Cyprus-Forum.com

[lupusdiavoli]

Just for the record,

the "Macedonian" Nicator is acurate.

[seleucus Nicator]

"

Flag is not something holly to me. Anybody can fly the flag of his taste. I cannot deprive self-determination for someone. You refer again in one nation. If u want to be precise you should employ the term “state”. I cannot see something like a nation of Cypriots. Peace is achieved at the point where the weak side accepts the will of the powerful. And this is reality beyond ethics, beyond international law, beyond desires. It is the hard language of thousands years of history. Provided you read it calmly and realistically.

As i can understand from your post the big fish eat the small fish that means If the Iraqi state of Kurdistan will "help"(like Turkey did in Cyprus) their brothers of Eastern Turkey to "find" their "freedom" (with the help of the US ,this time US is on the other side) and you lose , you will accept your faith as the weak side.

lupusdiavoli
" Well it seems to me that your side is bending over the last 80-90 years. From defeat to defeat. Minor Asia or Ionia as u call it is lost. East Thrace, hald of Cyprus...
"
Probably you forgot the defeats of the Ottoman empire during the Greek revolution from the rebels and the Balcans wars.
The problem is that you cannot realize that today Greece is not threaten Turkey but Turkey threaten Greece (if you are interest i can bring you examples of this threat).

[/url]

[Kifeas]

OK Piratis,

Let me codify the diagreement; on one hand human rights, international law, values, ethics etc. On the other hand reality and balance of power.

You can wait until the balance shift. What then? A change of roles?

Nice example the one with the aggresive man. Well it seems to me that your side is bending over the last 80-90 years. From defeat to defeat. Minor Asia or Ionia as u call it is lost. East Thrace, hald of Cyprus... Don' t u get it. Or u just wait the balance to schift? Nothing changed the last decades on the balance of power rather it turns in favour of Turkey in a way. I do accept though that the Greek side has on advantage, that is the E.U membership. But Turkey has other options too u know. It is a matter of geography.

Anyway I don' t want to stay on this circle. Not the other one ragrding the Ottoman and the rest. OK for the West Ottomans were the barbarians etc. Eveybody needs a myth in order to prevail.

Do u know for example that for many years Turks served in the Byzantium army? Do u have in mind the genious diplomacy of Byzantium used by giving wifes to Turks/Ottomans officials? Do u know that most of the high ranking clerks during Ottoman period were Greeks? That there is a bloody history also it is inevitable. But any empire cannot hold unless a degree of tolerance exists, a taxations system who allows economic balance also. As any empire the Ottoman decomposited gradually.

Human rights? It is a well known debate in academic circles u know. Liberals employed the human rights theory for their purposes ie. it was a spearhead during cold war. The basic concept is that since u r human u have some rights. Well I don' t believe in this theory. I do not accept their existence. It is a theoretical attitude. But as u don' t have in mind the relevant debate I prefer to stop here.


I say again. U lost a war, u thinl that by setting forth the human rights issue is enough to change reality? Then hold the European convention of human rights, the magna charta also. any known bill of rights, the european treaties also and marsh against reality. Good luck.

Lupusdiavoli, you should better change your name to that of “Cinicusdiabolus!” It will describe you better!

Of course, it goes without saying that we do not accept your approach! If this will eventually turn into a sort of a “last stand,” so be it!

PS: We not only hold the convention of human rights in our hands and the UN Charter, but we also hold an EU veto and we intent to make full use of it, for this for and for other purposes. Then you will see what cynicism means!

[lupusdiavoli]

I will reply startiing from u Kifeas.

How u want ti charactirise my attitude is upon you. I don' t mind calling it cynism. Dissagreement is acceptable. I cannot to be honest but appreciate a sort of a "last stand" spirit. I could also add in a way I think u will agree it much reflects Greeks. A sort of "thermopyles" which is in fashion in cinema lately... I could comment though only in cinema...

EU veto? I said before calmly that Turkey has other options too based on geopolitical approach. The Greeks think that the road to EU is the sole road for Turkey. It is not in contrast with Greece and Cyprus. I don' t even believe that Turkey will ever join EU. At the same time such expectation seems to be more favorite among the Greeks mostly as a mean to bring some "civil values" plus western ideas, as the Greeks contemplate it, in Turkey. Thus it is beleived that Turkey will minimise its agressivness. Wishful thinking I should say.

