ramza

Death to the infidels! lol

The UN is a joke just as is every international organization. I would never trust them... It's just another excuse for the US to start a war... We al know the power of lobbies (I have witnessed it with my own eyes, they can overthrow anything). Remember the Swine flu pandemic? The WHO threw the whole world into panic so that the big pharmaceutical companies may make big profits. They are keeping low profiles now that the job is done... Same goes for the UN, half of its resolutions remains non effective (ie: the case of Israel) and representatives of some of the worst dictatorships get nominated at high positions (ie: Lybian representative nominated as a member of the UN Human Rights Council). It's a useless organization that has lost all credibility...

I can answer that: under Saddam, there wasn't as much religious fanaticism as there is today. No suicide bomb attacks and nothing similar to the Taliban's regime (there were a few similarities in the severe punishments but those were inflicted for disloyalty against Saddam and not Islam). Al Qaeda was not that much present in Iraq. Now, it has rooted itself and uses the American invasion as a justification to start a holy war and get new recruits. Expect Iraq to become another Afghanistan with its own version of the Talibans, once the Americans leave.

Is that a summary of this thread's posts or is it your personal opinion?

Hey, if you have the time, then make a research on your own... I couldn't find better sources in the given time. I was just looking for links, so I just read the titles and not the contents. Your quote made me laugh though... I shall be more careful when posting links in the future.

Quit lying already, unless you were there. It's common knowledge, man... http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=66208...ionid=351020602 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9845 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas...4333715324.html The US has kept Russia constantly under pressure with its missile defense system that is being implemented in european countries like Poland, the Czech republic and Romania: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_miss..._Eastern_Europe The US just needed something new to test Russia's vigilance.

Thank you, virumor. That's what I meant to say and I apologize if I wasn't clear. The US told Iraq "go on, attack Iran and we will back you up" but the US never held their word. Oddly enough, the exact same thing happened with Georgia in 2008. The US promised Georgia that it would help it protect its sovereignty but when the Russians invaded, the US immediately withdrew their promises. They wanted to cause prejudice to Russia but their plan backfired.

If it wasn't for the US that incited Saddam to declare war against Iran, nothing would have happened. I never claimed it was a Happy place, but they were still better off compared to today's situation. As a matter of fact, there weren't even nearly as many people dying every day.

In order to avoid misunderstandings, what I meant to say is that democracy is not the best political system for every country. Some countries have different cultures that do not work well with the concept of democracy as we, western people, understand it. Moreover, it would be presumptuous to claim that democracy is the best system in the world and that every country should apply its principles in their political systems. How arrogant is that? We are far from being superior to those countries so as to tell them what is right and wrong. Just take a look at modern western democracies, and you will notice that they are quite fragile and far from being representative of the peoples' will. As an example, less and less people use their right to vote just because they feel that it's useless and won't make a difference. Something like that is really troubling and shows how successful our democracies are... Do we live happier than those countries that do not have democracy? Certainly not. Take the example of the US, a modern democracy that supports various fundamental rights, among which the right to carry weapons. Do is citizens feel more secure? Does this grant social peace? Hell, no! All modern democracies are "sick" at the moment as their is an obvious lack of democratic legitimacy. If you ask the elders that have lived under the Italian fascist regime of Mussolini, the Greek Colonels' dictatorship or the Spanish General Franco's dictatorship, they will all say the same thing: they lived under better conditions at the time (except when the warfare began) compare to today. There was social peace as long as you respected some rules and accepted some constraints. So what? We have lost these constraints today but have also lost social peace with rising criminality and increasing social unrest. As for Iraq being better off with Saddam. Yes, I believe that. There weren't as many suicide attacks, or even deaths at his time. When the US came, they brought everything upside down. Iraq wasn't even a menace to begin with. Their army lasted for barely 3 weeks. Yes, Saddam's regime was cruel to its opponents but the rest of the population was really living under more secure conditions than today. I don't eve dare imagine what will happen when the US will leave. Some countries are simply not ready to implement democracy. Take the example of Palestine. When they held their first free elections, the Hamas got the majority of votes. In a sense, they rejected democracy by voting for them. Other examples of countries being better off in their semi-democratic or non-democratic regimes: Russia would fall apart if it wasn't governed with as much muscle as Putin and his successor do, and the same would go for China. Finally, don't get me wrong. N.K. is certainly not a good regime as it makes its own subject suffer from starvation and poverty. That does not however allow the US to declare war against them. Curiously, the US does allow some dictators to stay in power (especially in South America) as long as it serves its interests. However, when it comes to other specific countries, the US are more than willing to start a war for more or less obvious reasons (oil in Iraq and Afghanistan). That's hypocritical IMHO...

