Cyprus-Forum.com

[Gregory]

"However, in terms of their duties on land I do not think that they would need heavy miltary hardware (tanks,artllery,APC's etc) in order to maintain law and order."

Its not a question of maintaining law and order but a question of protecting the sovereignty of Cyprus. We would not need heavy military hardware but a small, mobile and effective military working under the NATO umbrella.

I take your point. But I pose this then - If the Cyprus problem is solved who do we need to protect our sovereignity against beyond what a police force cannot do?

Personally, I do not see any benefit to Cyprus joining NATO but would rather advocate integration into a future EU force (if we were to retain some form of military force).

Cyprus within EU does not need any military. Just a police force will suffice.

You obviously feel secure within the EU. Why then do you require guarantees?

Gregory, you have a house, why do you insure it? What is the chance it will burn down? I have been paying this insurance for 30 years, should I cancel it?

You will find that 99% of TCs will not vote for peace without a guarantee.

So you feel fine leaving the fate of the entire island to the EU mechanism of security but feel that your small community warrants the direct involvement of a foreign power in the sovereign state of Cyprus.

Your insurance theory is simply a joke since your insurance company happens to be presently squatting in the property.

No, if the RoC and signed a peace agreement anytime in the last 35 years Turkey would have left. It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go.

Apparently not true since Talat has repeated that no properties will be handed back to the GC's. So what do you mean by Turkey going? Even with the Annan Plan the majority of GC's were without their property but offered complex compensation instead.

If you mean militarily then under the Annan Plan a contingent was still present on the island and the guarantees mean it could step back under the faintest of civil unrests.

Once again, how do you define Turkey will go?

P.S as for the 30 odd years before the Annan Plan may I remind you who the world recognised as Mr No. (starts with D)

Yfred? Care to explain the old cliche of the Turks leaving once we sign a peace accord

Isn't it obvious, as we only have a ceasfire agreement, they are obliged to stay. The moment the peace agreement is signed, why wouldn't they leave. At worst they will leave 600 behind like pre 74.
It was in the Annan plan which you guys refused.

Again you're not answering. What do you mean by "They will leave"?

Will all the properties they kicked GC's out of go back to the GC's?

The cliche brandished around here as a -one reply fits all- of "if you had agreed to our terms all these years since the invasion the Turkish army would have left" basically means the physical presence of some of the troops would not be here anymore however the effects of what the Turkish army did would be around forever.

Once again would all the effects of the Turkish army on this island be reversed once we agree on a solution?

[YFred]

"However, in terms of their duties on land I do not think that they would need heavy miltary hardware (tanks,artllery,APC's etc) in order to maintain law and order."

Its not a question of maintaining law and order but a question of protecting the sovereignty of Cyprus. We would not need heavy military hardware but a small, mobile and effective military working under the NATO umbrella.

I take your point. But I pose this then - If the Cyprus problem is solved who do we need to protect our sovereignity against beyond what a police force cannot do?

Personally, I do not see any benefit to Cyprus joining NATO but would rather advocate integration into a future EU force (if we were to retain some form of military force).

Cyprus within EU does not need any military. Just a police force will suffice.

You obviously feel secure within the EU. Why then do you require guarantees?

Gregory, you have a house, why do you insure it? What is the chance it will burn down? I have been paying this insurance for 30 years, should I cancel it?

You will find that 99% of TCs will not vote for peace without a guarantee.

So you feel fine leaving the fate of the entire island to the EU mechanism of security but feel that your small community warrants the direct involvement of a foreign power in the sovereign state of Cyprus.

Your insurance theory is simply a joke since your insurance company happens to be presently squatting in the property.

No, if the RoC and signed a peace agreement anytime in the last 35 years Turkey would have left. It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go.

Apparently not true since Talat has repeated that no properties will be handed back to the GC's. So what do you mean by Turkey going? Even with the Annan Plan the majority of GC's were without their property but offered complex compensation instead.

If you mean militarily then under the Annan Plan a contingent was still present on the island and the guarantees mean it could step back under the faintest of civil unrests.

Once again, how do you define Turkey will go?

