World War III

[O. Van Bruce]

18 % of the population on cyprus was turkish. Any anexion to greece would have been disastrous for that minority.

not that it matters to you, since you are too nationalistic. I won't start a debate with you with your level of blind nationalism

[ST Dragon]

18 % of the population on cyprus was turkish. Any anexion to greece would have been disastrous for that minority.

Firstly, the turks are not indigenous people of Cyprus, as 30000 of them first occupied the island after the conquest of 1571AD and they’re not even indigenous in Anatolia (Turkey) to begin with, as they first invaded and set foot in the area after the battle of Manzikert 1071AD. These lands have been Greek since antiquity and the last Greek remnants were wiped out with the ethnic cleansing / genocide committed by ataturk's young turks (1914–1923) and the pogroms of 1955 in Constantinople. Before that, the turkic tribes were situated in the vast steppes of Mongolia, until they decided to migrate and invade westward. They're Mongolic people originally.

not that it matters to you, since you are too nationalistic. I won't start a debate with you with your level of blind nationalism

Oh, the thinly veiled 'bigot' card. So when the majority (95.71%) of an ethnic group like the Cypriots, with a referendum in 1950, democratically votes in favor of uniting with another country, but that is deemed as “undesirable” for the interests of another war-monger State like turkey, it is then simply rendered and labeled as a “nationalistic & fascist” act and so it is “OK” to invade, conquer and wipe out the opposition?! What a great “democrat” you are, using “democracy” whenever you see fit. Hypocrite! But I guess I'm too “blind” and not “democratically sensitive” enough to appreciate the joys of ethnic cleansing and genocide committed by the turks numerous times in the past.

The irony is that many turkish Cypriots back then voted in favor of uniting with Greece, as they preferred to be part of a true European nation, rather than a backward islamic State like turkey. And if you ask the previous "indigenous" turkish Cypriots today, they have deeply regretted the occupation that only brought destruction, death, super high un-employment rates and all these hordes of poor turkish settlers from Anatolia, who have stolen their homes, lands & jobs and now out-number them! Yes even from the "indigenous" turkish Cypriots!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_En ... ndum,_1950

But perhaps then the same should also be done to the Basques and Catalonians of Barcelona, if in a future referendum they vote in favor of separating from Spain, or perhaps to the French of Quebec and to the Scots in the UK who will be deciding soon for their independence in similar referendums.

On a side note, did you know that since back then, in the constitution of Cyprus, the Republic Vice President’s Seat is always reserved for a turk Cypriot, no matter what party wins the elections? Meaning that if a turk Cypriot president would ever come to power in a unified island, the vice president seat would also be taken by a turk, despite the turks being the vast minority on the island.

Yeah, talk about a “disastrous” anti-turkish deal.

But I have no doubt that you’re either of turk decent, a turk immigrant living in Spain, or simply have very strong ties with turkey, rendering your views in the matter, very biased and unreliable.

[trap15]

Quite well-said, ST Dragon. You certainly know your stuff

I don't think OVB was actually meaning anything, but simply regurgitating what he's heard from the others on the forum, as well as trying to go with the "majority" view of you having no idea what you're saying.

Basically, you can ignore most of what he says, because he's quite ignorant.

[ST Dragon]

Quite well-said, ST Dragon. You certainly know your stuff

Thanks!
Actually I always try to rely on multiple & various sources before I post something to backup my claims, but most people out there prefer to go with the main-stream, rejecting the harsh truth.

I don't think OVB was actually meaning anything, but simply regurgitating what he's heard from the others on the forum, as well as trying to go with the "majority" view of you having no idea what you're saying.

Well, we are in a Shmup forum after all and the moto:

"Always out numbered, never outgunned"

Still applies here too!

Basically, you can ignore most of what he says, because he's quite ignorant.

Even that 18% he claims regarding the turk population in Cyprus prior to 1974, is highly debatable and questionable, as I've read various other non-Greek sources disputing it and placing that number much much lower than that, as at some point their population had decline so much because the turkish citizens all over the empire were obliged to serve in the ottoman armies for very long periods of time, (most of the times for years), usually away from Cyprus and very often losing their lives in the endless & brutal wars of the ottoman empire until 1923 and later on conflicts.
Basically only wiki mentions 18% and we all know wiki is not exactly written by un-biased historians...