I am talking about the Tonkin Gulf Lie: according to the official Washington version of the facts, some vietnamese vessels torpedoed two american destroyers, the USS Maddox (DD-731) and the USS C. Turner Joy, which required immediate intervention by the US army. Half a century later, the National Security Agency declassified some archives that proved it was a lie and a pretext to start a war. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident It's funny that the US has caused more wars than any other country since WW2. Let me laugh about the honourable ideals of bringing democracy to the unluckier countries. Let me tell you this, some countries are just not ready for democracy and will crumble to dust without some kind of dictarorship. Just take the example of Iraq, I can bet that a civil war will start when the americans will leave. In a sense, they were better off with ol' Saddam...

True, but that alone does not legitimize a war against them. It's their internal problems and one day or another the people will retaliate against the Government. It has always been like this since the dawn of time. The democratic process is slower in some countries compared to others, but it always takes place in the end, even without exterior intervention. As for NK being evil, had they been so, they wouldn't have stopped at that if they really wanted to wage a war on SK. When did they supposedly torpedo the boat again? Oh, in March... And nothing has happened in between... How weird... Shouldn't have they torpedoed other boats since then? Independent? I see three commonwealth countries... Ha, let me laugh!

I wouldn't trust everything that we are being said... We have heard similar lies which were just a pretext to start a new war... Iraq, anyone? Vietnam? True, N.K. is a dictatorship. No, they are not the ultimate evil, nor can they truly threaten anyone. The US has caused more damage worldwide compared to N.K.

Mmmm, not really. Erdogan's official visit didn't do much to improve our relations with Turkey IMHO. Most agreements that were signed were about energetic, cultural, fight against illegal immigration and touristic cooperation. The main issues were not dealt with and each party camped on its own position. The joint press conference of the 2 prime ministers was quite illustrative of this. I couldn't find any videos but feel free to make your own search (here's a link to a french article http://www.lesechos.fr/info/inter/afp_0025...-a-athenes.htm). Just a few points: -Greece asked Turkey to not violate its air space and Turkey only proposed to disarm the planes, not stop the violations altogether. -Greece asks Turkey to provide all the rights associated to freedom of religion to the Orthodox Church in Turkey and Turkey constantly denies them (check wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_Pa...Constantinople). In the press release, the Turkish prime minister asked as a counterpart that we give legal authority to the Mufti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufti) of the turkish minority that lives in the North-eastern part of Greece (we already grant them all rights associated to freedom of religion). -When asked about the casus belli according to which Turkey will start a war if we make use of our legitimate sovereignty to extend our territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles (which is the standard in international law, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters), the Turkish prime minister evaded the question. I could go on like this. There are still many problems that are yet to be resolved... So no, I don't think I am biased. The relations have not improved that much and it was all a charade as there was no agreement on the really important problems. By the way, there was another violation of our air space by a dozen of F16s just before Erdogan left the Turkish capital to come to Greece, so isn't that provocation?

I am just popping in to share a BBC news video about the Greek-Turkish relationship: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8681835.stm I am not trying to do any propaganda but I am pleasantly surprised that, for once, we are not being accused of being paranoid with Turkey and should spend less on military equipment. Cheers.

Just a small clarification on my last post, the lawyer in question earned 800 000 euros and not 800 million euros per year. I wonder how I managed to make such a big mistake. I guess I was listening at the tv news while typing... I took a look at Eurostats' numbers and they say indeed that the minimum wages in Greece in January 2010 were 862 euros. The only logical explanation is that this may the salary without including taxes. I have searched on multiple Greek sources and all say that the minimum salary was 739 euros in 2009 (not including taxes). The problem with Eurostat is that they fail to take in account some parameters due to the lack of proximity with the real situation in each country. Yet, it's a useful tool to give you a general idea of what is happening. Here's the table: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/print...intPreview=true Well, I would like to share your optimism but all my colleagues get miserable salaries compared to their level of studies. I don't see why it should be different for me. I have already taken my decision to leave the country even if this saddens me. People have calmed down here temporarily as it was a real shock when they learned that 3 people had died during last week's protests. I am however afraid to see their reaction once they get their salary sheet at the beginning of next month. I haven't heard of any strikes scheduled for this week at least.

