That’s the problem

1. No. NATO does not participate in all the wars. None of them helped us in Viet Nam, for example. They WERE willing to criticize us for it though. The reason the U.S. was there was to stop the spread of communism, which was the EXACT reason NATO was created. Vietnam was not a threat to OUR border either. NATO also did nothing to support the Afghans when they were invaded by Russia.

2. No. Superpowers are not motivated by some mysterious, incomprehensible, dismissable thought process that is different from every other country's motivations. Since the beginning of history, the motvation of the powerful has been the same: "Give us what we want or we will take it." There have been only a few exceptions.

We weren't an exception either before we became a super power. When we became a super-power, our response was to become isolationist. We had almost no army at the beginning of WWII. That war showed us that we didn't have that choice. So we started "sticking our nose in where it wasn't wanted." It took 50 years for the rest of the world to habitually follow suit.

3. WE don't agree with what we do in most of the places we intervene in. But we know we have a responsibility not to just ignore the situations there, even if the "priorities of a country differ, according to the economy, local politics, and to a great extent the georgaphy of that country. As far as the military is concenred, one must also take into account threats to the borders of each country"

That is EXACTLY my point. Look at what has happened when no one, including us, has intervened. When you do nothing, except talk, you AMPLIFY the evil or misfortune that occurs. Falling down hurts, but not as much as no one caring that you fell.

All that is necessary for the propagation of evil is for good people to do nothing.

 

As usual, I see very interesting points when discussing with non-Greeks. It's interesting to see things that one takes for granted "challenged".

1.

The concept of the spread of Communism is very interesting. I am also right wing, but my positions would probably seem leftist to an American counterpart. As far as actual communism goes, it is not seen as an important threat here. In fact, since the Civil War, which was fought between the Greek military and Communist guerillas who were active against the Germans in WW2, and later refused to surrender their weapons, the Communists were, at times, even seen as allies of the Greek Right. About 20 years after the end of the Civil War, in 1974 (after the fall of the junta) the leader of the Greek Right, Karamanlis, legalised the Hellenic Communist Party. Since then, the Communist Party is so steady in the number of votes (about 7%) they get, that a joke here is that if they get one less vote, they start making phone calls to each other, to see who died. For decades it was the third largest party, until now.
Even though we have a very hard-core (Stalinist) Communist Party, in 1989 it DID co-govern with the Greek Right.
Who is considered to be a "threat"? The Socialists Left wing in name, but name only, as both Right and Communists consider them as an amalgam of the evils of both worlds (both of the Right and of Communism. For the communists, they are the lackeys of the US and the EU, those who were placed there to prevent Communism from prevailing in Greece, for the Right they are those who will hand over our country to the Turks). Unfortunately, they governed our country for most of the time from 1981 to the present. Under Andreas Papandreou, they were somewhat nationalistic (i.e. hard-line toward Turkey). Under Kostas Simitis and George Papandreou (yes, "George" because he has the US citizenship) even that changed, and many in the Right (not the Far Right, mind you) consider them traitors.
The Communists, on the other hand, are seen in a better light because of their enmity toward Turkey (of course this is so because Turkey is the second (numerically, I think) largest power in NATO, and NATO, for them, is BAD). Even the Soviets were not seen as a big threat by the Right here, because in a case of ehm... war (a big one) they would strike Turkey (due to geography) first, perhaps not even reaching us (remember that the USSR practically allowed Tito's Yugoslavia to secede from the Warsaw Treaty without much more reaction than a frown from Stalins bushy eyebrows). In fact, chances are, that if such a thing occured (ie, a general NATO-Warsaw Treaty conflict), you, as leaders of NATO might have to deal (among other things) with the whole southeast flank of NATO breaking apart due to infighting between the two Ally countries that comprise it. In the mid 1970's we almost went to war over the turkish invasion of Cyprus, and in the 1980's we again had our moments. Of course, all this escalated in the 1990's and it is expected to escalate again now, over the Aegean sea oil revenues.

In short, you might think of the southern Balkans as another world, running parallel to, but not quite following, the "bigger picture". If you are a science fiction fan, it is like an "alternative reality".

I don't know if actual land invasion and continued occupation of US soil is an issue for the average US citizen. Again, I believe that geography plays a role here, as, to achieve that, an invader would actually have to cross an ocean. Furthermore, to occupy a country as big as the US seems impossible for any army, as it would stretch resupply lines to the limit.
For Greece, however, PARTICULARLY for Right Wingers, it is the number one issue, a sort of obsession to not lose a centimeter of ground, particularly to Turkey. This is related to history, as well as geography.

That may begin to explain why there was no Hellenic assistance in Vietnam, even though we did have a hard core right wing military junta up to 1974 (it was the last time in Greek history that communists were persecuted). Back in Korea, Greece DID assist the US, but I suspect that this was only done in order to get into NATO.

Regarding 2 and 3, it seems like an excellent and (unlike mine) very laconic explanation of the general mentality in the US, during and after the turning point of WW2.

