When Italians were illegal migrants to Romania

[mihaitzateo]

http://www.ziarulunirea.ro/cand-imi...-incerca-sa-i-opreasca-la-granita-322415.html
There is an article,about how it was in Romania,before Bolshevik regime came.
Lots of Italians were coming as immigrants,to be able to make a living.
And Romanian authorities were making lots of efforts to stop them at borders.
For Italians,that do not believe it,here is the original Italian version of the article:
http://parma.repubblica.it/dettagli...-e-la-romania-non-voleva-gli-italiani/1617963

 

[Angela]

http://www.ziarulunirea.ro/cand-imi...-incerca-sa-i-opreasca-la-granita-322415.html
There is an article,about how it was in Romania,before Bolshevik regime came.
Lots of Italians were coming as immigrants,to be able to make a living.
And Romanian authorities were making lots of efforts to stop them at borders.
For Italians,that do not believe it,here is the original Italian version of the article:
http://parma.repubblica.it/dettagli...-e-la-romania-non-voleva-gli-italiani/1617963

Other than trying to provoke another "war", what exactly is the point of this post? I came to the U.S. totally legally, as did all of my family. However, if I was a desperately poor mother living in Mexico, surrounded by gun toting drug dealing gangs who steal young boys and girls for forced prostitution, and try to recruit young boys into their gangs, I'm pretty sure that I would try to swim the Rio Grande with my children to get into America too, legal or not. I bet that you would too.

That's different from saying that the targets of this immigration can or necessarily should absorb all these people or that there aren't better ways for developed countries to try to help the situation than by taking an unending stream of migrants.

Then that is again a separate issue from how do these people comport themselves in the host country if they are permitted to stay. Do they learn their "new" language and try to assimilate or not? Do they, for example, actively work to undermine the institutions and values of the host country?

 

[mihaitzateo]

The point of this thread is to show that Romania was, before our great friends from US and UK gave us to mindless USSR bolsheviks,one of the most rich countries in Europe.
Romania was most rich country from Eastern Europe and Central Europe,more rich than even Austria.
Bolsheviks came and killed lots from Romania elite,a lot of the elite emigrated etc.
Search for example about Eugene Ionesco,which is one of big French writers,of Romanian origin,or about Constantin Brancusi.
I will make a link to this post,on the "whom Crimea should belong to" thread,so partisans of Putin's Mongol-Tatar half-bolshevik regime will understand how good was bolshevisms .
Italy is not a very rich country,as natural resources,but because of free market and innovation is one of the first 8 world economies now.
Russia,a much richer country,as soil resources and so on,and having a much more large population,3 times as many people as Italy has,is having a weaker economy,than Italy has.

 

[Angela]

The point of this thread is to show that Romania was, before our great friends from US and UK gave us to mindless USSR bolsheviks,one of the most rich countries in Europe.
Romania was most rich country from Eastern Europe and Central Europe,more rich than even Austria.
Bolsheviks came and killed lots from Romania elite,a lot of the elite emigrated etc.
Search for example about Eugene Ionesco,which is one of big French writers,of Romanian origin,or about Constantin Brancusi.
I will make a link to this post,on the "whom Crimea should belong to" thread,so partisans of Putin's Mongol-Tatar half-bolshevik regime will understand how good was bolshevisms .
Italy is not a very rich country,as natural resources,but because of free market and innovation is one of the first 8 world economies now.
Russia,a much richer country,as soil resources and so on,and having a much more large population,3 times as many people as Italy has,is having a weaker economy,than Italy has.

You will get no arguments from me about what a tragedy it was for Romania to come under the Soviet sphere, although Ceaucescu did more damage yet...

