Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Sure. And the Americans shouldn't have armed the Turks to invade Cyprus and kill 1000s. PERIOD! They shouldn't arm them and help them to continue to illegally occupy Cyprus PERIOD! They shouldn't arm them to bomb and kill the Kurds. PERIOD! But they do whatever suits their interests and so do we PERIOD!

You never had a problem when Cyprus was used by the AngloAmericans to bomb the hell out of Iraqis because supposdedly they had WMD. Why are you are so sensitive now?

[Piratis]

Piratis,

You really need to read a bit more. ANZUS changed things significantly for Cyprus because the Brits were no longer required for Defence and Security of the Dominions. That was the primary reason behind the Suez Campaign.

The Brits not only supported self determination but the evidence seems to indicate that they also supported it in practice. If they wanted to hold on to Cyprus they would be able to make no mistake about it, but for them it wasn't worth the headache. Their 2 SBAs were sufficient to meet their needs!

Do you know what "SBA" stands for, particularly that initial S Paphitis? It starts for "Sovereign". In other words 2 parts of our island are still under colonial rule. Why would we or anybody for that matters accept to have part of their territory under colonial rule? The British knew that if Cyprus was truly independent that sooner than later the Cypriots would demand a complete end of colonial rule in Cyprus. This is why they used the TCs and did all they did, to ensure that we would have other bigger problems to worry about.

And the British are in Cyprus not to protect any "dominions" but because they want a base (sovereign one, not whatever) near the Middle East and the Oil. No "ANZUS" changed this.

Yes I know what the S stands for. What is your point?

If we were patient we would have had the whole kaboodle by the mid 60s Piratis.

EOKA doesn't have the luxury of hindsight but we do, so please explain your stupidity!

I already made my point. There was nothing in the mid 60s that was so different from a few years earlier as far as the interests of the British in Cyprus go. You are just making assumptions and similar assumptions could be used for the exact contrary argument: That we should have started earlier, when Turkey was weaker and other Greek islands were liberated and united with mainland Greece.

Statements by Britain's FA minister are no assumptions of mine. They are fact and if you analyze the geopolitics at play it makes a lot of sense.

I gave you reliable sources but you choose to ignore them.

Do your own research Piratis and open your eyes. The information is all there, and there are dozens of academics and political analysts which have painstakingly researched thousands of documents from the British Foreign Office. The Brits are meticulous about record everything!

That you chooce to buy the bullshit that the British feed you is not a problem of mine. Where are the dozens of academics and political analysts that said that Cyprus would be given a different, real independance if we waited until 64. Can you point me to the relevant sources from your own "research"?

[Paphitis]

I can point you to a few Piratis and I already provided you with one source. If you want more, then do your own search. There is reliable material all over the Internet. It is not my job to educate you.

Are you seriously going to tell me that Britain was never to grant Cyprus self determination. Why is that Piratis? Can you please explain why Cyprus was to be the only place in the world where self determination was not to be granted, other than the Falklands. How were they going to justify that?

I think the source of the bullshit is elsewhere, not to mention a deluded sense of paranoia!

[Piratis]

So let me ask you this Paphitis: In 1964 you believe we would be able to achieve enosis if that is what we wanted?

[Paphitis]

So let me ask you this Paphitis: In 1964 you believe we would be able to achieve enosis if that is what we wanted?

No I do not!

What gives you the idea that the majority wanted ENOSIS? I put it to you that in the 60s only 30 to 40%(max) would have wanted ENOSIS, and not the majority you claim. Most of these would be from the right flank. The left would not accept such a thing.

I believe that they would grant Cyprus real independence with no restrictions whatsoever.

[Piratis]

You didn't answer the question: IF the majority of Cypriots wanted enosis you believe we would have it in 1964?

[Paphitis]

You didn't answer the question: IF the majority of Cypriots wanted enosis you believe we would have it in 1964?

No I do not believe that the majority have that right to unite Cyprus with Greece anymore than the majority having the right to unite Australia with UK. And I am not going to explain to you why, because that should be something you should be able to figure out for yourself!

[Piratis]

You didn't answer the question: IF the majority of Cypriots wanted enosis you believe we would have it in 1964?

No I do not believe that the majority have that right to unite Cyprus with Greece anymore than the majority having the right to unite Australia with UK. And I am not going to explain to you why, because that should be something you should be able to figure out for yourself!

So nothing would be different in 64 then. The British would still keep the bases and the freedom of Cypriots would still be restricted. How is that any different from what we were given in 1960?

In 1948 Rhodes united with mainland Greece. Why wouldn't the same be OK for Cyprus?

In 1967 there was a referendum in Gibraltar asking the people there if they wanted to unite with Spain. Why was it OK to hold such a referendum in Gibraltar but in the case of Cyprus the option of uniting with Greece was prohibited?

[Paphitis]

You didn't answer the question: IF the majority of Cypriots wanted enosis you believe we would have it in 1964?

No I do not believe that the majority have that right to unite Cyprus with Greece anymore than the majority having the right to unite Australia with UK. And I am not going to explain to you why, because that should be something you should be able to figure out for yourself!

So nothing would be different in 64 then. The British would still keep the bases and the freedom of Cypriots would still be restricted. How is that any different from what we were given in 1960?

In 1948 Rhodes united with mainland Greece. Why wouldn't the same be OK for Cyprus?

In 1967 there was a referendum in Gibraltar asking the people there if they wanted to unite with Spain. Why was it OK to hold such a referendum in Gibraltar but in the case of Cyprus the option of uniting with Greece was prohibited?

I told you before Piratis that I would prefer colonial rule in Cyprus for another 20 years rather than the present situation as long as they eventually grant Cyprus independance. Yes, we would have asked and they would grant it, and at the very most all we would need to do is offer a base or 2 which need not be sovereign.

Don't you think we would be better off even if we gained self determination as late as 1980?

If you don't then personally I think you are bloody insane!

[Piratis]

So now we left from 1964 and we went to 1980?

And obviously if in 1980 the British still didn't want to give full self-determination to Cyprus then we should have waited until 2000 and so on and so forth. In other words never fight for our freedom because seeking our freedom would piss off the Colonialists who would then punish us. Better to just kiss their ass and remain colonial subjects for as long as the British want.

Sorry Paphitis, but most of us have a thing called dignity, and dignity is more important than anything else. I am sure the British would love it if all their subjects were as obedient as you are. But I'd rather die fighting than live as their slave.