Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

cannedmoose

I'm hurt VP!

I apologise cannedmoose, you should be included in that list, your postings are very objective and interesting to read.

[cannedmoose]

cannedmoose

I'm hurt VP!

I apologise cannedmoose, you should be included in that list, your postings are very objective and interesting to read.

Thanks VP, I'll quit fishing for complements now... need all I can get after the abuse Webbie's been throwing my way!

[Piratis]

How do you feel some of us 'Yes' supporters are disrespecting the will of the majority? Can you please give me an example or two of how we've done that?

First of all I have no problem with people that voted "yes", I perfectly understand them, especially if they are refugees that their land would return under GC admin.
What I have a problem with is with people like Bananiot that claim things such as:
1)People that voted "no" were misinformed (= stupid). Therefore what is needed is to change leadership (=kick Papadopoulos) and "educate" people in order to make them vote "yes". This is an insult for us to say the least.
2) Papadopoulos doesn't want solution, Papadopoulos wants partition etc etc. Whats the aim of this? To help the propaganda of our enemies that say that our rejection to the plan means rejection to a solution? They might disagree with Papadopoulos, but they have to understand that we want solution as much as everybody. The only difference is that we believe a different tactic (the one of Papadopoulos) is better than the tactics of Cleredes/Vasiliou that failed (because they brought to us something the great majority considers as unacceptable)

Then, once this has been achieved (perhaps after many years), we can work on a 'real' solution together

OK, I guess this is were our main difference is. Personally I would be more than glad to accept a 20-30-40 years transitional period to allow trust to be build and people to be integrated. This is rejected, why?

I believe your optimism borders with utopia in this case. If people were able to understand by themselves that they have too much and they should give up something to those that have less, then this would be the perfect world without rich and poor, powerful and powerless etc. However this is not the perfect world. If TCs can not see today the unfair of their demands, it is utopian to expect them to come in some time in the future and voluntarily give up some of their privileges and power. Personally I am 1000% convinced that such thing will never happen. What can happen is what happened in Yugoslavia or Chehoslovakia. Once we recognize that TCs will have their own confederal state with their own flag, citizenship, national anthem etc, then at some point in the future they might decide that they want to totally brake off. (and yes, the constitution of Chehoslovakia and Yugoslavia prohibited such thing also).

[Bananiot]

Try convincing the world that the Greek Cypriots that said NO really want a solution and that the Turkish Cypriots that said YES really do not want a solution!

And another thing. Only sick dictators claim that any criticism leveled against them serves the propaganda of the enemy. Grow up Piratis and learn to accept criticism. We are living in the 21st century and if I want to criticise the President or any other elected figure, I will do it despite your childish mumbling.

[magikthrill]

Try convincing the world that the Greek Cypriots that said NO really want a solution and that the Turkish Cypriots that said YES really do not want a solution!

That's easy. Hold a referendum on a proposal for a solution that is the exact opposite of the A plan.

[Saint Jimmy]

What I have a problem with is with people like Bananiot that claim things such as:
1)People that voted "no" were misinformed (= stupid). Therefore what is needed is to change leadership (=kick Papadopoulos) and "educate" people in order to make them vote "yes". This is an insult for us to say the least.
2) Papadopoulos doesn't want solution, Papadopoulos wants partition etc etc. Whats the aim of this? To help the propaganda of our enemies that say that our rejection to the plan means rejection to a solution? They might disagree with Papadopoulos, but they have to understand that we want solution as much as everybody. The only difference is that we believe a different tactic (the one of Papadopoulos) is better than the tactics of Cleredes/Vasiliou that failed (because they brought to us something the great majority considers as unacceptable).

ΟΚ, I see what you're saying here, and I tend to agree with these two examples.
The President has been proven right in some basic political estimations he made before the referendum, like 'there will be new negotiations even if we vote NO' and 'there will be no recognition of the TRNC' (although he didn't seem very sure of that himself... 'none of the states that matter will recognize the TRNC' were his exact words), contrary to what the pro-plan politicians were predicting.
But I still feel he's walking a very fine and dangerous line.

I believe your optimism borders with utopia in this case. If people were able to understand by themselves that they have too much and they should give up something to those that have less, then this would be the perfect world without rich and poor, powerful and powerless etc. However this is not the perfect world. If TCs can not see today the unfair of their demands, it is utopian to expect them to come in some time in the future and voluntarily give up some of their privileges and power. Personally I am 1000% convinced that such thing will never happen. What can happen is what happened in Yugoslavia or Chehoslovakia. Once we recognize that TCs will have their own confederal state with their own flag, citizenship, national anthem etc, then at some point in the future they might decide that they want to totally brake off. (and yes, the constitution of Chehoslovakia and Yugoslavia prohibited such thing also).

