Cyprus-Forum.com

Preliminary greetings to you all (I will do an introductory thread in due course).

In the title to this thread, you see the means whereby you can solve the Cyprus "issue" to your tastes: or at least stand the best chance possible for doing so. This is because Henry Kissinger is, quite reasonably and responsibly from his own perspective and position at the time, the person who was primarily responsible for arranging the Cyprus situation as it now stands (and largely has done in the same state since 1974). However, you are now in the privliged and informed position, which reflects your well-researched understanding of international affairs and is, in fact, far better than the understanding which your own representative politicians seem to demonstrate, of being personally aware of who was primarily responsible for the condition your nation state currently finds itself in. This is not only fact, but I believe you can find a large number of details describing the minor decorative embellishments pertaining to this specific stated state of affairs (namely who arranged what, how and for whom) in the Soloneion bookshop (and others also in fact), named after one of the Great Seven Sages, Solon, a portion of whose wisdom you can find in my "signature" (it is not really a signature, however, but misnamed. Or at least misrepresented as something which it is not).

But how could we contract the great (though to some people distateful) Dr Henry Kissinger to negotiate our own side in the procedings with the large, American-backed Turkish state which is represented itself, along with its military, by the far-better informed and strategically insightful Mehmet Talat?, I don't hear you ask. This is due to your not asking the right questions or, perhaps, not taking any such thing seriously yet. More likely you wish to theoretically discuss solutions proposed by others (who don't really know what they are doing. much, if at all, to be somewhat diplomatic in the presentation here) as opposed to actually considering the realpolitik of the situation, how the world really works "behind the scenes" - and furthermore then utilising those forms yourselves to your own national advantage. I hasten to add that such a course of action would, of course, be far more educated a personal position to take than to simply get upset that you are being asked to realistically consider a set of topics and approaches which you are in your own ordinary experience better accustomed to engaging in from a spectator's perspective as your duly elected social and political betters (at least in their own eyes and the public authorisation) propose their own attempts at solutions. And, after all, have not all such proposed solutions since 1977 been based on the bi-cameral plan initially proposed by the recently deceased Mr Papadopoulos in that very year?

It is quite simple, to answer the perhaps rhetorical question which your own enquiring mind did nevertheless think of - or not think of - as the case may be when reading above. You do so via his firm, Kissinger Associates, based in New York. Here are the contact details, which of course it is not for anybody reading this to use, but it does prove his offices exist and that he can, through them, be contracted for to engage in legal commercical activity of a consulting and negotiating nature:

350 Park Ave # 26
New York, NY 10022
(212) 759-7919

How to do this, theoretically speaking of course? First you must be willing to pay the sort of fee he would ask for such a thing. It is in the region of a modest in fact US$7 million. You must approach with the right attitude also, of course (courteous and professional and willing to listen, a most common failing amongst Cyprus politics). Then simply state your aims, what you can bring to bear on the field, and what you want from the process.

I admit that you will not get far with any of this, however, if you cannot present to him - or his delegated representatives - a significant set of incentives or "levers of force" to be used 'against' Turkey, or perhaps more accurately in a motivating role in relation to them. In all due humility, I do personally have such levers, but refuse to enter into this process until the current President is either removed or humbles himself. What they are, however, I refuse to say and do, instead, leave anybody else who thinks they are in a position to do this to "try their best" and, preferably, to sincerely try to succeed as far as they are able, which in short means they will fail to do, in a probably humourous way.

That is to say: the power of negotiation rests on force which itself is based on ability in war. Think about it, spread the story around to your quite excellent intelligence services (I try sincerely not to laugh) and then swallow your pride and do precisely what you said you would not do for close on thirty years:

Na Xehasete how things were, and simply kindly rubber stamp the Turkish Invasion by validating their self-claimed delineated territorial boundaries. (Na Xehasete means "You will forget" and refers to the long-standing local expression of "Den Xehno", namely "I do not forget", which has now fallen into disuse).

For the record, I am neutral, aligning with neither the Greek nor the Turkish Cypriot sides in this debate, until, at least, there is a change of power in the Presidential seat in the south of the island (however long that might be and whatever I mean by that). I am simply advising how people on one side of the green line divide can make their own case more competent and better informed for currently their behavior on a political level is, frankly, humiliating and something they should be, but won't ever in public, be deeply ashamed of. After all, a partially deep political and military education is not that hard to attain, even for a tailor (after all, a former washing machine salesman managed to get one somehow; and yes, that latter does refer to Mr Talat).

