The Vardarska Bulgars where kept out of NATO by the Makedonian Premier Minister of Hellas....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7326017.stm
And rightfully so....
Printable View
The Vardarska Bulgars where kept out of NATO by the Makedonian Premier Minister of Hellas....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7326017.stm
And rightfully so....
Their cavalry isn't that great anyway. I prefer the Cumans.
Rightfully so?!
This is NATO, not the Greek's private tea club. You don't get to exclude people because you had a little prissy fit with them, especially when your contribution to NATO is the size that Greece's is!
Sheesh.
CR
It's not NATO but OTAN! Hence, I demand we obstruct future OTAN summits by veto'ing the Former Turkish Colony of Greece. I mean, surely the OTAN expansion and the Afghanistan mission are mere trivialities compared to the righteous and rational sensitivities of prime member states. :smash:
Obviously Macedonia must change its name. That is the only way to ensure that it will not invade a province of its neighbour's. Joining a collective security arrangement is obviously totally insufficient demonstrate its peaceful intentions.:smash:
Greek foreign policy = fail
What is the problem anyway? A province in Greece is also called Macedonia? Why should the Greeks meddle in the affairs of another nation?
Is there any rule against a province and a country that bear the same name?
Burn Greece to the Gound...
troll
Where's Rome when you need them? :shrug:
What have they ever done for us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
Let's have a war already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_...ambiguation%29
We want the Macedonians in NATO why? They have what to contribute, exactly?
Bodies. Bloody good infantry. They have this young upstart prince who's good with the cavalry and shows a lot of promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Well calling the Greek Nazi's is harsh, considering. As to the name of the FYRM isn't historical Macedonia. It covers less than a tenth of Philip's Balkan Empire, end of. All this "we own Alexander" stuff is nonsense from both sides but to suggest that he was born anywhere other than Pella in modern Greece is absurd.
It's a stupid name for a Slav country to choose because it doesn't have anything to do with Slavs.
Point being? Belgium has very little in common with the Belgae Caesar wrote about. Hellas/Greece is nothing like ancient Hellas.
The claiming to be descendents of Alexander is utter rubbish of course, but naming your country Macedon hardly seems a major issue.
Yes, wonderful, great. However, NATO's already pretty big, with the USA, Britain, Germany, and France having at least decent armed forces. Then there's Spain, Poland, Italy, Turkey. I think all of these countries can stand to contribute some more forces, with, perhaps, the exceptions of American and Britain. Macedonia? Honestly, they're peanuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
But they want something from us which gives us the initiative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Point being that Ancient Makedon occupies modern Makedonia in Greece. Albanian and Slavic Macedonian claims to ownership of the world's fastest conquerer are complete tripe. Why anyone would really want to be associated with the little psycho though I'll never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Conradus
Perhaps Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Papua New Guinea and Guinea will have an all-out brawl.
Considering only two of them share a border, and, as far as I can see, all have minimal or non-existant naval forces, it should be a good show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
I read all the reply's before the article so i was thinking this was just over the name, which is just stupid.
Seems to be mainly about some terroritorial claims which the PM or president supported by laying a wreath next to a map of, and some nazi insults which are water off a ducks back as far as im concerned. Seen as macedonia aren't going to be able to take terroritory off greece i don't really see what stopping macedonia joining nato actually achieves for greece ?
revenge for the nazi comments ? show them not to mess with the greek flag again ?
maybe the topic starter could explain what is achieved through the use of the veto, the only thing i understood is the Greek pm has to do it to please the electorate, im assuming its nationalism thats guiding this....
I second your second sentence, but wouldn't the fastes conquerors be the Mongols?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And at least part of Philips kingdom strechted into the present Macedon.