I was there at that time, and I saw it...flat, fertile fields that didn't yield anything like their capacity because of the stupid collectivization...antiquated factories creating substandard products and at the same time spewing filth and poisoning the environment and the people...Romanian families forced to live in cold, dark apartments where they got electricity only for an hour or so a day, and having to wait on endless lines for bread or a few potatoes. It was horrifying. Even in my hotel in Burcharest there was barely anything to eat, and if my Romanian colleagues hadn't made me paranoid enough, I actually found one of the "bugs" they use to spy on foreigners. In order to spend some "unsanctioned" time with them we had to skulk about like spies, racing around the streets at night to get away from my "minders". The only decent meal I had the whole time was when one of my intrepid colleagues took me up into Transylvania where some farmers were allowed to keep their own land. Lovely people, and lovely food btw. When I returned I mailed back bottles of vitamins, warm clothes, boots...all I did was get them into trouble.

People talk complete nonsense about what it was like behind the "Iron Curtain". It was a nightmare.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Angela,you should tell to Putin fans,how horrible was the life in Romania,during Bolshevik regime. Maybe they will tell I am lieing,but the bread,except in Bucharest,was on ratio.
And it was not even white bread....
They believe is a very wonderful life in Russia,now.

Now coming back to what Bolshevisk did:
I am not saying that Bucharest was a very good looking town,but was looking nice,before Bolsheviks came.
Bolsheviks came and demolished old buildings and people houses and instead build some uniform,ugly blocks....
They have not done this only in Romania,but in Poland,Czechoslovakia,Hungary,etc.
If people still do not believe me,well Prague,before Bolshevik came,was one of the most beautiful towns in the world.
Bolsheviks came and demolished beautiful buildings and did something like this:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-199...blocks-of-flats-in-prague-czech-republic.html
Imagine what would have happened if Bolsheviks would have spread further West and would have come to lead Italy,how Milano or Rome or other work of art cities in Italy,would look like.

 

[Angela]

Angela,you should tell to Putin fans,how horrible was the life in Romania,during Bolshevik regime. Maybe they will tell I am lieing,but the bread,except in Bucharest,was on ratio.
And it was not even white bread....
They believe is a very wonderful life in Russia,now.

Now coming back to what Bolshevisk did:
I am not saying that Bucharest was a very good looking town,but was looking nice,before Bolsheviks came.
Bolsheviks came and demolished old buildings and people houses and instead build some uniform,ugly blocks....
They have not done this only in Romania,but in Poland,Czechoslovakia,Hungary,etc.
If people still do not believe me,well Prague,before Bolshevik came,was one of the most beautiful towns in the world.
Bolsheviks came and demolished beautiful buildings and did something like this:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-199...blocks-of-flats-in-prague-czech-republic.html
Imagine what would have happened if Bolsheviks would have spread further West and would have come to lead Italy,how Milano or Rome or other work of art cities in Italy,would look like.

I remember very well how incensed people were over the destruction of the historical areas of the city. These people couldn't even leave the heritage alone. It's not all that dissimilar to what the Islamists do in the Near East. They destroy their own past in service to a new ideology.

Honestly, despite the political history of my own area of Italy, which had a very strong anarchist and communist history, I was never a fan, perhaps because my father wasn't, but also because if you read enough with an open mind, the dishonesty of the apologists in the west was just glaring. After seeing Romania, and Hungary, even if it wasn't as terrible, it was crystal clear to me that it was a failed ideology.

 

[Yetos]

@ mihaitzero


I do not know about Bolseviks in Romania,
in Romania that ideology was not wide spread
But I know that Romania had one of the ugliest and terrible dictators,
Νicolae Ceaușescu
a man worst than Dracula,

but significant is that most of ex-Communist party members sons and daughters, today work for Banks and cruel capitalism,
like her

she was a fun of Romanian communists and dictator ceausescu and now she is IMF dictator,
Velculescu her name

you see some people are borned this way,
they can not produce, or live, unless they are fed by people sweat and blood!!!

do not wory, many of these 'communist' today enter WEST, and they will burn WEST countries also.
parrots with no heart, either in capitalism either in communism

 

[mihaitzateo]

@ mihaitzero




do not wory, many of these 'communist' today enter WEST, and they will burn WEST countries also.
parrots with no heart, either in capitalism either in communism

You,Greeks are indeed very wise people.
Is exactly as you supposed,such unhuman people from communism entered Western Countries and they are starting to apply their unhuman methods there also.
I find it very weird,that Greece very strong economical crisis started sometime after Communism has fallen in Eastern Europe.
Maybe some of these ex-Bolshevik inhuman people got to give some of the "brilliant advises" to people with power from West.
I remember that such a very "intelligent" Romanian wrote an article in an UK newspaper proposing that children born with some disability should be euthanized.

