bigOz wrote:Bananiot, I take my hat off to you! (yet again )
For wasting his time with the nitty-gritty of a partition plan that will never get approved and implemented?
Bananiot wrote:Piratis, you are wasting you time. You actually believe that things will stay as they are if we waste another opportunity for a compromise solution? Perhaps you should read the dark philosophers who some thousand of years ago told us that nothing remains the same in time. Everything changes and you cannot take a bath in the same river twice.
Gregory wrote:cymart wrote:So this Australian guy has commited some heinous crime and should be black-listed according to some people like Get Real???The Americans,British,Rolandis,and no doubt soon Papandreou and even Christophias will be branded as traitors and the whole world has nothing to do all day other than sit and dream up ways to damage Cyprus,as if its the only country in the world they have to worry about???
Anyone who comes here and dares to express any opinion that these rejectionists don't agree with is always pillioried and called a traitor etc etc...
With this mentality Cyprus is doomed for sure!
They had this kind of attitude in Russia during Stalins time and still do in nasty little dictatorships in various countries around the world!
Perhaps its what we need in Cyprus. A nice short spell under a dictatorship. Seems to me that the "realists" of this island are now competing with each other on who is going to accept the most that Turkey has to offer in the shortest period of time. Perhaps this new fad has gone too far.
Stylianides is a politician I admire who is able to back up his arguments and doesn't seem to have fallen down skid row that Papapetrou and Rolandis have fallen into, who seem more concerned with public opinion of TC's rather than GC's. Understandable since according to the new plan of voting for each others candidates if TC's MUST vote for a GC then these GC's are more likely to be Papapetrou and Rolandis.
This explains why they have dropped out of politics in the ROC and were so angered at the failure of the Annan Plan which meant their new political careers had to wait a few more years.
Bananiot wrote:B25 asks1. Does this Synopsis allow Turkish Guarantor rights?
2. Does it allow the settlers to stay?
3. Does it allow for a full right of return to the GCs and TCs to their properties?
4. Do you agree that for any solution the above 3 points MUST be eliminated?
For a start, the document labelled synopsis contains improvements on the Annan plan for the Greek Cypriot side. This document was prepared after marathon meetings of the National Council but was never utilised, because our leadership then did not believe in bizonal, bicommunal federation. Your questions now:
1. Within the European Union, guarantor rights as contained in the London-Zurich agreements of 1959, are an anachronism. We need to convince the Turkish Cypriots and the rest of the world about this but we also need to accept political equality in order to make our point stronger.
2. The majority of the settlers will need to go but it is a folly to believe that all of them will leave. We will have to accommodate about 50 000 of them, for humanitarian reasons.
3. Do not forget that the solution we are after is bizonal, bicommunal federation and under such circumstances we will be kidding the refugees if we were to promise them that all will return to their properties.
4. Any solution will be based on give and take, whether we like it or not. The UN is calling on both parts to work for a compromise solution and thus, you can see, that even the UN does not take the SC resolutions seriously. In fact we have been trying hard to take the Cyprob to chapter seven of the UN charter but to no avail.
Now, you tell us Gregory, what these opportunities are that have risen that have strenghtened our side and perhaps they can allow us to change the basis of the negotiations. Of course, just like you, I will jump over backwards if we could go for a unified island, but I seem to remember that every time we went for the desirable, despite of the clear indications that such moves could never take us to a happy ending, we suffered immense pain and ended up demoralised and far worse than we were before we made these moves.
B25 wrote:Bananiot wrote:B25 asks1. Does this Synopsis allow Turkish Guarantor rights?
2. Does it allow the settlers to stay?
3. Does it allow for a full right of return to the GCs and TCs to their properties?
4. Do you agree that for any solution the above 3 points MUST be eliminated?
For a start, the document labelled synopsis contains improvements on the Annan plan for the Greek Cypriot side. This document was prepared after marathon meetings of the National Council but was never utilised, because our leadership then did not believe in bizonal, bicommunal federation. Your questions now:
1. Within the European Union, guarantor rights as contained in the London-Zurich agreements of 1959, are an anachronism. We need to convince the Turkish Cypriots and the rest of the world about this but we also need to accept political equality in order to make our point stronger.
2. The majority of the settlers will need to go but it is a folly to believe that all of them will leave. We will have to accommodate about 50 000 of them, for humanitarian reasons.
3. Do not forget that the solution we are after is bizonal, bicommunal federation and under such circumstances we will be kidding the refugees if we were to promise them that all will return to their properties.
4. Any solution will be based on give and take, whether we like it or not. The UN is calling on both parts to work for a compromise solution and thus, you can see, that even the UN does not take the SC resolutions seriously. In fact we have been trying hard to take the Cyprob to chapter seven of the UN charter but to no avail.
Now, you tell us Gregory, what these opportunities are that have risen that have strenghtened our side and perhaps they can allow us to change the basis of the negotiations. Of course, just like you, I will jump over backwards if we could go for a unified island, but I seem to remember that every time we went for the desirable, despite of the clear indications that such moves could never take us to a happy ending, we suffered immense pain and ended up demoralised and far worse than we were before we made these moves.
bananiot you disappoint me, I was expecting some straight answers, but all I go was wishy washy rubbish I am sorry to say.
You have made no attempt to redeem yourself, but only to prove to all that you really are not on our side, heres why:
1. We don't need nor accept guarantor rights to anyone. We are a free sovereign nation and part of the EU. No other country on the planet is forced to accept this. It was these rights that have brought us to where we are today.
2. Settlers are ILLEGAL, a war crime and have broken the Geneva convention, accpting them is making a mocory of the law and they should be returned. We do not accept illegalities, and will not legitimise them just to please you and your mates.
3. You still deny the right of return of the refugees to their homes to the benefit of your mates. You piss over the ECJ judgement because you are blinded by your pro turkish stance.
You have failed on all attempts to convince me that you are in some way right, infact you have convinced me you are really a enemy of the state and we should watch our backs very carefully.
its a shame you see things like that, you want US to relinquish everything to appease your buddies and Turkey, well NO Bananiot we won't, we will not do anything to end up worst off just for you.
Pirates is absolutely right and he can express things much better than I ever could, you should listen to him, he talks alot of sense.
I can see why EOKA used to deal with various people the way they did now! You wouldn't last 2 minutes.
YFred wrote:B25 wrote:Don't you worry I am working on it
If you are so brave, go climb a flag pole.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests