Cyprus-Forum.com

[barouti]

These Turks are completely deluded Paphitis. They are brainwashed into thinking the Turks would have sunk the US Sixth Fleet, defeated the Royal Navy, and successfully defeated Greece and Cyprus all at once! Now that is some serious wet dreams!

DYK they actually prepared to take on the US 6th Fleet and RN, so much so they began live-fire exercises in preparation...


...own their OWN ships!

TCG Kocatepe The ship was sunk in error by Turkish aircraft on July 22, 1974, mistaking it for a Greek vessel during Turkish landings on Cyprus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harwood_(DD-861)

[barouti]

35 years later when the TuAF is in the air, it's own side should fear it the most!

During March 2006, TAF Phantom's accidentally bombed its own airbase and destroyed two F-5’s





http://www.haber10.com/haber/20903/

[Paphitis]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

BTW, you did not explain the failure of French technology, such as Exocet and Daussault Mirage, against Harrier Jets.

I am intrigued!

The problem there was numerical, the Argies didn't have enough assets.

The RAF only had 20 Sea Harrier Jets in the region against the whole Argentine Air Force.

And no, it was not numerical. The Mirage was completely outperformed by the Sea Harrier in every aspect except at high altitude.

The Mirage was supersonic and the Sea Harrier is subsonic.

So I want GR! to explain to us why the Mirage was a complete failure...

[Simon]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

What, you mean like you were over France?

Looks like you're excluding yourself with your own definition.

I provided some quick facts in a single post for someone who seemingly didn’t know much about France, but would I go on and on arguing about it?

I don’t think so!

That is simply because you lack stamina GR!

You are well known in most threads to do a runner as soon as things heat up!

I don’t need to use much stamina in most cases Simon. I usually wrap up arguments that can be won very quickly with credible links, and I could’ve done the same for the Britain Vs Turkey argument if I cared to get involved!

But it’s always funny to watch people like you, Paphitis, and a few others on the CF, forever struggling to convince the opponent of your over-elaborated views over debates that can be easily wrapped up in a single post! You people just don’t know how to close off!

GR, in most of the threads where I've read your posts, the only thing you've wrapped up is your own demise.

I mean, come on GR, I've seen your "credible" links in our 'Greek' debates.

As soon as you meet a decent argument, you disappear faster than a Cheetah.

I posted a good link on this matter which quoted a historical expert, but for some their brainwashing goes too deep, so I had to continue the debate to ridicule them further. But please, humour me, post this one link which would have ended this debate immediately. I know you don't care about Britain or Turkey, but just for my benefit so I can learn from "Unkie GR".

You never know, if you actually have a good link regarding this matter which I have missed, I may even add it to my repertoire.

If you were to ask the average debater what Britain has over Turkey they’d quickly answer “nuclear missiles”, but of course the TYPE of missile is NOT what’s important!

What’s important is that Britain has the ability to DELIVER PAYLOADS to great distances that certainly cover the entire Turkish territory (there’s only around 1,800 miles between them), via intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), so there’s nothing stopping her from delivering LEGAL ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) striking one Turkish military target after the other, without even leaving her territory (or from a submarine) until Turkey waves a white flag!

End of story! Comparing conventional armies with superpowers is a non starter!

I agree with you GR, but Britain would have needed to have had naval assets in the area to actually prevent the Cyprus landings. And it did. This is what I was trying to tell insan. But he and Y-Fred believe Turkey would have defeated the US Sixth Fleet and Royal Navy combined. So I continued the debate just to compound their stupidity. Moreover, Britain actually sent a task force to Cyprus to confront the Turks, but the US vetoed British action, because the partition of Cyprus suited US interests. Britain didn't go ahead because it didn't want another Suez where the US embarrasses it politically. Callaghan himself admitted this.

Here is another good link I have found from Google books which confirms what I am saying:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dot ... on&f=false

If you read at the bottom of page 160, it clearly states that the Select Committee "decided that Britain had the legal right, a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion."

