Cyprus-Forum.com

[ELLAS H TEFRA!]

i dont know if it is really worth it, but i ll give it one more chance.

Firstly, I will never read something without knowing the source and the author, especially in light of a political debate. Sorry.

Secondly, I have never said that he did not make a mistake in terms of the Annan Plan, to the contrary I think Ive SAID IT TWICE ALLREADY.
And by Annan Plan I mean the whole process, not just the NAI part..to try and explain to me that he negotiated the whole thing so that you can make your point is insulting since you imply that I was not aware of this untill now!

Thirdly, no one can doubt the fact that if he could have negotiated a better plan he would have. The powers that be decided that thats all we could get, and the same sources that you have (or dont have) which allowed you to realise that he is the one that negotiated the shitty plan (although never publicised) TELL me that we had an informal "threat" stating that without a plan in the making and a referendum in the near future we would not be allowed to join the EU.

My beliefs??
He threatend to buy Russian missiles that would have been pointed on Turkish airplanes and in effect NATO airplanes! The International scene was in small scale crisis situation and soon after the missiles never came the path to EUROPE suddenly seemed within our reach. He bought Soviet made tanks to boost our negotiating position, despite being a political leader who relied solely on right wing voters.

We are part of the EU. That was why I voted for him the first time I was elegible to vote. I have paid 1/3 of the fees I was supposed to pay, and for that I have an education that was impossible to get before. I am on my way to work either in London, or Brussels. Those were my beliefs when I voted for him.

Why my parents voted and supported him for 30 years (one of them did not last year)?? Entirely different reasons probably, but thats something you should ask them because the tone in your writing suggests that you have allready preordained that I am someone the fits a certan stereotype of a Clerides supporter and in that case you better discuss this with people my parents age!

[cypezokyli]

I will never read something without knowing the source and the author, especially in light of a political debate

since its too tiring to click a button. i will give u the sources.
the source is called ios tis kyriakis. its five people taos kostopoulos, dimitris trimis,aggelika psara, anta psara, dimitris psaras. they write every weekend for the greek newspaper eleftherotypia.

the sources they used are mentioned after the article, because they have this sick attitude when they mention something or someone to offer the sources.
since u will not click it i will give you the source:
Σάββας Παύλου
(επιμ.) «Απόρρητον: τα πρακτικά της σύσκεψης του 1974»
(Λευκωσία 1991, εκδ. «Το μώλυ»). Τα αποκαλυπτικά, πλήρη πρακτικά των πρώτων διαβουλεύσεων της ελληνικής και της ελληνοκυπριακής πολιτικής ηγεσίας μετά την τουρκική εισβολή. Ως πηγή χρησιμοποιήθηκε, προφανώς, η «κυπριακή» εκδοχή των πρακτικών. Η «ελληνική» εκδοχή τους, με κάποιες μικροδιαφορές στις διατυπώσεις, δημοσιεύθηκε στο «Αρχείο Κων/νου Καραμανλή» (Αθήνα 1997, Ιδρυμα Κ. Καραμανλή - Εκδοτική Αθηνών, τ. 8ος, σελ. 239-48).


political debate with sources. i hope that suits you.
and as for the sources. could you remind me who was the one who suggested that s scientific study is wrong just bc it was done by a turk?
who was it?
i am still waiting for the facts.

to try and explain to me that he negotiated the whole thing so that you can make your point is insulting since you imply that I was not aware of this untill now!

i hope that answers your question

Clerides and his policies were inline with our beliefs for decades,

TELL me that we had an informal "threat" stating that without a plan in the making and a referendum in the near future we would not be allowed to join the EU.

i dont know what tells u what, but in case you want a serious political debate provide the sources. if u have evidence of the "informal threat" let us know.

I will never read something without knowing the source and the author, especially in light of a political debate. Sorry.

Thirdly, no one can doubt the fact that if he could have negotiated a better plan he would have

clerides is also accusing papadopoulos that he didnt negotiate as much as he could. for that none of the two of them can prove it with facts. it is matter which of the two u believe.