 

[LeBrok]

I find it very weird,that Greece very strong economical crisis started sometime after Communism has fallen in Eastern Europe.

Actually this is 4th or 5th Greek economic crisis in last 100 years. I wish they learned from the past and finally elected people who know how the economy works. It is not going to happen though, because most Greeks think that all of these crises were caused on purpose by external enemy conspiring against Greeks, and not by their own bad governance. They don't even believe that EU, IMF or Germany wants to help them. They see it as never ending attempts to steal from Greeks, and economically enslave them.

Perhaps they see themselves as Christ of Europe. They need to suffer for sins of Europe.

 

[mihaitzateo]

IMF wants the good of the Cyprus?
Oh really.
IMF wants only the good of his too well paid people and is an organization that is not controlled by any state.
My opinion is that it should be disbanded.
US owns like 20% of the IMF,in theory,because in practice,average American do not owns anything.
I mean,the money of average American are going to government and government says,well it is deficit,we need to borrow money.
What a good idea,let us borrow from IMF!
So,US is borrowing money from US,is't this weird?
So the bankers are saying:
"So you average American ,you are lazy and incompetent!
Work more and be more efficient!"
It was that fun joke,that the world is in debt with I do not how many money.
But to whom is the in word in debt to,to aliens?
So LeBrok,you see,is not only Greece who has a lot of debt,Italy has also,Germany also has,US has,come on,how is that possible?
US debt is huge,how is that possible?
And to whom US has debt?
I have a suggestion,how about roles will be switched and bankers will be put to do low jobs,while people doing low jobs will be put as bankers?

 

[LeBrok]

IMF wants the good of the Cyprus?
Oh really.
IMF wants only the good of his too well paid people and is an organization that is not controlled by any state.
My opinion is that it should be disbanded.
US owns like 20% of the IMF,in theory,because in practice,average American do not owns anything.
I mean,the money of average American are going to government and government says,well it is deficit,we need to borrow money.
What a good idea,let us borrow from IMF!
So,US is borrowing money from US,is't this weird?

In last recession US chose rather to print money, not to borrow anymore.

So the bankers are saying:
"So you average American ,you are lazy and incompetent!
Work more and be more efficient!"
It was that fun joke,that the world is in debt with I do not how many money.
But to whom is the in word in debt to,to aliens?

Please acquaint yourself with the role of capital in today's economy. I don't have time to explain.

So LeBrok,you see,is not only Greece who has a lot of debt,Italy has also,Germany also has,US has,come on,how is that possible?
US debt is huge,how is that possible?
And to whom US has debt?

Everywhere, to their domestic banks, foreign banks, to privet citizens who buy government bonds, and even to Chinese government.

I have a suggestion,how about roles will be switched and bankers will be put to do low jobs,while people doing low jobs will be put as bankers?

How about you buy bank's shares and become partial owner of the bank of your choice. You will get dividend payment every quarter. You will make money on people who borrow money. Most banks are public companies with millions of owners. Easily you can be one of them. You can also choose to become a member of credit union. With membership comes automatic ownership. Interesting thing is that the more you borrow from credit union the more dividends or cash back you will collect.

 

[Angela]

To be fair, if Greece hadn't bought all those mortgage backed securities they might not be in quite such a mess. Most people had no idea how speculative and risky they were. Real estate values notoriously go through cycles. The "bubbles" eventually burst. Since these securities were based on mortgages their value would rise and fall with the real estate market.

Also, these securities were particularly dangerous because many of the underlying mortgages had been given out to people in the "sub prime market" without demanding a reasonable down payment and in some cases without even doing income checks. This was in part due to the government in the U.S. trying to push banks into giving mortgages to low income families. All very laudable, but not very sound economic policy. Not to say that the banks didn't rush in given that it meant more bonuses to individual loan officers, and more business for the banks themselves.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/mortgage-backed-security.htm

On the other hand, the Greek government of the time is just as culpable as the investment banking house. The sad fact is that the Greek government engaged in all sorts of skullduggery with banks to get into the Euro Zone when they would have been better off outside it. They thought that membership would mean that wealthier countries, primarily Germany, would support their debt. They should have realized that countries act only in their own self interest and that commitment to one trading zone, one currency, one government only went so far. Germany is for the E.U. and the Euro when it opens up markets for its goods, but not so fond of "real" unification because it would mean assumption of the debt of the poorer countries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16834815

https://books.google.com/books?id=L...34DwDA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mortgage backed securities and the greek recession&f=false

These are the sorts of problems that always seemed so inherent to me in the EU structure itself but which I rarely see discussed by Europeans, including my own family. I liken it to the problems encountered by the U.S. after they won their War of Independence. The Acts of Confederation provided for a very weak union which was unworkable. It led to such difficulties and instability that it had to be followed by the Constitution, which provided for an actual union.

If you're going to have a really United Europe, then people living in poorer areas are going to pay less in taxes and take more in terms of benefits and social services. That's the way that it works. When different entities come together, the debts are assumed by the united entity. That's what happened in the U.S. The country absorbed the debts of the poorer "states". Europe is in that transition stage. In my opinion, eiither they become a really economically and politically united region, or they go back to individual economies and perhaps just a free trade zone.

Maybe our Italian posters will chime in, but it's my understanding that one of the reasons Italy is not in such a bad situation as Greece is because the government and the very conservative Italian banks didn't buy these kinds of securities, and also because Italians are great savers, and they invest in their own banks. A big part of the Italian debt is owed to Italian banks and thus to the Italian people.

I don't know the particulars of the situation in Ireland, Portugal and Spain, although I know that the Spanish crash was also partly related to a real estate "bubble". There situation is discussed a bit in the google book above.

 

[mihaitzateo]

In last recession US chose rather to print money, not to borrow anymore.


Please acquaint yourself with the role of capital in today's economy. I don't have time to explain.


Everywhere, to their domestic banks, foreign banks, to privet citizens who buy government bonds, and even to Chinese government.

How about you buy bank's shares and become partial owner of the bank of your choice. You will get dividend payment every quarter. You will make money on people who borrow money. Most banks are public companies with millions of owners. Easily you can be one of them. You can also choose to become a member of credit union. With membership comes automatic ownership. Interesting thing is that the more you borrow from credit union the more dividends or cash back you will collect.

What millions of owners?

Banks started as a place were people could keep their money and other valuable things,in a safe place.
And they were needed to pay a small fee to keep their money and valuable things there.
What it came to now: banks now are allowed to borrow money they do not have,they borrow electronic money,for example,a bank has 1 billion US $ in deposits,but they are allowed to lend up to 100 billions $ or so.
That is highly illegal,it creates inflation.
A regulation will be needed here,for example,people deposited in my bank 1 billion $?
Well,than I am allowed to borrow only up to 2 billion $ by Federal regulation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

 

[LeBrok]

What millions of owners?

Did you ever hear about shareholders? This is how corporations are owned. You can buy any publicly traded shares on stock market. It is not a secret, you know.

Banks started as a place were people could keep their money and other valuable things,in a safe place.
And they were needed to pay a small fee to keep their money and valuable things there.