[Skykid]

Well, we are in a Shmup forum after all and the moto:

"Always out numbered, never outgunned"

Still applies here too!

Nice to see that one keep coming around.

[ST Dragon]

Well, we are in a Shmup forum after all and the moto:

"Always out numbered, never outgunned"

Still applies here too!

Nice to see that one keep coming around.

Well I really can't think of a more suitable & accurate moto to describe the Shmup genre!
If you are in fact the spiritual inspirer of that phraze, then I salute you!

[O. Van Bruce]

Quite well-said, ST Dragon. You certainly know your stuff

I don't think OVB was actually meaning anything, but simply regurgitating what he's heard from the others on the forum, as well as trying to go with the "majority" view of you having no idea what you're saying.

Basically, you can ignore most of what he says, because he's quite ignorant.

I just don't want to start posting huge posts like Ed Oscuro. I may say few things but labelling me as ignorant is just too much. Also, Trap, it's a pity you can't understand that what makes us today what we are is not what we've done, but what we have recieved, and that obviously includes knowledge, It's not shameful to repeat what others say when you think they are right. What is not good is to not recognize when you do an error in the face of conclusive evidence.

Well, this should not really apply to the cyprus question because the variables are too much. I'm just stating what I think was the right path for a country like Cyprus. And from now on, I'll try to back it up more consistently. There, aren't you happy now that I've become less ignorant?

@ST Dragon

Ok, let's be clear. Any true democratic country must take care of their minorities because if not, it becames "the dictatorship of the majority". This theory was developed by Jhon Stuart Mill and has become one of the core principles of European democracy. As nothing in this world is perfect and that includes people like ST Dragon who thinks only because, let's say 95% of the population, are greek, the other 5% turkish population can go fuck thenselves, Mill proposed different ways to give a real share of power to protect minorities from possible harrasment of the majorities.

One of those ways was applied in Cyprus, the turkish population got a strong presence on the government to compensate for their small numbers. That, unfortunately, led to a lot of problems in the government of Cyprus because the vice-president and president of the chamber were turkish and had veto power. This is why I said that both sides were bigot enough to not let their differences aside and work toward a unified greek-turkish state.

The reasons this difference happened was because the british used a divide and conquer policy using indigenous turkish troops against greek uprisings. Other things were done to create hatred and incomprehension bettwen both comunities. Another factor to take into account was that both comunities professed diferent religions and they couldn't let then aside most of the time to create a truly secular society. Lastly, the rise of the Turkish way of nationalism by Atatürk new secular republic, which was based on ethnicity more than in religion furtherly exacerbated the tension bettwen both comunities.

You cite the enosis referendum of 1950, but that same article states that it was an unnoficial referemdum. Being that way, which guarantee we have that it was done in a right way? if it was not rigged? Yeah, maybe some turkish voted yes for the enosis but were they the majority of the turkish comunity? how many votes came from the greek comunity? and from the turkish comunity?

Without those answers we can't be sure that the Unofficial referendum of 1950 was really democratic That it was an expression of the will of both comunities, Turkish and Greek.


Before continuing unto the invasion of Cyprus by the turkish army, let's make something clear. You said that in 1950 people voted yes for a true european country and not for a backward islamic turkish state.

- First, Greece was one of the poorer countries in Europe at the time, even poorer than some states of the Varsovia pact. I very much doubt that people would have wanted to join Greece because "it was a modern country". The big reason for the greek cypriots was probably nationalism.

- Second, even if Turkey was an underdeveloped country it was definetly not an "islamic country". The state was completely secularized by Atatürk during the 20's and it continued to be secularized until very recently. The first "islamic" government that has stayed in power is Erdogan's. There were other moments during the last half of the XX century in which the secularity of the turkish stae had been "in danger"... in those moments the army had made coups d'etat. Tragic, because it led to a lot of resentment today toward the army and in the end has endagered secular positions in turkey.


Now, unto the Turkish invasion...

