BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen
Erweiterte Suche
Kontakt
BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen
Benutzerliste

Willkommen bei BalkanForum - das Forum für alle Balkanesen.
Seite 70 von 70 ErsteErste ... 20606667686970
Ergebnis 691 bis 699 von 699

Mazedonien schlägt Griechenland Namensänderung vor

Erstellt von Hamëz Jashari, 11.03.2012, 05:51 Uhr · 698 Antworten · 26.626 Aufrufe

  1. #691
    Avatar von alex281290

    Registriert seit
    19.12.2011
    Beiträge
    937
    Also auch älter als die "Griechen"???
    Wieso kannst du es eigentlich nicht ab dass diese Völker - in ihrer Zeit zur Zugehörigkeit zur hellenischen Kulturwelt - ihre größte Bedeutung hatten?
    Niemand behauptet die wären mit ihrer Sprache und ihrem Glauben vom Himmel gefallen, natürlich brauchte die Bildung von soetwas auch seine Zeit.

    EDIT:
    oder habs falsch verstanden und du meintest nicht die alten griechen sondern die neugriechen.

  2. #692
    Avatar von Zoran

    Registriert seit
    10.08.2011
    Beiträge
    27.750
    Zitat Zitat von alex281290 Beitrag anzeigen
    Wieso kannst du es eigentlich nicht ab dass diese Völker - in ihrer Zeit zur Zugehörigkeit zur hellenischen Kulturwelt - ihre größte Bedeutung hatten?
    Niemand behauptet die wären mit ihrer Sprache und ihrem Glauben vom Himmel gefallen, natürlich brauchte die Bildung von soetwas auch seine Zeit.

    EDIT:
    oder habs falsch verstanden und du meintest nicht die alten griechen sondern die neugriechen.
    Nope, ich meinte die Ülürer die in ihrer Enzyklopädie behaupten Sie seien älter als die Griechen.

    Oder hab ich den Text/Artikel falsch verstanden?

    Πρώτα είναι η καταγωγή των Ιλλυριών και ακολουθούν οι Γκρεκοί που έχουν καταγωγή ελληνική, ενώ για τους αρχαίους Μακεδόνες δεν γίνεται καμία αναφορά», αναφέρει το σκοπιανό δημοσίευμα της εφημερίδας των Σκοπίων ‘Dnevnik’.

  3. #693
    Avatar von alex281290

    Registriert seit
    19.12.2011
    Beiträge
    937
    Nope, ich meinte die Ülürer die in ihrer Enzyklopädie behaupten Sie seien älter als die Griechen.
    Ne mir gings darum das du die Griechen in Anführungszeichen geschrieben hast, und dachte du wolltest damit drauf anspielen das es keine griechische "Ethnie" gab damals.

    Oder hab ich den Text/Artikel falsch verstanden?
    Nö, sind aber eh nur komplexe für die Moderne.
    Die Illyrer stellen auch bei den Albanern nur einen Teil von mehreren Elementen die zur Ethnogenese beigetragen haben könnten.


    Die Pelasger gelten ja ebenso nicht als Griechen und dennoch rühmten sich die Griechen damals pelasgischer Herkunft.
    Gibt auch Versionen von Einwanderungen Indogermanischer Stämme, die auf ein kulturell weitentwickeltes asiatisch geprägtes Volk trafen, sich mit ihnen vermischten und ihrer Kultur ich sage mal vorsichtig "bedienten" und weiterentwickelten.
    Dunkles Zeitalter eben

  4. #694
    Avatar von Achillis TH

    Registriert seit
    29.12.2011
    Beiträge
    12.535
    Ich Kriege Kopfschmerzen mit das was ich Hoere.

  5. #695

    Registriert seit
    02.11.2011
    Beiträge
    3.316
    Zitat Zitat von Macedonian Beitrag anzeigen
    Slawen aus F.Y.R.O.M, welche sich mit offiziellen griechischen und bulgarischen Staatsemblemen schmücken und Geschichte auf Kosten anderer Völker klauen





    Macedonian

    denk dir nix die Fyromskis verwechseln Birne mit äpfel! Da fällt mir dass ein.


  6. #696

    Registriert seit
    02.11.2011
    Beiträge
    3.316

  7. #697

    Registriert seit
    02.11.2011
    Beiträge
    3.316
    Zitat Zitat von Zoran Beitrag anzeigen
    Nope, ich meinte die Ülürer die in ihrer Enzyklopädie behaupten Sie seien älter als die Griechen.

    Oder hab ich den Text/Artikel falsch verstanden?

    auch wenn die albaner sich als antik behaupten da ist was wahres drann, aber wenn die Fyromskis als antik behaupten wollen usw weiß mitlerweile jedes kleinkind dass das eine LÜGE ist.

    Zoranvic, mein bulgarozigeuner Freund verstehst du den unterschied immer noch nicht.!!! Einfacher zu erklären geht es wirklich nicht

    + + =

  8. #698
    Avatar von Zoran

    Registriert seit
    10.08.2011
    Beiträge
    27.750
    NATO can’t let Macedonia fall by the wayside at Chicago
    NATO can
    By Sally Painter, COO, Blue Star Strategies, LLC. - 04/04/12 11:58 AM ET

    The 2012 NATO summit, set to take place in Chicago in late May, is almost upon us – and the agenda will help define the shape of transatlantic cooperation for the coming years. Important topics for discussion include a new “smart defense” strategy, terrorism, and the ongoing transformation of the allied mission in Afghanistan.

    Yet a central pillar of NATO – the enlargement and strengthening of the alliance – has fallen off the agenda. This must be remedied. When countries such as Macedonia, which have met all necessary requirements and continually contribute to the alliance’s collective defense, are denied access, it weakens the core regional goals of security, stability, and prosperity.

    Recently, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave an impassioned defense of the alliance, arguing that the key to achieving its ambitious collective goals requires “renewing the bond” between allies based on their membership in an “extended family of values”. He is right -- such bonds ensure not only mutual security, but also a broader feedback loop of peace, democratic institutions, and economic prosperity. Unfortunately, he fails to mention that progress on strengthening those very bonds, through the accession process, has largely stalled.

    At a time when Europe is struggling with the ongoing financial crisis, renewing NATO’s commitment to its open door policy would reflect positively on the health of the European project. It would also send a strong message regarding its commitment to continue its partnership with those in its “family of values”. On the other hand, barring the accession of Macedonia until it can settle its interminable naming dispute with a crisis-rocked Greek government would weaken the alliance, contravene the decisions of important bodies such as the UN and the International Court of Justice, and could slow the momentum for any progress on regional issues such as the ongoing Serbia-Kosovo tensions.

    The North Atlantic Treaty provides that any European state that qualifies for membership and that can contribute to the alliance’s security is eligible for membership. Macedonia is highly qualified on both of these fronts. It has long contributed to NATO’s joint security, participating in the regional peace missions in 1999 as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It completed its Membership Action Plan in 2008 – normally the final step before admission – before it was blocked by a Greek veto.



    Only three months ago, however, the International Court of Justice, by an overwhelming margin of 15-1, declared that veto illegal under the terms of a 1995 bilateral UN agreement between the two countries. The Court flatly stated that the naming issue cannot be used as a pretext to deny Macedonia membership – and yet Secretary General Rasmussen has maintained that the decision changes nothing, and that Macedonia’s accession can come only after the resolution of that dispute. Which, practically speaking, puts the accession process on hold for the foreseeable future.
    So why the foot dragging? Delay in enlargement could have negative impact on regional stability and raise troubling questions about the institutional health of the alliance. Denying Macedonia sets a dangerous precedent for other regional rivalries that one country can indefinitely filibuster the entrance of another. This could prove to be an incentive for holding the NATO accession process hostage to bilateral grievances. NATO should be a force for binding European nations ever closer together through mutual sacrifice and mutual interests, this position has the opposite effect.

    Ironically, making progress on this issue is key for fulfilling the ambitious collective security goals that the secretary general has laid out. The threats that he correctly cites as the “most pressing” of our time – terrorism, piracy, energy security, weapons proliferation – are all largely transnational in nature, meaning that combating them requires more cooperation and integration, not less. The kind of reforms that aspirant countries undertake to strengthen their institutions and fight corruption are exactly the kind of reforms that will, to cite just one example, make it harder to smuggle nuclear materials from Russia through Georgia into Europe. Yet aspirants such as Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro are being sent a message that enlargement is not a priority.

    This must change. NATO has an opportunity at the Chicago Summit to place enlargement back on the agenda and reinvigorate the alliance. Senator Dick Lugar recently introduced the NATO Enhancement Act to encourage further enlargement of NATO and deepen US strategic partnership with NATO allies, specifically pointing out Central and Eastern European aspiring countries. “NATO enlargement has been a key element to enhancing stability and political reform among the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans.” Lugar said. “The prospect of membership in NATO has not only improved regional security, it is helping to transform nations into close economic and national security partners of the United States.”