You are talking about a safe. Banks have safes and are also used to keep people's valuables in a safe place, but this is not a primary function of a bank. The primary function is to lend money to people and businesses. The beginning of modern banking took place in Italy around 15th century, in booming Renaissance.
Here is a great documentary about history of it. It is an award winning masterpiece, so please watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsrtB5lp60s

What it came to now: banks now are allowed to borrow money they do not have,they borrow electronic money,for example,a bank has 1 billion US $ in deposits,but they are allowed to lend up to 100 billions $ or so.
That is highly illegal,it creates inflation.

Well, why not a trillion times, lol? IIRC the multiple maximum the banks can lend is 14 or 17 times bank's deposits. In reality it is less, thanks to strict government regulation about commercial money creation and who can borrow money. At the end, Bank will keep the interest payed on a loan as a profit, but the principal amount payed by a borrower (people and businesses) will disappear from existence. So, there is no free money bank can create to make itself rich. Keep in mind that banks pay corporate income tax and bank employees pay tax too, therefore making all society richer. Thanks to these lending practices of modern banking, businesses can borrow money to expand production, to build new factories, to make new inventions, and also ordinary people can buy houses and cars when they are young. They don't need to save for 40 years to buy a house, but can enjoy good life much earlier. The most important thing is to keep everything in balance, how much to lend and borrow, not to get financially extended and to go bankrupt. Other than that, all modern civilization has been build on credit and capital. It is a good thing.

When a commercial bank loan is extended, new commercial bank money is created if the loan proceeds are issued in the form of an increase in a customer's demand deposit account (that is, an increase in the bank's demand deposit liability owed to the customer). As a loan is paid back through reductions in the demand deposit liabilities the bank owes to a customer, that commercial bank money disappears from existence. Because loans are continually being issued in a normally functioning economy, the amount of broad money in the economy remains relatively stable. Because of this money creation process by the commercial banks, the money supply of a country is usually a multiple larger than the money issued by the central bank; that multiple was traditionally determined by thereserve requirements and now essentially by other financial ratios (primarily the capital adequacy ratio that limits the overall credit creation of a bank) set by the relevant banking regulators in the jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

A regulation will be needed here,for example,people deposited in my bank 1 billion $?
Well,than I am allowed to borrow only up to 2 billion $ by Federal regulation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

Maybe in Romania. I can borrow up to 65 percent of my assets and up to 40% of my income ability to make monthly payments. It's just few regulations from a long list.

This article in guardian contains half truths on purpose to be more controversial, popular and to excite masses, who don't really know how banking works. It is very misleading to say the list.
This is the bases of modern world and whole economy, and is completely skipped by public education.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Lol,LeBrok banks makes everyone richer?
Liberalist Americans will not agree to you.
I do not agree with all that Liberalism say,but banks,as the lend money today,with 14 to 17 the deposits,are putting in danger the free market.
I am not a financial scientist but I think is not hard to understand that borrowing money that you do not have creates an infinite loop,that actually leads to inflation or the devaluation of certain currency.
For example,why the prices of houses in US raised so much,from 1990 till now?
Not because inflation?
Let me explain a simple thing,Bank X got 1 billion in deposits,from what people put there.
They are lending 15 billions to other people.
Let us suppose,most of these people are taking the money and buy houses with them.
The people that are selling the houses and put 10 billion of these virtual money in bank Y and bank Z accounts.
Is very simple,they make transfers,from bank X accounts to bank Y and bank Z accounts.
Now bank Y and bank Z considers these transferred money as real money,so they lending them again,they lend 10 times these money.
So now,from 1 billion $ we got to 100 billion $,on the market.
That is why a regulation is really needed,you are allowed to borrow let us say 5 times the paper money you have in your deposits.
Do you understand now,LeBrok,what is the problem with borrowing money that are not covered by paper notes emitted by Central Bank?
Because,if the scenario with Bank X,Bank Z and Bank Y happens and people hear about some crisis they went fast to take their money out of the banks,what will happen next?
Banks will be bankrupt Central Bank and government will be forced to intervene and print money and take money from budget,to save the banks.
And here is the whole people of the nation gets in high debt because some people were mindless and greedy in giving lends.

