What are the most powerful and influential countries?

[Ned]

Speaking of Khazar, the Vikings destroyed their empire IIRC, shortly after they took Kiev.

Ned

[Az]

here is a map describing what happened.

http://www.geocities.com/ayatoles/webmap4.jpg

[Olegus]

Originally posted by Serb
Who care about second place/ the winner takes it all.

That's SU imperialistic b*llsh*t... That's not sport competition, there is no main prize or gold medal. Goal to be first is not worth to consider nowdays. Serb be realistic.

Then return to home and do something for this.

I gather money in US and spend it in Russia. btw, I invest money in Russian economy

Regards.

[Serb]

That's SU imperialistic b*llsh*t... That's not sport competition, there is no main prize or gold medal. Goal to be first is not worth to consider nowdays. Serb be realistic.

I am. I was kidding.

[Bereta_Eder]

"I suspect Greek antipathy to the U.S. is tied closely to the fact that Turkey and the U.S. are so close. Isn't this right? "

Yes definitly. It is a relation that is seen here as threatening peace and the lifes of the greek people. So there is a very strong antiamericanism here. We are propably the most vicious antiamericans Europe has.

I would say that US support to Turkey (and Turkey's expansionist plans in the Aegean as already seen with Cyprus) is what KEEPS antiamericanism going.

Because antiamericanism was strong before. For example it is largely suspected that the US played a key role in the overthrow of democracy in Greece (as you said). That not only caused great suffering but it also led to the Cyprus tragedy.

That's a reason most Greeks were not geiving a damn about Osama and the tragedy in WTC. The general feeling was "burn the bastards they deserve it".

And the next day we were mostly disturbed and anxious about what the US would do and did not care at all if other attacks would happen in the US.

It was about what the US would do (which is perceived as the #1 rogue state).

[Bereta_Eder]

I mean what the US would do in relation with us of course.
SInce we have a terrotist group which has been killing americans and others for 21 years and noone cares for the reasons I mentioned.

[Bereta_Eder]

I imagine that's the reason why in the '80s we offered "asylum" to some of the most wanted terrorists the US wanted and in general tried to create a counter balance with which to "trade" with the US against its support for Turkey.

In general the US is perceived as a friend of Turkey (and Turkey's warmongering againts Greece so that the US doesn't lose her as her ally)) and thus as a very strong "indirect" opponent of Greece. In the same time though, Greeks are fully aware that the only thing the US does is simply sponsoring her own interests. It's just that these interests have costed Greek lives and may do so in the future. So it doesn't do any good

I think the only difference between us and the arabs is that we don't perceive you as the "Great Satan" But just as a superpower which by its support for a expansionist dictatorship (=Turkey) can cause us and our families great harm.


This is the general feeling.

But as always things are not all black and white.

IMO and others, the US is also acting as a "balance" between Greece and Turkey.
In some cases, it might even have averted a conflict between the two countries.
But in the same time it is the US which plays Greece against Turkey and vice versa (not that the two countries want any help to not like eachother...) with the aim of "pressuring" each country to do what the US would want her to do.
So this US role of playing the one against the other is also frowned upon and VERY well realized. (hopefull by both the two countries - the one defining difference is that Turkey is not a democracy and the military has the ultimate say so even if the people of Turkey wanted peace that would not do any good sicne the turkish military always had had different ideas about that matter).

Having said that I am confident that the US does not want a conflict between Greece and Turkey. It is againts its interests since NATO would suffer a great blow.
I believe the US administration when it says it wants peaceful solutions.

But it IS in the US interest to maintain some sort of tention between Greece and Turkey for the reasons I mentioned. And it does so in a very apparent way by giving leverage to Turkey's completely illiegal and distabilizing efforts to chnage the existing borders in the Aegean sea.

[Bereta_Eder]

HEY I HAVE SO MUCH FREE TIME TODAY SO I WILL WRITE MORE - SUFFER

(great Easter fests BTW, my legs still ache from dancing )

And yet one more interesting subject is the Greek wish to "demonize" the US and throw all her problems at her.

It is always the "bad foreigners" who are to blame etc.

