures and invasions and occupations" why not take the whole island ? And then move on to the Greek islands ? and then other countries on its borders ?

Wouldn't have written it if didn't believe it mate.

The "whole island"? Found it difficult enough to take one-third.

... and bear in mind ... "believable justification" or believable grounds for intervention.

"Greek islands" ... don't think that would have over-impressed the Americans and NATO.

"other countries on its borders" ... the large, well-armed ones???

in response to your bolded text, and I dont mean to be antagonistic but how the hell do you figure that? as far as I understand they got to the attila line with minimal casualties.

So you have no problem with the unbolded bits?

[DTA]

...as far as I understand they got to the attila line with minimal casualties.

What is "minimal casualties"?

well they done it in two day didnt they?

[Get Real!]

...as far as I understand they got to the attila line with minimal casualties.

What is "minimal casualties"?

well they done it in two day didnt they?

Two days? How many casualties?

[Get Real!]

In 2 days they advanced east and west, almost the whole width of the island . What would have stopped them going all the way?

And what do you suppose they would've done once they reached the SBAs?

[bill cobbett]

...as far as I understand they got to the attila line with minimal casualties.

What is "minimal casualties"?

well they done it in two day didnt they?

Took three days alone to "take" Kyrenia, five miles from the invasion beaches, and that only after air and sea bombardment.