Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

When you have lost an armed conflict (which the GCs have done) there are only two ways to get back what you have lost – fight for it (scarcely practical for GCs) or negotiate for it. The loser of an armed conflict rarely gets back everything in negotiations, and never gets to a position better then he started from. Items 1 and 2 above would be (from the GC position) a better position than they started from. Items 3 and 4 above would be a return to where they started from, and might have been possible if negotiations had concluded 30+ years ago. It is doubtful if even those items are practical now, given the length of time many ‘settlers’ have been here, and the changes in property use.

Using the same analogy the Turkish Cypriots lost the 63..64 armed conflict and retreated to enclaves so why didn’t they apply all the above you mention and instead brought big brother on?

What's the matter tough guy can't you fight you own battles?

The more one spends time on this forum the more one realizes how FULL OF SHIT many Turkish Cypriots are.

Arsehole!

[zan]

When you have lost an armed conflict (which the GCs have done) there are only two ways to get back what you have lost – fight for it (scarcely practical for GCs) or negotiate for it. The loser of an armed conflict rarely gets back everything in negotiations, and never gets to a position better then he started from. Items 1 and 2 above would be (from the GC position) a better position than they started from. Items 3 and 4 above would be a return to where they started from, and might have been possible if negotiations had concluded 30+ years ago. It is doubtful if even those items are practical now, given the length of time many ‘settlers’ have been here, and the changes in property use.

Using the same analogy the Turkish Cypriots lost the 63..64 armed conflict and retreated to enclaves so why didn’t they apply all the above you mention and instead brought big brother on?

What's the matter tough guy can't you fight you own battles?

The more one spends time on this forum the more one realizes how FULL OF SHIT many Turkish Cypriots are.

Arsehole!

What part of the above did you not understand cowboy??????

[Get Real!]

When you have lost an armed conflict (which the GCs have done) there are only two ways to get back what you have lost – fight for it (scarcely practical for GCs) or negotiate for it. The loser of an armed conflict rarely gets back everything in negotiations, and never gets to a position better then he started from. Items 1 and 2 above would be (from the GC position) a better position than they started from. Items 3 and 4 above would be a return to where they started from, and might have been possible if negotiations had concluded 30+ years ago. It is doubtful if even those items are practical now, given the length of time many ‘settlers’ have been here, and the changes in property use.

Using the same analogy the Turkish Cypriots lost the 63..64 armed conflict and retreated to enclaves so why didn’t they apply all the above you mention and instead brought big brother on?

What's the matter tough guy can't you fight you own battles?

The more one spends time on this forum the more one realizes how FULL OF SHIT many Turkish Cypriots are.

Arsehole!

What part of the above did you not understand cowboy??????

What's the matter tough guy can't you fight you own battles?

[zan]

When you have lost an armed conflict (which the GCs have done) there are only two ways to get back what you have lost – fight for it (scarcely practical for GCs) or negotiate for it. The loser of an armed conflict rarely gets back everything in negotiations, and never gets to a position better then he started from. Items 1 and 2 above would be (from the GC position) a better position than they started from. Items 3 and 4 above would be a return to where they started from, and might have been possible if negotiations had concluded 30+ years ago. It is doubtful if even those items are practical now, given the length of time many ‘settlers’ have been here, and the changes in property use.

Using the same analogy the Turkish Cypriots lost the 63..64 armed conflict and retreated to enclaves so why didn’t they apply all the above you mention and instead brought big brother on?

What's the matter tough guy can't you fight you own battles?

The more one spends time on this forum the more one realizes how FULL OF SHIT many Turkish Cypriots are.

Arsehole!

What part of the above did you not understand cowboy??????

What's the matter tough guy can't you fight you own battles?

GCs = Greeks and Greek guns plus Russian guns and knowhow.......


GR = Prat running around on a mountain top waving a stick...

[Nikitas]

One armed conflict is not a war. Historically Greek Cypriots are better off now than at any time since the peak of the Byzantine Empire. In "defeat" they managed to rebuild their economy on two thirds of the previous territory, regained international acceptance, achieved economic crediblity and credit rating higher than either Greece or Turkey, built a credible military, entered the EU and the Eurozone, where Turkey, the victor might join if all things go well in twenty years.

Not bad for a defeated nation. As for the claims to property you forget the EU and similar cases, like the settlements between Poland and Germany where individual rights were upheld 60 years after the end of World War II. Time does not extinguish individual rights. Three years ago the ECHR upheld the rights of a Greek lady for damage caused by the Greek buraucracy 75 years previous.

But your attitude that might is right is interesting. It is an attitude shared by people like Nicos Sampson when he was alive and believed that killing TCs and demolishing their houses was OK as long as he could maintain his acts with enough guns. Like him you dont realise that you can never have enough guns. Someone always has or can get more.

[zan]

One armed conflict is not a war. Historically Greek Cypriots are better off now than at any time since the peak of the Byzantine Empire. In "defeat" they managed to rebuild their economy on two thirds of the previous territory, regained international acceptance, achieved economic crediblity and credit rating higher than either Greece or Turkey, built a credible military, entered the EU and the Eurozone, where Turkey, the victor might join if all things go well in twenty years.