Now the veto issue. Yeap. So, is it such a nuclear weapon? Only France used it once against the British if I am correct. Το use veto u have to be able to face the reaction both sides. That is on internal level within EU and accordingly the Turkish reaction.

But if I want to be coherent I should advise the Greeks that if but nothing else remains so to stop Turkey becoming full member they should make use of veto. That is why, and this is cold cynism indeed, if Turkey enters EU will be in expence of Greece and Cyprus. Think of it having in mind the analogy with NATO and the turkish potentials as a whole.

Now I will have to respond to the "Macedonian"

Yes u r absolutely correct. Coherence applies again. The big fish prevails. Call it as u like. Accepting defeat is a sort of virtue. How to minimise the results of defeat is a sort of "art". That Cretan politician of yours,Venizelos was good at it I think.

I was the one who spoke about decomposition of Ottoman Empire. So the argument does not stand. Since u like history we could discuss Greek revolution if u like. Welldone. Having in mind 2 civil wars between the Greeks, the result was positive. A new born state. Well almost. Pelloponissos, Attica and some islands. It served Great Britain's plans at the period don' t u think. They even used their navy at the end. Fair enough. Greeks deserved their freedom I don' t doubt. I can easily say that they gave too much and took crumblings.

You r wrong. I don' t have problem to fully accept your argument. Turkey is the aggressive one. Obvously. How could either Greece or Cyprus be the one. At least Greece made an effort until its "Great Idea" was lost in the ashes of Smyrna. Cemal's era. And there is a difference u know it between the Ottoman Empire and the new born Turkish state. Do u see the irony? Turkey was reborn from the Greek ashes! A historical upside down. Don' t blame anyone but the tactic employed by the Greek Generals. The victorious until then Greek army lost its focus through the desert and the general staff was situated far away from the front... The turn of the wind I should say.

It hearts I know. But think about it since u like history. Please explain to me how the Greeks managed to acheived two succesive defeats in 7 decades with such catastrophic results? Ionia was lost for good and then Cyprus. Greeks learnt nothing from the first case as it seems to me.

As u see examples are not needful. I can further point to u Aegean,Thrace, Cyprus!!!

I said from the start that I sympathise with the way u read history. I based that on the taste of realism I saw. That means without feelings independently from where u belong. The best of the best historians was Greek and he did exactly this.

Kifeas I think would find him cynic. This is the result when u do not keep a distance from the issue and u become a part of it. OK it is in human nature. As action and reaction. I perceive the last 2 greek comments rather reactive. Not because of my cynism but because some of my arguments taste reality which nowdays is rather hard for the Greeks.

For proud Greeks with awareness of their past and the distance from the present it is after all explainable. I cannot deny u that. It is evident from your nicknames. A "macedonian" one and a mytholgical one.

[Piratis]

lupusdiavoli, you still didn't answer the one and only question I asked you:
What will we gain by signing away our rights?

Also answer this question:
Are our enemies harmed, even a bit, by our insistence to fight for our rights?

I will not write anything more now, just answer those 2 questions.

[seleucus Nicator]

I will reply startiing from u Kifeas.

How u want ti charactirise my attitude is upon you. I don' t mind calling it cynism. Dissagreement is acceptable. I cannot to be honest but appreciate a sort of a "last stand" spirit. I could also add in a way I think u will agree it much reflects Greeks. A sort of "thermopyles" which is in fashion in cinema lately... I could comment though only in cinema...

EU veto? I said before calmly that Turkey has other options too based on geopolitical approach. The Greeks think that the road to EU is the sole road for Turkey. It is not in contrast with Greece and Cyprus. I don' t even believe that Turkey will ever join EU. At the same time such expectation seems to be more favorite among the Greeks mostly as a mean to bring some "civil values" plus western ideas, as the Greeks contemplate it, in Turkey. Thus it is beleived that Turkey will minimise its agressivness. Wishful thinking I should say.

