Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Joe, I have a confession to make. Most things I know I read first about them in books ...

[joe]

Joe, in case you are interested, I have read Klerides's book from page 1 to page 549. It's titled "documents of an era" and in it I have found some very interesting staff which about the period between 1993 and 2003 when Klerides was President. It is also true that I am an admirer of Klerides's realism and pragmatism and I was there, at the launching of the book.

I have made a search of the archives of Cyprus Mail. Is this the article that you claimed I copied?

You can run but you can not hide. Come heather!

Did i say it was the Cyprus Mail? I rarely read the Cyprus Mail. In fact, Im pretty sure i didnt say the Cyprus Mail.

Your statements were copied from this link:
http://www.cyprusweekly.com.cy/default. ... wsID=304_5

Shall we go into specifics? OK...

You parroted about a settlement not being the one we desired. Uhhmm, let see the shortcomings of the United Nations. You worded it differently by saying the limitations of the United Nations. Clever! Let us proceed forward, ohh and the nice resolutions but we cant implement them. Its all there, worded perfectly for you in that small little paragraph in the CYPRUS WEEKLY. Is there more? You bet! You also copied the next paragraph about the dangers of the status quo. See?

You've been outed. Why dont you just parrot the whole article?

[joe]

Joe, I have a confession to make.

You cant think on your own and need to parrot the party line. We know already.

Well, its time to go. Good night all!

[Piratis]

Joe,

The problem here is not that Bananiot copies Cleredes.

The question is who was telling to the old pampers man, who can't even say a whole sentence straight anymore, what to write in his book and who wanted him elected for just a couple of more months in order to have the crime that was planned during the previous 15 years successfully executed.

I am sure the British had offered the Nobel of Peace to Cleredes if he went along, but I wonder if it was just that.

[Pyrpolizer]

We need a change man, let's no be conservative peasants who only know growing potatoes. Let's try grapes this time.

Pyrpolizer, I am not conservative at all. However not all changes are positive. A change can be for the better but it can also be for the worst. So we shouldn't make a change for the sake of the change, just randomly hoping that this change will be a positive one. Before we make our choices we should seriously evaluate our options.

So you shouldn't just say "Let's try grapes this time." You should explain why it will be better with the "grapes" and not worst.

In my opinion Papadopoulos did almost as much as he could when we brought him in the last moment to make the big "U Turn" to avoid the collision that was planned by the AngloAmericans with the cooperation of Vassiliou and Cleredes during the last 15 years. The problems we face today are simply a result of the reaction of US/UK for daring to refuse their plans for Cyprus. The only way to avoid those problems would have been to accept that much bigger problem called Annan plan.

Christofias can not bring anything better. On the contrary it is very possible that he will bring us back a re-cooked Annan plan, and when we will reject it again (because there is no doubt about that), the problems for "daring" to reject that plan twice will be even bigger.

And if you think the mud that the AngloAmericans through their media throw against Papadopoulos now is a lot, and Christofias will create for us a better image abroad, then wait to see how the AngloAmericans would treat Christofias if he doesn't adopt their line. The UK/USA press will be writing articles about the super conservative Stalin leader of the Cuba of the Mediterranean.

So Christofias is not a change for the positive in my opinion, despite the shortcomings of Papadopoulos.

Piratis the Annan Plan was dead and burried by Denktash for more than a year after Papadopoulos took over. It was PAPADOPOULOS who resurrected it, and did the fatal mistake of sending a letter to the UN asking for a new initiative just before we entered the EU, to show face.

I ask you a simple question. What do you personally think: Has he until then even read the Annan Plan???

Now you may say he was tricked by the other traitor Klerides, but nevertheless he was the one who finalized this disaster on us, and he was the one we voted for President, not Klerides.

I am not judging him based on what the AngloAmericans say about him. I am judging him by his own actions during these past 5 years and the results of those actions ALONE.

