British bases in Cyprus
 | British bases in Cyprus |  |
 Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 5:33 pm |
 |
|
| Hristos |
| member |
|
| |
| Joined: 21 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 49 |
| Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Do any of you here think England will eventually pull its bases out of Cyprus? Would that be a good or bad thing? The way I see it, there is 1 major pro and 1 major con. Pro: A lot more land for the Republic of Cyprus. It might compensate for its frustrations about the runaway TRNC having some of its old land. Con: If British bases leave, there won't be any landing pad for emergency peacekeeping forces and such.
Your views? |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:05 am |
|
|
| Noname75 |
| advanced member |
|
| |
| Joined: 02 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are a lot more cons than pros (if there are any pros at all).
Actually your "pro" is "con" the way I see it. Where does it benefit Cyprus that we are a landing pad for "peacekeeping" operations? This way we bacome a target for their enemies, which some are very close to us, and some have missiles, and even worst: those misiles are not very precise. So they might want to aim the british troops in Cyprus, and kill inocent Cypriots instead. |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:01 am |
|
|
| Hristos |
| member |
|
| |
| Joined: 21 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 49 |
| Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You mean there are more "cons" to actually having bases in Cyprus, or more "cons" to removing the bases? |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 5:26 pm |
|
|
| Noname75 |
| advanced member |
|
| |
| Joined: 02 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I mean there are very few pros and a ton of cons. British bases serve the british interests, not ours. |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:12 pm |
|
|
| Hristos |
| member |
|
| |
| Joined: 21 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 49 |
| Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I agree with you. Britain shouldn't have bases in Cyprus. EOKA's job isn't 100 % done, in a way. |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:22 am |
|
|
|
EOKA's job in not done at all, since what thair aim was (and most Greek cypriots at the time) was to unite Cyprus with Greece.
Personally I believe the EOKA fight did more harm than good in the end. |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:30 am |
|
|
| Hristos |
| member |
|
| |
| Joined: 21 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 49 |
| Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| How come? Without EOKA Britain would still occupy all of Cyprus. |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:44 am |
|
|
|
| After world war II the European powers lost most of their colonies. Using political ways I believe we could achieve a better solution. British got what they wanted- their bases, and do you think that the british have nothing to do with the Turkish invasion? Have you heard about the "divide and rule" policy that was (is?) a favorite one for the british? |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 2:16 am |
|
|
| Hristos |
| member |
|
| |
| Joined: 21 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 49 |
| Location: Montreal, Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the British might have fought against the Turks when they invaded, but Henry Kissinger asked them not to, and they obeyed.
I read this in a book. |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:46 am |
|
|
| Noname75 |
| advanced member |
|
| |
| Joined: 02 Sep 2003 |
| Posts: 82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that the Bristish had any intentions of fighting against the Turks. If you see the map, you will notice that the Turks stoped and didn't enter the part the british bases are located.
The division served British interests better, since now we would need their support against the Turks, and we wouldn't dare to demand that their bases should leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