What a shame that Mr Papadopoulos, who at least partially knew what he was doing, though was very stubborn, is no longer around to continue acting in an unofficial advisory capacity to the government. At least there was some point talking to him whereas currently the regime of an obedient puppett is, in my own assessment, the best we can hope for. This is not an insult however, but an oblique reference to a "puppett ruler" of a state, a well-referenced political device (yes, even in long-established democracies. Just like the U.S.A., yes).

Regards all,
Oazaki.

You are neutral.....but what kind of drugs have you been using????

wallace wrote:You are neutral.....but what kind of drugs have you been using????

I am on record as holding the position of being personally against the use of drugs on interrogation or test subjects, by all regimes, on the basis that they produce results of dubious value.

all the best,
Oazaki.

Oazaki wrote:

wallace wrote:You are neutral.....but what kind of drugs have you been using????

I am on record as holding the position of being personally against the use of drugs on interrogation or test subjects, by all regimes, on the basis that they produce results of dubious value.

all the best,
Oazaki.

And you do not find your poll dubious???

All the best,

Wallace

Oazaki wrote:

wallace wrote:You are neutral.....but what kind of drugs have you been using????

I am on record as holding the position of being personally against the use of drugs on interrogation or test subjects, by all regimes, on the basis that they produce results of dubious value.

all the best,
Oazaki.

Ahhh, but you are not being interogated and are not a test subject, does that mean you have nothing against drugs when not under these circumstances?

If your suggestion was to be taken seriously for a second have you not considered Kissingers knack of "double crossing" for other interests (and higher fees?)

The trial of Henry Kissinger reminds:
"his foreign policy was chiefly concerned with attaining allies that had valuable geographical and strategic locations, such as Turkey and Pakistan, and turned a blind eye when these allies attacked democracies and murdered countless innocent people"

These allies and interests are still as strong as ever in his business life as they were in his political life.

Oazaki

Just a small correction to your poll. I noticed that you'd carelessly missed out the polling option 'No, I would not ask a genocidal war criminal to negotiate for me.' I'm sure this was a small oversight on your part and can easily be appended to the poll questions without delay.

CopperLine wrote:Oazaki

Just a small correction to your poll. I noticed that you'd carelessly missed out the polling option 'No, I would not ask a genocidal war criminal to negotiate for me". I'm sure this was a small oversight on your part and can easily be appended to the poll questions without delay.

Quite right CopperLine .... He would be more suited to represent like-minded folk, such as Turks.

doesntmatter wrote:Ahhh, but you are not being interogated and are not a test subject, does that mean you have nothing against drugs when not under these circumstances?

My official position on narcotics is three-fold:

I. Legally I hold to the positin adhered to by the government of The Netherlands (yes, where Amsterdam is based. And also The Hague and most significant international courts) during their most liberal period, legally speaking, thereon (namely around 1995-2006). I am on record in several places on this matter, publicly so, also. The reason for this position is that I want to have it verified in my past that I support the judgements and conclusions which the Dutch state and legal apparatus arrive at, and abide by it also, in my international activities. This in contradistinction to most international governments, and many corporations, who engage in a form of mass hypocrisy on this and other matters; which, being hypocrisy, they would not wish to have its actual position stated in a court of law in a public way requiring on-the-record explanation or an official declaration of ignorance (which causes lack of face). Hence, such entities would not want to see you in public court procedings of a significant nature. Drugs, and arms also, are useful for setting up such legal enclaves within which activities can be operated in a relatively harrassment-free manner.

II. There are people on the planet, who were formerly involved in governmentally-authorised narcotics trafficking, at a sufficiently high level of operation to know what was going in reasonable detail, who are willing to testify in open court procedings against this governmental individuals, and who, therefore, national legal authorities who are pursuing "wars on narcotics" - such as the Cyprus police chief Mr Papacostas - should be interested in pursuing for the purposes of prosecuting them on the basis that they are personally responsible for the motion of narcotics into the national territory under their own legal jurisdiction. However, such legal authorities do not, for some reason best known only to themselves, pursue any sort of such investigation, mainly because they know not to interfere with people bigger than them and prefer instead to pick on "little instances", as that keeps them in a job and well-paid. On this basis, provided they do their research, both sellers and users of narcotics can, if well-informed, disassemble their own national courts system, if they are willing to challenge it, which they are not. To get interested parties in this direction started (in order to deflect attention from other legal activities on this thread), I offer this already well-known list of names, from James Casbolt, a former SIS officer and one-time work colleague of mine (though I have never been formally employed by either British or American intelligence and have since distanced myself from Mr Casbolt):

To properly expose this global intelligence run drugs trade we need to expose the key players in this area:

1- Tibor Rosenbaum, a MOSSAD agent and head of the Geneva based Banque du Credit international. This bank was the forerunner to the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce international (BCCI) which is a major intelligence drug money laundering bank. 'Life' magazine exposed Rosenbaum's bank as a money launderer for the Meyer Lanksky American organised crime family and Tibor Rosenbaum funded and supported 'Permindex' the MI6 assassination unit which was at the heart of the John F. Kennedy assassination.