As you may know, The OEKA (National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters) and the TMT (Turkish Resistance Organization) had been destroying any opportunity of reconciliation bettwen both comunities by killing then each other, killing civilians from both comunities setting up bombs and smuggling weapons from their respectives "mother lands". What is funny is that both organizations were constantly used by the british to ensure that both comunities couldn' unite to declare independence. Instead, both comunities only sought their selfish objectives: the enosis (union with greece) and the taksim (partition of the island).

In the end, the independence was proclaimed with reluctance of the greek cypriot comunity because thenew constituion was heavily based on the ethnicity of both comunities. As I've mentioned before, there were a lot of mechanisms to ensure that the turkish population held a siginificant share of power that could protect their interests.

Wether this was good or bad is something that depends on your ethical views, but personally I think that a measure of good will from both comunities could have made the new state work. But there wasn't any good will. The turkish members of the government vetoed continually the budget and new legislation and when Makarios, the prime minister, proposed 13 amendments to the constitution to solve the problem it consisted mainly of ripping off the powers of the turkish comunity.

So, what did we have in the end? almost a decade of continous ethnical violence, with arms, support and even troops (on the greek side) happily provided by the turkish and greek mainland governments. When in 1973 the greek coup on the island menaced to finally acomplish the enosis then it came the turkish intervention and ocupation of the northern side of the island.

This is the tragedy of an island and a pair of comunities that has been toyed by the turkish, the greek but most importantly, the british.

PD: Yeah, the turkish government has brought lots of turkish settlers to Cyprus. I'm against that because it makes the problem worst. Now the partition of the island may be irreversible and that saddens me.


--------------------

Finally, another thing I may clarify...

It's not a definitive argument to asign peoples and nations just based on how much time they have spent in X land. There may have been a time in which thata rgument was used but nowadays we know that the people are more important. If someone has lived in a place long enough to see their father die or see their children live then they become part of that land because it's precious to then. Judging the turkish cypriots to not have the right to be in the land of their fathers and grand fathers is completely void of any sensitivity. Besides that argument doens't hold when we look at other examples in history.


Just to make sure, yeah, the turkish came to anatolia in the XI century but it wasn't until the time of the otoman empire that it was considered the turkish homeland. Probably, lots of nowaday turkish are descendants of the former byzantine inhabitants, mixed with the turkish newcomers . The turkish occupied cyprus in 1571 and migrated very slowly to the island.

Now this can sound like "OMG that's not their land" but, let's take a look at modern day greece.

The (lol, who knows) real indiginous inhabitants of greece where the Achaeans but during the XI-IX century b.C. they were almost completely wiped out by 3 ethnic groups that invaded from the north, the Ionians, the Dorians and the Aeolians. Furthermore, during the VII century a.C., lots of slavic tribes invaded greece and held it completely for some years. It took almost 3 centuries to the byzantines to reconquer greece and (oh the irony) those slavs had already mixed with the greek native population.

The funny thing is that modern greeks have almost no resemblance to classic greeks in a genetic sense as they have very big part of slavic blood. lol, greek cypriots may even be "purer" than mainland greeks as they haven't been subject at too much invasions. Even more, Cyprus was colonized by greek settlers in the VII-VI century b.C. displacing the native population so they have the same status as the turkish cypriot population.


PD: Man, I'm too lazy and too sick to write this huge posts. What really makes me lazy about then is that they probably change and do nothing. Betting ST Dragon would not even care about ethical reasons.

[trap15]

I just don't want to start posting huge posts like Ed Oscuro. I may say few things but labelling me as ignorant is just too much. Also, Trap, it's a pity you can't understand that what makes us today what we are is not what we've done, but what we have recieved, and that obviously includes knowledge, It's not shameful to repeat what others say when you think they are right. What is not good is to not recognize when you do an error in the face of conclusive evidence.

Don't have time right now to read the rest of your post (though I do intend to at some point), but I'll respond to this because it's most relevant.

There's nothing wrong with saying things you think are right, but reading something and saying "Yeah, I like how this sounds", without going to fact check in multiple places (like ST Dragon certainly has), is pretty much how ignorance works. Like, anybody who believes Fox News is ignorant, because if they bothered to go look up the same story/idea/etc. in several places, they'd see that they are incorrect.