 

The opposition to the Communists was generally to armed takeover, as in Viet Nam, other South East Asian and South Pacific nations and several Central American countries. Elected Communists are fine, as long as it is the will of the people.

As far as NATO was concerned, the Greeks already have first hand knowledge of this. You DO know that the Communists wanted to be in charge instead of the king?

 

The Communists here wanted to seize power, and according to them when the German Occupation ended they had the military means to do so. Instead of doing so, they organised a demonstration protesting for the disarmament of ELAS (the so-called Democratic Army, that is, the Communist guerillas). The Greek military, with British support, opened fire on the demonstrators. The war was brewing, but it actually started somewhat later, when the Communists, having boycotted the elections of 1946, decided to organise the "government of the mountains" (a provisional Communist government).

Furthermore, the (US backed, according to Bill Clinton, who even apoligized to the Greek people*) Greek military junta of 1967, appeared exactly for this purpose, "to prevent the country (Greece) from falling into the clutches of Communism". Another statement was that "it is eveyone's right to believe in whatever ideology they wish, but the Greeks cannot be allowed to believe in Communism". Both lines came from Georgios Papadopoulos, officer of the Greek Army, supervisor of the food collection in favour of the German troops in 1943, and later dictator (1967).

There are elections and "elections". There are also various "events" which may change the outcome of elections, or the opinion/will of the people. It was decided that Greece would be in the Western Sphere of Influence. Once this was done, something would always occur, and the Communists would not cease power. For better, in my opinion, for worse, in other people's opinions, but it was done so.

Regarding the King, the Greek Right is divided. If you speak to a Right winger from Peloponisos, for example, or from the Greek South in general, then they will most likely be supportive. A Right winger from the North, on the other hand, will most likely hate the King. The reason is that the Palace was at odds with Karamanlis, the leader of the Greek Right, Frederiki, the King's mother wanting more power for the Palace. In fact, Karamanlis was forced to flee the country (before the junta) in order not to be assasinated. Northern Right wingers were largely on Karamanlis's side (Karamanlis was from Serrais, a northern territory). Another reason is that Northern Right wingers largely descend from refugees from Minor Asia (they came to mainland Greece in 1922), who blame the Palace for the Minor Asian Catastrophe. So, anyone taking power away from the king, might not be seen as too bad.

*in his words:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/21/world/clinton-tries-to-subdue-greeks-anger-at-america.html

 

There's no doubt that the U.S. supported repulsive governments during the Cold War. So did China and the Soviet Union.

But notice, when the people actually are given the abilty to choose their governments by election, they tend to vote the Communists out. They don't, however, decline to vote in "leftist" governments. So the "left/right" thing seems to be irrelevant. So there seems to be a problem with Communism itself.

 

Elected Communists are fine, as long as it is the will of the people.

Not so sure about that see Chile 1973.

 

True. But there was no direct intervention by U.S. military forces. Power flows from the people, not from the barrel of a gun.

 

Well it was a CIA therefore American government sponsored coupe which over threw a popularly elected government and established a military dictatorship.

 

Good point, but (and I am making a genaral point here, not related to any specific case), a small, organised, armed group is enough to scare a large, unarmed, unorganised mass of people into submission.

It's true that genarally the people will not vote for communists, but we (the west) often use propaganda in order to make this possible.
True, Communism "produced" Stalin, but National Socialism produced Hitler. As you said, people vote for "leftist", "socialist", parties, (without considering that the Nazis are national SOCIALISTS), but do not vote for communism (considering Stalin was a communist). They consider Communism guilty for Stalin, but they do not consider Socialism guilty for Hitler.
In fact, they attribute Hitler to us, the Right, not that right wing latin American Neoliberal governments were not bloody.

 

National socialism did not produce Hitler he invented it.

 

I stand corrected.

 

The detainees of Guantanamo bay have been selected and seized only because they are members of certain ethnic and/or religious group. They do not have the right of Habeas corpus (No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land), meaning they do not have the right for attorney or the right to have their case brought before an impartial court. They are detainees as long as their captors see it fit. The detainees are stripped from all human and civil rights and are allegedly subjects of all manner of torture, like the water boarding and enforced sleep deprivation. That is by a definition a concentration camp (as not all concentration camps were also extermination camps), like it or not.

YESSSS!!! Of course!!! Go Finland!!!
Great maker, so I succumbed to my national cliché. Finns in general are obsessed by the thought how others see us. We have been slaves of others so long that even today we yearn the recognition of others so we too can claim the right to exist as an independent nation. This can be seen daily in the way how our printed media works. Every time some foreign person mentions Finland it will surely make the headlines. This has actually created an interweb meme “Finland mentioned! Yeah!” In that sense we Finns are the worst kind of attention whores.

But Finland IS heaven on earth! Nothing can ever come even close of what we have here!
Just kidding.
Finland is a small/miniscule nation among the other insignificant nations. Nevertheless we have sent troops to most hotpots of the world and still do so. I myself am prepared to serve in Afghanistan or where ever required as soon as I have buried my grandfather, rest his soul.

The ceremony will take place at March 30th 12:30. I do not understand why it is scheduled to that day, as the Saturday following the Good Friday is the most evil of the days, the day of the witches. The day when the Son of God lays dead in Hell and all that is evil can freely roam the Earth. That Saturday is only fit for pagan burials, and my Pappa was no pagan. Nevertheless, I will do my duty and aid him in his last journey to the frozen bosom of Maaäiti.

I disagree. Posting that map was actually very enlightening, it allowed me to reflect on my own prejudices. It could have been drawn by myself, that accurately it pictures every single prejudice, however deeply buried, that are present in my society.

Stereotypes ARE everywhere! That is how people rationalize and categorizes the seemingly chaotic world. Stereotypes affect constantly our actions and our way of thinking as they are a rudimentary and paramount structure of our way of social comprehension, of our very psyche. They are ever present and ever influencing our reactions and thoughts, whether we are aware of them or not. Or so teaches my sociology/psychology professor Leena Koski from the University of Eastern Finland (can’t quote on any specific study as my personal library is limited only on history, although there are numerous international studies on stereotypes so you should be able to find quite a few on your local library, if you are interested).

I agree. As I said before: “@sirchet My apologies for my heated response. It is too easy to answer in-kind when a post seems to be provocative.”
I got provoked and I got carried away. For that I am sorry. I have nothing but utmost respect towards sirchet.
This is the SECOND time I apologize, that is two more times than what is customary in my culture and the best I can do. So settle with it.

Thank you for remarking Finland being the “most civilized” nation, according to SOME studies like the once of PISA and Transparency International Finland does rate somewhat high, but to claim that Finland is the most civilized country in the world is even mildly put a huge overstatement.

No I won’t. Should you be in anyway accustomed with history you would be aware that “justice” and “injustice” are utterly subjective expressions, matters of opinion and nothing more. Or do you claim that the Ottoman occupation of Κωνσταντινούπολη or of the norther Κύπρος are just? If so, you are the first of your compatriots to claim so, that I have heard. My professor told me that “history never teaches, but one can always learn from it” and I have learned a quite cynical point of view. I will not count on anything, I will believe when I see.

Actually that is an overstatement. National Socialism was as an ideology which is based upon the combined ideas of Marxist socialism, Italian fascism (by Mussolini) and by already existing nationalism (the great Idea of late 19th and early 20th century Europe). Also it is utterly overemphasizing to say that Adolph invented it, what about Joseph Goebbels the propaganda minister, or Rudolf Hess or Heinrich Himmler, the father of SS, or Reinhard Heydrich, the father of the Final Solution? And the race laws (curiously still enforced in the ANC ruled Republic of South Africa) were work of Hans Globke and Wilhelm Stuckart. Hitler may have been many things, like a war hero from the First world blaze and a great orator, but he was not that inventive, nor was he the creator of national socialism nor was he the personification of evil.

 

Do not get hard on us, for if some of criticism of the USA is right, then we are right and are not a reason for anger (rather, your state's wrong moves are), and if it is nothing but unfounded slander, then it is because we are mislead by mass-media of our countries. And then, however mislead we are, [a super argument in our favour follows] we do not go out blowing up American ships or murdering American citizens.
(Unlike, I must point out, some Eastern insurgents, whom your government even supports.)

As for such discussions, they are doomed to frequently become stuck at the point, when both sides are too sure in their points of view and ignore/distrust information opposing it, no matter how credible it really is.

 

I posted my opinion and still stand behind my opinion.

I stated that I found the picture offensive, not your opinion.

btw, did you post the picture? If you didn't then why carry on about this?

I'm not going to give you an argument, we both know that no matter how much proof and facts are shown many people will choose to believe what best suits them.

Your opinion is just that ,yours, and you are entitled to it.

 

I will speak in favour of the US here, and say that, as you pointed out, they are not extermination camps (unlike those of the "glorious Reich"). Another difference, which you appear to overlook, is that the US imprisons individuals who have or at least the US has reasonable cause to believe they intend to inflict harm upon the US. The "glorious Reich" imprisoned EVERYONE. Stereotyping at its finest (I am being ironic).

It impresses me, though, that you will criticise the Americans for Guadanamo, but the German extermination camps do not prevent you from speaking of the "glorious Reich".

I doubt that they are present in the whole society. It seems to be about you, personally, and some other like-minded individuals, perhaps, thus the map.
Reflecting upon something is generally good, but only if the individual who reflects is willing to do something to change.

Well, I don't think I named Finland, but you could say that I had a general notion of scandinavian-type administrations (ie countries of enviable transparency and almost non-existent corruption). Like I said, though, a thug from such a country is not above a decent person from a non-civilised country. If anything, a person who lives in a corrupt environment and chooses not to be corrupt is twice as admirable as a person who lives in a non-corrupt environment and is not corrupt.

I don't doubt that the studies are true. On the other hand, I have heard that, even though Finland has such enviable scores on that sector, the country also has a high percentage of alcoholism and domestic violence. However, I would of course not automatically characterise every Finn an alcoholic wife-abuser.