Let me guess insan, more propaganda?

We all know that Britain had the legal right(treaty of guarantee) a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Di I claim otherwise? No. So what's ur point?

Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force,

Maybe they had but they officially explained the difficulties in front of a possible intervention and instead they prefer evacuating British citizens from Cyprus and protect their bases from highly probable guerilla attacks... To make it short, they left the dirty job being done by Turkey. There were 40.000 armed GCs and they wouldn't stop fighting until most of them were killed or ordered to cease-fire. It was very obvious that a joint intervention of Turkey-UK would cause much more blood shed and still the result would be the same; irregulars of EOKA-B wouldn't surrender. They would engage into a guearilla warfare against intervention forces. How long would it take to overpower the irregulars of EOKA-B? 3 years? 5 years? Still GCs and TCs would flee safer places of Cyprus... A joint intervention of Turkey-UK would only cause more blood shed and would 100 times justify the need of partition.

insan, all I was ever arguing is that Britain could have stopped the Turkish invasion. So if you're now saying you never argued against this, then everything you have written to me is irrelevant. End of story.

[Paphitis]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

What, you mean like you were over France?

Looks like you're excluding yourself with your own definition.

I provided some quick facts in a single post for someone who seemingly didn’t know much about France, but would I go on and on arguing about it?

I don’t think so!

That is simply because you lack stamina GR!

You are well known in most threads to do a runner as soon as things heat up!

I don’t need to use much stamina in most cases Simon. I usually wrap up arguments that can be won very quickly with credible links, and I could’ve done the same for the Britain Vs Turkey argument if I cared to get involved!

But it’s always funny to watch people like you, Paphitis, and a few others on the CF, forever struggling to convince the opponent of your over-elaborated views over debates that can be easily wrapped up in a single post! You people just don’t know how to close off!

GR, in most of the threads where I've read your posts, the only thing you've wrapped up is your own demise.

I mean, come on GR, I've seen your "credible" links in our 'Greek' debates.

As soon as you meet a decent argument, you disappear faster than a Cheetah.

I posted a good link on this matter which quoted a historical expert, but for some their brainwashing goes too deep, so I had to continue the debate to ridicule them further. But please, humour me, post this one link which would have ended this debate immediately. I know you don't care about Britain or Turkey, but just for my benefit so I can learn from "Unkie GR".

You never know, if you actually have a good link regarding this matter which I have missed, I may even add it to my repertoire.

If you were to ask the average debater what Britain has over Turkey they’d quickly answer “nuclear missiles”, but of course the TYPE of missile is NOT what’s important!

What’s important is that Britain has the ability to DELIVER PAYLOADS to great distances that certainly cover the entire Turkish territory (there’s only around 1,800 miles between them), via intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), so there’s nothing stopping her from delivering LEGAL ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) striking one Turkish military target after the other, without even leaving her territory (or from a submarine) until Turkey waves a white flag!

End of story! Comparing conventional armies with superpowers is a non starter!

I agree with you GR, but Britain would have needed to have had naval assets in the area to actually prevent the Cyprus landings. And it did. This is what I was trying to tell insan. But he and Y-Fred believe Turkey would have defeated the US Sixth Fleet and Royal Navy combined. So I continued the debate just to compound their stupidity. Moreover, Britain actually sent a task force to Cyprus to confront the Turks, but the US vetoed British action, because the partition of Cyprus suited US interests. Britain didn't go ahead because it didn't want another Suez where the US embarrasses it politically. Callaghan himself admitted this.

Here is another good link I have found from Google books which confirms what I am saying:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dot ... on&f=false

If you read at the bottom of page 160, it clearly states that the Select Committee "decided that Britain had the legal right, a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion."

Let me guess insan, more propaganda?

We all know that Britain had the legal right(treaty of guarantee) a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Di I claim otherwise? No. So what's ur point?

Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force,

Maybe they had but they officially explained the difficulties in front of a possible intervention and instead they prefer evacuating British citizens from Cyprus and protect their bases from highly probable guerilla attacks... To make it short, they left the dirty job being done by Turkey. There were 40.000 armed GCs and they wouldn't stop fighting until most of them were killed or ordered to cease-fire. It was very obvious that a joint intervention of Turkey-UK would cause much more blood shed and still the result would be the same; irregulars of EOKA-B wouldn't surrender. They would engage into a guearilla warfare against intervention forces. How long would it take to overpower the irregulars of EOKA-B? 3 years? 5 years? Still GCs and TCs would flee safer places of Cyprus... A joint intervention of Turkey-UK would only cause more blood shed and would 100 times justify the need of partition.

insan, all I was ever arguing is that Britain could have stopped the Turkish invasion. So if you're now saying you never argued against this, then everything you have written to me is irrelevant. End of story.

Insan makes a habit of going round and round in circles without even knowing exactly what he is debating or what it is others are trying to tell him....

He has killed far too many brain cells....

[insan]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

What, you mean like you were over France?

Looks like you're excluding yourself with your own definition.

I provided some quick facts in a single post for someone who seemingly didn’t know much about France, but would I go on and on arguing about it?

I don’t think so!

That is simply because you lack stamina GR!

You are well known in most threads to do a runner as soon as things heat up!

I don’t need to use much stamina in most cases Simon. I usually wrap up arguments that can be won very quickly with credible links, and I could’ve done the same for the Britain Vs Turkey argument if I cared to get involved!

But it’s always funny to watch people like you, Paphitis, and a few others on the CF, forever struggling to convince the opponent of your over-elaborated views over debates that can be easily wrapped up in a single post! You people just don’t know how to close off!

GR, in most of the threads where I've read your posts, the only thing you've wrapped up is your own demise.

I mean, come on GR, I've seen your "credible" links in our 'Greek' debates.

As soon as you meet a decent argument, you disappear faster than a Cheetah.

I posted a good link on this matter which quoted a historical expert, but for some their brainwashing goes too deep, so I had to continue the debate to ridicule them further. But please, humour me, post this one link which would have ended this debate immediately. I know you don't care about Britain or Turkey, but just for my benefit so I can learn from "Unkie GR".

You never know, if you actually have a good link regarding this matter which I have missed, I may even add it to my repertoire.

If you were to ask the average debater what Britain has over Turkey they’d quickly answer “nuclear missiles”, but of course the TYPE of missile is NOT what’s important!

What’s important is that Britain has the ability to DELIVER PAYLOADS to great distances that certainly cover the entire Turkish territory (there’s only around 1,800 miles between them), via intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), so there’s nothing stopping her from delivering LEGAL ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) striking one Turkish military target after the other, without even leaving her territory (or from a submarine) until Turkey waves a white flag!

End of story! Comparing conventional armies with superpowers is a non starter!

I agree with you GR, but Britain would have needed to have had naval assets in the area to actually prevent the Cyprus landings. And it did. This is what I was trying to tell insan. But he and Y-Fred believe Turkey would have defeated the US Sixth Fleet and Royal Navy combined. So I continued the debate just to compound their stupidity. Moreover, Britain actually sent a task force to Cyprus to confront the Turks, but the US vetoed British action, because the partition of Cyprus suited US interests. Britain didn't go ahead because it didn't want another Suez where the US embarrasses it politically. Callaghan himself admitted this.

Here is another good link I have found from Google books which confirms what I am saying:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dot ... on&f=false

If you read at the bottom of page 160, it clearly states that the Select Committee "decided that Britain had the legal right, a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion."

Let me guess insan, more propaganda?

We all know that Britain had the legal right(treaty of guarantee) a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Di I claim otherwise? No. So what's ur point?

Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force,

Maybe they had but they officially explained the difficulties in front of a possible intervention and instead they prefer evacuating British citizens from Cyprus and protect their bases from highly probable guerilla attacks... To make it short, they left the dirty job being done by Turkey. There were 40.000 armed GCs and they wouldn't stop fighting until most of them were killed or ordered to cease-fire. It was very obvious that a joint intervention of Turkey-UK would cause much more blood shed and still the result would be the same; irregulars of EOKA-B wouldn't surrender. They would engage into a guearilla warfare against intervention forces. How long would it take to overpower the irregulars of EOKA-B? 3 years? 5 years? Still GCs and TCs would flee safer places of Cyprus... A joint intervention of Turkey-UK would only cause more blood shed and would 100 times justify the need of partition.

insan, all I was ever arguing is that Britain could have stopped the Turkish invasion. So if you're now saying you never argued against this, then everything you have written to me is irrelevant. End of story.

Insan makes a habit of going round and round in circles without even knowing exactly what he is debating or what it is others are trying to tell him....

He has killed far too many brain cells....

First of all, the ones invading Cyprus was a Junta led National Guard commanded by Greek officers. The matter was a joint intervention of 2 other guarantors; Turkey and UK. All official documents support my arguements that Britan's contingency plans were made on a joint intervention with Turkey against invasion of Greece.

In such a case it's too stupid to talk about the so-called naval warfare plans of UK against Turkey that would led Greece to invade Cyprus. Why should Brits do this? It's total nonsense!

[Paphitis]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

What, you mean like you were over France?

Looks like you're excluding yourself with your own definition.

I provided some quick facts in a single post for someone who seemingly didn’t know much about France, but would I go on and on arguing about it?

I don’t think so!

That is simply because you lack stamina GR!

You are well known in most threads to do a runner as soon as things heat up!

I don’t need to use much stamina in most cases Simon. I usually wrap up arguments that can be won very quickly with credible links, and I could’ve done the same for the Britain Vs Turkey argument if I cared to get involved!

But it’s always funny to watch people like you, Paphitis, and a few others on the CF, forever struggling to convince the opponent of your over-elaborated views over debates that can be easily wrapped up in a single post! You people just don’t know how to close off!

GR, in most of the threads where I've read your posts, the only thing you've wrapped up is your own demise.

I mean, come on GR, I've seen your "credible" links in our 'Greek' debates.

As soon as you meet a decent argument, you disappear faster than a Cheetah.

I posted a good link on this matter which quoted a historical expert, but for some their brainwashing goes too deep, so I had to continue the debate to ridicule them further. But please, humour me, post this one link which would have ended this debate immediately. I know you don't care about Britain or Turkey, but just for my benefit so I can learn from "Unkie GR".

You never know, if you actually have a good link regarding this matter which I have missed, I may even add it to my repertoire.

If you were to ask the average debater what Britain has over Turkey they’d quickly answer “nuclear missiles”, but of course the TYPE of missile is NOT what’s important!

What’s important is that Britain has the ability to DELIVER PAYLOADS to great distances that certainly cover the entire Turkish territory (there’s only around 1,800 miles between them), via intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), so there’s nothing stopping her from delivering LEGAL ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) striking one Turkish military target after the other, without even leaving her territory (or from a submarine) until Turkey waves a white flag!

End of story! Comparing conventional armies with superpowers is a non starter!

I agree with you GR, but Britain would have needed to have had naval assets in the area to actually prevent the Cyprus landings. And it did. This is what I was trying to tell insan. But he and Y-Fred believe Turkey would have defeated the US Sixth Fleet and Royal Navy combined. So I continued the debate just to compound their stupidity. Moreover, Britain actually sent a task force to Cyprus to confront the Turks, but the US vetoed British action, because the partition of Cyprus suited US interests. Britain didn't go ahead because it didn't want another Suez where the US embarrasses it politically. Callaghan himself admitted this.

Here is another good link I have found from Google books which confirms what I am saying:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dot ... on&f=false

If you read at the bottom of page 160, it clearly states that the Select Committee "decided that Britain had the legal right, a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion."

Let me guess insan, more propaganda?

We all know that Britain had the legal right(treaty of guarantee) a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Di I claim otherwise? No. So what's ur point?

Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force,

Maybe they had but they officially explained the difficulties in front of a possible intervention and instead they prefer evacuating British citizens from Cyprus and protect their bases from highly probable guerilla attacks... To make it short, they left the dirty job being done by Turkey. There were 40.000 armed GCs and they wouldn't stop fighting until most of them were killed or ordered to cease-fire. It was very obvious that a joint intervention of Turkey-UK would cause much more blood shed and still the result would be the same; irregulars of EOKA-B wouldn't surrender. They would engage into a guearilla warfare against intervention forces. How long would it take to overpower the irregulars of EOKA-B? 3 years? 5 years? Still GCs and TCs would flee safer places of Cyprus... A joint intervention of Turkey-UK would only cause more blood shed and would 100 times justify the need of partition.

insan, all I was ever arguing is that Britain could have stopped the Turkish invasion. So if you're now saying you never argued against this, then everything you have written to me is irrelevant. End of story.

Insan makes a habit of going round and round in circles without even knowing exactly what he is debating or what it is others are trying to tell him....

He has killed far too many brain cells....

First of all, the ones invading Cyprus was a Junta led National Guard commanded by Greek officers. The matter was a joint intervention of 2 other guarantors; Turkey and UK. All official documents support my arguements that Britan's contingency plans were made on a joint intervention with Turkey against invasion of Greece.

In such a case it's too stupid to talk about the so-called naval warfare plans of UK against Turkey that would led Greece to invade Cyprus. Why should Brits do this? It's total nonsense!

First of all, the Junta did not invade Cyprus, they initiated a coup against The RoC Government!

They only had about 1,100 troops in Cyprus which was allowed as per the Treaty of Guarantee.

And no, Britain NEVER considered a joint intervention in Cyprus under the terms of its Guarantor status.

Get you facts right you incompetent fool....

[Simon]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

What, you mean like you were over France?

Looks like you're excluding yourself with your own definition.

I provided some quick facts in a single post for someone who seemingly didn’t know much about France, but would I go on and on arguing about it?

I don’t think so!

That is simply because you lack stamina GR!

You are well known in most threads to do a runner as soon as things heat up!

I don’t need to use much stamina in most cases Simon. I usually wrap up arguments that can be won very quickly with credible links, and I could’ve done the same for the Britain Vs Turkey argument if I cared to get involved!

But it’s always funny to watch people like you, Paphitis, and a few others on the CF, forever struggling to convince the opponent of your over-elaborated views over debates that can be easily wrapped up in a single post! You people just don’t know how to close off!

GR, in most of the threads where I've read your posts, the only thing you've wrapped up is your own demise.

I mean, come on GR, I've seen your "credible" links in our 'Greek' debates.

As soon as you meet a decent argument, you disappear faster than a Cheetah.

I posted a good link on this matter which quoted a historical expert, but for some their brainwashing goes too deep, so I had to continue the debate to ridicule them further. But please, humour me, post this one link which would have ended this debate immediately. I know you don't care about Britain or Turkey, but just for my benefit so I can learn from "Unkie GR".

You never know, if you actually have a good link regarding this matter which I have missed, I may even add it to my repertoire.

If you were to ask the average debater what Britain has over Turkey they’d quickly answer “nuclear missiles”, but of course the TYPE of missile is NOT what’s important!

What’s important is that Britain has the ability to DELIVER PAYLOADS to great distances that certainly cover the entire Turkish territory (there’s only around 1,800 miles between them), via intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), so there’s nothing stopping her from delivering LEGAL ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) striking one Turkish military target after the other, without even leaving her territory (or from a submarine) until Turkey waves a white flag!

End of story! Comparing conventional armies with superpowers is a non starter!

I agree with you GR, but Britain would have needed to have had naval assets in the area to actually prevent the Cyprus landings. And it did. This is what I was trying to tell insan. But he and Y-Fred believe Turkey would have defeated the US Sixth Fleet and Royal Navy combined. So I continued the debate just to compound their stupidity. Moreover, Britain actually sent a task force to Cyprus to confront the Turks, but the US vetoed British action, because the partition of Cyprus suited US interests. Britain didn't go ahead because it didn't want another Suez where the US embarrasses it politically. Callaghan himself admitted this.