Not bad for a defeated nation. As for the claims to property you forget the EU and similar cases, like the settlements between Poland and Germany where individual rights were upheld 60 years after the end of World War II. Time does not extinguish individual rights. Three years ago the ECHR upheld the rights of a Greek lady for damage caused by the Greek buraucracy 75 years previous.

But your attitude that might is right is interesting. It is an attitude shared by people like Nicos Sampson when he was alive and believed that killing TCs and demolishing their houses was OK as long as he could maintain his acts with enough guns. Like him you dont realise that you can never have enough guns. Someone always has or can get more.

So might is right???????

Was that at me by the way?????

[observer]

One armed conflict is not a war. Historically Greek Cypriots are better off now than at any time since the peak of the Byzantine Empire. In "defeat" they managed to rebuild their economy on two thirds of the previous territory, regained international acceptance, achieved economic crediblity and credit rating higher than either Greece or Turkey, built a credible military, entered the EU and the Eurozone, where Turkey, the victor might join if all things go well in twenty years.

Not bad for a defeated nation. As for the claims to property you forget the EU and similar cases, like the settlements between Poland and Germany where individual rights were upheld 60 years after the end of World War II. Time does not extinguish individual rights. Three years ago the ECHR upheld the rights of a Greek lady for damage caused by the Greek buraucracy 75 years previous.

But your attitude that might is right is interesting. It is an attitude shared by people like Nicos Sampson when he was alive and believed that killing TCs and demolishing their houses was OK as long as he could maintain his acts with enough guns. Like him you dont realise that you can never have enough guns. Someone always has or can get more.

No-one can deny that RoC had done well economically since 1974. The parallel that you draw with Germany is interesting, since Germany has done rather well since 1945.

The key word with regard to Germany/Poland is "settlement", and a negotiated one. I think that it rather illustrates my point. Compare a pre-war map with today's map. Germany lost and did not get back East Prussia, polish 'settlers' were not sent back to pre-war Poland. Germany recognised today's realities, as did its people.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I believed that the philosophy 'might was right' was a good philosophy. I don't believe it is, but if might is resorted to, it is the stronger side that tends to win. That's pragmatism.

My initial comments were not intended to propose any particular solution, but point to the need for GCs to compromise if a solution is to be found in the short term. The person who started this thread may be right. Nationalistic GC interests may be served by waiting, but the only thing that can be certain about adopting an uncompromising position is that it won't bring about a solution.

[Nikitas]

A bigger compromise than the acceptance of the BBF structure? How much bigger than that compromise can you ask for?

In the end, after reading all the opinions here and elsewhere, where the main objective seems to be implementation of the "masters in the north, partners in the south" idea, outright partition is beginning to make sense. As long as there is a clear agreement that the TC side is relinquishing all claims outside its allocated area, to preclude any more cynical claims in the future. And each side then can go seek its allies and guarantors as it sees fit.

[Viewpoint]

A bigger compromise than the acceptance of the BBF structure? How much bigger than that compromise can you ask for?

In the end, after reading all the opinions here and elsewhere, where the main objective seems to be implementation of the "masters in the north, partners in the south" idea, outright partition is beginning to make sense. As long as there is a clear agreement that the TC side is relinquishing all claims outside its allocated area, to preclude any more cynical claims in the future. And each side then can go seek its allies and guarantors as it sees fit.

Agreed, you have now been hit by reality the chasm is to wide to bridge and getting wider, you have now seen the light that with our mentality agreed aprtition is the only resl solution that will work, unofficially its worked for 34 years, what more proof do you need.

[Kikapu]

A bigger compromise than the acceptance of the BBF structure? How much bigger than that compromise can you ask for?

In the end, after reading all the opinions here and elsewhere, where the main objective seems to be implementation of the "masters in the north, partners in the south" idea, outright partition is beginning to make sense. As long as there is a clear agreement that the TC side is relinquishing all claims outside its allocated area, to preclude any more cynical claims in the future. And each side then can go seek its allies and guarantors as it sees fit.

Agreed, you have now been hit by reality the chasm is to wide to bridge and getting wider, you have now seen the light that with our mentality agreed aprtition is the only resl solution that will work, unofficially its worked for 34 years, what more proof do you need.

But hang on a minute VP. Before you start telling us how big the chasm is, can you tell us who really wants the chasm there to begin with. Nikitas is saying that the GC's will compromise to have a True Federation with the TC's to start fresh with a new beginning for Cypriots over a Unitary state, or a partition, and since the BBF proposed by the AP was also a partition which would have come sooner or later with a very complicated outcome for everyone, and all you can say to Nikitas is,

"you have now been hit by reality the chasm is to wide to bridge and getting wider, you have now seen the light that with our mentality agreed partition is the only resl solution that will work, unofficially its worked for 34 years, what more proof do you need".

How about a compromise from the TC side to make a True Federation work rather than opt at the first chance for a partition. Is this the TC's version of a compromise, a partition.?? If so, whats with all the charade about finding a lasting solution by the end of 2008. The way I see things in what the whole TC and Turkey's proposals are nothing but a agreed Partition or a disguised partition in the form of a BBF. Now, can you tell me where is the compromise from the TC's for peace, please.