Now the veto issue. Yeap. So, is it such a nuclear weapon? Only France used it once against the British if I am correct. Το use veto u have to be able to face the reaction both sides. That is on internal level within EU and accordingly the Turkish reaction.

But if I want to be coherent I should advise the Greeks that if but nothing else remains so to stop Turkey becoming full member they should make use of veto. That is why, and this is cold cynism indeed, if Turkey enters EU will be in expence of Greece and Cyprus. Think of it having in mind the analogy with NATO and the turkish potentials as a whole.

Now I will have to respond to the "Macedonian"

Yes u r absolutely correct. Coherence applies again. The big fish prevails. Call it as u like. Accepting defeat is a sort of virtue. How to minimise the results of defeat is a sort of "art". That Cretan politician of yours,Venizelos was good at it I think.

I was the one who spoke about decomposition of Ottoman Empire. So the argument does not stand. Since u like history we could discuss Greek revolution if u like. Welldone. Having in mind 2 civil wars between the Greeks, the result was positive. A new born state. Well almost. Pelloponissos, Attica and some islands. It served Great Britain's plans at the period don' t u think. They even used their navy at the end. Fair enough. Greeks deserved their freedom I don' t doubt. I can easily say that they gave too much and took crumblings.

You r wrong. I don' t have problem to fully accept your argument. Turkey is the aggressive one. Obvously. How could either Greece or Cyprus be the one. At least Greece made an effort until its "Great Idea" was lost in the ashes of Smyrna. Cemal's era. And there is a difference u know it between the Ottoman Empire and the new born Turkish state. Do u see the irony? Turkey was reborn from the Greek ashes! A historical upside down. Don' t blame anyone but the tactic employed by the Greek Generals. The victorious until then Greek army lost its focus through the desert and the general staff was situated far away from the front... The turn of the wind I should say.

It hearts I know. But think about it since u like history. Please explain to me how the Greeks managed to acheived two succesive defeats in 7 decades with such catastrophic results? Ionia was lost for good and then Cyprus. Greeks learnt nothing from the first case as it seems to me.

As u see examples are not needful. I can further point to u Aegean,Thrace, Cyprus!!!

I said from the start that I sympathise with the way u read history. I based that on the taste of realism I saw. That means without feelings independently from where u belong. The best of the best historians was Greek and he did exactly this.

Kifeas I think would find him cynic. This is the result when u do not keep a distance from the issue and u become a part of it. OK it is in human nature. As action and reaction. I perceive the last 2 greek comments rather reactive. Not because of my cynism but because some of my arguments taste reality which nowdays is rather hard for the Greeks.

For proud Greeks with awareness of their past and the distance from the present it is after all explainable. I cannot deny u that. It is evident from your nicknames. A "macedonian" one and a mytholgical one.

The important for turkey is also the process further to become a full member of E.U. because during this process will atract million of Euros from foreign investors , necessarily money for economic progress of Turkey.If for any reason the membership of Turkey interrupted these million of Turkey will stop coming to Turkey and for this reason i don't think that Turkey have an alternative solution (probably a Turkic union is not a realistic idea).
""The main idea of nationalism is that we can gain self-esteem by comparing ourselves with others from other nations, and also that we can see ourselves in a positive light by seeing ourselves as a member of a prestigious nation. The question is, how do nations get this prestige? But with the achievements of the nation lineage.This immaturity is more common to the not so (economic) progressive societies where the nationalism is a good food, if the society don't have real "food" .Nationalism feed the self-esteem till the economic progress will come and the personal ego will feed up with personal achievements instead the prestigious lineage.Of course i m not referring to the normal definition of nationalism as the identification of nation through the common language,traditions customs etc.""
One choice for Greece and Cyprus is to work on the direction to "help" Turkey become a full member of E.U. with the hope as i explain in the previous paragraph to democratize and reduce the nationalism (with the rise standard of living)in Turkey.
The other choice (more extremist) is ... to aide in the destruction of the Turkish state, which (for some people) is the only way Turkey will ever democratize (following the events of Kurdish front).

Can you explain me how in a personal basis a Turkish is becoming a carpet to walk on it and on a collective level is becoming so aggressive?