Anyhow, to me it's all much ado about nothing
Both countries should not be members of Nato or the EU on account of their internal repression and corruption. In addition there is Greece's constant treachery. It broke with Nato in 1999 over Kosovo, supported Milosevic and tried to sabotage the sanctions against Serbia while the troops of other members, including Dutch pilots, were risking their lives over Kosovo. Why should we ever protect Greece from foreign agression? Totally useless. Kick 'em out of Nato altogether.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the Greek government is indeed worried that having FYROM joining NATO would give them that bit more legitimacy, that bit more leverage to actually make serious work of their territorial claims. And justifiably so - if it wants to be viewed as a serious nation state it should bloody well start behaving like one in international circles.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
But these sort of problems do seem to just happen to dog Greek governments... Cyprus, anyone? Just goes to show how badly the allies screwed up the former Ottoman possessions after the Great War, on a similar scale to Iraq.
Edit: Adrian II, I'd be interested in any literature on their history of Greece and NATO, particularly the issues mentioned. Articles I can find in due course, but are there any books (at least touching) on the subject to start from?
Hmm, never heard about that before, are you a reliable source or should I look for a range of reliable primary sources on the matter? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
If that's true, they should indeed be kicked out.
Geoffrey and Husar, try Michas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
EDIT
I almost forgot, the Dutch Srebrenica Report contains lots of information as well, particularly part III on Intelligence. Soon after the start of the conflict in Yugoslavia, Nato stopped sharing intelligence with the Greeks because they leaked it to Belgrade and to the Bosnian Serbs. Greek arms merchants openly provided the Bosnina Serbs with weapons and ammunition through the port of Bar. The Tribunal in The Hague established that Milosevic had 250 accounts with Greek banks, despite countless Greek denials. The Greek Orthodox Church played its own part, sending priests to morally support the Bosnian Serb troops, giving Karadzic a hero's welcome in Athens in 1993 and openly supporting the recruitment of Greek volunteers to fight with the Serbs. When they attacked Srebrenica in 1995, Greek volunteers were fighting alongside the Serbs. The embattled Dutch troops saw them raise the Greek flag over the enclave after it fell. Messages intercepted by Nato show they did so at Generla Mladic's request 'to honour the Greek boys'. These volunteers later returned safely to Greece. Only under international pressure did Athens start a token prosecution of some of them.
For the record, I didn't agree with the bombing of Kosovo either. But providing succour and even military support to the enemy of your allies is not cricket.
:thumbsdown:
Looks fascinating. Book is now on its way out of the university library. In the provided link, this quote in particular stood out when related to the current subject:
Far more than meets the eye, puts things in a somewhat different light than the usual presentations. Thanks!Quote:
Another important contribution of the book is the account of the sustained efforts throughout the 1990s by Greek diplomacy to destabilize or at least to prevent the international recognition of the Republic of Macedonia at all, or, later on, under its constitutional name. Afraid -correctly- that such a development would only make inevitable the acknowledgment that a Macedonian minority exists in Greece -which it does, but that is Greek society's major taboo-, these efforts included even exchange of views with Milosevic to "swallow up" Macedonia, perhaps within the context of a Greek-Serb Confederation.
A Prince of Shepherds? I don't see him going anywhere...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Are we really going to be squeemish about volunteers taking a side in a conflict? We should have let it rot in the first place.
It shows how the Nato issue is intimately connected to Greece's refusal to recognize its own large Macedonian minority - or any other minority, for that matter, given the rampant ethnic chauvinism of successive governments and the Orthodox Church (another religion of peace, no doubt).Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
The result is often ricidulous. In 2001, a man was convicted to 15 months in prison for promoting Vlach, a minority language. Mr Sotiris Bletsas was accused of disseminating "false information" about a European minority language. His only crime was to refer to the existence of the Vlach language in information material produced by Brussels, and financed by the Commission. In other words, he was convicted for using the freedom of expression that is guaranteed by most modern democraties as well as by the EU of which Greece is, sadly, a member state.
