Cyprus-Forum.com

[bill cobbett]

This thread has made me google the b'stard.

OMG! - The fecker's still alive!

[Oracle]

This thread has made me google the b'stard.

OMG! - The fecker's still alive!

No he's not

[Oazaki]

Oazaki

Just a small correction to your poll. I noticed that you'd carelessly missed out the polling option 'No, I would not ask a genocidal war criminal to negotiate for me.' I'm sure this was a small oversight on your part and can easily be appended to the poll questions without delay.

Sorry, I have found that according to the way this forum has been set up, I am only able to edit my own posts during the 90 minutes after they are made. I did try though

Why? Simply because we could then watch Democracy in Action! And have a nice discussion on what precisely genocyde is. I certainly do not personally think that killing civilians using modern munitions which your own democratically-elected government (who you, the elected populace, do not oppose even in narcotics or prostitution, let alone on the more personally dangerous-to-interfere-with field of arms and munitions sales) allows the sale of and has engaged in the purchase of also could possibly qualify as genocyde, nor your own position in such a debate allow you to level the criticism of genocyde against such people who actually use such munitions (as, politically and legally, regarding the motions of your own state, you filed neither personal objection nor legal or political opposition on any front, by any means, ever).

Consequently, saying that the use of modern munitions in warfare has occurred, and that people who were not in the military have died as a result, is genocide is possible as a definition, but dubious, given what modern weapons of the sort used by the airforce are designed to do.

Admittedly, I appreciate how this is a legal grey area, because it is legally defined as genocide when the killing is performed using small-arms (eg Kalashnikovs and other guns) or machetes, etc However, the disctintion, I believe, is that these armaments are sold for use by the army on military personnel, not on civilians. The sort of ordnance (bombs) sold for use on aircraft, however, is specifically designed to be used on towns, cities and, yes, villages also. And, yet, it is still sold, within democracies, from one democracy to another, and so on.

That is to say: this is what your own government does, and subscribes to, and is paid to do. This is what you elected them to do, this is what you do not object to them doing, and this is a part of the nature of the commercial field of weapons sales on this planet, as it currently stands.

Thus, I repeat the question: how exactly is what Henry Kissinger has arranged or been responsible for count as genocide? (I think you will find that, legally at least, it cannot be shown to count as such)

However, he has arranged for the limitation of torture in Latin American countries, which he did by talking to and negotiating with military juntas who employed torturers, yes. Nevertheless, for that, he has earned my support since that time (notably, his involvements in Argentina).

Beyond that it remains the case that he does understand the means and mechanisms whereby Turkey might be manipulated whereas your political and military staff do not.

And they're not willing to fight back either, because "we wouldn't stand a chance". So let's all compromise and do a two-state solution on the approximate basis of Papadopoulos's initial 1977 blueprint in the matter...

Yet, if political and military leaders were not so egoic on this side... they could actually get things solved in their interests better. Fortunately, if Kissinger does not get involved in procedings here, then the CIA will. Why so? Well, quite simply, they are the ones who designed the coup and invasion in Cyprus to start with; consequently they did so for a specific purpose. As a result, it would not be "resolved" - even by a negotiator as talented as Mr Christofias (who is an idiot of the Highest Order imho) - if the purpose for which it was originally undertaken was not first fulfilled (which it has not been).

The alternative then would be for you to stop begging and being "reasonable" and contract people who know what they're doing, such as those involved in running Russia's and China's war machines. This is why you want Henry Kissinger, as, though he has worked with the CIA, he is, in fact, on the opposing side to them, as it were.

Has anyone seen this yet:

In a White House memorandum of a conversation from February 20, 1975, Kissinger said: “In all the world the things that hurt us the most are the CIA business and Turkey aid.”

all the best,
Oazaki.

[bill cobbett]

This thread has made me google the b'stard.

OMG! - The fecker's still alive!

No he's not

OMG. O! What have you done?

[Oazaki]

This thread has made me google the b'stard.

OMG! - The fecker's still alive!

No he's not

Was that sarcasm? He is of course still alive (though quite old, yes).

Is it not often said by many people that we should respect old people (simply because they are old)? I happen to disagree with the parimia myself, but it certainly is advocated by many people.