P.S as for the 30 odd years before the Annan Plan may I remind you who the world recognised as Mr No. (starts with D)

Yfred? Care to explain the old cliche of the Turks leaving once we sign a peace accord

Isn't it obvious, as we only have a ceasfire agreement, they are obliged to stay. The moment the peace agreement is signed, why wouldn't they leave. At worst they will leave 600 behind like pre 74.
It was in the Annan plan which you guys refused.

Again you're not answering. What do you mean by "They will leave"?

Will all the properties they kicked GC's out of go back to the GC's?

The cliche brandished around here as a -one reply fits all- of "if you had agreed to our terms all these years since the invasion the Turkish army would have left" basically means the physical presence of some of the troops would not be here anymore however the effects of what the Turkish army did would be around forever.

Once again would all the effects of the Turkish army on this island be reversed once we agree on a solution?

Muddying the water serves no purpose. The Turkish Army had a force of 650 before 1974 legally. If you wish to remove them too, then you take it up with Turkey. Do not mix the civilian population with the army, who will stay and who will go will depend on the peace agreement. However, you will have as much say in that matter as the TCs have in how many Pontians and Other Greeks stay in the south. As to the property issue that will also depend on the peace agreement.

[Gregory]

"However, in terms of their duties on land I do not think that they would need heavy miltary hardware (tanks,artllery,APC's etc) in order to maintain law and order."

Its not a question of maintaining law and order but a question of protecting the sovereignty of Cyprus. We would not need heavy military hardware but a small, mobile and effective military working under the NATO umbrella.

I take your point. But I pose this then - If the Cyprus problem is solved who do we need to protect our sovereignity against beyond what a police force cannot do?

Personally, I do not see any benefit to Cyprus joining NATO but would rather advocate integration into a future EU force (if we were to retain some form of military force).

Cyprus within EU does not need any military. Just a police force will suffice.

You obviously feel secure within the EU. Why then do you require guarantees?

Gregory, you have a house, why do you insure it? What is the chance it will burn down? I have been paying this insurance for 30 years, should I cancel it?

You will find that 99% of TCs will not vote for peace without a guarantee.

So you feel fine leaving the fate of the entire island to the EU mechanism of security but feel that your small community warrants the direct involvement of a foreign power in the sovereign state of Cyprus.

Your insurance theory is simply a joke since your insurance company happens to be presently squatting in the property.

No, if the RoC and signed a peace agreement anytime in the last 35 years Turkey would have left. It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go.

Apparently not true since Talat has repeated that no properties will be handed back to the GC's. So what do you mean by Turkey going? Even with the Annan Plan the majority of GC's were without their property but offered complex compensation instead.

If you mean militarily then under the Annan Plan a contingent was still present on the island and the guarantees mean it could step back under the faintest of civil unrests.

Once again, how do you define Turkey will go?

P.S as for the 30 odd years before the Annan Plan may I remind you who the world recognised as Mr No. (starts with D)

Yfred? Care to explain the old cliche of the Turks leaving once we sign a peace accord

Isn't it obvious, as we only have a ceasfire agreement, they are obliged to stay. The moment the peace agreement is signed, why wouldn't they leave. At worst they will leave 600 behind like pre 74.
It was in the Annan plan which you guys refused.

Again you're not answering. What do you mean by "They will leave"?

Will all the properties they kicked GC's out of go back to the GC's?

The cliche brandished around here as a -one reply fits all- of "if you had agreed to our terms all these years since the invasion the Turkish army would have left" basically means the physical presence of some of the troops would not be here anymore however the effects of what the Turkish army did would be around forever.

Once again would all the effects of the Turkish army on this island be reversed once we agree on a solution?

Muddying the water serves no purpose. The Turkish Army had a force of 650 before 1974 legally. If you wish to remove them too, then you take it up with Turkey. Do not mix the civilian population with the army, who will stay and who will go will depend on the peace agreement. However, you will have as much say in that matter as the TCs have in how many Pontians and Other Greeks stay in the south. As to the property issue that will also depend on the peace agreement.

So basically when you say this:

It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go

You really mean
It is the absence of the peace agreement that keeps the majority of the Turkish troops presence in Cyprus and not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed most of Turkey's army will go however you will still not reclaim the land the turkish army took from you nor will most of your refugees go back home. There will also be a small contingent based here in Cyprus which is meaningless since with the new guarantees you so much as look at a Turkish settler the wrong way 40,000 troops will be back here before you can say "United Republic of Cyprus"

[YFred]

"However, in terms of their duties on land I do not think that they would need heavy miltary hardware (tanks,artllery,APC's etc) in order to maintain law and order."