[O. Van Bruce]

There's nothing wrong with saying things you think are right, but reading something and saying "Yeah, I like how this sounds", without going to fact check in multiple places (like ST Dragon certainly has), is pretty much how ignorance works. Like, anybody who believes Fox News is ignorant, because if they bothered to go look up the same story/idea/etc. in several places, they'd see that they are incorrect.

Show me sometime I've done this and it's not an ethics discussion. Also, every debate is an exchange of opinions and information. if someone holds an info the other doesn't its a good thing for the lacking part, because the new info will will make him richer and more knowledgeable.

In the end, people that doesn't know something aren't bad; people that look down upon someone who doesn't know is the problem.

[O. Van Bruce]

hey, guys didn't just some hours ago the North Koreans afirmed they were ready to nuke the South Koreans and the Silly Americans into space?

I can't provide source because I'm on the PSP so just browse it.

[trap15]

They've said that many times in the past, and I don't think they're dumb enough to do anything unprovoked, considering they must know that they'd be shot straight to hell if they did do anything.

[dcharlieJP]

The usual rhetoric this time has not just been ramped up - it's included threats of preemptive nuclear strikes. The position seems to have been that there's a lot of noise but not a lot of activity in terms of unit movement etc - so , hey, it's probably just one big show for the domestic N Korean market in order to solidify K J Un as a very young and green leader as well as try to get a true peace treaty out of the US.

However, the fly in the ointment is today's ramp up statement which is basically "we've officially told the US that we are going to nuke them - oh and war is possibly starting today or tomorrow" - the danger is that the people driving the fail train have started to believe XX years of brainwashing self hype and that they'd conquer a super power plus regional allies before they starve and/or run out of fuel (guesstimates put that limit at 30 days)

I expect this to all die over with some sort of talk agreement with the US that the N Koreans will parade as a huge victory domestically - however, it would literally take one misstep from one person and this could get very very messy.

[EmperorIng]

500 years isn't enough to be called "indigenous"? I suppose blacks should be shipped back to Africa, while we're at it...

[Ed Oscuro]

as well as try to get a true peace treaty out of the US.

That's not how brinksmanship works. If they get a peace, suddenly their military has nothing to do, but they don't want that.

Also, Trap, it's a pity you can't understand that what makes us today what we are is not what we've done, but what we have recieved, and that obviously includes knowledge, It's not shameful to repeat what others say when you think they are right.

The first part of what you say sounds a lot like a fatalistic or nihilistic view. *cue Wie Glauben (an nichts)*

So it might be true that you feel hemmed in by tradition, but you still have at least some illusion of a choice, if only to reject obviously wrong conclusions when you discover them. One can be mistaken about what one "has received" and its implications.

Yeah, a little digression into straight philosophy, instead of the usual political history.

[O. Van Bruce]

Also, Trap, it's a pity you can't understand that what makes us today what we are is not what we've done, but what we have recieved, and that obviously includes knowledge, It's not shameful to repeat what others say when you think they are right.

The first part of what you say sounds a lot like a fatalistic or nihilistic view. *cue Wie Glauben (an nichts)*

So it might be true that you feel hemmed in by tradition, but you still have at least some illusion of a choice, if only to reject obviously wrong conclusions when you discover them. One can be mistaken about what one "has received" and its implications.

Yeah, a little digression into straight philosophy, instead of the usual political history.

That view isn't neccesarily nihilistic. Just think about some of the great ground breaking movements in history. I'll mention art because it's the area that has experimented the most extreme changes during the last 2 centuries.

Romanticism couldn't have happened without the prior 2 centuries of classicism and baroque art... why? because you need an opposite to reflex yourself into... Most of the romantic ideals were constructed not out of pure originality but as something opposed to the stablished art.

Realism, as an artistic movement could have never happened if art wouldn't have been glorifiied reality since forever. They wanted to get rid of how reality was idealized in art so they portrayed it as crudely as possible. Naturalism took things even further.


In the end, we are determined by the past, but that doesn't deprive us of some, very limited, options.

"Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia"

[dcharlieJP]

That's not how brinksmanship works. If they get a peace, suddenly their military has nothing to do, but they don't want that.