Totally seconded. Keep your Balkan ethnodrama where it belongs, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What "Matsedonian"? Some Volga Kypchaks that came in 7th cent AD? So should the Volgan Administrative Area in Russia around Volgograd be renamed "Matsedonia"? Oh and if some of the Kyptchaks are trying to plagiarise a history while lacking one of their own what should we do? Bend over? As for that finished agent of Mr Soros "Bletsas" one should first ask who were Averof Zappas and other Vlachs that contributed hugely in the modern Hellenic state....would they do this if they didnt consider themselves Greek? Ignorance is a bliss surely...Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
This is the 21st century. No one cares about your medieval ethnic grudges or who "owns" Alexander the Great. If the intention of your government was to frustrate its allies and make your country look like a petty little third world banana republic, it succeeded brilliantly.
I'm tempted to point out the tenuous links at best between modern and ancient Greece.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Im even more tempted to quote what Dirty Harry said about opinions....Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Adrian brings up a very good point. Greece should be kicked forthright out of NATO. If they don't honor the treaty, let's not give them our protection.
Let them take their whining about millennia old pissing matches elsewhere. You don't see the US going on about how we kicked British butt at New Orleans in 1813. Of course, we also have done other important things since then, so our whole national pride isn't based on that one event.
CR
Why should the Greeks be allowed to call their country Hellas, if they won't allow their neighbours to be called Macedonia? The ancient Greeks have very little in common with the Greeks now. They've had about 2000 years of occupation and immigration to thank for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Go ahead, make my day.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
So, a Greek, a Macedonian, a Kosovar, an Albanian, a Turk, a Croat, a Serb, and a Bulgarian all walk into a bar, and...
All walk out with different banners.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
" Hellenic Genocide !!11"
" Alexander The Macedon And Some Genocide !!11"
" Kosovan Genocide !!11"
" Albanian Genocide !!11 "
" Probably A Croatian Genocide !!11 "
" Serbian Genocide !!11 "
" Bulgarian Genocide !!11 "
" We Didn't Kill Anyone Dammit !!11 "
Probably because you ended up losing that war. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Macedonia has the same problem as all artificially created nations have, namely "who are we and what is our past". Usually becoming a nation takes some time and happens naturally but in case of Macedonia, it happened in the blink of an eye. It was like "WTF, we have a state, what we are supposed to do with it???".
They started to claim anything that happened in the area of their present country or that have some resemblence to it (like to the name) as theirs. Naturally that's supposed to piss off those to who it really belongs to. It's like Serbs claiming that Constantine the Great was a Serb because he was born in what today is Serbia (in the lack of a better example). A point that modern Greece haven't got much in common with ancient Greece is valid, but Alexander and all that stuff still is part of their heritage, and it isn't unimportant.
To an alliance of around twenty countries that alltogether have almost one billion population an argument between countries that have 10 and 2 million people might seem silly, but what's the point of Nato if not all members have a say? If Greece and other smaller countries aren't supposed to have a say, why did Nato give them Veto power?
Kicking Greece out of Nato would be fun to see. Not that it will ever happen of course. There are two possible scenarios: 1) Greece cave in under pressure, 2) Macedonia doesn't get in. Greece out of Nato is just unthinkable...
BTW, hellenes, how did you manage to clasify them as Volga Kipchaks?
I think, in its relatively short history as a modern state, it has plenty of achievements of which to be proud, not the least the transformation into the modern state it is now from a relative backwater in non-ideal circumstances. Not as flashy as Alexander, perhaps, but the fact that states can't be proud about what they consider mundane or natural frustrates me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I find that doubtful. Alexander is no more Greece's heritage than he is that of any nation influenced long ago by the classical cultures. Geographic affinity does not compensate for a distinct lack of cultural ties between now and two thousand years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
What do you mean by "artificially created"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
He meant American way of "Liberation", maybe ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Well, that is incorrect. The political stability, employement, average salaries, etc... were higher when Macedonia was a part of Yugoslavia than now. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be proud of those achievments, but in case of FYROM, those didn't happen. Pretty much all ex-yu countries have worse standard of living than when they were a part of Yugoslavia, with the exception of Slovenia. Croatia is close to having the same standard as in YU but still some way off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
But, anyway, it is hard to have a coherent nation based on: "Hey look, our GDP is 3% higher than it was last year!".
Another valid point indeed. But I still think that modern Greeks can relate more to Alexander than modern French, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
I mean that no Macedonian nation existed pre ww2. The population identified itself as either Serbian, Bulgarian or Greek in a lesser extent, usually depending in which area of Macedonia they lived. Only a small part of the population was considered to be "slavic macedonians", meaning they were neither of the three, but it wasn't really clear what they were. So to cut a long story short, modern Macedonians are a mostly a mish-mash of Bulgarians and Serbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Now, this wasn't so big a deal when they were a part of Yugoslavia but as an independent country, it did present some problems (see Bosnia). So the authorities quickly started to "create" a nation. They adopted Samuilo (bulgarian medieval tsar) as their own, Alexander the Great as their own, trying to portray themselves as descendants of ancient Macedonians... in general anything to arouse national fervor in the population.
"Macedonia" has been an entity since Tito took over Yugoslavia in 1944-1945. In fact, from what I've read, there were specifically Macedonian groupings, outside the Greek part of the area, from the early 20th century onwards.
Oh, and:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Posts of the month.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
.
Greek troll using Turkic tribal names as curse words again. Hilarious! :laugh4:
.
Where did you read that? At the beggiing of the 20th century, there were two groups of people in Macedonia - Greeks and Slavs. The problem was who those Slavs were... there were a lot of incertanties, in no small part due to Serbian and Bulgarian propaganda, but in general, all scientists from France to Russia agreed that slavic Macedonians are a mix of Bulgarians and Serbs, slightly more Bulgarian influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Anyway, this is not the topic. If we agree that modern Greeks don't have that much in common with ancient Greeks, slavic Macedonians certainly have even less...
All considered, I think Macedonia has done better than could be expected out of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. It may not be much to be proud of, but countless failed states worldwide show that such a situation is not as self-evident as may be supposed, let alone in a transition to a free market economy. There is undoubtedly plenty of room for improvement, but I think the groundwork is there. Things like harking back to some imagined collective heritage only hold the country back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Why would that be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I wouldn't agree there. When you have a country that is behind by a big margine from where it was 15 years ago, I wouldn't exactly call that advancement. Anyway, Yugoslavia was as close to free market economy as communist country can get. If it weren't for the international support for nationalists like Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic, Yugoslavia would have made painless and quick transition to confederacy and free market economy in a few years, and would probably become a member of the EU in 1995 or so, without all the bloodshed....Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
I don't know... Genes, language, geographical proximity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
What nonsense. Their economic troubles are not their own doing. And Greece plays a major part in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
The Republic of Macedonia is landlocked and traditionally has few major trade partners. Serbia was the largest, followed by Greece. The first was substantially diminished when, at the outbreak of the Yugoslav wars, international sanctions were imposed on Serbia and Montenegro. Following that, Greece imposed its own trade embargo on Macedonia.
What else would you expect but an economic slump?
Now look at their achievements.
Macedonia has split off peacefully from Yugoslavia, which was an accomplishment in itself. It has suffered severely from the 1999 Kosovo episode (hundreds of thousands of refugees fled to Macedonia) and the 2001 Albanian breakdown, resulting in an influx of (partially armed) Albanian refugees and a destabilisation that led to civil war in 2001.
This civil war was settled admirably in the Ochrid Agreement under Nato and EU supervision and arbitration. The Albanians were officially recognized as a minority and given concomitant rights in Macedonia (something Greece has yet to accomplish with regard to its owm minorities).
Despite civil war, refugee crises and the massive loss of exports, Macedonia has seen modest, but constant economic growth of about 3% for more than a decade now. Unemployment is high but not as officially reported (37%) because many Macedonians work in the 'grey economy'. Inflation is 2% (whereas it is 3.5% in Greece). Foreign investment is booming.
Not bad at all for an upstart.
Sure, they have corruption and repression issues that they will have to work on. I think they are not ready for membership, but they are working very hard to earn it.
