Cyprus-Forum.com

[cannedmoose]

"Phileleftheros" does it have an online english version or is it totally greek?

If it has, I've never found it brother... guess you'll have to dust off the English-Greek dictionary

[insan]

http://www.worldlingo.com/wl/translate? ... l_post=GET



http://www.worldlingo.com/wl/translate? ... %26tp%3D40

Brother, try this. It won't disappoint you. At least it gives you the idea what's going on in the other side.


Ps: You should wait a while until the page has been translated and loaded.

[MicAtCyp]

Hmmm, lets go back to the post(s) of Cannedmoose.

In your post of 6/3/05 at 2.09 you accused me of dreaming. I answered you back. So until then I thought we were even.

Suprisingly though with your post of 07.23 pm you chose to continue on the same tune:You started with my spelling, then with patronising advices to put my money in my mouth unless I have proof (when I already explained that in such cases it is practically impossible to have proof-you can only see the signs) and then you tried to tell me that I have no observation skills (?!) because according to your assumption I did not notice your comparatively huge avatar. I would quite agree with you that all these are demeaning.

You also replied to the essense of discussion with a kick i.e concerning the fact that the place of events was Brussels. I am not complaining about that, in fact I beleive one kick every now and then is no problem, it just helps others be more careful to what they say. In this particular case the "others" is me. But it seems you never noticed that although I personally can spot tens of points to kick, I only do it once in certain posts, and do not combine it with provocations. Otherwise everything would go off hand.

Then you continue your provocation with your todays post claiming that I failed to answer you to the essense. The fact is that I am not online, and I usually answer to "old" posts during my free time which by the way is not much . Whenever I try to do it online, I only write one line hasty posts like the one intended for Erol but erroneously ended having your nick on. So would I be wrong if I would say you are fast in jumping into conclussions?

So Cannedmose, to make a summary, I admit my style is compative but I beleive I "fight" with arguments.So you can reply in this or any other style you like, as long as that is concentrated on arguments. And perhaps one kick every now and then on obvious errors never hurt anybody. Sometimes it even helps boost a discussion, or just make some fun.(assuming of course one can understand the British humor, which unfortunately I dont)

Now to the easy and safe for you subject, you got grapped on.(Note: Don't expect so easy "papers" from me in the future).

Of course De-Soto was scheduled to speak. When I said he follows Papadopoulos I didn’t mean he appeared there out of the blues. My original suspicion is those who used him are still using him and arranged for him to be there for a very specific reason. (Don't ask me for proof I already said look at the signs). So here are a few questions to consider:

1)Who arranged for him to be there and why?
2)Why De-Soto among thousands of UN officials?
3)What is his expertise that qualified him be there?
4)Why his speach was concentrated in confronting Papdopoulos?

Well you may say everything is coincidential, but on the other hand so many coincidences are rather strange to me.

[MicAtCyp]

Makarios Droushiotis in today's "Politis" makes mincemeat of the cretin allegations that the A plan gave the Brits continental shelf at the bases.

Read carefully Bananiot, and stop admiring the fools:

Article 5

1. Section 3 of Annex A to the Treaty of Establishment shall be replaced by
the following:
"Section 3
Cyprus shall not claim, as part of its territorial sea, waters lying
between the lines described in the report referred to in the Additional
Protocol to this Treaty."
2. The lines referred to in Section 3, as amended, of Annex A to the Treaty
of Establishment, which delimit the waters adjacent to the Sovereign
Base Areas that the United Cyprus Republic shall not claim as part of its
territorial sea, shall be set out in a report to be prepared by a duly
qualified person to be designated by the Government of the United
Kingdom. S/he shall begin the work not later than one month after the
entry into force of this Protocol and complete it as soon as possible and
in any event within a period of nine months. The designated person may
appoint technical advisers to assist him/her. S/he shall report to the
appropriate authorities of the United Kingdom and Cyprus upon
completion of the work.
3. The United Kingdom shall continue to enjoy complete and unimpeded
access for any purpose whatsoever to the waters lying between the
waters which the United Cyprus Republic shall not claim adjacent to the
eastern part of the Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area adjoining the sea
(which part is marked on Map A with an area of 16.10 sq. km), and the
waters which the United Cyprus Republic shall not claim adjacent to the
western part of the Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area adjoining the sea
(which is marked on Map A with an area of 5.01 sq km).

[-mikkie2-]

MicAtCyp

It is amazing to see that people have still not read the plan properly. We had these discussions long ago and nobody said that it was a lie (that the SBA's get sea shelf rights). All of a sudden the discussion comes up again and we get people suggesting that sea shelf rights, hell let say it for what it is, the creation of another country in Cyprus, is a lie!

Perhaps people have short memories. Very short memories.

[cannedmoose]

So Cannedmose, to make a summary, I admit my style is compative but I beleive I "fight" with arguments.So you can reply in this or any other style you like, as long as that is concentrated on arguments. And perhaps one kick every now and then on obvious errors never hurt anybody. Sometimes it even helps boost a discussion, or just make some fun.(assuming of course one can understand the British humor, which unfortunately I dont)

Ok MicAtCyp, enough of the personal battle we appear to be having. I think a combination of your combative style and my equally combative deep nature resulted in us going slightly over-the-top... it's only a discussion after all. Plus my sarcastic British sense of humour can come across as patronising... I apologise if it came across that way initially.