Here is another good link I have found from Google books which confirms what I am saying:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dot ... on&f=false

If you read at the bottom of page 160, it clearly states that the Select Committee "decided that Britain had the legal right, a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion."

Let me guess insan, more propaganda?

We all know that Britain had the legal right(treaty of guarantee) a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Di I claim otherwise? No. So what's ur point?

Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force,

Maybe they had but they officially explained the difficulties in front of a possible intervention and instead they prefer evacuating British citizens from Cyprus and protect their bases from highly probable guerilla attacks... To make it short, they left the dirty job being done by Turkey. There were 40.000 armed GCs and they wouldn't stop fighting until most of them were killed or ordered to cease-fire. It was very obvious that a joint intervention of Turkey-UK would cause much more blood shed and still the result would be the same; irregulars of EOKA-B wouldn't surrender. They would engage into a guearilla warfare against intervention forces. How long would it take to overpower the irregulars of EOKA-B? 3 years? 5 years? Still GCs and TCs would flee safer places of Cyprus... A joint intervention of Turkey-UK would only cause more blood shed and would 100 times justify the need of partition.

insan, all I was ever arguing is that Britain could have stopped the Turkish invasion. So if you're now saying you never argued against this, then everything you have written to me is irrelevant. End of story.

Insan makes a habit of going round and round in circles without even knowing exactly what he is debating or what it is others are trying to tell him....

He has killed far too many brain cells....

First of all, the ones invading Cyprus was a Junta led National Guard commanded by Greek officers. The matter was a joint intervention of 2 other guarantors; Turkey and UK. All official documents support my arguements that Britan's contingency plans were made on a joint intervention with Turkey against invasion of Greece.

In such a case it's too stupid to talk about the so-called naval warfare plans of UK against Turkey that would led Greece to invade Cyprus. Why should Brits do this? It's total nonsense!

What are you talking about? Britain considered putting its Navy in the way of the Turkish invasion. So of course it is not stupid to talk about the naval warfare aspect. And Britain was never going to carry out a joint action with Turkey either.

Invasion of Greece?

Go to sleep insan.

[insan]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

What, you mean like you were over France?

Looks like you're excluding yourself with your own definition.

I provided some quick facts in a single post for someone who seemingly didn’t know much about France, but would I go on and on arguing about it?

I don’t think so!

That is simply because you lack stamina GR!

You are well known in most threads to do a runner as soon as things heat up!

I don’t need to use much stamina in most cases Simon. I usually wrap up arguments that can be won very quickly with credible links, and I could’ve done the same for the Britain Vs Turkey argument if I cared to get involved!

But it’s always funny to watch people like you, Paphitis, and a few others on the CF, forever struggling to convince the opponent of your over-elaborated views over debates that can be easily wrapped up in a single post! You people just don’t know how to close off!

GR, in most of the threads where I've read your posts, the only thing you've wrapped up is your own demise.

I mean, come on GR, I've seen your "credible" links in our 'Greek' debates.

As soon as you meet a decent argument, you disappear faster than a Cheetah.

I posted a good link on this matter which quoted a historical expert, but for some their brainwashing goes too deep, so I had to continue the debate to ridicule them further. But please, humour me, post this one link which would have ended this debate immediately. I know you don't care about Britain or Turkey, but just for my benefit so I can learn from "Unkie GR".

You never know, if you actually have a good link regarding this matter which I have missed, I may even add it to my repertoire.

If you were to ask the average debater what Britain has over Turkey they’d quickly answer “nuclear missiles”, but of course the TYPE of missile is NOT what’s important!

What’s important is that Britain has the ability to DELIVER PAYLOADS to great distances that certainly cover the entire Turkish territory (there’s only around 1,800 miles between them), via intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), so there’s nothing stopping her from delivering LEGAL ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) striking one Turkish military target after the other, without even leaving her territory (or from a submarine) until Turkey waves a white flag!