You are right about the risks we will go through (concerning the AngloAmericans) by electing a leftist leader.On the other hand don't forget Christofias is the the only one who is widely accepted by the Tcs. So these risks are somehow counterbalanced.

Besides let's examine Papadopoulos governing, from the day he took over, until the 31st March 2004 when Anan 5 was born.(some 1.5 years later). He sent a letter to the UN asking for urgent negotiations on the Anan Plan (exactly the same way Klerides would have done), he accepted arbitration (exactly the same way Klerides would have done), and brought us this disaster (exactly the same way or even worse than what Klerides would have done). So the question is : Why the hell have we voted him for President instead of giving Klerides his damn 16 months he was asking for on the first place?? Did Papadopoulos ever gave us any guarantees we would be better than Klerides??? Absolutely NOT. So why have we voted him?
The answer is simple: Because then, all other choices were de facto bad.

The same way we will vote Christofias this time:Because all other choices are de facto bad. We will bet our last chance, that's all.

[CopperLine]

Piratis,
You point out an important factor in any political settlement namely

5) The plan legalized the violations of our human and democratic rights.

But here is the strategic choice that *all* peace plans oblige one to make : EITHER, a peace plan/settlement basically says 'here is the broad proposed settlement between states, between warring parties, between erstwhile enemies; we don't pretend to address (let alone remedy or redress) the individual human rights abuses and democratic violations that occurred during the war or as a consequence of the war; all we are trying to do is establish a general peace; that general peace may contain many individual injustices, but a general peace is worth the continuation of some, even many, individual injustices.'
OR, forget a general peace plan/settlement and instead try to secure, redress and remedy for all the individual cases human rights violations and other injustices.

The Annan Plan certainly had dangers that it prioritised a peace settlement over the settlement and remedying of individual violations or abuses. By contrast, the pursuit of individual cases through the ECHR might more obviously secure individual justice but it does not (can not) bring a general peace settlement.

In the first option it is states that have rights and duties that are to be upheld, whilst in the second case it is individuals a who have rights and duties which must be upheld. The trouble is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to pursue both paths at the same time. Each path compromises the ability of the other to realise its objectives. For example, suppose you favour a comprehensive peace settlement negotiated between the parties to the dispute then those parties might say 'forget the detail of who owns that particular acre of ground because we're going to transfer the whole of this district to that federal state'. But if you as an individual were the rightful owner of that particular acre this ignoring of your particular claim would be a further insufferable cost, a further violation of your rights, a further source of animosity .

Thus, with general peace plans we're always faced with the danger or dilemma of accepting peace without justice, or in rejecting a general peace plan, trying to pursue justice in the absence of peace. As both paths are pursued and as time goes by, each confounds the chances of the other being realised. Thus, in time, because a timely strategic choice could not be made, neither strategy can be fulfilled. And that, in my view, is the nature and origin of the current stalemate.

[Piratis]

Pyrpolizer, during the last presidential elections the debate was between those that wanted the Annan plan as a basis for a solution (Cleredes, Markides) and those that said that the Annan plan should only be a basis for negotiations (Trimeris).

The only ones at that time that were saying that Annan plan should not even be a basis for negotiations where Neoi Orizontes. I am guessing that Papadopoulos would prefer to scrap the Annan plan altogether from then, however he had to make compromises in order to gain the support of AKEL. So he didn't lie to us, and he had clearly said that he would negotiate with Annan plan as the basis.

So it is ridiculous those that wanted the Annan plan as a basis for a solution, and during the referendum supported the Annan plan (this includes DISY and the central committee of AKEL, which had voted in support of AP but was later forced to change direction because they realized their supportees wouldn't follow them) to accuse Papadopoulos because he negotiated the plan.

If when you voted for Papadopoulos you didn't know that Papadopoulos had to compromise with AKEL and he agreed to negotiate the AP, and you were surprised that such thing happened, then before you vote this time it would be good to know what the candidates offer. What do you think Christofias offers? Either he will follow the exact same policy as Papadopoulos, or he will bring back a re-cooked Annan plan. Do you think he will do something else? If yes, what? Because listening to your arguments in here I can tell you that they have nothing to do with what Christofias is planing to do.