    With the ICJ ruling, the legal and political path is clear to complete Macedonia’s accession, and that would in itself place pressure on Greece to accept a compromise solution and put to rest a poisonous ethnic dispute. Such a step would reaffirm NATO’s commitment to strengthening the alliance – which, as the secretary general himself writes, must be “an alliance that is constantly changing to meet the security challenges of today and tomorrow.” The Summit in Chicago is the time and place for the NATO allies to show leadership and readiness for enlargement and an “open door” policy for all qualifying members.

    Painter is Chief Operating Officer at Blue Star Strategies, LLC, a Washington DC-based firm that conducts global government relations strategies for corporations and governments.

  9. #699
    Avatar von Zoran

    Registriert seit
    10.08.2011
    Beiträge
    27.750
    What’s in a name? For Macedonia, everything.
    What
    Posted By Josh Rogin Wednesday, April 4, 2012 - 11:50 AM Share

    When NATO countries meet for their summit in Chicago this May, four countries will be vying for membership in the transatlantic alliance. For the small Balkan country of Macedonia, the only thing holding it back is its name.

    Bosnia still has some constitutional reforms to enact before it can be eligible for NATO membership. Georgia, recent named an "aspirant" NATO member, has its bid tied up by the Russian occupation of two of its territories. Montenegro has been granted its NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP), the final step before membership, and is moving towards accession at a steady pace. But for Macedonia, which was granted MAP status way back in 1999, there likely won't be any formal membership invitation in Chicago because NATO member Greece is still demanding that the Republic of Macedonia change its name.

    "Macedonia's bid was blocked by Greece because of a 17-year row over the country's name," the BBC reported at the time of NATO's 2008 summit in Bucharest. "Athens says it implies a territorial claim on its northern province -- also called Macedonia -- and wants the former Yugoslav republic to change its name to New or Upper Macedonia."

    Now, four years later, the dispute is no closer to being solved. Tuesday, 54 members of Congress wrote to President Barack Obama to ask him to break the logjam.

    "We strongly urge your administration to make sure that NATO finally offers the Republic of Macedonia its well deserved formal invitation to join the alliance during the Chicago summit," reads the letter, led by Reps. Candice Miller (R-MI) and Mike Turner (R-OH).

    The letter points out that Macedonia has achieved all membership criteria to merit a NATO membership invitation and quotes Obama as saying in April 2009: "I look forward to the day when we can welcome Macedonia into the alliance."

    Macedonia was the staging area for NATO operations in Kosovo in 1990, offered refuge to 360,000 Kosovars, and has fought alongside NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the letter states. "If Macedonia can protect the tent of NATO, Macedonia should be able to sleep in the tent of NATO," it reads.

    Congressional support for Macedoniaa's accession is also codified two bills in Congress. The Senate's version of the NATO Enhancement Act of 2012 was introduced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Republican Richard Lugar (R-IN) and the House version was introduced by Turner.

    But the dispute over the name of the country is still standing in the way.

    Vice President Joseph Biden met with Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski in Washington in February 2011, after which the White House said in a statement, "The Vice President expressed the hope that Macedonia and Greece resolve together the longstanding ‘name issue' so that Macedonia can move forward on seeking NATO membership and fulfilling its Euro-Atlantic aspirations."

    Last December, advocates of Macedonia's NATO accession thought they had found the solution, when the International Court of Justice ruled by a 15-1 vote that Greece had breached its international obligations by objecting to NATO membership for the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia," a name the Macedonians believe is a reasonable compromise.

    But for the Obama administration, that ruling hasn't changed the state of the dispute. Asked for comment by The Cable, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor referred to the following statement issued at the 2008 Bucharest summit:

    We recognise the hard work and the commitment demonstrated by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to NATO values and Alliance operations. We commend them for their efforts to build a multi-ethnic society. Within the framework of the UN, many actors have worked hard to resolve the name issue, but the Alliance has noted with regret that these talks have not produced a successful outcome. Therefore we agreed that an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached. We encourage the negotiations to be resumed without delay and expect them to be concluded as soon as possible.

    "Allies remain committed to this position," Vietor said.

Seite 70 von 70 ErsteErste ... 20606667686970

Ähnliche Themen

  1. Griechenland akzeptierte Mazedonien schoneinmal
    Von mk1krv1 im Forum Diskussionen Griechenland vs. Mazedonien
    Antworten: 323
    Letzter Beitrag: 09.10.2012, 16:23
  2. Antworten: 684
    Letzter Beitrag: 12.12.2011, 11:49
  3. Antworten: 52
    Letzter Beitrag: 06.02.2010, 16:19
  4. Mazedonien verklagt Griechenland
    Von cro_Kralj_Zvonimir im Forum Politik
    Antworten: 672
    Letzter Beitrag: 31.10.2009, 04:41