As for kicking, I agree, it's always useful to get kicked in the pants from time-to-time, keeps you on your toes.

Of course De-Soto was scheduled to speak. When I said he follows Papadopoulos I didn’t mean he appeared there out of the blues. My original suspicion is those who used him are still using him and arranged for him to be there for a very specific reason. (Don't ask me for proof I already said look at the signs). So here are a few questions to consider:

1)Who arranged for him to be there and why?
2)Why De-Soto among thousands of UN officials?
3)What is his expertise that qualified him be there?
4)Why his speach was concentrated in confronting Papdopoulos?

Well you may say everything is coincidential, but on the other hand so many coincidences are rather strange to me.

Now that I understand the point you're making I have more sympathies with it, but I still think saying that TPap was deliberately targeted is going a bit too far down the conspiracy route. For sure, the organisers were hoping to generate controversy resulting from the juxtaposition in De Soto and TPap's stances, but I don't think De Soto was lined up to embarass or harass TPap.

As for your questions, I think they are all pretty valid. Not being a great expert on federalism I can't say why De Soto was chosen, not knowing if he is an authority on the subject (you could probably ask the same thing of TPap).

Anyways, time for bed, early start tomorrow. MicAtCyp, time to put our confrontation to bed also, I apologise for any offence and hope that you feel likewise. Kalinixta re.

[cannedmoose]

The Europeans are finding out what it means to 'negotiate' with the Turks. They are learning the hard way!

No disrespect to our TC friends here.

Having spoken with someone who was present at the December summit, he told me that jaws literally hit the table at some of the expressions that Erdogan came up with at the negotiating table. Although I respect Erdogan greatly, I think he has a lot to learn about the way in which the EU operates, and particularly how he is expected to behave as a candidate for membership.

The term 'negotiating' for EU membership is a misnomer, the process is not so much a negotiation between equals as a requirement for the candidate to implement the acquis communautaire in full and on a tight schedule. I think Turkey still regards EU membership as a right rather than a privilege. I'm sure they'll learn quickly how to work the halls of Brussels but the December summit was an example of how to put people's backs up. As the year progresses, expect less rhetoric... historical experience shows that the Turks are masters of diplomacy, hopefully they'll learn the art of EUplomacy quickly... for their own sakes.

[Agios Amvrosios]

http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.ht ... 47&lang=US

the above article deals with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (US congresswoman's ) support for Turkish Troop withdrawal in the occupied areas.

THis is her old article from the Washington Times:

http://washingtontimes.com/functions/pr ... 2615-6271r

[Alexandros Lordos]

Of course De-Soto was scheduled to speak. When I said he follows Papadopoulos I didn’t mean he appeared there out of the blues. My original suspicion is those who used him are still using him and arranged for him to be there for a very specific reason. (Don't ask me for proof I already said look at the signs). So here are a few questions to consider:

1)Who arranged for him to be there and why?
2)Why De-Soto among thousands of UN officials?
3)What is his expertise that qualified him be there?
4)Why his speach was concentrated in confronting Papdopoulos?

Well you may say everything is coincidential, but on the other hand so many coincidences are rather strange to me.

Now that I understand the point you're making I have more sympathies with it, but I still think saying that TPap was deliberately targeted is going a bit too far down the conspiracy route. For sure, the organisers were hoping to generate controversy resulting from the juxtaposition in De Soto and TPap's stances, but I don't think De Soto was lined up to embarass or harass TPap.

As for your questions, I think they are all pretty valid. Not being a great expert on federalism I can't say why De Soto was chosen, not knowing if he is an authority on the subject (you could probably ask the same thing of TPap).

My own interpretation for the choice of speakers was that the conference organisers were trying to acquire information about the Annan Plan and about what is happening in Cyprus. Most Europeans admit to being very confused over the whole affair, with the UN insisting that the Annan Plan was an eminently balanced and workable solution, and the RoC insisting that the Annan Plan was a disaster waiting to happen.

Therefore they invited the two persons who could be trusted to speak in favor of the plan (de Soto) and against the plan (Tassos) in order to better develop an informed opinion of their own.

[Bananiot]

Lets go back to the continental shelf business. According to the treaty of establishment (1960) the RoC gave up any rights to claim the sea areas around the bases. The A plan does not say any different. In fact, the situation is better, in a way, since a large chunk of the bases comes back to the RoC (or the united country) under the A plan.

Alekos Markides, ex At. General, explained the other day that the RoC signed an agreement with Egypt for joint exploitation of the sea between the two countries. This zone includes of course the bases. The Brits said that we had no legal right to come to such an agreement with Egypt. The RoC told them to take the case to the International Court and the Brits, while maintaining their disagreement, have not taken the matter any further. In the meantime, the Egypt agreement became part of the A plan!

Thus it can be seen that the suggestion that the A plan gave the Brits the right to exploit the sea adjacent to the bases is just another myth circulated by the enemies of the solution.

In the meantime, Solon Nikitas, the present day At. General, said yesterday that neither the treaty of establishment nor the A plan gave the Brits any rights on the sea or the continental shelf.

I think, mikkie, reading the plan is not enough. One needs to have political and legal back up to understand it. This is the hard part.