Christofias bases his hopes for election on two factors: 1) The sheep of his party who are a lot and will vote whoever the party says, and 2) the Annan plan supporters like Bananiot, Vasiliou, Papapetrou (hoping for the DISY ones in second round) because it was apparently promised to them that he would bring back the Annan plan.

But why are you voting for him? You are neither an AKEL sheep, nor you want the AP back. Can you justify your choice, or it is just a change for the sake of change, even if that change will be for the worst?

[zan]

Piratis,
You point out an important factor in any political settlement namely

5) The plan legalized the violations of our human and democratic rights.

But here is the strategic choice that *all* peace plans oblige one to make : EITHER, a peace plan/settlement basically says 'here is the broad proposed settlement between states, between warring parties, between erstwhile enemies; we don't pretend to address (let alone remedy or redress) the individual human rights abuses and democratic violations that occurred during the war or as a consequence of the war; all we are trying to do is establish a general peace; that general peace may contain many individual injustices, but a general peace is worth the continuation of some, even many, individual injustices.'
OR, forget a general peace plan/settlement and instead try to secure, redress and remedy for all the individual cases human rights violations and other injustices.

The Annan Plan certainly had dangers that it prioritised a peace settlement over the settlement and remedying of individual violations or abuses. By contrast, the pursuit of individual cases through the ECHR might more obviously secure individual justice but it does not (can not) bring a general peace settlement.

In the first option it is states that have rights and duties that are to be upheld, whilst in the second case it is individuals a who have rights and duties which must be upheld. The trouble is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to pursue both paths at the same time. Each path compromises the ability of the other to realise its objectives. For example, suppose you favour a comprehensive peace settlement negotiated between the parties to the dispute then those parties might say 'forget the detail of who owns that particular acre of ground because we're going to transfer the whole of this district to that federal state'. But if you as an individual were the rightful owner of that particular acre this ignoring of your particular claim would be a further insufferable cost, a further violation of your rights, a further source of animosity .

Thus, with general peace plans we're always faced with the danger or dilemma of accepting peace without justice, or in rejecting a general peace plan, trying to pursue justice in the absence of peace. As both paths are pursued and as time goes by, each confounds the chances of the other being realised. Thus, in time, because a timely strategic choice could not be made, neither strategy can be fulfilled. And that, in my view, is the nature and origin of the current stalemate.

And that is why the government bond scheme was thought up. They are tradable, sellable and appreciate as would property prices.

[Piratis]

CopperLine, I disagree with you about the "all peace plans" part. It is not necessarily all. A war can end without winners or losers, in which case nobodies rights need to be compromised, and no land has to be transfered from one to another. Everybody simply keeps what they legally own, the troops withdraw to the positions they had before the war had started, and the human rights of all people are restored.

What you are referring to is the subset of peace plans, where there is a winner and loser, and the losers makes compromises while the winner makes gains. These "peace plans" are otherwise known as surrender and capitulation agreements.

I hope you understood by now that we do not want any such "peace plan" and if you continue to insist on gains or our loss then peace will never come.

[zan]

CopperLine, I disagree with you about the "all peace plans" part. It is not necessarily all. A war can end without winners or losers, in which case nobodies rights need to be compromised, and no land has to be transfered from one to another. Everybody simply keeps what they legally own, the troops withdraw to the positions they had before the war had started, and the human rights of all people are restored.

What you are referring to is the subset of peace plans, where there is a winner and loser, and the losers makes compromises while the winner makes gains. These "peace plans" are otherwise known as surrender and capitulation agreements.

I hope you understood by now that we do not want any such "peace plan" and if you continue to insist on gains or our loss then peace will never come.

Then why don't we go back to when the Ottomans owned the island