Sorry but I disagree with these numbers: - The best salary you could hope for, after 20 years of work, was 1500 euros (not including taxes). At best, if you were a judge or a director, you could have hoped for 2000 euros. The average salary (whether you start working or are in the middle of your career) is between 900 and 1200 euros (not including taxes again). I made some research and the minimum wage was 750 euros just before the austerity measures. Now, reduce this by 20-50 % and you can see how low the wages are. Considering that the cost of life in Greece is similar (if not more expensive, because we import many of the goods we are consuming) to that of western European countries, it is irrelevant if the wages still remain higher than in Slovakia or any other central or eastern European country. I don't think anyone can live decently with 400 euros per month in Paris, London or Amsterdam... Eurostat does not reflect the real situation with its numbers. Thanks for the kind words but this is unfortunately not the case. No matter if you are educated or not, you get the same salary. Employers tend to exploit the fact that there is a high unemployment rate amongst young adults and give them the lowest salary they can. For example, even with 2 LLMs, all I can hope for is 1000 euros (not including taxes) at best. One of my friends for example, who studied at the same university as me, had more work experience than me and even has 3 LLMs, is currently paid 900 euros in a law firm. The problem with my country is that nothing is done to encourage people to study, like giving them some incentives such as a better salary. It is a proven fact that most people that study abroad never come back as there is simply no recognition for the know-how you have learned. As soon as I am done with my current project, I am seriously considering getting the hell out of here. The thing is that the austerity measures would have been more easily accepted if everyone accepted to make some sacrifices. Yet, it's always the same people who pay for the politician's mistakes. I can tell you everyone is really pissed off at the moment and politicians don't dare go out in public anymore as they get insulted or get thrown things at them. A lot is being said but nothing is being done. They only catch the small tax evaders while the really big ones still wander free. The small ones may have hidden a couple thousand euros while the big ones hide millions of euros. The worst thing is that everyone knows who they are as they have expensive cars, private jets, private boats, chalets in Switzerland, apartments in Paris and New York, luxurious villas here and there. One of my friends worked for a lawyer who earned 800 million euros per year and only declared 80 000 euros of income. The lawyer paid my friend only 600 euros per month and at some point even asked her to write in her tax declaration that her income was 3000 euros so that the guy could get a tax reduction, and she refused of course. He kept pressuring her so much that she had to resign in the end. I have heard similar stories about other famous lawyers and doctors.

Hahahaha! I never suspected that Pangalos was involved. I personally confirm that this guy is nuts but should not be taken seriously. He got fired a few years later by the way as he had absolutely no sense of diplomacy and was doing more harm than good to our country. Now, assuming that he really did behave that way, it was not Greece's official position to prevent Finland from joining the EU. I don't know why the hell he would do such a thing but bear in mind he is diabetic and this may influence his behavior. What I fail to understand is why they nominated him as vice-president of the new socialist Government (even though it's mor a symbolic position as he doesn't have any real power). Even now, with the debt crisis, he makes the situation worse whenever he intervenes in the media. So, if what happened is true, I apologize for his behavior as we have nothing against Finland. Here's some extra info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoros_Pangalos

Ooops, yeah I mean "live" and not "leave". That's what you get for posting at 1 a.m. According to official calculations, the basic salary will be 380 euros with the new austerity measures (it was 600 euros before). What the hell did I spend 6 years studying? I don't have any other choice than to emigrate... Moreover, they don't tackle the main problem: the rich guys are still avoiding paying their taxes. They could also halve our defense expenditure, now that would make a difference.

Are you referring to this? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0905495614.html I had no idea the situation was so tense in Turkey. Anyway, I just wish we could disband our armies and leave peacefully... sigh...

Yes, we do have some rabid communists but the anarchists are a different group. They don't claim anything at all. By just reading their messages on the walls, all they want is kill cops and destroy the Government (no matter if it's liberal or socialist).

The average Greek person of my parents' and grandparents' generations is very ignorant and easy to manipulate. Many have not studied beyond middle school and have not a clue about politics. One striking example I once read in the newspaper is that 55% of the Greeks refuse to believe Darwin's theory of evolution (as a comparison it was somewhere like 80% in Turkey and even higher in some other countries). The previous Governments did a good job at hiding the real state of our economy and kept promising things in order to get elected. The average joe just wanted a job to survive and couldn't understand more than that. The real victims are the young people of my generation who have made long studies to end up either in unemployment or with a salary of 600-800 euros and complete exploitation by the employers. As far as the anarchists go, they are just random groups of people that merge with the crowd and seize any opportunity they can to burn cars and destroy buildings. They have no ideology (fighting capitalism for example) as everything they destroy usually belong to poor fellows that don't earn that much. This is a problem specific to Greece and that has existed for at least 2 decades now.

