Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu wrote:Viewpoint wrote:Kikapu wrote:Viewpoint wrote:
Although that proposal was backed by both the UN and EU the GCs rejected that idea as it did not serve their purpose.
No, VP, what the GC's rejected was the Annan Plan as a package and not individual proposals in it, just as you accepted the AP as a whole also, which included Racist , Undemocratic and Human Rights violations against the GC's.!
You can not pick and choose you have to take the rough with smooth its called compromise but of course GCs are imune to this.
OK, so tell us VP, just exactly what parts of the Annan Plan would you say were the "rough" parts for the TC's. No need to tell us all the "smooth" parts for the TC's, because we all know about them.
While you are at it, also tell us all the "smooth" parts for the GC's in the AP, and once again, don't bother telling us what were the "rough" parts, because those are also well known to us.!
Rough for TCs = Departure of Turkish Army
Being made refugees for the 3rd time
Smooth for GCs = Departure of Turkish Army
Return of 90.000 GC refugees
Reductions of Turkish settlers
A united Cyprus
Well, well, well, VP, I have to say, that I'm really proud of you for once telling the truth, even though it was not the complete truth, but hey, I'll take what ever truth I can get from you.!
So, after thinking very hard to come up with the "roughs" for the TC's and "smoothes" for the GC's, you can only muster the above, which is more than I actually expected, and I'll explain why in a minute.
Now lets remind everyone what your statement was that brought about the above "roughs & smoothes". You stated this.
Viewpoint wrote:"You can not pick and choose you have to take the rough with smooth its called compromise but of course GCs are imune to this."
So, of all the benefits the TC's would have gotten from the AP, your only "roughs" were what's below. I'm sure you did your best to make compromises, but just couldn't do it, could you.!
Rough for TCs = Departure of Turkish Army
Being made refugees for the 3rd timeFirst of all, there were never any guarantees that the TT would have been pulled back completely. There would have been the initial few thousand, but the rest would have stayed for years to come, and why not, since the AP gave Turkey rights to be a guarantor for the whole island. But the main reason as to why they would have stayed is, that there would have been official partitioning of the island as per AP and since Cyprus was no longer the RoC, the EU did not had to take in the "new country", or there would have been another referendum in the north asking the TC's to be independent from the south to become independent, and already partially in the EU, the north and south , if allowed, would have been EU members separately, which means, that the north can invite for Turkey to keep troops there as long as they wanted. The same thing with the settlers. They would have been all allowed to stay and become EU citizens, not to mention the potential 70 million Turks all waiting in line to be given TC citizenships in the north to make them all EU citizens so that they will be able to flood the south in no time...........LEGALLY.!
When were the TC's refugees the "2nd Time".?
The only people that would have lost "their" homes would have been the settlers and not the TC's. I only asked you about the TC's, since many TC's have property in the south that they could have gone to, or sold off to buy another place in the north if the GC owner returned back to their property in the first place, and since 90,000 GC refugees were going tom be denied access to their properties, the likely chance that many TC's would have become refugees for the 3d time, is ludicrous to say the least. Of course many TC's and settlers had to vacate the GC's properties, or did you not think so.? Was this not the compromise that the TC's had to make, even though the numbers were still going to be far less than the compromises the GC's had to make.
Smooth for GCs = Departure of Turkish Army
Return of 90.000 GC refugees
Reductions of Turkish settlers
A united Cyprus[/quote]
Now lets look at the "smoothes" for the GC's.
I have already talked about the Turkish Army, therefore that was not going to be a "smooth" for the GC's.
I've talked about the GC refugees, where another 90,000 could NOT have returned at all, so where is the "smooth" there.?
Settlers I've also talked about, where every one of them could have stayed in some fashion, except for the very few, but after official partition, they too would have been able to return, so no "smooth" there either.
United Cyprus for about 5 minutes before official partition would have taken place where the RoC would have been wiped off the map with no guarantee it could have even made it into the EU, and even if they did, there would have been 2 countries, the north and the south and let the problems start from there on. Therefore, I have to say no "smooth" there either.
So basically, VP, all the "smoothes" would have gone to the TC's and all the "roughs" would have gone to the GC's, and if you still wonder why the GC's said OXI to the AP, then you are not trying hard enough to be objective as some of us free thinking TC's are. So when it comes to compromises that you were complaining about the GC's being immune to it, are you sure you were not talking about yourself by any chance.?
So let me leave you with this great quote from Perry Anderson that he made in his article
"The Division of Cyprus" which compliments very well to what you have given us with your
"smoothes & roughs".
"When votes were counted, the results said everything: 65 per cent of Turkish Cypriots accepted it, 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots rejected it. What political scientist, without needing to know anything about the plan, could for an instant doubt whom it favoured?"
I really do not have any further comments to make to your "roughs & smoothes", VP, because you have said it all, and once again, I want to thank you for it.!