For example:
let's assume that the solution we reach now provides for a 'ceiling' on the percentage of GCs that can reside in the North with full political rights. Obviously, there's a reason why the TC leadership has insisted on that provision. Probably because the TC people are afraid that free settlement with full political rights would mean political domination of TCs by GCs, who would eventually outnumber them. But if the percentage (that has opted to reside in the North after the solution) blends with and becomes part of the TC majority, exhibits a genuine interest in the prosperity of the community as a whole and doesn't try to advance any agenda of the GC minority against the TC interests, why would the TC community resist a constitutional amendment that provides for complete freedom of settlement with full political rights, or, perhaps, a higher 'ceiling' percentage as a beginning?
Can you not picture this scenario as actually happening?

P.S.: the writing in bold is a general description of how I see trust being re-instated.

[Piratis]

Can you not picture this scenario as actually happening?

As I said I am not as optimistic as you are. Personally I believe that "good agreements make good friends". Have you ever seen a TC here to compromise any of their legal rights? Once a demand of them becomes part of an agreement they will never give it up voluntarily.

Of course when the balance of power will change, they might be forced to agree on things. However, as I said above "good agreements make the good friends" and I wouldn't like such thing to happen either since the ultimate goal is to be good friends and not to try to "win" on the loss of the other.

The best way is to have a good agreement (= end result after 30-40 years should be equality of all Cypriots) that will incorporate a long transitional period. This way we will have time to build trust, and at the same time the future of Cyprus will not depend on the goodwill of just 9% of people. (I don't say 9% of Cypriots since if a large amount of settlers stays the future of Cyprus will depend mainly on their goodwill)

[MicAtCyp]

The party of defeatists and psychopaths.

And Jimmy said:

Everyone has the right to support any party they wish.
Everyone does NOT have the right to characterize others 'defeatists' and 'psychopaths' because they think they know which party people support.

Ah Tzimaco, you didn’t get it. There is no such party my son, it's a group of individuals.

Seriously, the UNOPS funds are all accounted for in USAID's report, and only $14,000 have been allocated to the 'Yes' campaign, for fliers that were handed around in the streets.

Jimmy UNOPS was preparing the good mood/ the good atmosphere to get us screwed.Like what one does when he wants to drag a beautiful chick in bed.Heres how they spent their money. Don't tell me they did it because they were loving us.

Translation of Anan Plan in Turkish by WorldLingo for the sum of 23.368 dollars.
Translation of Anan Plan in Greek by EuroGreek for the sum of 18.630 dollars.
Program of Public Briefing by the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) for the sum of 63.805 dollars.
Bi-communal Apprehension of Anan Plan from the Cypriot Company of Sociologists for the sum of 36.244 dollars.
Laboratory for the Anan Plan and reconciliation organised By "St. Anthony College" for the sum of 5.000 dollars.
220,000 dollars for the operation of program Cyprus Medianet run bu the Institute for the Peace of Cambridge. It is a web page that translated in Greek, Turkish and English publications of Cypriot press.

Financing of events of the Group for the Reflection and the Modernisation of Society (OPEK). It concerned public bi-communal debates that did not concern the only the Anan Plan.
Discussion of Group of Reflection on the Modernisation of Society (OPEK) for the sum of 2.399 dollars.
Discussion of OPEK, in May 2003 for the sum of 3.890 dollars.
Discussion of OPEK, in June 2003 on the sum of 2.715 dollars.
Public debate of OPEK, in the 27/11/2003 on the subject "Solution-integration", for the sum of 2.074 dollars.
Discussion of OPEK, on the subject "Solution-integration" for the sum of 4.853 dollars.
Public debate of OPEK in the 3/12/2003 in Lymbia village for the sum of 2.306 dollars.
Discussion on the Olympic Truce of OPEK, for the sum of 4.849 dollars.
Globally OPEK, received the sum 66.526 dollars, that is to say roughly 30 thousands pounds for 29 events 3 of which in the occupied areas.

[MicAtCyp]

First he claimed that the people that voted yes, 24% and more than 100 000, were traitors and later he claimed that we were paid by foreigners.

Lies, Lies and more Lies.... He never called those people traitors.He did not even call the one and only person who committed acts of treason as "traitor".