 

[Yetos]

Actually this is 4th or 5th Greek economic crisis in last 100 years. I wish they learned from the past and finally elected people who know how the economy works. It is not going to happen though, because most Greeks think that all of these crises were caused on purpose by external enemy conspiring against Greeks, and not by their own bad governance. They don't even believe that EU, IMF or Germany wants to help them. They see it as never ending attempts to steal from Greeks, and economically enslave them.

Perhaps they see themselves as Christ of Europe. They need to suffer for sins of Europe.

That has a big point of Truth,

But if I analyze you all crisis from Karaiskakis assasination and the first loan for revolt till the last and roll of Miranda Xafa and Siemens and goldman sachs you might say that there is also anothertruth,
so a better 50% of our own, and 50% of foreign policies to steal our Wealth,
since you are a polish, tell us, at the times of communistic era wasn't also a 50% fault of Polish people and party that 'the Big one' stole rich or left undeveloped?

 

[LeBrok]

Lol,LeBrok banks makes everyone richer?
Liberalist Americans will not agree to you.

Banks make all the society richer by lending capital to invest in new technology, factories, homes, job creation, etc. It is nothing new, it's been like this for last 500 years.

I do not agree with all that Liberalism say,but banks,as the lend money today,with 14 to 17 the deposits,are putting in danger the free market.
I am not a financial scientist but I think is not hard to understand that borrowing money that you do not have creates an infinite loop,that actually leads to inflation or the devaluation of certain currency.

It is not an infinite loop. Look at inflation, it is around 3% these days in Western Economies. If you had infinite money creation, inflation would be in hundreds, and banks sitting on quadrillions of dollars. It is not the case, even though some old banks exist for couple of hundred of years. Don't believe the article you posted.

For example,why the prices of houses in US raised so much,from 1990 till now?
Not because inflation?

Prices of homes mirror amount of money people make in cities. The more money people make the more expensive homes become. In my city homes are worth exactly the money needed for labour and materials to construct the house. You can't build a house for 500 thousand and sell it for 1 million. You could sell it for 600,000 sometimes when economy is very hot. Places with strongest economies or great retirement spots have more expensive homes, places with bad economy have much cheaper and smaller homes.
http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/

Let me explain a simple thing,Bank X got 1 billion in deposits,from what people put there.
They are lending 15 billions to other people.
Let us suppose,most of these people are taking the money and buy houses with them.
The people that are selling the houses and put 10 billion of these virtual money in bank Y and bank Z accounts.
Is very simple,they make transfers,from bank X accounts to bank Y and bank Z accounts.
Now bank Y and bank Z considers these transferred money as real money,so they lending them again,they lend 10 times these money.
So now,from 1 billion $ we got to 100 billion $,on the market.

Hugely theoretically and with big exaggeration. As I said before 3% inflation don't support this fantasy.
Ones you take a loan you have to pay it back. Once it is paid this money vanishes from the bank. This means bank can lend 10 times less now. It goes both ways, you know.

That is why a regulation is really needed,you are allowed to borrow let us say 5 times the paper money you have in your deposits.
Do you understand now,LeBrok,what is the problem with borrowing money that are not covered by paper notes emitted by Central Bank?

Do you understand that this system is in use for couple of hundreds of years, it works fine, and look at the world, it is getting better and better, people live longer and longer. And remember everybody has to pay back the loan to the bank, and this money is destroyed. Paper money, gold or just computer numbers make no difference here. Banks need to follow government regulations already. If not they are slapped with huge penalties. Regulators are less forgiving than ever. Last year in US and EU banks paid 65 billion in penalties.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-more-regulatory-nice-guy-for-banks-1419957394

Because,if the scenario with Bank X,Bank Z and Bank Y happens and people hear about some crisis they went fast to take their money out of the banks,what will happen next?
Banks will be bankrupt Central Bank and government will be forced to intervene and print money and take money from budget,to save the banks.
And here is the whole people of the nation gets in high debt because some people were mindless and greedy in giving lends.

