Super Power RoC or Papadopulos thinks so..?
20 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by mehmet » Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:13 pm
who is Papadopoulos going to negotiate with (assuming he wanted to anyway), is he going to find someone from Pyla and declare that he has negotiated with the legitimate representative of the Turkish Cypriot community?
You are happy to accept the UN as the judge of what is a state yet when the same organisation get involved with peace process they are just a bunch of foreigners trying to tell you what to do.
You are happy to accept the UN as the judge of what is a state yet when the same organisation get involved with peace process they are just a bunch of foreigners trying to tell you what to do.
- mehmet
- Contributor
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:30 am
- Location: hastings, UK (family from Komi Kebir & Lourijina)
by Bananiot » Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:09 pm
A point of view from Loucas Charalamous in today's "Politis"
"I GET annoyed when I hear stupid comments such as “the president does not know what he wants”, that “the president has to say what he wants”, “the president should announce his strategy” and the like. These statements are heard and written daily and I wonder if those who utter them mean what they say. It is especially worrying that this nonsense comes from the leadership of the opposition. The impression created is that the opposition does not know Tassos Papadopoulos well, or that it resorts to this rhetoric because it does not dare to face reality in public.
President Papadopoulos knows very well what he wants and is probably the only one in this country who does know what he wants. It is crystal clear and perfectly simple: he does not want to solve the Cyprus problem. His aim is non-solution. If, after so many years, the opposition has not understood what he is all about then too bad for them. I have discussed the reasons for his behaviour in a previous article. The basic reason is personal interest. If the Cyprus problem had been solved on April 24, Mr Papadopoulos would have lost the most valuable thing he has ever desired and currently has: the presidency of the state. If the Annan plan had been accepted, on June 13 we would have had elections for the six members of the federal council. Mr Papadopoulos, even if he had wanted to, would have had no chance of being elected as a member of the council.
Since the election would have been from a single list, Greek and Turkish Cypriot parties would have co-operated to achieve the election of their own candidates. And of course no Turkish Cypriot party would have agreed to co-operate with DIKO. In the best of situations Papadopoulos would have been president of the Greek Cypriot constituent state if AKEL had agreed to support him and he accepted to be demoted to the status of a mukhtar. Thus, with the solution of the Cyprus problem, Mr Papadopoulos was the only Greek Cypriot who stood to lose. Lose what? The presidency of course.
Apart from that, we should not forget history. Tassos Papadopoulos was one of the people who created the Cyprus problem, destroying the 1960 solution precisely because they wanted to get rid of Turkish Cypriot participation in the state’s administration and keep it for themselves. That is, to achieve exactly what he has in his hands today. Is it possible then to expect the man who created the Cyprus problem to solve it? Especially when solving it would mean losing his authority? I am perhaps one of the most fanatic students of Greece’s political history. I have no doubt that Papadopoulos will be remembered by later generations as the worst example of a politician who sacrificed the interests of many on the altar of his personal interest. He will go down as the politician who played the main role in turning north Cyprus over to the Turks forever. And after five or six decades, our children will read the events, compare Cyprus to Smyrna and weep; God knows how many curses they will put on their parents and the protagonist of the April 24 catastrophe, who let history overtake us, as former Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis so wisely observed.
So the opposition would do well, if they do not want to be cursed as an accomplice, to drop the naïve rhetoric that the president does not know what he wants and at least inform and convince the people about what Papadopoulos does not want and what a dangerous game he played and continues to play by clashing with the whole world in such a Quixotic way".
"I GET annoyed when I hear stupid comments such as “the president does not know what he wants”, that “the president has to say what he wants”, “the president should announce his strategy” and the like. These statements are heard and written daily and I wonder if those who utter them mean what they say. It is especially worrying that this nonsense comes from the leadership of the opposition. The impression created is that the opposition does not know Tassos Papadopoulos well, or that it resorts to this rhetoric because it does not dare to face reality in public.
President Papadopoulos knows very well what he wants and is probably the only one in this country who does know what he wants. It is crystal clear and perfectly simple: he does not want to solve the Cyprus problem. His aim is non-solution. If, after so many years, the opposition has not understood what he is all about then too bad for them. I have discussed the reasons for his behaviour in a previous article. The basic reason is personal interest. If the Cyprus problem had been solved on April 24, Mr Papadopoulos would have lost the most valuable thing he has ever desired and currently has: the presidency of the state. If the Annan plan had been accepted, on June 13 we would have had elections for the six members of the federal council. Mr Papadopoulos, even if he had wanted to, would have had no chance of being elected as a member of the council.
Since the election would have been from a single list, Greek and Turkish Cypriot parties would have co-operated to achieve the election of their own candidates. And of course no Turkish Cypriot party would have agreed to co-operate with DIKO. In the best of situations Papadopoulos would have been president of the Greek Cypriot constituent state if AKEL had agreed to support him and he accepted to be demoted to the status of a mukhtar. Thus, with the solution of the Cyprus problem, Mr Papadopoulos was the only Greek Cypriot who stood to lose. Lose what? The presidency of course.