He threatend to buy Russian missiles that would have been pointed on Turkish airplanes and in effect NATO airplanes! The International scene was in small scale crisis situation and soon after the missiles never came the path to EUROPE suddenly seemed within our reach.

could you explain that a bit?
he order them to threaten turkey?
or nato?
and as a result we got in the EU?

or he order them to cause a crisis and then give them to greece so we could get accepets in the EU?

or turkey and NATO were so happy that we removed the missiles that they have kindly asked EU to accept us?

or perhaps the EU needed the whole crisis so it would be convinced to accept us ?

or the EU prospect was never in our reach and the cancelation of the missiles suddenly seemed in our reach.

please explain

He bought Soviet made tanks to boost our negotiating position,

and our negotiating position has increased indeed!!! why dont we order some more?

and then perhaps we can cancel them again.

We are part of the EU. That was why I voted for him the first time I was elegible to vote

i have nothing against that.

[cypezokyli]

piratis wrote

Quote:
he did exactly the opposite of what he promised


This is what I was telling to Bananiot some time ago. So basically he was lying to steal votes. Therefore he didn't truly represent the Greek Cypriots (not even the majority of them).

In democracy the best leader is the one who can convince his people. The worst is the one who deceives his people. Cleredes was the second kind.

we agree that he did the opposite of what he promised.

but could you point out the politician who does what he promises?

since his political thoughts he has prove them in practise, i dont believe he deceived anyone. he was always in favor of a federal solution. somehow "the people" is always not to blame. as i have posted above, clerides actions and beliefs, if one wanted he could have found out. but since nobody cares, allow me not to sympathize with "the people". they are also to blame and the reason is that in our beloved island we dont vote having in mind the cyprus problem, but instead we vote either against the communists or against the praxikopimaties. the cyprus problem is the last thing that comes into our minds when we reach the ballot box..
as a result
every nation has the leaders it deserves.

[ELLAS H TEFRA!]

I will never read something without knowing the source and the author, especially in light of a political debate

since its too tiring to click a button. i will give u the sources.
the source is called ios tis kyriakis. its five people taos kostopoulos, dimitris trimis,aggelika psara, anta psara, dimitris psaras. they write every weekend for the greek newspaper eleftherotypia.

the sources they used are mentioned after the article, because they have this sick attitude when they mention something or someone to offer the sources.
since u will not click it i will give you the source:
Σάββας Παύλου
(επιμ.) «Απόρρητον: τα πρακτικά της σύσκεψης του 1974»
(Λευκωσία 1991, εκδ. «Το μώλυ»). Τα αποκαλυπτικά, πλήρη πρακτικά των πρώτων διαβουλεύσεων της ελληνικής και της ελληνοκυπριακής πολιτικής ηγεσίας μετά την τουρκική εισβολή. Ως πηγή χρησιμοποιήθηκε, προφανώς, η «κυπριακή» εκδοχή των πρακτικών. Η «ελληνική» εκδοχή τους, με κάποιες μικροδιαφορές στις διατυπώσεις, δημοσιεύθηκε στο «Αρχείο Κων/νου Καραμανλή» (Αθήνα 1997, Ιδρυμα Κ. Καραμανλή - Εκδοτική Αθηνών, τ. 8ος, σελ. 239-48).


political debate with sources. i hope that suits you.
and as for the sources. could you remind me who was the one who suggested that s scientific study is wrong just bc it was done by a turk?
who was it?
i am still waiting for the facts.

to try and explain to me that he negotiated the whole thing so that you can make your point is insulting since you imply that I was not aware of this untill now!

i hope that answers your question

Clerides and his policies were inline with our beliefs for decades,

TELL me that we had an informal "threat" stating that without a plan in the making and a referendum in the near future we would not be allowed to join the EU.

i dont know what tells u what, but in case you want a serious political debate provide the sources. if u have evidence of the "informal threat" let us know.

I will never read something without knowing the source and the author, especially in light of a political debate. Sorry.

Thirdly, no one can doubt the fact that if he could have negotiated a better plan he would have

clerides is also accusing papadopoulos that he didnt negotiate as much as he could. for that none of the two of them can prove it with facts. it is matter which of the two u believe.

He threatend to buy Russian missiles that would have been pointed on Turkish airplanes and in effect NATO airplanes! The International scene was in small scale crisis situation and soon after the missiles never came the path to EUROPE suddenly seemed within our reach.

could you explain that a bit?
he order them to threaten turkey?
or nato?
and as a result we got in the EU?

or he order them to cause a crisis and then give them to greece so we could get accepets in the EU?

or turkey and NATO were so happy that we removed the missiles that they have kindly asked EU to accept us?

or perhaps the EU needed the whole crisis so it would be convinced to accept us ?

or the EU prospect was never in our reach and the cancelation of the missiles suddenly seemed in our reach.

please explain

He bought Soviet made tanks to boost our negotiating position,

and our negotiating position has increased indeed!!! why dont we order some more?

and then perhaps we can cancel them again.