End of story! Comparing conventional armies with superpowers is a non starter!

I agree with you GR, but Britain would have needed to have had naval assets in the area to actually prevent the Cyprus landings. And it did. This is what I was trying to tell insan. But he and Y-Fred believe Turkey would have defeated the US Sixth Fleet and Royal Navy combined. So I continued the debate just to compound their stupidity. Moreover, Britain actually sent a task force to Cyprus to confront the Turks, but the US vetoed British action, because the partition of Cyprus suited US interests. Britain didn't go ahead because it didn't want another Suez where the US embarrasses it politically. Callaghan himself admitted this.

Here is another good link I have found from Google books which confirms what I am saying:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dot ... on&f=false

If you read at the bottom of page 160, it clearly states that the Select Committee "decided that Britain had the legal right, a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion."

Let me guess insan, more propaganda?

We all know that Britain had the legal right(treaty of guarantee) a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Di I claim otherwise? No. So what's ur point?

Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force,

Maybe they had but they officially explained the difficulties in front of a possible intervention and instead they prefer evacuating British citizens from Cyprus and protect their bases from highly probable guerilla attacks... To make it short, they left the dirty job being done by Turkey. There were 40.000 armed GCs and they wouldn't stop fighting until most of them were killed or ordered to cease-fire. It was very obvious that a joint intervention of Turkey-UK would cause much more blood shed and still the result would be the same; irregulars of EOKA-B wouldn't surrender. They would engage into a guearilla warfare against intervention forces. How long would it take to overpower the irregulars of EOKA-B? 3 years? 5 years? Still GCs and TCs would flee safer places of Cyprus... A joint intervention of Turkey-UK would only cause more blood shed and would 100 times justify the need of partition.

insan, all I was ever arguing is that Britain could have stopped the Turkish invasion. So if you're now saying you never argued against this, then everything you have written to me is irrelevant. End of story.

Insan makes a habit of going round and round in circles without even knowing exactly what he is debating or what it is others are trying to tell him....

He has killed far too many brain cells....

First of all, the ones invading Cyprus was a Junta led National Guard commanded by Greek officers. The matter was a joint intervention of 2 other guarantors; Turkey and UK. All official documents support my arguements that Britan's contingency plans were made on a joint intervention with Turkey against invasion of Greece.

In such a case it's too stupid to talk about the so-called naval warfare plans of UK against Turkey that would led Greece to invade Cyprus. Why should Brits do this? It's total nonsense!

What are you talking about? Britain considered putting its Navy in the way of the Turkish invasion. So of course it is not stupid to talk about the naval warfare aspect.

Invasion of Greece?

Go to sleep insan.

What was it, if it was not a Greek invasion? How would u consider a coup against Makarios, led by GOT and TC national guard commanded by Turkish officers?

Go have a bath Simon, u may get conscious.

[Simon]

You can always tell non-Cypriots apart… they’re the ones who have premature ejaculations over the military prowess of other countries!

What, you mean like you were over France?

Looks like you're excluding yourself with your own definition.

I provided some quick facts in a single post for someone who seemingly didn’t know much about France, but would I go on and on arguing about it?

I don’t think so!

That is simply because you lack stamina GR!

You are well known in most threads to do a runner as soon as things heat up!

I don’t need to use much stamina in most cases Simon. I usually wrap up arguments that can be won very quickly with credible links, and I could’ve done the same for the Britain Vs Turkey argument if I cared to get involved!

But it’s always funny to watch people like you, Paphitis, and a few others on the CF, forever struggling to convince the opponent of your over-elaborated views over debates that can be easily wrapped up in a single post! You people just don’t know how to close off!

GR, in most of the threads where I've read your posts, the only thing you've wrapped up is your own demise.

I mean, come on GR, I've seen your "credible" links in our 'Greek' debates.

As soon as you meet a decent argument, you disappear faster than a Cheetah.