The explanation for the defeats is very simple the usual Greek civil confrontations-wars.
Once the Royalist government came to power they reinstalled retired officers of the 1917 Constantine era. In a sense, a general degradation by recalling Royalist officers versus the more experienced Venizelist ones. Eventually both parties shared the officer corps. However, working together was a political problem that had implications for the war.The Greek army was mathematically better than the Turkish, because the Greek army didn 't have all the issues that the Kemalik army had to face, such as to be organized from zero only with a core of officers, to fight multiple enemies, the insufficient in number arms.The turkish army won due to the huge mistakes of the Greek command, and due to the excellent exploitation of them by the turkish command.Here we have to mention that this war was between the two consisting nation of the Ottoman empire with the goal to share the land of the empire. The name it later Turkish Independence war for internal reasons but Ottoman empire belonged only to Osman dynasty and nobody else.

As concern the Greek revolution ,England was the only country could see far a way and support the birth of the new Greek state and with this way controlled (with some breaks) the Greek foreign policy till 1948.Russia and Austria were afraid the rise of nationalism in there empires thats why they didn't support it in the beginning .
The same happen today in west Balkans ,they born small states that easily controlled from the powers of our era.

[lupusdiavoli]

Kifeas,

I made reference to several issues. You give emphasis to the issue of human rights. This is your perception for obvious reasons. We can extensively discuss the issue. What u don’ t take into account is that “human rights” solely cannot offer too much. They are an instrument when u r able to enforce them. Otherwise they are simply a resort of the weak side.

I perceive Cyprus issue to be a politic one. Political problems of this sort are not to be solved on the basis of human rights and the relevant literature. As an element, by this I am answering your second query, they do consist source of some pressure but not decisive one for Turkey. It could be a decisive weapon if for example France or Germany like to stop once and for all Turkey to enter EU. But this would be the make-up of their political decision based on other considerations and not their agony for human rights. Europeans have the tendency to remember human rights when it suits their interests.

What will you gain? Well, the decision making process has to take into account the surrounding elements such as time, geopolitical position, balance of power, the defeat of 1974 and reach a conclusion whether being the weak side it is of his interest to make compromises. The benefit will be some sort of a “solution” while there is still time. The opposite proposal would be to wait for the never to come day when human rights will be enforced automatically.

If you are intelligent I suggest to you to make some research on the human rights issue. It’s origin and who were those who invented them. The Greeks like to believe that they are much connected with the values of classic period. And the Europeans like to turn to that era when they want to give some legitimacy to theories crafted solely to serve political purposes.

Let me turn to the Macedonian now.

Look if u want to analyze the options of Turkey you have to be able to examine them through Turkey’s eyes and not from your perceptive. That means that you Greeks like to think that the other side is motivated the same as you. Why Greece and Cyprus entered EU? Was it for the same reasons as Turkey or because they saw a sort of shelter in membership? Do u think that they bargained as equal to equal? Or do u think that Turkey feels some sort of 2nd class state when negotiating with EU? Further Turkey due to its geographic position can seek other paths strategically speaking. So as I am not sure at all whether the Europeans want Turkey inside Europe do not be sure whether Turkey sees this to be a road without return.

You know only few things about Turkey’s economy and its system. The heavy industry of Turkey differs a lot in relation to the heavy industry of Greece which seems to be tourism unless they produced cars and I did not notice it.
Economically speaking once again u project your economic reality to that of Turkey.

How do nations get theirs prestige?

I could cynically say “they enforce it”.

Ah the lineage. Yeap it is something. Do u think that Turkey does not have its myths? Well I am not surprised when Greeks like to visit their glorious past… It is sad but it has nothing to do with present.

“Immaturity is more common to the not so (economic) progressive societies…” Beware of the immature economies and societies Macedonian. Tell this to the Romans when they saw the “Barbarians” destroying their Empire! Lineage cannot help much does it? Is good for moral but not decisive. It is also good when psychotically try to explain the present inferiority so u turn to the past in order to balance the hardness of today.

Your ancestors would not find Greece much of their taste today. You are proud of them. Would they be proud of you? I don’t even dare to ask about Ionians!


I will put an end though because I am not sure whether I understand your argument as a whole. I rather agree to the rest.