Its not a question of maintaining law and order but a question of protecting the sovereignty of Cyprus. We would not need heavy military hardware but a small, mobile and effective military working under the NATO umbrella.

I take your point. But I pose this then - If the Cyprus problem is solved who do we need to protect our sovereignity against beyond what a police force cannot do?

Personally, I do not see any benefit to Cyprus joining NATO but would rather advocate integration into a future EU force (if we were to retain some form of military force).

Cyprus within EU does not need any military. Just a police force will suffice.

You obviously feel secure within the EU. Why then do you require guarantees?

Gregory, you have a house, why do you insure it? What is the chance it will burn down? I have been paying this insurance for 30 years, should I cancel it?

You will find that 99% of TCs will not vote for peace without a guarantee.

So you feel fine leaving the fate of the entire island to the EU mechanism of security but feel that your small community warrants the direct involvement of a foreign power in the sovereign state of Cyprus.

Your insurance theory is simply a joke since your insurance company happens to be presently squatting in the property.

No, if the RoC and signed a peace agreement anytime in the last 35 years Turkey would have left. It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go.

Apparently not true since Talat has repeated that no properties will be handed back to the GC's. So what do you mean by Turkey going? Even with the Annan Plan the majority of GC's were without their property but offered complex compensation instead.

If you mean militarily then under the Annan Plan a contingent was still present on the island and the guarantees mean it could step back under the faintest of civil unrests.

Once again, how do you define Turkey will go?

P.S as for the 30 odd years before the Annan Plan may I remind you who the world recognised as Mr No. (starts with D)

Yfred? Care to explain the old cliche of the Turks leaving once we sign a peace accord

Isn't it obvious, as we only have a ceasfire agreement, they are obliged to stay. The moment the peace agreement is signed, why wouldn't they leave. At worst they will leave 600 behind like pre 74.
It was in the Annan plan which you guys refused.

Again you're not answering. What do you mean by "They will leave"?

Will all the properties they kicked GC's out of go back to the GC's?

The cliche brandished around here as a -one reply fits all- of "if you had agreed to our terms all these years since the invasion the Turkish army would have left" basically means the physical presence of some of the troops would not be here anymore however the effects of what the Turkish army did would be around forever.

Once again would all the effects of the Turkish army on this island be reversed once we agree on a solution?

Muddying the water serves no purpose. The Turkish Army had a force of 650 before 1974 legally. If you wish to remove them too, then you take it up with Turkey. Do not mix the civilian population with the army, who will stay and who will go will depend on the peace agreement. However, you will have as much say in that matter as the TCs have in how many Pontians and Other Greeks stay in the south. As to the property issue that will also depend on the peace agreement.

So basically when you say this:

It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go

You really mean
It is the absence of the peace agreement that keeps the majority of the Turkish troops presence in Cyprus and not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed most of Turkey's army will go however you will still not reclaim the land the turkish army took from you nor will most of your refugees go back home. There will also be a small contingent based here in Cyprus which is meaningless since with the new guarantees you so much as look at a Turkish settler the wrong way 40,000 troops will be back here before you can say "United Republic of Cyprus"

Gregory, I mean what I say and I say what I mean, no need for you to interpret what I said, it was in English. Tell me about your innocent national guard, who surrounded Lurucina in 1974, when Lurucina attacked nobody, and was not aiding the Turks in any way. Tell me what the GC NG were going to do with their tanks they lined pointing towards the village from outside Goshi. Tell me they were going to fire red roses at my family and had no intention to harm anyone.

Let me tell you what you mean. You mean to say that if in the future you attack us, Turkey cannot come to our aid come what may. Well that kind of mentality is fine and dandy but put that to the referendum and 99.5 percent of TC will vote to join Turkey, you can then put the result in the pipe and get the EU and the UN to smoke it. They will enjoy it.

[Gregory]

"However, in terms of their duties on land I do not think that they would need heavy miltary hardware (tanks,artllery,APC's etc) in order to maintain law and order."

