Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:21 pmby Galloism
Farnhamia wrote:Cosmopoles wrote:The Treaty of Sevres was forced on the defeated Ottomans. If you are going to insist that treaties forced on a defeated party shouldn't be honoured then why should Turkey honour Sevres?
Oh, man, if they invalidate the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso, Imosgone and I and a few others are going to become Spanish subjects.
Heck, go back one treaty, and I'm French.
I'm going to start acting French, and begin the movement to give the land back to the French.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:22 pmby Farnhamia
Galloism wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Oh, man, if they invalidate the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso, Imosgone and I and a few others are going to become Spanish subjects.
Heck, go back one treaty, and I'm French.
I'm going to start acting French, and begin the movement to give the land back to the French.
Your Spanish wife might not care for that.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:23 pmby Cameroi
should is such a utopian word. and people accuse me of being utopian. everyone "should" return every place it has stolen from it earliest inhabitants. if that were even possible. certainly wherever it is.
some place, like with turkey and kurdistan it might actually BE possible. (or with the u.s. and hawaii, puerto rico and 'american' samoa, and china and tibet)
the problem with most places though, is that virtually EVERY modern nation was stolen from somebody, and in most cases more then once.
i don't have a one size fits all answer for everybody, except to suggest that the whole concept of national soverignty is highly over rated.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:23 pmby Farnhamia
Arilandon wrote:Farnhamia wrote:You're the expert on treaties, figure it out.
Somewhere in the former lousiana territory, but where exactly?
It's actually none of your business, is it? Let's just call it the US and leave it at that.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:23 pmby Galloism
Farnhamia wrote:Galloism wrote:Heck, go back one treaty, and I'm French.
I'm going to start acting French, and begin the movement to give the land back to the French.
Your Spanish wife might not care for that.
Acting French, or the movement?
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:24 pmby Tmutarakhan
Keronians wrote: But then again, the Kurdish don't really want to separate from Turkey.
You are seriously mistaken.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:25 pmby Farnhamia
Galloism wrote:Farnhamia wrote:Your Spanish wife might not care for that.
Acting French, or the movement?
Either, but then again, she seems to be an open-minded woman, so what do I know?
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:26 pmby Galloism
Farnhamia wrote:Galloism wrote:Acting French, or the movement?
Either, but then again, she seems to be an open-minded woman, so what do I know?
I'm going to have to practice thinking I'm better than everyone else.
Oh wait... no I don't.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:29 pmby North Calaveras
Sucrati wrote:Galloism wrote:Yeah... no.
90 years later, when everyone involved in the original event is now dead, and everyone is used to the government they have?
No.
No, that would be like asking if Israel should go back to certain borders... wait, many would want that
Or if the USA should give up parts of the southwest and give it back to Mexico... well, there are groups advocating that...
Sad part is people will bitch and say Turkey dosn't need to return anything but when it comes to Israel they will jump all over them.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:30 pmby Angleter
No, since there are very few Greeks or Armenians left in Turkey. Kurdish independence would have to be supported by most Turkish Kurds, and then there'd be the matter of Iraq and Iran's Kurds.
What about the Assyrians? They always get forgotten in these things.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:33 pmby Buffett and Colbert
Considering an active Turkish government never signed that treaty and the fact that it was annulled and
replaced, I have no idea why they should.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:33 pmby Arilandon
Farnhamia wrote:Arilandon wrote:Somewhere in the former lousiana territory, but where exactly?
It's actually none of your business, is it? Let's just call it the US and leave it at that.
Well i was't even meaning which settlement just which state.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:34 pmby Buffett and Colbert
North Calaveras wrote:Sucrati wrote:No, that would be like asking if Israel should go back to certain borders... wait, many would want that
Or if the USA should give up parts of the southwest and give it back to Mexico... well, there are groups advocating that...
Sad part is people will bitch and say Turkey dosn't need to return anything but when it comes to Israel they will jump all over them.
There is practically no debate about Turkish borders. There is a clear and marked difference.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:34 pmby Farnhamia
Arilandon wrote:Farnhamia wrote:It's actually none of your business, is it? Let's just call it the US and leave it at that.
Well i was't even meaning which settlement just which state.
Tell me why it's relevant to anything first.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:35 pmby Arilandon
Angleter wrote:No, since there are very few Greeks or Armenians left in Turkey. Kurdish independence would have to be supported by most Turkish Kurds, and then there'd be the matter of Iraq and Iran's Kurds.
What about the Assyrians? They always get forgotten in these things.
They dont really have any obvious place where they could have they nation-state.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:35 pmby Veblenia
Arilandon wrote:Cosmopoles wrote:The Treaty of Sevres was forced on the defeated Ottomans. If you are going to insist that treaties forced on a defeated party shouldn't be honoured then why should Turkey honour Sevres?
Becuase it was a fair treaty, allocating land based on the ethnic composition of the areas.
But by your own admission the "ethnic composition" of those territories is not what it was. Allocating them as they were 90 years ago no longer makes sense.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:35 pmby Arilandon
Farnhamia wrote:Arilandon wrote:Well i was't even meaning which settlement just which state.
Tell me why it's relevant to anything first.
It's not i just wanted to know.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:35 pmby North Calaveras
Buffett and Colbert wrote:North Calaveras wrote:Sad part is people will bitch and say Turkey dosn't need to return anything but when it comes to Israel they will jump all over them.
There is practically no debate about Turkish borders. There is a clear and marked difference.
No there is no difference, just because there isn't a debate about it means nothing, if people are going to bitch about Israel then they better bitch about any other nation on this earth that has taken territory.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:36 pmby Arilandon
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Considering an active Turkish government never signed that treaty and the fact that it was annulled and
replaced, I have no idea why they should.
It was signed by the ottoman empire which was turkish.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:36 pmby Galloism
North Calaveras wrote:Buffett and Colbert wrote:There is practically no debate about Turkish borders. There is a clear and marked difference.
No there is no difference, just because there isn't a debate about it means nothing, if people are going to bitch about Israel then they better bitch about any other nation on this earth that has taken territory.
Well, that would be...
*scribbles on the board*
Let's see... multiply by 2, carry the 1...
All of them.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:37 pmby Buffett and Colbert
North Calaveras wrote:Buffett and Colbert wrote:There is practically no debate about Turkish borders. There is a clear and marked difference.
No there is no difference, just because there isn't a debate about it means nothing, if people are going to bitch about Israel then they better bitch about any other nation on this earth that has taken territory.
Even when they are wholly different situations? When one situation presently is causing harm to thousands of people and the other did so one hundred years prior? Mmm, no.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:37 pmby Buffett and Colbert
Arilandon wrote:Buffett and Colbert wrote:Considering an active Turkish government never signed that treaty and the fact that it was annulled and
replaced, I have no idea why they should.
It was signed by the ottoman empire which was turkish.
The treaty was never ratified, and it was annulled either way.
Posted:
Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:38 pmby Arilandon
Buffett and Colbert wrote:North Calaveras wrote:Sad part is people will bitch and say Turkey dosn't need to return anything but when it comes to Israel they will jump all over them.
There is practically no debate about Turkish borders. There is a clear and marked difference.
What is that even for a kind of argument? Just becuase there is no debate (which there actually is in some circles and especially regarding kurdistan) does't mean it is justified.