This is pathetic when it comes from a President

These lies came from you so you are the pathetic one

I challenge anybody to point to one lie I said about Papadopoulos. I would like to summarise:

1. Papadopoulos has rejected every plan proposed for the solution of the Cyprob since 1955.
2. He was the vice president of the treacherous Akritas Plan that aimed at "cleaning" the TC community in one night.
3. Various prominent AKEL leaders of the past have characterised him as a Turk hater.
4. He sent a letter to the American Ambassador in 1964 warning that "if the Turkish fleet enters Cyprus waters, we have the PLAN and the MEANS to clean up all the TC's".
5. He is double faced. He accused, on numerous occasions, the late Kyprianou of being a psychopath whom foreign leaders laugh when they hear him, but now he reads the obituaries in his memorial services, telling us all what a great man he was!
6. He admitted publicly that partition is better than the A Plan.
7. His policies since becoming President have deguildified (cannedmoose, does such word exist?) Turkey.
8. Because of him we have lost many friends. We are now considered the intransigent part by all international institutions.
9. We have a President who is not respected internationally and this scares me.
10. He will not make known the changes he would like to the A plan despite numerous call by the UN to do so.
11. He introduces so many prerequisites before talks can be convened that practically makes the convening of talks impossible.
12. He hand picks the journalist that would interview him in his first major interview since becoming a President.
13. He is very divisive, labelling those that disagree with him traitors and paid agents of foreign powers.
14. He has open fronts with all the major powers of the world and his supporters think that this is a heroic stance.
15. The list can go on and on, but I will terminate it here and I kindly ask people to tell me where I am wrong.

1.All proposals made by others serving their own interests or the interests of their clients have already been rejected either by the leaders or by the people or by the other side because it did not fully satisfy them. The only proposal we accepted is the 1960 agreements and Papadopoulos was right in rejecting them
2.It is alledged he is one of the writters together with Clerides and Yiorkatzis under the order of Makarios. Vice president??? Who elected him???
3.So what? Various people in here call you a traitor.
4.Quote the full text of the letter. As far as I know there was a statement by Makarios that " ... they will not find any TCs to save". And even that was not in a mood of threat but an analysis of the existing situation.
5.Show evidence to substantiate the rumours you heard.
6.He claimed that the Anan Plan is worse than partition.And he is right. And you are a distorter.
7.He is trying to save whatever can be saved from the previous sale of the country by Klerides and Vasiliou.
8.Those "friends" proved to be our enemies.Up until today they are working against us.We don't need such friends.
9.Not respected internationally? Says who? You???
10.Of course he will not because by doing so it's like a)accepting the Anan Plan b)reveals his cards.
11.The prerequisites are only 3 and they do not afgfect the start of talks at all.
12.How do you know? Prove it.
13.You are lying. Tell me when he called anyone a traitor.
14.He has open fronts with those that the previous salesmen made agreements to sell us. If you have something to complain go complain to those who made the agreements not to Papadopoulos who tries to save whatever can be saved.

Now do review your list and tell me where you are right, where you simply lie, where you spread rumours, and where you accuse Papadopoulos for the mistakes of others.

He has written numerous articles on his envisioned solution to the Cyprob. Never has he accepted that a bicommunal, bizonal federation which will be formed by two politically equal communities is a realistic option for solution. I

Give us some of those articles to convince us.When did he write them by the way in 1963?

[ultrastar]

Nice discussion going on here. So many things to comment on, but as I don't have the time, I'm gonna say what I keep saying to everyone.

To the bunch of people who say "the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan resolution, and that shows that they don't really care about reunification", I have this to say in return:

Well WHAT did you expect???? The Annan resolution was 99% in favour of the Turkish Cypriots (let alone the British, and other countries....) and 1% of the Greek Cypriots. Am I talking bull***t ? Perhaps. Read the Annan plan (not the annexes, that would take a while) but just the main text, and then come and tell me I'm wrong.

If the cost (current) of improvements/additions to an existing structure is more than the value of the original propery in 1974 rates, the person or persons who carried out and paid for the improvements shall be legally entitled to own the property????

That there will be a "compensation fund" sponsored mainly by the GC side, being the more prosperous one, and Greek Cypriots can "self-compensate" themselves by filing in claims to that fund/body?

That Great Britain will return the biggest part of the garrisons on the island, but "mysteriously" claim seabed around the areas that they will keep?

That any EU citizen would have the right to work or indefinitely stay on the northern part of the island, apart from Greek Cypriots, the rightful co-owners of the place (and owners of their houses and plots of land?)

What a load of cr*p this is, and how thick can people be to think that Greek Cyprios would have accepted this gobsh*te, and to make things worse, "by rejecting the Annan plan, they've shown their true intentions to maintain division" ?

Give us a fu**ing break. All of you who truely believe this.

We may be a lot of things, but we aren't cretins (ok some of our politicians are).

Oh, and for the posts by our fellow UK-based members, who claim to know "as much" as people going through the agony of division on the island (yes, I mean people living there), it would be unnecessary practice to try to even respond to what you said.

There have been admissions open-wide regarding UNOPS funding "persons or entities" in the island shortly before the referendum. Don't be so ignorant. Or must I put this in a better way: don't PRETEND to be so ignorant.

I hope mods and admins would leave my post here as it is so people can actually SEE there are few of us who really are not as stupid as they think we are.

Oh, and don't take this personally.

-MP