Apart from that, we should not forget history. Tassos Papadopoulos was one of the people who created the Cyprus problem, destroying the 1960 solution precisely because they wanted to get rid of Turkish Cypriot participation in the state’s administration and keep it for themselves. That is, to achieve exactly what he has in his hands today. Is it possible then to expect the man who created the Cyprus problem to solve it? Especially when solving it would mean losing his authority? I am perhaps one of the most fanatic students of Greece’s political history. I have no doubt that Papadopoulos will be remembered by later generations as the worst example of a politician who sacrificed the interests of many on the altar of his personal interest. He will go down as the politician who played the main role in turning north Cyprus over to the Turks forever. And after five or six decades, our children will read the events, compare Cyprus to Smyrna and weep; God knows how many curses they will put on their parents and the protagonist of the April 24 catastrophe, who let history overtake us, as former Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis so wisely observed.
So the opposition would do well, if they do not want to be cursed as an accomplice, to drop the naïve rhetoric that the president does not know what he wants and at least inform and convince the people about what Papadopoulos does not want and what a dangerous game he played and continues to play by clashing with the whole world in such a Quixotic way".
-
Bananiot - Main Contributor
- Posts: 6397
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
- Location: Nicosia
by Piratis » Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:50 pm
Idiots also have a point of view and in democracies even them are allowed to express their opinions freely.
At the same time, in democracies, those idiots have to respect the will of the majority.
Thats why democracy is the best system. Because the majority decides and not Bananiot or Politis.
So go ahead, bark as much as you want. If you care to be taken seriously by anybody then you have to start talking in a more logical way and stop saying bullshit. If your aim is to please some foreigners and get the $$, then continue like that.
At the same time, in democracies, those idiots have to respect the will of the majority.
Thats why democracy is the best system. Because the majority decides and not Bananiot or Politis.
So go ahead, bark as much as you want. If you care to be taken seriously by anybody then you have to start talking in a more logical way and stop saying bullshit. If your aim is to please some foreigners and get the $$, then continue like that.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by Bananiot » Mon Jul 05, 2004 6:20 am
Patriotism, the last resort of all scoundrels. Samuel Jonhson is reiterated every single day!
I suppose, Simitis is an idiot too. He earned the title; he advised GC,s to vote yes in the referendum and then he had the audacity to claim that history by passed Cyprus. I only have one question.
How much did he get payed by the Yanks? Did he pay the tax? Piratis, are the salaries tax-free?
I suppose, Simitis is an idiot too. He earned the title; he advised GC,s to vote yes in the referendum and then he had the audacity to claim that history by passed Cyprus. I only have one question.
How much did he get payed by the Yanks? Did he pay the tax? Piratis, are the salaries tax-free?
-
Bananiot - Main Contributor
- Posts: 6397
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
- Location: Nicosia
by Piratis » Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 pm
One thing is to take a position on a referendum and a totally another one to try to harm your own country. Simitis had a position like everybody could have. Nobody is a traitor because of his/her choice in the referendum.
However politis, actively tries to harm the Republic of Cyprus. They are trying to harm us and help some others, and this obviously is done because of some financial benefits they receive from abroad. This is nothing short from treason.
Yes, we are patriots, not traitors like you. You can repeat that saying as much as you want if it makes you feel less guilty.
However politis, actively tries to harm the Republic of Cyprus. They are trying to harm us and help some others, and this obviously is done because of some financial benefits they receive from abroad. This is nothing short from treason.
Patriotism, the last resort of all scoundrels. Samuel Jonhson is reiterated every single day!
Patriot: One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patriot
Yes, we are patriots, not traitors like you. You can repeat that saying as much as you want if it makes you feel less guilty.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by mehmet » Mon Jul 05, 2004 9:09 pm
Loving your country is one thing, I love Cyprus too. The problem isn't too much love for Cyprus, but how that gets translated into thinking the worst of those that disagee with you.
From that point it doesn't take too many steps to think that those against you are the enemy.
Hang on a minute, haven't we been here before?
From that point it doesn't take too many steps to think that those against you are the enemy.
Hang on a minute, haven't we been here before?
- mehmet
- Contributor
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:30 am
- Location: hastings, UK (family from Komi Kebir & Lourijina)
by Piratis » Mon Jul 05, 2004 10:16 pm
The problem isn't too much love for Cyprus, but how that gets translated into thinking the worst of those that disagee with you.
I agree. Personally I do not judge people based on what they voted. If somebody believed that the "yes" vote was the right choice then I perfectly respect his/her choice.
Unfortunately a small minority of fanatics like Bananiot, do not respect the opposite position. Not only they call anybody that disagrees with them as idiot that has been mislead, or ultra-nationalist etc, but they go on to say things that actually harm the Republic of Cyprus because those things are the things that some foreigners want to hear to excuse their actions. If thats not treason then I don't know what is.
So I will say it again to make myself clear: Traitors are not the ones that votes yes. Traitors are the ones that do not respect the opposite opinion which happens to be the opinion of the majority and instead of trying to convince for the right of their position with logical arguments they simply say things (vague accusations etc) which have as their only aim to harm Republic of Cyprus.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
20 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