2- Robert Vesco, sponsored by the Swiss branch of the Rothchilds and part of the American connection to the Medellin drug cartel in Columbia.

3- Sir Francis de Guingand, former head of British intelligence, now living in south Africa (and every head of MI5 and MI6 has been involved in the drug world before and after him).

4- Henry Keswick, chairman of Jardine Matheson which is one of the biggest drug trafficking operations in the world. His brother John Keswick is chairman of the bank of England.

5- Sir Martin Wakefield Jacomb, Bank of England director from 1987 to 1995, Barclays Bank Deputy Chairman in 1985, Telegraph newspapers director in 1986 ( This is the reason why this can of worms doesn't get out in the mainstream media. The people who are perpetrating these crimes control most of the mainstream media. In America former director of the CIA William Casey was, before his death in 1987, head of the council of the media network ABC. Many insiders refer to ABC as 'The CIA network.)

6- George Bush, Snr, former President and former head of the CIA and America's leading drug baron who has fronted more wars on drugs than any other president. Which in reality is just a method to eliminate competition. A whole book could be written on George Bush's involvement in the global drug trade but it is well-covered in the book 'Dark Alliance' by investigative journalist Gary Webb.

Gary Webb was found dead with two gunshot wounds to the back of his head with a revolver. The case was declared a 'suicide'. You figure that out.

III. I support the operation of "organized crime" in the fields of the importation, distribution and sale of the narcotic substances deemed as sufficiently safe and non-harmful by the Dutch legal and judicial authorities that they have allowed store-fronted retail of them in their own national territory, and the operation of premisses for the consumption of such. This is because this field, and the field of prostitution, are the two areas where crime is best localized in a nation state, to provide it with a form of outlet which may be regulated to ensure better conditions and qualities and such matters as treatment of the persons localized therein. This is a personal position only however and does not entail a legal opinion of any sort, nor is it a position I would be willing to support in public unless or until I have airline contracts provided for me first. It is, however, a useful legal provision in the state of Cyprus where both the consumption of narcotics and the usage of prostitution has a religious history recorded in the archeological evidence, namely from Kouklia primarily, but other places also. Consequently, both these fields can be filed, legally, as coming under the provenance of the UN Charter on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of religious practice and so forth, and as such would actually present an opportunity herein to turn the field of organized crime into an operation which is actually involved solely in wholly legal activities, even if those activities are prostitution and narcotics. The point of this would be to recognize an old religion and then use it as a tax concession on a global level. However, to actually follow something like this up, you would need the relevant contacts, and also be willing to either plagiarise it from the source who came up with it (and take the repurcussions thereof), or operate it with due authorisation from that source (as I may well be indirectly involved in once the military and political situation of this island is resolved in a way satisfactory to my sponsors, who are Japanese and French also, in fact).

Finally, I do not consume narcotics myself, nor would I be interested in personally selling them nor in profiting from the sale thereof. I have no problem with others doing so in moderation (provided they do not do so to the extent that they make a scene on public streets), and I do not mind if they consume alcohol in moderate ammounts either (for the same reason; thus on both counts a law prohibiting inebriation in public would be something I wholly support, such as the current police initiative related to drink drivers) or seek to commit euthanasia either actually, if they want to.

Yes, people do say that... in some spheres of my life and opinions... I am simply far too liberal for my own good!

all the best,
Oazaki.

DT. wrote:If your suggestion was to be taken seriously for a second have you not considered Kissingers knack of "double crossing" for other interests (and higher fees?)

The trial of Henry Kissinger reminds:
"his foreign policy was chiefly concerned with attaining allies that had valuable geographical and strategic locations, such as Turkey and Pakistan, and turned a blind eye when these allies attacked democracies and murdered countless innocent people"

These allies and interests are still as strong as ever in his business life as they were in his political life.

Yes, you would need to contract him via a third party who is actually reasonably able to understand what his own plans are and further able to counteract any such plans to "double cross" as you put it. Thus, it is simply a matter of investigating the corporations who engage in such fields of activity, finding someone there you can trust, and getting him to contract someone to contract someone to contract Henry Kissinger for you all.

That's basically how it works in such fields anyway. However, if you can't find anybody engaged in the field who you can trust, not one even, then you don't stand much chance of doing anything much anywhere, I'm afraid...

all the best,
Oazaki.