For this reason those who say that we should respect people simply on the basis of the number of years they have under their belt, whether in office or simply as "elders", I always refer them to whoever they do not respect within their own value-structure systems who happens to be older than them. As they are "middle generation", this basically means you have to find an old Nazi somewhere, as nobody except for Nazis are evil to the middle generation for some reason (whereas both the older and younger generations do seem to be more capable of critical thought and personal analysis).

This is despite the fact that the Cheka were better at torture and practiced more of it, Mao's people killed a larger number of people, and the Japanese performed more medical experiments on people as well as operated more slave labor. Nevertheless, you have to compare them to Nazis, and say "Why should we respect you simply because you are older or have more experience within an established state system?"

The reason for this is that, historically, many people of a communist-party alignment were in positions of supporting known torturers who, also, had personally arranged many mass executions. However, that's OK, because "We're on the same side" and they are not Nazis, who are the only people who are evil.

This demonstrates why political expediency, which is something else that Henry Kissinger has been accused of, can get people who do actually subscribe to it, specifically Mr Chritsofias who is in this actual position here as KGB archives can confirm for anyone interested in looking (and able to get access; not that hard actually). However, he did not know what he was doing, because he was ignorant of the FACTS involved - much like his current position regarding CIA involvement in Cyprus.

Being ignorant makes it all OK though. If you don't know that the people you are supporting are torturers and mass murderers then it's ok if they're in the same political party as you.

I would like to categorically state here that Vladimir Putin has never been responsible for "anything untoward". Ah, how, oh how, does international politics work? Certainly few people seem to have any sort of clue...

all the best,
Oazaki.

[Get Real!]

This thread belongs in the joke section not CypProb Solutions...

Oazaki, if it’s a mental rearrangement you seek stick around and you'll get one courtesy of unkie GR, but please don't trash the CyProb thread areas with crap like this thank you.

[The Grim Reaper]

Death sees that Ooosa..er ouzoaki...er...zivanaki is heading for a one way boat trip with Death ...ha...ha..ha...ha...etc etc

Death is away to the CyprusSpendingTtheChildren'sInheritanceForum where the Admin is giving advice to his flock on how to survive the winter nights if they can't afford the central heating in these difficult times...ha...ha...ha etc etc etc

[Oazaki]

Death sees that Ooosa..er ouzoaki...er...zivanaki is heading for a one way boat trip with Death ...ha...ha..ha...ha...etc etc

Hahahaha. Death is welcome to take me any sort of boat trip because, perforce, when you journey with Charon that which it reflects is also along for the ride (Hades).

Besides... *yawn*... I've rolled the dice with Death on several occasions before. Keeps life interesting, and... it also usually leads to someone shuffling off this mortal coil or, perhaps if you're very lucky, several such people all of whom were "problematic". But yes Mr Grim Reaper, if one goes there, one runs the risk of taking the ferry ride also

all the best,
Oazaki.

[Oazaki]

This thread belongs in the joke section not CypProb Solutions...

Oazaki, if it’s a mental rearrangement you seek stick around and you'll get one courtesy of unkie GR, but please don't trash the CyProb thread areas with crap like this thank you.

OK Mr Get Real!, you want "realism" I presume? We shall, therefore, pass to a brief exploration of one or two potential proposals in terms of war strategy now that we have finished, for now it seems, talking about:

1. Diplomacy and commercial negotiations
2. Drug usage and prostitution
3. The preciser nature of genocide
4. A single threat (not bad going really, I consider myself lucky )
5. A few legal considerations

Let us then consider what would be the antecedent claim to occupation: the British bases, or the Turkish occupied North? Very well then, from that recognition, what is the legal position of both entities? by this I mean:

NOT: What is each entity's own stated international and internal legal positions, which they largely contribute their own perspectives and counsel towards defining?

Rather I mean: What are the weaker areas in each entity's legal position and could those weaker areas be used, most likely in combination with as few other factors as possible, to remove them or take control of their position, as we would decide best suits our interest set?

In this context, the TRNC is in fact in an international legal position of extraordinary usefulness, in that it is not recognised by any international judicial or governmental body (except Turkey, yes). This is something which any leader of a united island would be well advised to leave alone, for the purpose of capitalizing on it later (by which point, territorial reformulations and population relocations can also be considered, whilst maintaing the status itself which allows for useful banking practices, for example).

