Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ
reply to post by BLV12
Greece isn't under realistic threat though. Both countries are in NATO, Greece is in the EU, and besides, what good are tanks going to do in a
conflict that would mainly be decided by air and naval power, in the unlikely event of it breaking out? Greece has 3x the number of tanks as Germany
and according to gfp more active troops. And its not simply Turkey = bad, Greece = good, look at Greece's stupid dispute with and opposing of
Macedonias membership of the EU just because of a name. The numbers for the military certainly look like they could be scaled back, not going out
signing contracts worth 'tens of millions'
Not under realistic threat?
So because both are in NATO, and Greece in the EU, that means that there is no threat?
The threat is real. The threat exists. Facts that can't be denied.
Turkey has issued a threat of war, a casus belli. If Greece extends it's territorial waters to 12nm, as allowed by International Law, the Law of the
Sea Convention. So if Greece abides by International Laws, Turkey will declare war. How is not a realistic threat? The Turks them selves have said it
will mean war.
On an almost weekly basis, Turkish jets violate Greek airspace and the Athens FIR(flight information region).
Military flights into another FIR are required to have flight plans lodged with the responsible body for that FIR. Turkey does not do this, and
endangers civilian airliners. Many occasions there has been near misses in mid air, collisions only avoided because the civilian aircraft pilots
maneuver out of the way while the Turkish F16's stay on their collision course.
Turkish F16's and F4's have over flown Greek islands in the Aegean. Inhabited islands. Doing low over flights of towns and villages. How are either of
these two things not realistic threats?
Turkey sends it's vessels into Greek waters, using International waters to navigate in and out of Greek waters between islands. They have often sent
exploration vessels to search for oil and gas in GREEK TERRITORIAL WATERS. How are these things not realistic threats?
Turkey created the Aegean Army, based on it's west coast. Why? If they have no ill intentions towards Greece, then why do they need such a massive
presence on their west coast? The PKK is in the south east, not the west coast.
On their side of the border in Thrace, they have the majority of their armor. Why? Greece and Bulgaria, which share a border with Turkey, are both
NATO and EU.
Turkey has created "gray zones", which is basically laying claim to Greek islands and waters in the Aegean(and even the tiny island of Gavdos south of
Crete...). How is that not a realistic threat? Turkey is disputing Greece's sovereignty and claiming Greek territory should belong to Turkey.
Every now and then, a Turkish RF4 escorted by F16's will try penetrate Greek air space without being intercepted by the Greek air force, to try and
pin point the location of the S300 SAM's. They are game changers, the Turks no this.
How is that not a realistic threat?
And sorry, it is a simple case of Turkey = behaving badly.
The above are the facts of the matter. And I did not even touch on the issues of people smuggling which authorities in Turkey from police to
politicians to the military are mixed up in. They've been caught before dumping illegal immigrants in Greek waters near islands. They are known to be
involved in the people smuggling trade.
And I didn't even mention the fact that they harass FRONTEX aircraft operating in Greek airspace. FRONTEX being the EU's border control agency that
has been deployed to Greece to help combat the flow of illegal immigrants.
So, based on the above facts it's clear the threat is real and does exist, and that it is a simple matter of Turkey behaving badly.
The name dispute with FYROM is more then just about a name. If it was just a name they wanted to use, there wouldn't be an issue.
They not only use the name, but they claim the ancient history associated with it, which is explicitly Greek.
Any educated individual knows this.
Greece hasn't stopped them from joining the EU. Greece objected to them being invited to NATO while the dispute is outstanding which France and others
back Greece on, and NATO as a whole decided that it would not invite FYROM to the alliance.
When the time comes, if the dispute isn't settled, then they wont be joining the EU either.
Once again its a simple matter of one side making claims to something it has no right to.
There's a few thousand people in Greece who self identify as "ethnic" Macedonian(slavic, not Greek).
There is a political party, Rainbow, in Greece, that claims to represent them. This party does not receiver more then 2-4,000 votes at elections.
On the other side of the border, there is an estimated 250,000 ethnic Greeks. They do not have a political party to represent them. They are
discriminated against. Their identities, and existence denied.
I can show you a photo of FYROM's leader, Gruevski, laying a wreath at some memorial, that has a map of FYROM with extended borders that include parts
of Bulgaria, Albania, and all of northern Greece.
The actual fact is that the real ancient Macedonia is majority located within Greece's borders. There's a reason for that, and that's because it was
part of the Ancient Greek city-state world, and at the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Greeks fought for it's liberation as it's part of their home
Only the southern areas near the border, in FYROM, are part of ancient Macedonia, along with the south west of Bulgaria.
Before 1945, FYROM was known as Vardaska Banovina. In the 1940's, Tito renamed it and started a systematic campaign of creating a unique group of
people, to kill off Bulgarian influence in Vardaska. Because in actual fact, the majority of the Slavic people that lived there, were of Bulgarian
origin. Bulgaria considers them part of their country btw.
Another objective of this campaign by Tito, was to create a reason to try and grab northern Greece which has the strategic port city of Thessaloniki.
A huge percentage of trade to and from the Balkans goes through there, especially for FYROM who was embargoed in 1993 and on the brink of collapse as
If these people want to call them selves Macedonian, their country Macedonia, by all means, go ahead and do it.
But when they start claiming that my ancestors(I'm from Macedonia in Greece), that Alexander the Great, Phillip, etc, were not Greek, but
"Makedonski", then they can go to hell because it aint going to happen.
They don't just want to be called Macedonian, their country Macedonia. They want everyone to believe that they are the descendants of the Ancient
Macedonians who were Greek.
You can look at any credible sources from the past, and there is not a single mention of a unique, ethnic group called Macedonian. Even look at the
Ottoman empire, who used to use the Muslim convert Albanians as a weapon against Christians in the Balkans by moving them around the region, none of
their records ever show any Macedonian ethnic group.
So like I said, this isn't about a name only. It's what they want to have associated with them, as a result of using that name, that is the
Therefore, they will not be allowed to use the name Macedonia on it's own, and will be forced to accept a composite name, that distinguishes them from
Greek Macedonia and it's history.
The funny thing is that they took Greece to the International Court, because apparently Greece broke the interim accord of 1995. They claim Greece
blocked them from joining NATO, when in actual fact it was NATO that decided to not invite them to join because of their dispute with an existing
It is they who have been in violation of the interim accord. Renaming their airports and highways and stadiums after Alexander the Great and his
father Philip. Their school curriculum is still filled with propaganda against Greece, they teach their kids that Greece occupies their country, have
maps in school rooms showing a "greater" FYROM, etc.
These are the facts mate. It's up to you to come to your own conclusion.
edit on 10-10-2011 by BLV12 because: (no reason given)