Fact is that things were not so "pristine" (as Chris 62 would say ) in the Greek Kingdom to begin with

For example I'm not so sure how much the US did to have the Junta in Greece. (of course the State Department files are locked up and sealed tight and the US dare not reviele it even now, 25 years+ after the coup d'etat - the present US ambassador to Greece said that if the files were made public then the US - Greek relations would be destroyed)


When the military dictatorship happened half of Greece was viciously right wing and literaly hated the communist guts.

The right wing (including the fascist right wing) of Greece had traditionaly enjoyed the US support againt the left - wing to fend off what it perceived as a red threat to Greece.

What I'm saying is that the Junta would not had happened if some people in Greece did not had the believs they had. It was also a game of staying in power for them.

One thing that the US cannot hide from is that AFTER the Junta happened it offered full support to it. (despite the tirtures that were being done, the loss of democracy for Greece etc).

But some people were VERY eager to portray their political opponents as a "red threat" to Greece (where such threat didn't exist after the '50s) and the US was very eager to "help" them counter it whatever the cost.

As long as Greece was ok in NATO that's all the US wanted.
If Greece would continiusly back down in the face of Turkish demands even better for the US to please her ally.

The Junta guaranteed the 1st part but not the 2nd.

The ironic thing of all this is that the man that the Junta (and presumambly the US) was supposed to stop from ruling Greece ended up ruling Greece for 20 years in a row (after the 7 year Junta was brought down by the Greek people)
That serves as a compass.

[morb]

what happened with the elections is terrible, but can't you see how absurd it is to be granting asylum to terrorists? First of all you destablize your own security, and secondly you put off the rest of the world. Personally I'll take Greece over Turkey any day (although I don't like grease on my turkey), if you coninue to alianate the US, your other alternatives for allies would probably be no better than Turkey (unless of course russia would consider you an ally). You're sort of like a bigger israel in that you're surounded by water and muslims. the expression, rock and hard place comes to mind. If you think the US was terrible, wait till muslims find a reason to delare jehad on you.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by morb
what happened with the elections is terrible, but can't you see how absurd it is to be granting asylum to terrorists?

Well it was not just "terrible". It was a cleaer violation of Greek democracy and it led to a 7 year period which was full of tortures of a large part of the Greek population. It was a military dictatorship. And it also led top Cyrpus and the thousands of dead people there.

About granding refuge to terrorists that threaten the US, it is not absurd. It acted (and maybe even now acts) as a counter balance. It is sort of a bargaining tool. "You stop supporting Turkey's plans of expansion against Greece - we stop giving refuge to people who want to harm you".
IMO it makes perfect sense.
But there are complications of course. Read on.

First of all you destablize your own security,

In the '80s Greece (among other european countries) did offer refuge to arab and palestinian terrorists who were against Israel and the US. (of course this is not accepted officialy) by Greece.

The US was indeed furious at this and even more so for the several contacts we had with Quantafi etc.

But terrorists are lose cannons. We can't control them 100%. They have their own agenda which can turn against us as well.

That is why, I think, we used them to gain support in the Arab world against Turkey (it worked miracles, thank God ) and to have a bargaining tool with the US (it also worked - to a point).

But in the end we had serious security concerns (the terrorists might asked for more that we wanted to give them) and we had the US breathing on our back so heavily we eventually did a "cleaning" of Greece.

and secondly you put off the rest of the world.

Just the US (which is BIG enough ) . France and Italy also did the same as Greece. But as I mentioned it propably came to a point where it became counterproductive.

Personally I'll take Greece over Turkey any day (although I don't like grease on my turkey), if you coninue to alianate the US, your other alternatives for allies would probably be no better than Turkey (unless of course russia would consider you an ally).

Historically and culturally Russia is our ally. It has helped us in the past and pour policies against Turkey are almost identical. This and our cultural bonds make us allies in the regard of Turkey.
But I have no illusions about Russian army fighting wars for us.
Plus we were on different "camps" (western - eastern).

We certaintly don't see the US as a trustworthy ally since the US wants to please Turkey in the expense of Greece. But it is not all black and white. We use it, it uses us.