I agree also with the options described “….."help" Turkey become a full member of E.U. …. “ You should know that policy is better not to be grounded on “… hope..”
I don’ t think that Turkey’s aggressiveness will stop through. There are other motivating reasons for this.

The other alternative “... to aide in the destruction of the Turkish state…” following the events of Kurdish front” is an interesting one.

I prefer the second! Provide it will put an end to this long standing conflict, why not. Let the best take the prize. Do u think that Greece and Cyprus can really afford it?

You are asking me why in a personal basis a Turkish is becoming a carpet to walk on it and on a collective level is becoming so aggressive?

This is a perception of yours. I cannot explain it. What is considered to be “aggressiveness” I should say that it is simply the application of foreign policy for those reasons that Turkey believes it serves its interests. This is the oldest story since humans organized themselves in state bodies. Provided that someone has clear targets and he is not satisfied just to have the underpart in the neighborhood…

Indeed the Greeks have this ability… “civil confrontations-wars”…

I agree with the rest too. The Greek army, especially artillery forces were brilliant. The Greek army and Greece at the end were left all own to find the battle. The turn of the tide on a diplomatic level played its part also. Nobody would like Greeks to dominate on the two sides of the Aegean you know…

It is the inevitable law of war. If you extend your lines too much you risk your sides. The equations was so obvious and hence the collapse of the front. Total disaster. The same occurred again and again in battlefields. Only Germans in several cases during WW II showed brilliant tacticians able to rapidly avoid –not at the end- the same. However they suffered the same at the Russian front.

Yes the British have the ability to see far. It’s a long established tradition of theirs.

Who said that politics and foreign policy ever changed? That goes for your last sentence.

That’s it for the time being “Macedonian”. Ah, tell me how does it feel having that funny state “FYROM” or should I say “Macedonia” stealing your history? Total luck of respect. Lineage once again does not help I think and Philippus is dead long ago… But it seems to me the first to be swept away is selfrespect for the others to respect you. Don’ t u think?

"Forgive me" but I am well aware of your Achilles heel!

[free_cyprus]

lupusdiavoli
cyprus belongs to cypriot people even thouggt hey are traitors most of them and they think they are greeks and turks......................in history cyprus can be discribed as the greatest whore on the planet.................... and yet we have to convince ourselves we have roots that belong in turkey and greece.....................the truth of the reality is we are an island of MUMMIES BABY DADDYS MAYBE................. but everyone in this forum thinks otherwise..............................lol and that is tragic to say the least

[seleucus Nicator]

my fellow lupus
I could say that the debate is becoming very interesting

Well I am not surprised when Greeks like to visit their glorious past… It is sad but it has nothing to do with present.
Your ancestors would not find Greece much of their taste today. You are proud of them. Would they be proud of you? I don’t even dare to ask about Ionians!

I m also sure that Greeks ancestors would not be very proud because they pass more than 150 years from the birth of the new Greek state and Greeks still preserve Ottomans cultural residues (like backsheesh and rousfeti)but they would be very proud because after 400 years of Ottoman control the Helenes of diaspora preserve the spirit of Hellenism live and they manage (filiki etaireia) to inspire the rebels and create the first Greek speaking state-nation in Europe among the huge Empires .

Look if u want to analyze the options of Turkey you have to be able to examine them through Turkey’s eyes and not from your perceptive. That means that you Greeks like to think that the other side is motivated the same as you. Why Greece and Cyprus entered EU? Was it for the same reasons as Turkey or because they saw a sort of shelter in membership? Do u think that they bargained as equal to equal? Or do u think that Turkey feels some sort of 2nd class state when negotiating with EU? Further Turkey due to its geographic position can seek other paths strategically speaking. So as I am not sure at all whether the Europeans want Turkey inside Europe do not be sure whether Turkey sees this to be a road without return.

You know only few things about Turkey’s economy and its system. The heavy industry of Turkey differs a lot in relation to the heavy industry of Greece which seems to be tourism unless they produced cars and I did not notice it.
Economically speaking once again u project your economic reality to that of Turkey.