System is not perfect and very complicated, but it works and benefits society. With time, I'm sure, we will invent a better financial tools to help businesses and public in their endeavors.

Get yourself some economic book to learn how this works, and stop getting excited on some articles dramatizing and demonizing things just to sell more newspapers.

 

[LeBrok]

That has a big point of Truth,

But if I analyze you all crisis from Karaiskakis assasination and the first loan for revolt till the last and roll of Miranda Xafa and Siemens and goldman sachs you might say that there is also anothertruth,
so a better 50% of our own, and 50% of foreign policies to steal our Wealth,
since you are a polish, tell us, at the times of communistic era wasn't also a 50% fault of Polish people and party that 'the Big one' stole rich or left undeveloped?

Poland couldn't do their own way because Soviet tanks would roll in and new poppet government would be installed. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were the prime examples of it. Tell me what tanks will roll in Greece if you refuse to follow EU recommendations? You can go your own way anytime you wish. You will just lose loans and EU membership, but this is it.

 

[Yetos]

Poland couldn't do their own way because Soviet tanks would roll in and new poppet government would be installed. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were the prime examples of it. Tell me what tanks will roll in Greece if you refuse to follow EU recommendations? You can go your own way anytime you wish. You will just lose loans and EU membership, but this is it.

I was not expecting such question from you

with US 6th fleet in our waters, Russian navy supply bases, Cyprus divided, and Turkey fighting airplanes flying in national airspace,

DO NOT FORGET,
WHEN POLAND WAS AFRAID SOVIET TANKS,
GREECE HAD US TANKS IN THE STREETS,
1967-1974 a US made Dictatorship planed by Henry Kissinger

So do not tell me bullshit about foreign 'parental guidance'
and do not tell me that Polish were more brave or had more danger,

GREECE IS THE ONLY EUROPEAN COUNTRY THAT HAD CIVIL WAR AFTER WW2, all the others like Spanish etc had before,
due to the bastard Communist Dimitrov which even ex-communistic Bulgaria expelled him
and had 7 years US dictatorship planed by the bastard Henry Kissinger,
wanna see tanks in Athens?

Athens under US Junda occupation

Communists at civil war



if Poland was afraid Soviet Tanks,
Greece learned well Soviet troopers and US tanks

we tried the 3rd solution the 3rd world like ex yugoslavia and India and Egypt at 1974-1978
and enter the 4rth solution EEC at 1978-1985


break back to thread,

 

[LeBrok]

I was not expecting such question from you

with US 6th fleet in our waters, Russian navy supply bases, Cyprus divided, and Turkey fighting airplanes flying in national airspace,

DO NOT FORGET,
WHEN POLAND WAS AFRAID SOVIET TANKS,
GREECE HAD US TANKS IN THE STREETS,
1967-1974 a US made Dictatorship planed by Henry Kissinger

So do not tell me bullshit about foreign 'parental guidance'
and do not tell me that Polish were more brave or had more danger,

GREECE IS THE ONLY EUROPEAN COUNTRY THAT HAD CIVIL WAR AFTER WW2, all the others like Spanish etc had before,
due to the bastard Communist Dimitrov which even ex-communistic Bulgaria expelled him
and had 7 years US dictatorship planed by the bastard Henry Kissinger,
wanna see tanks in Athens?

Athens under US Junda occupation

Communists at civil war



if Poland was afraid Soviet Tanks,
Greece learned well Soviet troopers and US tanks

we tried the 3rd solution the 3rd world like ex yugoslavia and India and Egypt at 1974-1978
and enter the 4rth solution EEC at 1978-1985


break back to thread,

Yetos, it is hard to respond to such insane post. It is delusional to blame whole world and all the conspiracies for Greece's problems.

I don't see American star on the tank. I'm sure if America wanted to conquer Greece under disguise they would use Russian or German tanks.
And why would they care to conquer poor Greece, for charity like EU did? Believe me, till you get your act together and become financially responsible and rich nation, nobody will want to own you.