You're sort of like a bigger israel in that you're surounded by water and muslims. the expression, rock and hard place comes to mind. If you think the US was terrible, wait till muslims find a reason to delare jehad on you.

But that's the problem. Greece has only one concern and that is Turkey. Turkey has the backing of the US so you are part of that problem (and sometimes the solution).

It is true that Greece has always been in modern times in a very "difficult" geostartegic point. (Balkans, Turkey). I think we have managed well so far though (if you look at all our neighboors we are light years ahead of them).

[Ned]

paiktis, A couple of points. If you were not an ally, but actively hostile to the U.S., your position in Europe would degrade noticeably. Your neighbors also would be much more aggressive than they are.

Second, I believe our relationship with Turkey is about to undergo the supreme test. When we take Iraq, we will have to decide what to do about the Kurds. We have three options. Return the Kurds to the new Arab state. Set them free. Or give them to Turkey. The last is probably what the Turks want. Setting the Kurds free is the least desired option to the Turks. But unless we offer that to the Kurds, we may have an active opponent instead of an ally. We have no good solution.

It is clear that our move on Iraq has the potential to destabalize the region for years. An unstable Turkey would force us to improve our relations with Greece.

Ned

[Serb]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Waging war against the civilian population, as the Russian army seems to revel in, isn't the way to wage war against this type of enemy.

DinoDoc,
You are typical anti-Russian dinosour, the product of cold war. Btw, do you know that dinosours had brain of almost the same size as chiken has?
You are typical Yankee- "We are the best, we are holier then others". Bull****. You are no better then others somethimes or quite often you ae worse then others.
Do you know how many anti-American articles describing American atrocities in Afghanistan against 'civilian' population I could easily find? Hundreds. So what, it means that I must trust to those articles? Why you beleive in the same anti-Russian propaganda about Chechnya?

The reports of various human rights organization.

Just answer your own question for me:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which human rights organizations are you talking about in this instance?

Against cave complexes.

We are used them for the same targets- deep hideouts in caves. By defeinition this type of bombs created for such targets.
And btw, you still didn't answer what do you think about ammunition with depleted uranium, you've used in Yugoslavia.

[Saras]

Just wanted to apologise for my ignorance on the junta matter. Still, do you think the Greek leftwingers were somehow insulated from Soviet subversion? The Black Sea Fleet would have loved to have bases in the Aegean ...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by morb


great, that defines the LATIN based words which gave way to "slave." and in all fairness slavs have a long history of enslaving themselves as well as bing the enslaved and the enslavers. But the Russian meaning, or really probably the meaning in any slavic language of the word "slav" as in "slava" or "slavyane" or "pravoslavniy" meaning "glory", "glorious people" (also mentioned by serb here) and "rightly-glorious" or "orthodox" in the west as in the church, in that order.

So you see, even though the west may have its own misguided meanings based on the word, to us, it means nothing close to slave, instead something completely opposit.

Thanks.

My quote appears without the necessary context. Serb stated that the term Slav was newer than the Roman Empire, which I disagreed with. He also didn't believe that the derivation of the English word 'slave' came from the word Slav. I was under no illusions that Slavic peoples are older both than Rome and the Latin term which took their name and attached it to what was then an apparantly pertinent function.

My original point was that the Slavs in Russia were somewhat backward at that time and were exposed to the larger world beyond the forest by contact with Norsemen, who took advantage of their power by imposing themselves as rulers of some Russian states. This Norse imposed ruling class was very small and didn't leave much evidence of it's presence, in part due to the almost complete lack of literacy by either party. Nonetheless, the Norsemen gave an important sense of scope to the more sedentary Russians, and helped form several important and enduring states. This isn't a particularly novel theory, nor is it particularly controversial due to the fact that it is supported by primarily Russian evidence and well-supported by other evidence from the Byzantines.

[Serb]

I said that in times of Roman empire Slavs didn’t call themselves a Slavs. There were many Slav’s tribes each with unique name. The Romans didn’t call them Slav’s too, because for them all those tribes were ‘Skifs’.
I’m really tired of this debate; perhaps we should talk about something else?