I can say that you are also not so aware for Greek economy
Greece together with Cyprus have the biggest commercial fleet in the world.
I have to inform you also that the negotiation between Greece and E.U. were very hard before the entrance and after the entrance (the period of Andrea Papandreou )
How does Turkey feel during the negotiation with E.U. , you better ask your chief negotiator Ali Babatzian ,who is pressing to open more chapters and ... is not happening .
Now i have to agree with you ,that European countries are using Cyprus as an excuse to delay the negotiations , this is not the real reason .
I must also add that Turkish leadership agree with my arguments!!

"Speaking at the press conference, Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said that the harmonization Program to EU Acquis Communitaire will facilitate the fulfilment of the neccessities of the negotiations process as well as improve the living standards of the Turkish people.
“If we make progress and improve our standards in the meantime, Turkey will be stronger in terms of economy, military and democracy,”Gul added.


Can you tell us what are the others choice (except E.U.) Turkey has?

"

How do nations get theirs prestige?

I could cynically say “they enforce it”.

Well i disagree with it
For me all the nation are proud and prestigious
Germans with the guideline of the German workers party tried to enforced their prestige and they lost in the endless Russian steppes from the subhuman Slavs(according to the Aryan theory).I hope wise people will prevail in Turkey and they will not try to do the same
How is Turkey "enforce" his prestige with asking " permission" from US to invade to Kurdistan or with asking "permission" from US to modernize the 20 years old outdated f-16's or with asking "permission" from Germany to use their Leopards to the south eastern region.

“Immaturity is more common to the not so (economic) progressive societies…” Beware of the immature economies and societies Macedonian. Tell this to the Romans when they saw the “Barbarians” destroying their Empire! Lineage cannot help much does it? Is good for moral but not decisive. It is also good when psychotically try to explain the present inferiority so u turn to the past in order to balance the hardness of today.

You have also to tell it to the emperor of Romans (one of sultans title) Beyazid when he lost The Battle of Ankara from the "Barbarian" Tamerlane (some Turkish historians baptize him as Turkic).
As you notice all the "barbarians" come from the east.
For sure lineage cannot help to much in the mountains of Kurdistan!!!

I prefer the second! Provide it will put an end to this long standing conflict, why not. Let the best take the prize. Do u think that Greece and Cyprus can really afford it?

Its up to the Turkish leadership because as you know Greek army has defensive orientation.If we want to make a scenario i could say that the winner will be the dominator of the air.

You are asking me why in a personal basis a Turkish is becoming a carpet to walk on it and on a collective level is becoming so aggressive?

This is a perception of yours. I cannot explain it. What is considered to be “aggressiveness” I should say that it is simply the application of foreign policy for those reasons that Turkey believes it serves its interests. This is the oldest story since humans organized themselves in state bodies. Provided that someone has clear targets and he is not satisfied just to have the underpart in the neighborhood…

I ll clarify what do i mean with ""a Turkish is becoming a carpet to walk on it"' i ll tell you an example some friends visited Smirni and they lost their way they asked a Turkish guy how they could go to the port and the guy closed his shop and took them to the port!!!!
Well i disagree with the others , States cannot speak in our times with the same way-terms that they used to speak before 100 years.States must respect each other

Ah the lineage. Yeap it is something. Do u think that Turkey does not have its myths?

The modern myth of Turkey .. the biggest army of Europe but ineffective
not a powerful army, not high technology ,interested more for politics and greatly corrupted(the retired generals becoming CEO to the supplying companies of the army.) Osman Pamukoglu did one of the greatest operations against PKK in 93-94,forced people to leave their villages, burned forests but PKK still alive and don't tell me that Turkish army create tradition to Korea and to Cyprus (these are keep high the morale for those who need it till will come the personal achievements)

As concern the Slavomakedjians i ll continue tomorrow my fellow lupus.

[free_cyprus]

Rebuild the trust between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots........................ first of all this in itself is deviding cyprus we are the same people we just happened to speak two languages ........................ the problems starts with the brainwashed when they say the words im grek or im turkish .................. this devides us in cyprus and this will always devide the one people of cyprus ................. i speak one of the languages but i have nothing to do with the mainland of that language and i dont recognise them as anything to do with cyprus at all