DTA wrote:quattro wrote:BirKibrisli wrote:boomerang wrote:BirKibrisli wrote:boomerang wrote:so when ankara says she wants a solution, i guess, by your thinking, they are lying sons of bitches...
You know as well as I do that politicians are very selective with the truth...They tell you what they think you want to hear,and quietly do what is in their interest...Turkish politicians are not exempt from this rule...
ok then the gcs were right in rejecting the anan plan...right?...
should the gcs ever trust turkish politicians in the future?... no fucking hope...
thanks a million for the insight...
The Annan Plan was not prepared by Turkish politicians...It was a UN initiative and the agreement had UN backing...Biggggg difference...
And in any case,after the GC blackflip following the 1960 agreements,can the TCs ever trust anything GC politicians say now??? That is the 6 Million dollar question...
No Bir but it was prepared FOR the Turkish politicians and Generals .
There was not a single line in there for the benefit of the CYPRIOTS
A plan with empty pages for sign .....Do you use to sign empty checks
I believe not .
Its time to let go of EOKA EOKA B Akritas ENOSIS those are long gone except from taksim ie(VP and company )its still there above our heads .
Can I ask specifically what was wrong with the Annan plan, because from a Tc perspective it required compromises on our part too, for example refugees from Guzel Yurt (mourfo) becoming refugees again for a
third time in their own lifetime.
But never the less I am interested in what the GC felt was so wrong about it, but please give specific details so we can better understand - I may post this in a thread of its own as I feel that it is important.
Take a quote :
10. The UN's so-called Annan Plan, for resolution of the Cyprus problem, evolved through five different texts. Up to Annan III the proposal was subject to negotiations with the Cypriote: it was generally acceptable to the Greek Cypriots but rejected by Denktash and his army supporters in Turkey. The final proposal, Annan V, radically changed to satisfy the wishes of the Turkish army, was not made subject to Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot negotiation Its apparent objective was to secure a deal, of any sort, in advance of Cypriot accession to the EU, in such formula as would help to decriminalize Turkey's position in Cyprus and ease Turkey's path to EU accession.
Clare Palley was a legal advisor to the UN process. It has been written that no one reading her exhaustive documentation of events and statements relating to Annan V could fail to be convinced "that the rush to force a settlement on the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in 2004 was motivated and executed with deceit, stupidity and flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and freedom of peoples."