Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

did i read somewhere here that the communists in cyprus were responsible for the 74 intervention.

Yep you sure did buster. Communists are so self loathing. I just knew you were one Lordo.

you is one 4 headed revisionist son.

No I am not. I was being serious.

NATO was extremely concerned about the USSR and it's influence in the East Med. The communists actually believed they were untouchable and that the USSR will come to the rescue.

The Americans wanted Makarios out and they instigated or supported the coup.

You may care to read this

http://www3.nd.edu/~dlindley/handouts/US%20role%20in%20Cyprus%20Crises.pdf (hope the link works)

The document covers the various crisis and outlines that in fact in 1974 the Americans were warning against a coup, as they foresaw war between Turkey and Greece, which they did not want. What became a possibility was in fact armed conflict between Britain and Turkey, which would cause even more problems for NATO, and ultimately keeping NATO intact was rather more important than keeping Cyprus intact. That was why after the Coup and first invasion by Turkey the British Government got no support for a military force to stop Turkish ships.

BTW The letter where the sec gen of NATO supposedly authorized intervention which Kuru recently trotted out is at probably a crude forgery - it shows a gross misunderstanding of how NATO works - the Sec Gen has no authority to bind NATO in this way - if however it is genuine bearing in mind how NATO works then as the Sec Gen must have had authority from the Governments of NATO members to sign such a letter then every member Government of NATO was complicit - think on that - and I would have thought there would be leaks from other places that they had been asked to approve the Coup and invasion.

[Lordo]

why do i need to read anything these people say. i was there. i witnessed it. i bloody know what happened.

[repulsewarrior]

http://www.stagdetreba.rs/cooperative-m ... ?print=pdf

...to know the history of the Cooperative Movement in Cyprus, is to know that Cyprus at its Independence, was the most Socialised country in the world.

[Get Real!]

Communism wasn’t conceived to facilitate material acquisition so it’s pointless in comparing it with capitalism which was.

I’m sure many of you think that acquiring maximum material goods and services is the way to go but that’s just ONE of many aspects of life that you need to look at when studying political ideologies.

Communism as its word suggests was conceived to facilitate communal living; see the Amish for a good example of that, where you’ll find that if done right it does work and the people living under it are quite happy.

The truth is that things like competition, material acquisition, individuality, and other similar aspects present in capitalism are completely unnecessary for a group of people to happily exist… so those who conceived Communism were not wrong in their conclusions.

[Oceanside50]

http://www.stagdetreba.rs/cooperative-movement-of-cyprus/?print=pdf

...to know the history of the Cooperative Movement in Cyprus, is to know that Cyprus at its Independence, was the most Socialised country in the world.

Good information RW ,thanks..I remember these coops in the village ..we would deliver into their warehouse some of our lemons from Kyrenia , the rest were exported to England.. I don't care what they say about you bro you are aight with me..


Why can't the Cyprus model of coops be used on a bigger scale with members from all over the world selling their goods and services to the highest bidder.. A lemon grower in California teams up with a grower from Kyrenia and they bundle their product to sell to the Chinese, the Internet could make something like that happen, I think.

[Paphitis]

Communism wasn’t conceived to facilitate material acquisition so it’s pointless in comparing it with capitalism which was.

I’m sure many of you think that acquiring maximum material goods and services is the way to go but that’s just ONE of many aspects of life that you need to look at when studying political ideologies.

Communism as its word suggests was conceived to facilitate communal living; see the Amish for a good example of that, where you’ll find that if done right it does work and the people living under it are quite happy.

The truth is that things like competition, material acquisition, individuality, and other similar aspects present in capitalism are completely unnecessary for a group of people to happily exist… so those who conceived Communism were not wrong in their conclusions.

I will stick with individuality, competition, material acquisition or the ability to acquire what I want and/or need.

You go join the Amish!

[Paphitis]

did i read somewhere here that the communists in cyprus were responsible for the 74 intervention.

Yep you sure did buster. Communists are so self loathing. I just knew you were one Lordo.

you is one 4 headed revisionist son.

No I am not. I was being serious.

NATO was extremely concerned about the USSR and it's influence in the East Med. The communists actually believed they were untouchable and that the USSR will come to the rescue.