The last time tey pulled this stunt they were specifically looking for at least an non-aggression pact if not a full peace treaty - this time is almost a rerun but with more firey rhetoric and threats.

Their military will invent something to do if they get it

[Skykid]

They've said that many times in the past, and I don't think they're dumb enough to do anything unprovoked, considering they must know that they'd be shot straight to hell if they did do anything.

I've said it before, but North Korea is a patsy. They pose no real threat, they're an impoverished nation in far poorer condition than their ruling elite would have you believe.

The reason why we've been increasingly fed NK scare stories over the past few years is because the US requires a scapegoat for their increasing militarism in the area. The reality is that they're mobilising forces and pointing their missiles over North Korea's head at the Chinese, who they consider to be a genuine threat.

Don't believe the NK hype, it's just a false pretence for military positioning and local area occupation. Expect the empty fear-mongering to continue for some time.

[trap15]

That sounds pretty spot-on

[ST Dragon]

They've said that many times in the past, and I don't think they're dumb enough to do anything unprovoked, considering they must know that they'd be shot straight to hell if they did do anything.

I've said it before, but North Korea is a patsy. They pose no real threat, they're an impoverished nation in far poorer condition than their ruling elite would have you believe.

The reason why we've been increasingly fed NK scare stories over the past few years is because the US requires a scapegoat for their increasing militarism in the area. The reality is that they're mobilising forces and pointing their missiles over North Korea's head at the Chinese, who they consider to be a genuine threat.

Don't believe the NK hype, it's just a false pretence for military positioning and local area occupation. Expect the empty fear-mongering to continue for some time.

This is very accurate.

[Ed Oscuro]

No, that's completely backwards, and not for especially subtle reasons either. American officials and politicians have been talking with the Chinese about North Korea, and China isn't happy. The number one interest right now is in just trying to make sure the North Koreans don't put the whole peninsula in danger. Of course China is upset with North Korea for provoking an American buildup in the area, but maybe if they stopped frightening their own regional partners (and others who have an interest in the international waters of the Pacific, like the United States which borders directly on it) something might come of pressure on the U.S. to reduce its influence in the area.

Frankly, China's not to be especially commended for their longtime support of the murderous regime, and at the same time there's no moral equivalence with the U.S. maintaining an invited presence to support its wartime partner. One problem with your asinine interpretation of these two intertwined issues is that China is not likely to rally to the defense of North Korea in the case of a war - they might decide that eliminating that threat would be a good way to press back against the heavy U.S. presence. But, of course, they aren't doing that because they would rather assert they have more rights to international waters than do their regional neighbors. It doesn't do to disingenuously portray China as the only interest in the region. Pretty much everybody has taken alarm at China's insistence on claiming international waters and encroaching on territory of other nations. It's not just South Korea and Japan that share this concern with the U.S., either. And since we do border on the Pacific, it sure is our business.

North Korean "regime change" would be a relief to likely everybody in the region, but sooner or later China is going to have to face the fact that it cannot act with impunity in the region, no matter what its history. Just the size of the nation and its ample domestic resources are enough that it seems very petty and short-sighted to risk its trading links with others in the region for the sake of illegal power grabs.

The one area where we might be tempted to give China credit - if blood-soaked utilitarianism is your thing - is whether their protection of the regime has prevented a U.S.-South Korean invasion, but after half a century with the murderous regime in place, it's not clear that any lives have been saved. Now, I don't say that China is being cold-blooded here - almost certainly any war would have been far more costly than the long-term toll from the North Korean regime. At the same time we have to recognize that this has allowed North Korea to engage in brinksmanship and distort the relations between the other powers.

In short: Completely opposite to the asinine and backwards view Skykid holds here, I think that the very tenuous and frayed relationship between North Korea and China (and Russia), with the sizable armed commitments it provokes, has only heightened the stakes and the perception of distrust between the Chinese and the United States. Remember that this is a conflict halted by a treaty almost 60 years ago, but without any actual post-war healing or dispersal of forces. And what prevents all the parties from removing this irritant (not to mention a murderous outlaw regime) is the certainty that the toll to human life would far outweigh the death toll allowed by inaction (I'm sure the straightforward dollar, or for that matter yuan, assessment of the prospect of a war versus continued appeasement holds the same conclusion).