And let me repeat what I wrote above. The Greek attitude vis-à-vis Macedonia has nothing to do with Alexander or any other historical propaganda item. It has to do with Greece's refusal to recognise the sizeable Macedonian minority within its own borders. There's the rub.
They should have thought of that before they seceded. It's not like it wasn't known what severing economic ties with Serbia would do to Macedonian economy. My father was head of some pharmaceutical firm before the the war and in talk he had with the head of Krka (that was the largest Macedonian pharmaceutical "factory" (I'm not sure if factory is the right word) who told my father "I don't get what they (macedonian goverment) are trying to do. Three out four workers in Krka work for Serbian market." That was true for entire Macedonian economy, it was dependant on Serbian market.
And 3% GDP growth isn't really something to brag about. 3% growth for countries like US, France or Germany means something but for countries whose GDP is very low, 3% is nothing. Serbia has stable GDP growth of 4-6% in the last decade and it still isn't even near what it used to be before the war. Macedonia is in even worse situation.
And Macedonia becoming an independant country wasn't actually their plan. They didn't really have a clear idea what they want. When it all started breaking apart they didn't "achieve" independence, they got "stuck" with it...
I mean, I wish them all the best, truly. But being in a lot worse situation in 2008 than you were in 1991 isn't really an accomplishment in my book...
You misinterpret what Adrian said. Macedonia only got into economic troubles once Serbia started mucking around in Yugoslavia trying to establish and maintain its hegemony over the area and it got sanctioned by international bodies to which the country was a signatory. Greece then boycotted it because Greeks like to break the treaties they signed and spurn their allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
IMRO
Admittedly, after this was crushed not much was left. But still, "Macedonia" as a seperate entity with a seperate identity is a lot older than 1991.
Oh, and as for achievements: Macedonia is the only part of former Yugoslavia to have seceded from Yugoslavia peacefully and without any violence, to my knowledge (I'm not counting Montenegro because they seceded after the end of the Yugoslav Wars).
No, I was just saying that it was known that secession would hurt Macedonian economy. Sanctions imposed on FRY didn't help and made matters worse, no doubt, but it wasn't the only reason...Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Well, if you read that article (not to mention that it is wikipedia article whose neutrality is disputed furthemore) you'll see that it was essentialy an organization of Bulgarian Macedonians. And I never mentioned 1991, I said pre-ww2...Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Admittedly, after this was crushed not much was left. But still, "Macedonia" as a seperate entity with a seperate identity is a lot older than 1991.
Oh, and as for achievements: Macedonia is the only part of former Yugoslavia to have seceded from Yugoslavia peacefully and without any violence, to my knowledge (I'm not counting Montenegro because they seceded after the end of the Yugoslav Wars).
You don't have to explain to me achievments of FYROM. I don't have any problems with that, but that can't be used as a mean to get national unity and arouse national fervor. That was my point. A politician can't speak in front of 100,000 people and hope to raise national awareness with "We had a GDP growth of 3% and we left Yugoslavia peacefully." But if he says "We are the heirs of Alexander the Great, we are the heirs of Samuilo, we have been fighting Romans, Ottomans, Bulgars, Serbs, Greeks etc... and finaly we have our freedom blah, blah, blah...", now, that is another thing... You get my drift? I didn't try to downplay anything but to point out that such logical and practical stuff don't have much impact on great masses of the people, expecially on people who weren't sure leaving Yugoslavia was a right thing to do... They wanted to know why did they left Yugoslavia, not how they did it...
I would parallelize my reading of these replies with some observations that Ive made during a tour in a Mental institution part of my course....
I observe same level of denial of reality and people living in a complete fantastic world....
Its tragic and hilarious at the same time....
Would you like an ad hominem paradox ? :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Considering the other possibilities illustrated by the various times of Balkan strife, I doubt economic matters were at the top of their list of concerns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Merely shows a lack of originality on the part of the politicians. It's a cheap shot they take. There is plenty to be proud of in a newly independent nation, finally standing on its own feet, avoiding the violent fate of various nations, and doing so in a difficult position. To present a different view of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Its similar to certain reactionary Polish nationalist attitudes (say hi to KrooK!), and quite frankly a number of more eastern European nations, which I find so disappointing. There is no sensible reason for constantly measuring oneself against imagined heroes and enemies, when such progress has been made towards a better future in ways far more relevant.