As for that, let me say that everyone is in shock here. The victims were 2 women and 1 man, all three in their 30s. One of the women was also pregnant and the other two were parents as well. It was those anarchists that struck again. They have no ideology nor any respect of human life. Everyone condemns what just happened and according to testimonies, the other protesters are too scared to stop them. Some of them tried in vain but the anarchists drew their knives. Let me also say that the Greek population would have accepted the measures but they can't accept the fact that the politicians won't take any responsibility for their past actions. Nothing is done to punish them. The politicians have voted drastic measures that reduce everyone's salary or pension between 30 and 50%. However, the politicians have greedily kept all their privileges and do not get to pay any more taxes. Finally, nothing is being done to tax the richest part of the population which keeps avoiding taxes while everyone knows they have more than a dozen villas each and earn more than 100.000 euros per year. I can tell you that everyone is furious and pissed with those that have cheated us and keep mocking us. I am afraid that a revolution is at hand as those politicians are too cowardly to reduce their own wages.

You guys do have a point. I am however afraid that FYROM won't get satisfied with just getting the symbols. More claims will probably follow. I mentioned the example of the restitution of ancient relics but there are other things as well. I am however not that much specialized enough in the bilateral relationships to give you a detailed report about those things. I am pleased to see that you guys can make the difference between the slavic macedonia and the greek macedonia but I am not sure this is the case for other people. When I was in high school (french one), I do remember my history teacher claiming that Alexander was not Greek and she refused to have it otherwise. I have also met other people that couldn't make the difference. There wasn't any Greek nation per se in ancient times. Just a dozen city/states that shared one common culture and civilization (they all spoke Greek, they all cherished the same Gods, etc.). Macedonia was one of them. All the northern part of Greece is called Macedonia and having a neighboring country with the same name does pose a problem. Allowing FYROM to be called Macedonia would deprive our own regions of their identity and international recognition. It is already hard enough to make foreigners aware about the existence of our Macedonia, if FYROM starts using this name as well, you can be sure our regions will fall into oblivion. People are less and less educated concerning history, so this scenario is quite realistic. Using the name "Macedonia" alone is enough for the average joe to identify this word with Alexander the Great. Making and extensive use of ancient Macedonia's symbols for some decades will be enough to make the public opinion identify FYROM as the successor of ancient Macedonia. On both issues, it's a matter of preserving one-self's own identity. Finally, the geographical overlap is irrelevant as 1) part of ancient Macedonia's territory covers today's Greek territory and not only FYROM's 2) people from FYROM are mainly slavs that came many centuries after Alexander. I won't dwell on this matter any longer. Anyone is entitled to his own opinion but I don't know of any country in its right mind that would simply give up its history and legacy just like that. It would be suicidal! If we were to do as some of you say, we should also let the Turks claim that they built Istanbul themselves and pretend Byzantium never existed. I do blame the previous Greek governments for handling the matter as they did. A compromise with a composite name is the best solution and this has been put on the table only a couple of years ago. Cheers.

Look, you're polite, and informative, but one can tell by the tone of your posts that you're also incredibly biased. Maybe I am a foreigner, but maybe that's what it takes to look at the situation objectively. I don't think I am particularly biased. I am mainly explaining the Greek Government's official position and I am well placed to know what is at stake. Personally, I couldn't care less about what happens to FYROM, but I do believe Greece's arguments are reasonable enough. If Greece was facing some western European country, I am sure it would adopt a more flexible stance. However, Greece is facing a country which has persistently and aggressively expressed its intention to use the Greek Macedonian symbols as its own, while they are already being used by its Greek counterparts. Greece's position is no more no less than self defense. Moreover, Greece is ready to accept a compromise of a composite name for FYROM (like the examples I mentioned previously) but the latter insists on getting the name of plain "Macedonia" instead. If you could just give me some counter arguments, it would help me understand how you view this situation.

Why tenuous? Since when is the protection of a country's cultural heritage tenuous? As I have already said, I don't expect foreigners to sympathize with our cause as they cannot understand the issues at stake and do not feel concerned by these issues. No offense meant, but what can an Australian understand to Balkan politics and intricacies? In any case, I just wanted to clarify yet another stereotype about the mean Greeks that won't allow the "macedonians" to name their country as they will.