Cyprus-Forum.com

[RAFAELLA]

THE government yesterday confirmed reports that Turkish forces were transporting new weapons systems in the occupied north.

Daily Phileleftheros reported yesterday that a Turkish navy transport ship had unloaded tanks, armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with anti-tank systems and artillery pieces.
The weaponry was all American-made, the daily said.

It consists of 16 M48 A5T2 battle tanks, six M113 APCs mounted with TOW anti-tank missile launchers, and 18 M115 eight-inch howitzers.
The weapons were brought to Cyprus between May 16 and May 31, Phileleftheros said.
The daily suggested that the equipment was not replacing older weapons systems, as had been the case in the past.
In its three last departures for Turkey, the ship carried a number of old trucks and command vehicles as well as water tanks.

Government Spokesman Kypros Chrysostomides yesterday confirmed the reports: “The authorities confirm the activity at Famagusta port, where weapons systems are being unloaded,” the spokesman said.
Chrysostomides added that the government would file the relevant complaints with the United Nations.
He said that the occupying forces’ upgrading was not considered normal, especially in light of the efforts to restart negotiations for the solution of the Cyprus problem.

The reinforcements were brought in at a time when UN Undersecretary Sir Kieran Prendergast was on the island to look into the possibility of fresh negotiations.

An article of Cyprus Mail newspaper.
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/

Another act of the turkish good will for a solution...

[Murtaza]

I couldnt find this in Turkish new paper.
Any North Cyprus source?

[brother]

Try www.kibrisgazetesi.com

[cannedmoose]

Does it matter if they have brought in a few tanks, APCs etc. etc. There's no likelihood of them ever using them so adding 1% to the size of the garrison is inconsequential. However, one would have thought that Turkey would be doing the opposite and withdrawing troops rather than supplementing them, if only to show good faith to its EU cause.

[Murtaza]

Does it matter if they have brought in a few tanks, APCs etc. etc. There's no likelihood of them ever using them so adding 1% to the size of the garrison is inconsequential. However, one would have thought that Turkey would be doing the opposite and withdrawing troops rather than supplementing them, if only to show good faith to its EU cause.

It is just stupidy to port more Tank. I dont think they are needed.
I dont understand why they ported more arm.What is the aim. Stupidy (If it is true)

[michalis5354]

Yes there is no need for more weapons .There is no current plan for Papadopoulos to invade Turkey at least not at present!

More weapons mean more expenses!

[JustAnAmerican]

Yes there is no need for more weapons .There is no current plan for Papadopoulos to invade Turkey at least not at present!

More weapons mean more expenses!

There is a lot of truth to the extra expense this will cause. The older the weapon systems, the more expensive they are to maintain. The more retroactive training you need for your soldiers and so on.
This Latin American country though it would be great to buy two British WW II era aircraft carriers. They still sit in their harbors rusting today because they are too damn expensive to keep seaworthy.
An M-113 is 30-year-old APC Armored Personnel Carrier, and the M-48 is a 50-year-old tank. I don’t even know how they could even find ammunition for something that old.

[-mikkie2-]

Do you think it is justified for Turkey to maintain a force of over 30000 troops in Cyprus irrespective of how 'modern' the equipment?

As an American , would you not suggest that perhaps it might be a good idea to withdraw a number of troops and in effect not have to bring 'updated' weapon systems into Cyprus?

Instead, the American weapons at the disposal of the Turkish Army is perfectly legal and breaks no rules on the use of such weapons in Cyprus, yet when the national gueard has aquired weapons of American origin it is a crime and demands are made for their withdrawl?

Yet another example of the contradictory American policy regarding Cyprus.

[Main_Source]

They also expect us to allow them to use ports for trade because northern cyprus is aparently in 'poverty'...(even thought there are a billion casino's there)...those same ports are being used to bring in weapons to keep the north under occupation.

[JustAnAmerican]

Do you think it is justified for Turkey to maintain a force of over 30000 troops in Cyprus irrespective of how 'modern' the equipment?

As an American , would you not suggest that perhaps it might be a good idea to withdraw a number of troops and in effect not have to bring 'updated' weapon systems into Cyprus?

Instead, the American weapons at the disposal of the Turkish Army is perfectly legal and breaks no rules on the use of such weapons in Cyprus, yet when the national gueard has aquired weapons of American origin it is a crime and demands are made for their withdrawl?

Yet another example of the contradictory American policy regarding Cyprus.

Turkey’s 30,000 troops in Cyprus. We’ll modern or not, if they wanted to use them, wouldn’t they have already done this? - the Greek Cypriot needs to be more concerned about family financial stability and fiscal spending than some 18 year-old Turkish conscript.

I don’t know of any “American Weapons” factory, where the US government mass produces weapons for sale. There are American companies like GE, Boeing, McDonnell Douglass, and the like that sell their products to other countries. Or the US government buys the Manufacturer’s products of that company. But the US also buys, UK and Canadian made equipment. The Turkish Army can go out and buy Chinese or Soviet made weapons from their Manufacturers just as easy as they buy American made. They just acquired weapons systems that the US sold to Turkey 20 years ago. Turkey gave the TRNC, junk!

Have you seen a modern Turkish Special Forces solider in the north up close? His weapon is usually an FNFL (Dutch made). His radios are all Motorola, (US- Japanese- owned). His rucksack is Yugoslavian. The American goverment had nothing to do with these purchases.

The National Guard issues were related to a restriction put on by a joint understanding. For instance sometimes a country says, “I want 6 UH-1D helicopters.” The Manufacturer may say,”OK, country X, I will sell them to you, but you can only use them in search and rescue operations.” But then the buyer uses them elsewhere or modifies their weopan systems. I think in the National Guard case the equipment was sold for another purpose. This agreement prevents a primarily defensive weapon from being used in an offensive purpose.

Life and politics are full of contradictories, so maybe you can show me two American Foreign Policy statements and how they contradicted each other. I will agree you may find an action by lets say the Department of Defense element that totally contradicts an action by say the Department of Agriculture, but I am sure we could all find people who support and who challenge any cause existint with in one goverment.