You do, however, courtesy of the progress of history, have the British bases in a quite uniquely vulnerable position. This is because Cyprus is no longer a colony, and they are also in the position of having voluntarily arranged their own "grey area" as far as their legality of their being held is concerned, due to failure on guarantor obligations in 1974 and several other clauses also which are in more direct violation of the treaties by means of which those base areas were initially secured in international law. Many of these clause violations can be verified even today were a simple examination of the territorial integrity of Akrotiri to be carried out, most especially their underground storage facilities (even if they are cleaned really well...). However, you are not likely to get any sort of permit to go there, for the British military are not Hussein's regime you know (the Iraqi one, not the soon-to-be American President who prefers his first name to his unfortunate middle one!)

Indeed, it would also be advatageous and in your national interests not to antagonize potential allies - provided they can be made to serve you in terms of their presence here. Furthermore, you want their troops to be stationed in areas of your own choosing, and you want an intelligence division here also. But - and here's the clincher - you want to be the ones controlling these things, as a matter of your own territorial integrity and "internal sovereignty". How to do this, then?

And so we return to the uniquely vulnerable position of the British bases to... negotiated and forewarned military action from the host nation. After all, can they actually go to war with you, or use their military on your military? Yet, also, how could you put yourselves in a position where you can use your military on theirs?

Simply, you need a temporary coup government, ostensibly moved into place as a result of a far-right wing faction, opposed to a left-wing government, and initially posturing against the TRNC. Prior to running such a scenario, of course, you would need to secure "good relations of mutual reciprocity of trustworthiness" with the Turkish military. From such a position you can pose, and posture, and make very dramatic speeches yet... mutually engage in "no significant action".

Then... as things stew and develop, whilst having forewarned the British intelligence services who will take care of the military and governmental side of operations on thier end for you, you move army detachments into seige locations around both base areas. No attack is necessary, and probably not very desired. The simple case of having a coup government in place with military position taken up around the base areas, will ensure initially hostile media coverage. It at that point that you need to bring forth your well-prepared and professionally presented legal case. Keep it simple in terms of what you give the public news channels, make it complex and detailed in terms of the full case (extending into approximately 250 pages and citing precedent going all the way back to Grotius).

Then offer to step aside as a coup government once this issue has been resolved, for which you can ask the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague for an advisory opinion in the matter. Make sure you field a succesful party and candidate in the elections which follow, of course.

This is roughly the same model we used to get Chavez into position in Venezuela, which itself was a modification of another post World War II model that was previously succesfully used elsewhere in Latin America. Of course, it remains at this stage simply a theoretical proposal. It is, however, roughly how the CIA works in terms of its "small statecraft", just simply readjusted towards a more internally beneficial direction.

That is to say: if there are valid tools of political, military and intelligence operation in usage gloabally already, what is preventing YOU from using such tools yourselves? Simply a lack of knowledge, planning, organization, intiative and the "courage" to see things through (which may be summed up as a belief in the success of such an operation being undertaken; the answer is you don't know how it will turn out till it's over, and even things often go a bit wrong. In practice. So, do you take the risk?)

At any rate, once the British Bases scenario has been effectively resolved, you would need to relocate such a "military stopover" base to some less attractive farmland of smaller land coverage. This would count as a succesful solution on your parts, brought about through military action.

Then you would wish to relocate various factors such as population distribution and boundary markers as regards the TRNC. It is on this side of procedings which I am not actually advising directly on in terms of my contributions to this forum, as it is "the main course" so to speak and, of course, I am completely aware that all the politicians, most of the military and a large proportion of the people on the street each personally think they can solve scenarios the best and are not even willing to listen to advice, let alone pay good money to contract a third party for negotiations. So... do it yourselves. You know so much, right? Do it yourselves then.

all the best,
Oazaki.

PS: And Merry Christmas to you all! You may consider this post my gift to the members of this forum, courtesy of Mr Get Real!

[Oracle]

This has become as intricate as the Game Plan in Foucault's Pendulum. What started off as pure amusement, now has the hallmarks of obsession. Before long, you may get some fool believing this constitutes a worthwhile and realistic strategy ...