[MJR]

They've said that many times in the past, and I don't think they're dumb enough to do anything unprovoked, considering they must know that they'd be shot straight to hell if they did do anything.

I've said it before, but North Korea is a patsy. They pose no real threat, they're an impoverished nation in far poorer condition than their ruling elite would have you believe.

The reason why we've been increasingly fed NK scare stories over the past few years is because the US requires a scapegoat for their increasing militarism in the area. The reality is that they're mobilising forces and pointing their missiles over North Korea's head at the Chinese, who they consider to be a genuine threat.

Don't believe the NK hype, it's just a false pretence for military positioning and local area occupation. Expect the empty fear-mongering to continue for some time.

This is very accurate.

Since ST dragon confirmed it accurate, it means that it must be untrue.

[ST Dragon]

Since ST dragon confirmed it accurate, it means that it must be untrue.

You how ever have enjoyed & benefited from my "untrue" info in the past...

Thank you very much!

I don't actually know how the colours are used in AGA games, because I was never developing any....
..........
The link you first posted was actually a goldmine..... thanks very much for that!
..........
see ya and thanks for all that info!!
..........
Hey, thanks a lot for these sites, I have been collecting actually quite a few...

[Ed Oscuro]

Stop using your falsities to break the order of cause and effect in the spacetime continuum, please.

[Jonathan Ingram]

You how ever have enjoyed & benefited from my "untrue" info in the past...

Maybe because you hadn`t yet exposed yourself as a shit flailing Nazi imbecile? Just saying.

[Aguraki]

ok i just learnt today that britain has embassy in north korea.
can someone explain to me how it is possible to have an embassy in this supposedly secretive locked state and how having an embassy there isn´t it a way to know more about whats going on there?

[Ed Oscuro]

science

Also, creepy north korean soldiers and handlers watching your every move. I wouldn't call it the most amicable consular posting in the world. The Swiss represent U.S. interests there.

You how ever have enjoyed & benefited from my "untrue" info in the past...

Maybe because you hadn`t yet exposed yourself as a shit flailing Nazi imbecile? Just saying.

I'm proud of you for not coming to the defense of North Korea in this topic.

[gameoverDude]

I would hope Kim Jong-un is not stupid enough to actually poke this particular hornet nest. That'd likely bring about calls for Pyongyang to be made a crater, since NATO would be on the warpath.

[Ed Oscuro]

I would hope Kim Jong-un is not stupid enough to actually poke this particular hornet nest.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/nor ... erspective

Secondly, I doubt Kim Jong-Un is in a position to call any shots. Even if the military is deferring to him, he is still following a well-defined path with no apparent escapes and very restricted options (especially since it is unlikely South Korea could, even if they wanted, arrange any kind of amnesty for North Korean leadership, given the seriousness of crimes perpetrated by that regime).

[Skykid]

In short: Completely opposite to the asinine and backwards view Skykid holds here

Many thanks.

It's true that recently the Chinese are getting irritated by NK (watching it as it happens, in-fact) but there have been years worth of NK missile 'threats' and danger zone activities that never come to snuff: including the infamous commemorative inauguration launch into the sea for which the western media had us all on shit-scared tentahooks and Hilary Clinton hyperbole despite the fact NK had invited foreign journalists from around the world to cover the peaceful event as guests (and were in attendance - not the best time to start a war.)

The US's mobilisation around Taiwan as a response to NK antagonism (so-called) began prior to Kim Jong's passing, as did their alliance with Australia and switch of defence budget to Asian waters.

Call me whatever you like, but anyone who thinks the US doesn't consider China to be economic and military threat number one (about a zillion times that of NK) has been drinking the Fox News kool aid. At best, NK is a great excuse for positioning their military in a prime location for Asia pacific control.

[system11]

You how ever have enjoyed & benefited from my "untrue" info in the past...

Maybe because you hadn`t yet exposed yourself as a shit flailing Nazi imbecile? Just saying.

Personal attacks of this nature - not permitted. Next time it's a temp ban.