The Americans wanted Makarios out and they instigated or supported the coup.

You may care to read this

http://www3.nd.edu/~dlindley/handouts/US%20role%20in%20Cyprus%20Crises.pdf (hope the link works)

The document covers the various crisis and outlines that in fact in 1974 the Americans were warning against a coup, as they foresaw war between Turkey and Greece, which they did not want. What became a possibility was in fact armed conflict between Britain and Turkey, which would cause even more problems for NATO, and ultimately keeping NATO intact was rather more important than keeping Cyprus intact. That was why after the Coup and first invasion by Turkey the British Government got no support for a military force to stop Turkish ships.

BTW The letter where the sec gen of NATO supposedly authorized intervention which Kuru recently trotted out is at probably a crude forgery - it shows a gross misunderstanding of how NATO works - the Sec Gen has no authority to bind NATO in this way - if however it is genuine bearing in mind how NATO works then as the Sec Gen must have had authority from the Governments of NATO members to sign such a letter then every member Government of NATO was complicit - think on that - and I would have thought there would be leaks from other places that they had been asked to approve the Coup and invasion.

i am aware of the document and also aware of the possibility of warfare between Britain and Turkey. At the time, the Brits had warned Kissinger about the possibility that British forces will be deployed to counter any Turkish Invasion.

You will also be aware that the Royal Marines, Australian SAS and Gurkhas were deployed to Cyprus just prior to the invasion. These guys don't deploy for no reason - particularly the SAS and Gurkhas.

[Lordo]

and of course we found out where the ausi soldiers were hiding when the firing started. under their beds. america is not one entity is the mistake people make. she speaks with one voice. this is simply not true in any country. there are self interests which act totally opposite to the official government view. even the governments do not always say what they are really thinking. simple facts is greece would not be able to fire a single bullet in another country without nato approval and the terggs would not be able to invade without nato go-ahead. why dont you face the truth. the americans wanted cyprus to be under control of nato and got it. they now have been handed the resources cheaply. so it is a win win situation. the only problem is the two wins are for the american government and the american corporations. what about the cypriots i hear you say, well they will end up with the natural gas kurubedo and gr produce after a heavy night of yahni fasulya. bon apatit my friends.

[Oceanside50]

Communism wasn’t conceived to facilitate material acquisition so it’s pointless in comparing it with capitalism which was.

I’m sure many of you think that acquiring maximum material goods and services is the way to go but that’s just ONE of many aspects of life that you need to look at when studying political ideologies.

Communism as its word suggests was conceived to facilitate communal living; see the Amish for a good example of that, where you’ll find that if done right it does work and the people living under it are quite happy.

The truth is that things like competition, material acquisition, individuality, and other similar aspects present in capitalism are completely unnecessary for a group of people to happily exist… so those who conceived Communism were not wrong in their conclusions.

I will stick with individuality, competition, material acquisition or the ability to acquire what I want and/or need.

You go join the Amish!

The point Marx and Plato were trying to make is that, devoting your time in acquiring material goods is a waste of time.. people aren't as you call them free, it's a different type of slavery. Acquiring knowledge for the masses were their ultimate goal not wasting your time acquiring material goods, which are pointless.

[Paphitis]

Communism wasn’t conceived to facilitate material acquisition so it’s pointless in comparing it with capitalism which was.

I’m sure many of you think that acquiring maximum material goods and services is the way to go but that’s just ONE of many aspects of life that you need to look at when studying political ideologies.

Communism as its word suggests was conceived to facilitate communal living; see the Amish for a good example of that, where you’ll find that if done right it does work and the people living under it are quite happy.

The truth is that things like competition, material acquisition, individuality, and other similar aspects present in capitalism are completely unnecessary for a group of people to happily exist… so those who conceived Communism were not wrong in their conclusions.

I will stick with individuality, competition, material acquisition or the ability to acquire what I want and/or need.

You go join the Amish!

The point Marx and Plato were trying to make is that, devoting your time in acquiring material goods is a waste of time.. people aren't as you call them free, it's a different type of slavery. Acquiring knowledge for the masses were their ultimate goal not wasting your time acquiring material goods, which are pointless.

It's flawed! The desire to succeed makes people try harder in education and obtain knowledge.