Edit: removed quote. Isn't worth responding to really.
Yeah, now stop looking into the mirror and maybe the situation will improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Didn't Slovenia also go peacefully? If so, then both the north and the south as gone through peace, it's all those bastards in the middle who can't work it out like civilized slovenians and macedonians :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Wow, the mental institution guards in Greece must be really intelligent people :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
But seriously hellenes - are you going to quote any actual evidence or are you just going to say "You're wrong, shut up!" With your fingers stuck in your ear?
WHat do you want me to quote the reality? That these Kiptchaks are simply Bulgars? That their whole Civilization Ethos language and history is that of Slavisized steppe people that came under Khan Asparuch?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Makedonas means the tall people in HELLENIC language...
And saying that ancient Makedones werent Greek as Spartans Athenians etc is just absurd....
There is absolutely 0 evidence to show to contrary apart from some antMakedonian rethorics of Demosphenes....
And last Ill quote Isocrates:
"Και μάλλον Έλληνες καλείσθαι τους της παιδεύσεως της ημετέρας ή τους της κοινής φύσεως μετέχοντας"
Congratulations hellenes. Yet again you flee into ancient texts and irrelevant matters in order to escape the responsibility of commenting on the here and now. A true populist nationalist! :2thumbsup:
I AGREEZ HELLENES ! LES NA'UW THROU ROKS AT TEH DOKTORZ !!11Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
WAIT I HAZ TO DISMISS DAFFEE DUK INTO TEH VOID FIRST !!11
Contrary to the popular belief that ex-yu republics were bunch of trigger happy idiots that wanted to kill all around them, the reasons of the conflict were very specific and Macedonia didn't have anything to do with it. It was pretty much you wanna stay or you wanna go? type of situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Ok, let's be realistic. Don't tell me that people in US learn about GDP growth after achieving independence more than about George Washington for example? Or when politicians try to arouse national fervor, they cite data from the treasury department instead of citing words of Roosevelt, Franklin of Jefferson...Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
"Tresuary department says that our exports are 0,3% higher than last year" vs "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". To what would your average person react? I used US just as example, replace it with any country...
Those points are ok when two people, like you and me, are talking about it, but they have very little effect on the majority, be it in the US, EU, Eastern Europe or Asia...
And the problem was that Macedonians lacked that sort of stuff so they "borrowed" from their neighbours. That's all I'm saying.
There was some skirmishing for a couple of days. As I said to Geoffrey, conflicts were very specific and involved only Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia. Croatia tried to tie itself to Slovenia and to leave together in a package, that's why there were some obstacles to Slovenia leaving Yugoslavia, but when it became clear that that particular scenarion won't happen, Slovenia left with no problems...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
So if you want to be picky, Slovenia didn't leave peacefully, but in practice it did.
By ignoring you and your sad attempts to pass as a "wiseguy" Im not lowering myself to your level...If you comprehention of the written word is lacking its not my problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Here are some guys for you to worship your beloved dictators that are higher than Allah himself:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,2323866_1,00.jpg
Ok, let's put this as plainly as possible.
In what way is the FYROM or whatever you wish to call it unfit to join NATO?
Dude, have you been holding all this back before your promotion?Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
I've seen better ones. Really. "Military Junta Regime" does not boil my blood anymore. :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
I'm leaving it at this. Have phunz0rz. :clown:
Its in the way of expansionist views that they have towards what they call "Egeiska Matsedonia"....They live in a world that they arent some Kiptchaks from Volga but Matsedonians...and that there is a supressed minority of Matsedonians in Greece that the bad Greeks wont let speak Bulgarian....whom they dream of "liberating"....Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
All the above cannot be a base of mutual alliance between Greece and Vardarska...thats why they cant get in NATO....