I posted a good link on this matter which quoted a historical expert, but for some their brainwashing goes too deep, so I had to continue the debate to ridicule them further. But please, humour me, post this one link which would have ended this debate immediately. I know you don't care about Britain or Turkey, but just for my benefit so I can learn from "Unkie GR".

You never know, if you actually have a good link regarding this matter which I have missed, I may even add it to my repertoire.

If you were to ask the average debater what Britain has over Turkey they’d quickly answer “nuclear missiles”, but of course the TYPE of missile is NOT what’s important!

What’s important is that Britain has the ability to DELIVER PAYLOADS to great distances that certainly cover the entire Turkish territory (there’s only around 1,800 miles between them), via intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM), so there’s nothing stopping her from delivering LEGAL ballistic missiles (non-nuclear) striking one Turkish military target after the other, without even leaving her territory (or from a submarine) until Turkey waves a white flag!

End of story! Comparing conventional armies with superpowers is a non starter!

I agree with you GR, but Britain would have needed to have had naval assets in the area to actually prevent the Cyprus landings. And it did. This is what I was trying to tell insan. But he and Y-Fred believe Turkey would have defeated the US Sixth Fleet and Royal Navy combined. So I continued the debate just to compound their stupidity. Moreover, Britain actually sent a task force to Cyprus to confront the Turks, but the US vetoed British action, because the partition of Cyprus suited US interests. Britain didn't go ahead because it didn't want another Suez where the US embarrasses it politically. Callaghan himself admitted this.

Here is another good link I have found from Google books which confirms what I am saying:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dot ... on&f=false

If you read at the bottom of page 160, it clearly states that the Select Committee "decided that Britain had the legal right, a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion."

Let me guess insan, more propaganda?

We all know that Britain had the legal right(treaty of guarantee) a moral obligation and the military capacity to intervene, but did not do so. Di I claim otherwise? No. So what's ur point?

Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of a UN force,

Maybe they had but they officially explained the difficulties in front of a possible intervention and instead they prefer evacuating British citizens from Cyprus and protect their bases from highly probable guerilla attacks... To make it short, they left the dirty job being done by Turkey. There were 40.000 armed GCs and they wouldn't stop fighting until most of them were killed or ordered to cease-fire. It was very obvious that a joint intervention of Turkey-UK would cause much more blood shed and still the result would be the same; irregulars of EOKA-B wouldn't surrender. They would engage into a guearilla warfare against intervention forces. How long would it take to overpower the irregulars of EOKA-B? 3 years? 5 years? Still GCs and TCs would flee safer places of Cyprus... A joint intervention of Turkey-UK would only cause more blood shed and would 100 times justify the need of partition.

insan, all I was ever arguing is that Britain could have stopped the Turkish invasion. So if you're now saying you never argued against this, then everything you have written to me is irrelevant. End of story.

Insan makes a habit of going round and round in circles without even knowing exactly what he is debating or what it is others are trying to tell him....

He has killed far too many brain cells....

First of all, the ones invading Cyprus was a Junta led National Guard commanded by Greek officers. The matter was a joint intervention of 2 other guarantors; Turkey and UK. All official documents support my arguements that Britan's contingency plans were made on a joint intervention with Turkey against invasion of Greece.

In such a case it's too stupid to talk about the so-called naval warfare plans of UK against Turkey that would led Greece to invade Cyprus. Why should Brits do this? It's total nonsense!

What are you talking about? Britain considered putting its Navy in the way of the Turkish invasion. So of course it is not stupid to talk about the naval warfare aspect.

Invasion of Greece?

Go to sleep insan.

What was it, if it was not a Greek invasion? How would u consider a coup against Makarios, led by GOT and TC national guard commanded by Turkish officers?

Go have a bath Simon, u may get conscious.

It was a coup carried out by Greek Cypriots you dumbass. Yes it had the Junta's backing, but that is totally different from an all out invasion by a foreign power, like we saw from Turkey in 1974.