Its not a question of maintaining law and order but a question of protecting the sovereignty of Cyprus. We would not need heavy military hardware but a small, mobile and effective military working under the NATO umbrella.

I take your point. But I pose this then - If the Cyprus problem is solved who do we need to protect our sovereignity against beyond what a police force cannot do?

Personally, I do not see any benefit to Cyprus joining NATO but would rather advocate integration into a future EU force (if we were to retain some form of military force).

Cyprus within EU does not need any military. Just a police force will suffice.

You obviously feel secure within the EU. Why then do you require guarantees?

Gregory, you have a house, why do you insure it? What is the chance it will burn down? I have been paying this insurance for 30 years, should I cancel it?

You will find that 99% of TCs will not vote for peace without a guarantee.

So you feel fine leaving the fate of the entire island to the EU mechanism of security but feel that your small community warrants the direct involvement of a foreign power in the sovereign state of Cyprus.

Your insurance theory is simply a joke since your insurance company happens to be presently squatting in the property.

No, if the RoC and signed a peace agreement anytime in the last 35 years Turkey would have left. It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go.

Apparently not true since Talat has repeated that no properties will be handed back to the GC's. So what do you mean by Turkey going? Even with the Annan Plan the majority of GC's were without their property but offered complex compensation instead.

If you mean militarily then under the Annan Plan a contingent was still present on the island and the guarantees mean it could step back under the faintest of civil unrests.

Once again, how do you define Turkey will go?

P.S as for the 30 odd years before the Annan Plan may I remind you who the world recognised as Mr No. (starts with D)

Yfred? Care to explain the old cliche of the Turks leaving once we sign a peace accord

Isn't it obvious, as we only have a ceasfire agreement, they are obliged to stay. The moment the peace agreement is signed, why wouldn't they leave. At worst they will leave 600 behind like pre 74.
It was in the Annan plan which you guys refused.

Again you're not answering. What do you mean by "They will leave"?

Will all the properties they kicked GC's out of go back to the GC's?

The cliche brandished around here as a -one reply fits all- of "if you had agreed to our terms all these years since the invasion the Turkish army would have left" basically means the physical presence of some of the troops would not be here anymore however the effects of what the Turkish army did would be around forever.

Once again would all the effects of the Turkish army on this island be reversed once we agree on a solution?

Muddying the water serves no purpose. The Turkish Army had a force of 650 before 1974 legally. If you wish to remove them too, then you take it up with Turkey. Do not mix the civilian population with the army, who will stay and who will go will depend on the peace agreement. However, you will have as much say in that matter as the TCs have in how many Pontians and Other Greeks stay in the south. As to the property issue that will also depend on the peace agreement.

So basically when you say this:

It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go

You really mean
It is the absence of the peace agreement that keeps the majority of the Turkish troops presence in Cyprus and not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed most of Turkey's army will go however you will still not reclaim the land the turkish army took from you nor will most of your refugees go back home. There will also be a small contingent based here in Cyprus which is meaningless since with the new guarantees you so much as look at a Turkish settler the wrong way 40,000 troops will be back here before you can say "United Republic of Cyprus"

Gregory, I mean what I say and I say what I mean, no need for you to interpret what I said, it was in English. Tell me about your innocent national guard, who surrounded Lurucina in 1974, when Lurucina attacked nobody, and was not aiding the Turks in any way. Tell me what the GC NG were going to do with their tanks they lined pointing towards the village from outside Goshi. Tell me they were going to fire red roses at my family and had no intention to harm anyone.

Let me tell you what you mean. You mean to say that if in the future you attack us, Turkey cannot come to our aid come what may. Well that kind of mentality is fine and dandy but put that to the referendum and 99.5 percent of TC will vote to join Turkey, you can then put the result in the pipe and get the EU and the UN to smoke it. They will enjoy it.

Funny you mentioned Lurucina. Its a known story that the Turks turned their guns on their own in Lurucina. Famous story about the TC that begged the photographer to take pictures of the scars on his back as proof of the barbarity of the Turks against their own. These pictures where then used by Denktash to show the barbarity of the GC's

Anyway, you haven't answered my question again but I'm getting quite used to that. I'll try again.