We are part of the EU. That was why I voted for him the first time I was elegible to vote

i have nothing against that.

Personal evaluation of a situation regarding a debate based on one scientific research that was done by a Turk. Never said that my opinion is based on scientific fact. Just said that until it is followed up and validated with more research I have every right to doubt it.


If you dont see the move with the missiles as something that strengthened our position in the international arena and in terms of joining Europe then you need to widen your views on international politics. Unless you actually believe that the USA and NATO interests do not have a bearing on EU accesion negotiations. If thats the case then my friend you have a long way to go towards understanding the way actually things work.

The third I point has failed to make any sence. I hope that by repeating what I have said answers your question:

"His one obvious mistake (Annan Plan-negotiation, adoption, acceptance, promotion) was glorifyingly (for us) rejected by the majority of the party"
This can be translated into: He was inline with our ideologies or even claimed to be (as u suggested) for decades, but when it came down to the most crucial decision he was "punished" for making the wrong choice!
The elections are simply a case of blind loyalty and a case of the famous sickness called "not voting for the other guy" (here we agree). I personaly voted for him (despite knowing the it was certain that he would not be voted in office) because of loyalty in terms of what he has personaly given me in relation to the EU and other things you call rousfeti.


We will not order more weapons because in the newly adopted " show of good will" policy we have minimised the military budget! Or havent you noticed?

[Dhavlos]

Does it really suprise people that we are more similar than we expected?

think about it, cyprus has been invaded so many times(phonecians/romans/byzantium/franks/venetians/ottomans/british), the chances we are ethnically greek/turkish is highly unlikely.

If anything, this newfound similarity could help find a solution as we realise that we are all Cypriots, not TCs or GCs.

It is our cultures/religion that split us, and not our race, it seems.

[ELLAS H TEFRA!]

Does it really suprise people that we are more similar than we expected?

think about it, cyprus has been invaded so many times(phonecians/romans/byzantium/franks/venetians/ottomans/british), the chances we are ethnically greek/turkish is highly unlikely.

If anything, this newfound similarity could help find a solution as we realise that we are all Cypriots, not TCs or GCs.

It is our cultures/religion that split us, and not our race, it seems.

ethnicity

n : an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations"


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ethnicity

[Dhavlos]

I never said ethnicity, i said race....and here is what they had to say...

Race
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.


again i will say, that we are more similar to each other(our blood-line history) than to our 'motherland-cousins'.

[ELLAS H TEFRA!]

I never said ethnicity, i said race....and here is what they had to say...

Race
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.


again i will say, that we are more similar to each other(our blood-line history) than to our 'motherland-cousins'.

You did not say "ethnicity" but you said "culture/religion" and if you correlate that with the fact that "ethinicity" translates to "culture/religion" etc you might see that you cannot just dismiss those two important cleavages as being of insignificant importance, as you original post suggests!

[Dhavlos]

Ok, i understand what you are trying to say...what im trying to say, i wasnt clear before, is that we should consider ourselves 'CYPRIOTS', rather than 'Greeks/Turks living in cyprus'.

If our genes are more similar to each other than the 'mainlands', then it can be used to help motivate the idea of 'cypriotness', and hopefully a solution.

Simply, we should see the similarity as a positive thing, and not be negative about it, or dismiss it.

[ELLAS H TEFRA!]

Ok, i understand what you are trying to say...what im trying to say, i wasnt clear before, is that we should consider ourselves 'CYPRIOTS', rather than 'Greeks/Turks living in cyprus'.

If our genes are more similar to each other than the 'mainlands', then it can be used to help motivate the idea of 'cypriotness', and hopefully a solution.

Simply, we should see the similarity as a positive thing, and not be negative about it, or dismiss it.

Ok, point taken!

But who is under the protection of 40 000 troops from the same so called "motherland" we are supposed to break from in order to embrace our Cypriotness??

Or do you compare the 2000 Greek soldiers to be a counter argument?