Now that's just putting words into my mouth. The fact that FYROM opted for the 'wanna go' option and remained well away from the conflict resulting from such decisions elsewhere is a clearly illustrates that no, not all former Yugoslavian republics were 'trigger happy idiots' to me. Where many of the former republics saw themselves drawn into the conflict, again I see the distance FYROM kept from and its peaceful independence as something that the state can certainly be proud of - the other cases show that this isn't a situation that need be taken for granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
You keep citing economic growth. I didn't, and find it curious that you keep referring to it as if it were the only criteria to be proud of. It's not. Personally, I don't need national heroes and find them artificial creations; but nevertheless, there must be far more historically relevant individuals than a tyrant from two thousand years ago - freedom fighters, artists... perhaps it is time to start looking objectively at the Ottoman period, without the blinkered view of oppression and dominance. I'm sure a lot can be found there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I'll agree that it's a responsibility the FYROM leadership isn't taking, and I find that a pity. As said previously, I find this disappointing in a number of relatively young states. It's pure laziness on the part of national historians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Can't say your attempts at ignoring me seem to be going well, judging by the fact that you quoted my previous post. On the other hand, you're doing a grand job of utterly ignoring any discussion on the actual content of this here topic, instead resorting to idiocy with a liberal sprinkling of insults. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Still if you have a history of harboring another country's terrorists, welcoming them as "freedom fighters"; I'd be ashamed to whine about "inner threats who dream of getting liberated".Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
In the final analysis, the Republic of Macedonia managed to keep its distance thanks to the presence of 500 American Marines. These were deployed along the Macedonian borders (at Skopje's own request) in May 1992 in order to help prevent destabilisations and incursions from either Serbia or Greece. A token force in every sense of the word. Their number may not have been impressive, but the army they represented certainly was, and the message to Belgrade and Athens was clear: Don't **** with Macedonia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Um...who gives the stinky posterior of a rat?Quote:
WHat do you want me to quote the reality? That these Kiptchaks are simply Bulgars? That their whole Civilization Ethos language and history is that of Slavisized steppe people that came under Khan Asparuch?
Makedonas means the tall people in HELLENIC language...
And saying that ancient Makedones werent Greek as Spartans Athenians etc is just absurd....
There is absolutely 0 evidence to show to contrary apart from some antMakedonian rethorics of Demosphenes....
And last Ill quote Isocrates:
"Και μάλλον Έλληνες καλείσθαι τους της παιδεύσεως της ημετέρας ή τους της κοινής φύσεως μετέχοντας"
So some nationalists insist that their 2000 year old heritage isn't what they say it is.
Again, who cares?
And what has Greece done to help NATO? It seems to me they've spent more effort stabbing your allies in the back than helping us. Who's to say you deserve to be in NATO? I say we kick you out.
I think much less of Greece than before this topic started.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
CR
OMG!!! Im so unhappy that some guy with 0 past that doesnt know where hes coming from and surely where hes going to, thinks less of my country...Ill cry all night....Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As for all of you calling these Kiptchaks "Matsedonians" I really pity your ignorance...
Are they not residents of the Republic of "Matsedonia"? Which would make them...."Matsedonians"? :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
Considering the policies of Milosevic during the 90-ies, I doubt that 500 soldiers would have been an effective deterent if he really wanted to try something in Macedonia...
As I said, the nature of conflict didn't really involve Macedonia...
As for history it is gone, I would be far more proud of my current and future accomplishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
I would also feel the weight more keenly from my ancestors given Greece's past accomplishments. They accomplished something of note. What has modern Greece given in comparison? Have they created the silicon chip, launched the atomic age, landed on the moon or won the most gold at the Olympics? I think the US holds the present far more firmly in its grasp then even ancient Greece held the past.
Past glories are worth less then trinkets in trade. At least the colonialists got New York from their trinkets.
So are you saying that I have no right to call myself a New Zealander?Quote:
Originally Posted by hellenes
That those of Dutch heritage should be offended at me for using that term?
If not why not?
.
Musakka! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
.
does this thread serve any purpose?