So basically when you say this:

It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go

You really mean
It is the absence of the peace agreement that keeps the majority of the Turkish troops presence in Cyprus and not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed most of Turkey's army will go however you will still not reclaim the land the turkish army took from you nor will most of your refugees go back home. There will also be a small contingent based here in Cyprus which is meaningless since with the new guarantees you so much as look at a Turkish settler the wrong way 40,000 troops will be back here before you can say "United Republic of Cyprus"[/quote]

Help me out if you don't agree and let me know what "Turkey will leave actually means." Because in the context that you put it you led your readers to believe that all would be back to normal had we only accepted a peace treaty all these years ago.

[YFred]

Can we have at least the name of this person please as I lived there till 74, I may be aware of the person, but as yet I am not aware of any beatings or a photographer being asked to take pictures of such evidence? I am aware of a fellow called Kondoz, who like Kavazoglu was against TMT pre 63 and after. He was told to shut up or he will be killed. Strange because he did not shut up and was not killed and his sons grew up to be exactly like him.

So. Name please?

When you say Turks turned their guns on their own, do you mean the Aysozomeno incident where the Turks were pointing their guns towards their own, but really they were aiming at the eoka between them and the village. So strictly speaking their guns were pointing at their own. But they did rescue all the TCs from that town that was alive and left the dead to the English soldier to bury (which incidentally were killed by your red rose firing eoka heroes)

[Gregory]

dp

[Gregory]

Can we have at least the name of this person please as I lived there till 74,

sorry to go off here but weren't you having an exchange with paphitis a while back after some accussations were thrown at you and you had claimed that you had left Louroudjina in the 60's?

[insan]

"Do you know what the word proportional means? From the way you talk is seems that you don't."

Perhaps this may help you Piratis. There are several forms of proprtional representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportion ... esentation

And I stated " a form of proportional representation " as that is exactly what it is so please don't insult my intelligence.

The form being propsed is based on a cross-voting principle weighted according to the size of each community. Now I think your problem is that the weighting is 66:33 instead of 80:20 or 75:25

I don't think this is a racist principle. I think its only fair that TC's will have a major say in the who the TC VP is just as it is fair that the GC's have the major say in who the GC President is.

I think you need to think about what is best for Cyprus as a whole, rather than what is best for one community over the other. Our history is a mess and you can't jump from a mess to ideal in one step.

Let's try to apply this weighted cross voting proposal on a possible outcome.

TCs have 3 candidates for presidency. TCs have 150.000(75%) voters and GCs 600.000(25%) voters. TC candidates for presidency r A, B, and C.

A recieved 90.000 votes from TCs and 20.000 votes from GCs.

B recieved 40.000 votes from TCs and 500.000 votes from GCs.

C recieved 20.000 votes from TCs and 80.000 votes from GCs.

Who would win the presidency elections according to the proposed weighted cross voting method? It seems to me that A should win because recieved majority of the votes of TCs. On the other hand it seems that presidency of A is against the will of overwhelming majority of GCs... So who should win the presidency?

Ok. I'll try to base the number of voters on percentages.

A recieved 45% out of 75% of TC votes and 6% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total of 51% out of 100%.

B recieved 20% out of 75% of TC votes and 18% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 38% out of 100%.

C recieved 10% out of 75% of TC votes and 1% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 11% of 100%.

As it is seen, despite it is against the will of overwhelming majority of GCs, A wins TC presidency.

So, anyone else supporting weighted cross voting system and tell us abt merits/possible deadlocks and how it could be overcome? Or u wanna pursue the blind fight?

[YFred]

Can we have at least the name of this person please as I lived there till 74,

sorry to go off here but weren't you having an exchange with paphitis a while back after some accussations were thrown at you and you had claimed that you had left Louroudjina in the 60's?

Nope 1972 Genuine mistake. Took off from Lefkosa airport. I lived in Lurucina (please get the name right) from 58 to 72. Is that clear enough or shall I provide a link?
You are bunch of armatures. If I said it once I said a thousand times. I wouldn't go by what Puffidis says or claims. Accusations my arse, the whole gang got together and started making things up as they went along. Kickapoo, DT, and Bafitis. All Liars. When you speak the truth you have nothing to fear.