your kidding right?
another shining example of UN idiocy. they've been going this for how long? since the 60's?
Three threads, and no comments from you.. any comments?
What do you think on any of this?
They are similarly enamoured of the culturally diverse examples of Cypress and Bosnia.
The American Left is so enamoured of the suicidally decadent nations of western Europe that they are in overdrive trying to persuede the American people to follow their lemming-like example.
Fortunately, most Americans are sane enough to disregard the ravings of these Leftist lunatics and their spokespersons in academia, Hollywood, and the Leftist Propaganda Machine (also known as the Mainstream Newsmedia).
This is why, to the utter astonishment of these lunatics, the U.S. cultural and political center has shifted dramatically to Middle America from the Leftist enclaves.
I'm sure the delusions of raving lunatics seem perfectly reasonable to them, but, humane treatment of such sickos notwithstanding, they must not be empowered, and their ravings should not be given serious consideration by the healthy and rational.
The Greek Cypriots don't want to share their country with Muslims. The Horror.
Greek Cypress should never unite with the Turks. It would be suicide for them.
Cyprus: Two Nations in One Island
BOW EDUCATIONAL BRIEFING No.5
http://faculty.menlo.edu:8080/~jhiggins/tcvoices/bowpart1.html
...Sadly, and with the benefit of hindsight it now appears that the Greek-Cypriot leadership never intended to operate the Constitution to which they had agreed, and on the basis of which independence had been granted and international recognition accorded. As early as September 1960 Archbishop Makarios said: "The Cause of ENOSIS has not died. I cannot say that ENOSIS has been forgotten." (New York Tribune, 27.9.60).
From the beginning, before the Turkish-Cypriots had exercised any powers, the Greek-Cypriots failed to implement constitutional provisions which did not suit them. They failed for example to implement Article 129(1) for the establishment of the national army in the ratio 60 / 40, which was regarded by the Turkish-Cypriots as an essential practical safeguard; but they did discharge large numbers of Turkish-Cypriot police auxiliaries and recruited Greek-Cypriots in excess of the numbers permitted by Article 130. They also instituted compulsory military service for Greek-Cypriots alone, contrary to Article 129(2).
They also failed to establish the ratio 70 / 30 in the Civil Service as required by Article 123 on the pretext that suitable Turkish-Cypriots could not be found. Further, they failed to implement Article 173 which provided for separate municipalities. The Turkish-Cypriots regarded this too as an important practical safeguard, and responded by creating their own municipalities and by taking the issue to the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus.
On 25th April 1963 the Court ruled that Article 173 had not been complied with, but Archbishop Makarios declared that he would ignore the judgment, and did ignore it (Cyprus Mail 12.2.63). The neutral President of the Court, a West German citizen, resigned on 21st May 1963 and thereafter the Turkish-Cypriots were excluded, sometimes by actual physical force; from most of their positions in the Institutions of the Republic. The United Nations tried to mediate, but the Greek-Cypriots would not allow the Turkish-Cypriots to return unless they accepted fundamental changes to the Constitution (UN docs. S/5950, S/6569, S/7350).
On 30th November 1963 Makarios demanded that the Turkish-Cypriots accept 13 amendments to the Constitution, which included no less than eight of the basic articles enacted for their protection; and which only three years before it had been expressly agreed could not be amended. It is said that these demands were prompted by frustration caused by the exercise by Turkish-Cypriots of the rights conferred upon them by the Constitution. However, the history of the period 1960 to 1963 shows that it was the very existence of those safeguards to which the Greek-Cypriots objected, for they prevented them from ruling Cyprus in the interests of Greek-Cypriots alone, and were an obstacle to ENOSIS.
The Greek-Cypriots has agreed to a bicommunal republic but now wanted to change it unilaterally into a unitary state in which their voting power would be paramount. On 2nd January 1964 the Daily Telegraph wrote "The Greek-Cypriot community should not assume that the British military presence can or should secure them against Turkish intervention if they persecute the minority. We must not be a shelter for double-crossers."
However, the Greek-Cypriots then proceeded to rule Cyprus as if the Turkish-Cypriots no longer had any constitutional role. All the reserves of the Central Bank were appropriated for the benefit of Greek-Cypriots, and they purported to enact legislation which was in violation of the Constitution, for example the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 1964, the President of the Republic and Members of the House of Representative (Extension of Term of Office) Law 1965, and the Public Service Law 1967.