belli ki ortalama bir mühendis/fizikçi, misal Bilgi mezunu bir iktisatciya kıyasla, böyle yanlış genellemeler yapmayacak kadar antropoloji, istatistikten hatta makroekonomiden daha çok anlıyor olabilirmiş. 35 yaşında emekli olamayan bütün iktisatçılar tüm fizikçi/mühendislerin t cetvelini yesin 🙂
@BENZOTOOIE lol it was British then the U.S. who destabilised the region since WWI that allowed these kind of radicals to take root. those artifacts stayed intact for centuries under Ottoman rule, also many given to the British as a gift.
I think the intention is to not have a large force on the islands that can threaten Turkey. So arming the islands with missiles that can hit Turkey would be against the original intentions. But there are no items saying vice versa.
I think Greece has a right to defend its territory, so your comments on the clauses make sense. But the political expansionist approach that Greece had since 19th century doesn't help anyone. For example, continental shelf, in Turkey's view does, not give small islands the right of EEZ across all Aegean considering the total land size vs. Western Anatolia. Your arguement/comment was to have a contingent force proportional to the land size, which the Treaty says proportional to the total force but let's say it's the same thing, this approach should apply to other rights. For this reason Turkey didn't agree to 1983 UNCLOS because the islands'specific case (Greece is not an Island nation, a separate solution was needed for France/UK etc.) and yet Greece declares "airspace violation" over 12nM over the islands for decades unilaterally. Nothing Greece does politically seem proportionally justified in that manner which causes the tension. I think the 2 nations are no threat to each other. From my experience, Turks don't really think or care about Greece in their daily lives at all.
@KyrCynic@Grecanicus Western Turkey is approx. 100 times bigger in size compared to those neighbouring islands, then the Aegean Army of Turkey makes a lot of sense too with that logic, also considering it was actually invaded by Greece.
@KyrCynic@Grecanicus Correct. I am saying it would be impractical to bring in and train 5000 men to defend an island with a population of 2000. Proportionally reasonable numbers make sense. Agree on the other item above.
Typo missing a "," between the two. The intention with the base or fortification item is simply you can't build defensive or offesive shit. When they discussed these they surely didn't have any air missile systems in mind. No fortification or naval base covers it.
You can only have military presence for the contingent islanders, or for their protection. You don't normally bring a large amount of people to an remote island to train them, thus the normal contingent to be trained on the spot was meant for the island residents.
You know it well that those are for people from the islands, for protection of the islanders as it states (police or gendarmerie). For example, Greece can't bring in a batallion trained on a different island/mainland to station there, can't have naval air bases or defensive systems on those islands.
@qasirejaaaa so by your logic humans can't invent anything new or learn even after thousand years? how come you learned you were Greek after 19th century?
@yenisafakwriter milli egitim bakanının görevi geçmişiyle gurur duymak mı? egitimin ve ekonominin icinden gecilmis mezunların 70%i yurtdışına gitmek istiyor hala osmanlı
@Ishodas_Thomman Greeks didn't build it, but it did become a capital during ROMANS. Also there are more Turks in Istanbul than Greeks in whole of Greece. Turks have been there for 3 times longer than Greeks had a state, 2 times longer than U.S. etc. Decolonize America first then maybe.