Jump to content


Photo

Is This A Joke?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Vigil

Vigil

    BANNED!!!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 665 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 02:58 AM

Baku Today

Azerbaijanis in Moscow rally for Artsax

Baku Today 15/03/2004 18:35

Movement for Azerbaijan in Moscow has rallied in front of Armenian Embassy
last week, Turan News Agency said.
More than hundred Azerbaijanis have demanded Armenia to obey the four UN
resolutions over Nagorno-Artsax conflict that urge Armenia to move out
of Azerbaijani lands.
The rally participants have handed a petition to the Armenian Embassy.

THE DAY TURKEY GIVES BACK ARMENIAN SOIL THAT THEY TOOK BY RAPEING, BUTCHERING, AND STEALING IT FROM THE ARMENIANS IS THE DAY THAT ARMENIANS MIGHT CONSIDER THIS IDEA.

Is it me or do you guys sense a double standard imposed by Turks?

Edited by Vigil, 31 May 2004 - 04:03 AM.


#2 gurgen

gurgen

    You talking to me?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,031 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Interests:tennis, chess, football (the real one), games

Posted 16 March 2004 - 11:24 AM

They won't get too far with demonstrating in Moscow. The Russians despise the Azerbadjanis.

In fact, they get beat up even more often by skinheads than the Armenians in Moscow.

Edited by gurgen, 16 March 2004 - 11:24 AM.


#3 America-Hye

America-Hye

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,093 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 11:29 AM

Any discussion of this sort must include the Armenian provinces presently in Turkish hands. The treaty that gave up these lands was signed between the Russian Soviets and the Republic of Turkey in 1921 in Moscow, not by the Armenian government. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, the treaty is null and void. Armenia was not a party to that treaty.

#4 Sebastia

Sebastia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2004 - 02:38 PM

QUOTE (Vigil @ Mar 16 2004, 02:58 AM)
THE DAY TURKEY GIVES BACK ARMENIAN SOIL THAT THEY TOOK BY RAPEING, BUTCHERING, AND STEALING IT FROM THE ARMENIANS IS THE DAY THAT ARMENIANS MIGHT CONSIDER THIS IDEA.

not really, the thing is that all the land that Armenians have occupied in azerbaijan actually belong to Armenia. No matter what turkey does(gives the lans back or whatever), Armenia still won't get any soldiers out. why?....because Artsax and everything else below the kur river rightfully belong to us as the history proves this.

#5 angel4hope

angel4hope

    look at me...i can fly!...sploosh!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts
  • Location:a flicker in yur neuronal connectivities
  • Interests:too many to list... btw i love eye candy! therefore my addiction, and hence my diabetes :(

Posted 16 March 2004 - 02:39 PM

seb sorry but i had 2 say it- i know its off topic but ur avatar his hilarious- man is it just me or is everyone here soo funny 2 day? nm i guess its me- aye i think everythings funny .... hahahah sMiLe

#6 angel4hope

angel4hope

    look at me...i can fly!...sploosh!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts
  • Location:a flicker in yur neuronal connectivities
  • Interests:too many to list... btw i love eye candy! therefore my addiction, and hence my diabetes :(

Posted 16 March 2004 - 02:44 PM

and to get right back on topic- good point america-hye- but u reallythink someones gonna step up and do that? or give us our land back? besides theyre fighting for land- but not looking at the economy of the country and the lifestyles of some people-- basically there is no middle class in armenia- youre either really rich or youre not- youre poor- well if you consider middle class to be that in which people have a steady and reasonable income- there isnt muh hope for that there- my point being that instead of thinking wisely and trying to improve the economyand lifestyle of armenia and armenians- they are wasting time trying to acquire land- because inch en aneloo with the land- if they dont know how to use its resources and what not.....

#7 Vigil

Vigil

    BANNED!!!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 665 posts

Posted 16 March 2004 - 02:50 PM

QUOTE
not really, the thing is that all the land that Armenians have occupied in azerbaijan actually belong to Armenia. No matter what turkey does(gives the lans back or whatever), Armenia still won't get any soldiers out. why?....because Artsax and everything else below the kur river rightfully belong to us as the history proves this.


You are right, but what I meant is that they are asking for somthing that is never going to happen.

Edited by Vigil, 31 May 2004 - 04:04 AM.


#8 Sebastia

Sebastia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2004 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (Vigil @ Mar 16 2004, 02:50 PM)
You are right, but what I meant is that they are asking for somthing that is never going to happen.

The Ironic part is that today was the day when stalin and ataturk decided the faith of our homeland. It was today that Artsakh, Nachijevan were given to azerbaijan and Kars and Van were given to turkey.

#9 Sebastia

Sebastia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2004 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (angel4hope @ Mar 16 2004, 02:39 PM)
seb sorry but i had 2 say it- i know its off topic but ur avatar his hilarious- man is it just me or is everyone here soo funny 2 day? nm i guess its me- aye i think everythings funny .... hahahah sMiLe

Thanks Angel, i laughed at it for a while too laugh.gif

#10 KnightOfArmenia

KnightOfArmenia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 09:37 PM

Actually, Armenia ISN'T bound to the Treaty of Kars (signed between the Armenian SSR and turkey), but not only for that reason.

The Treaty of Kars (October 1921) affirms the Treaty of Moscow on the matters pertaining to the Armenian Question.

The Treaty of Moscow (March 1921) affirms the Treaty of Alexandropol on the matters pertaining to the Armenian Question.

The Treaty of Alexandropol (December 1920) was signed by Gen. Karabekir of turkey and Alexander Khatisian, who, although a former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, was NOT in the government during the signing of the treaty (and was, indeed, a private citizen when the treaty was signed. Although the Bolsheviks, unlike what the Armenian Republic officials believed, did not denounce the treaty, that does not make it any more legal: as Khatisian did not have the authority to make such a deal, the treaty was illegal, and since the current Republic of Armenia has not ratified the Treaty of Kars, they still have a legitimate and legal claim to the lands awarded to Armenia by the Treaty of Sevres, which HAD been ratified by Armenia.

#11 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 03 June 2004 - 10:27 PM

Knight, treaties never mattered and will never matter. The one who has a big fat army always wins. If you're trying to defend Armenia from Turkey consider increasing their cost of an attack. If this cost is sifficiently high they will not attack, if not they will attack no matter what.
At present Turkey is not going to attack Armenia even if Armenia and Azerbaijan are locked in a bloody massacre again. Only in one case when Azerbaijan's being/not being will be questioned Turket will consider helping them directly. Otherwise, Turkey will occassionaly threaten with air intrussions, even occassional bombings but never send troops on Armenia because Turkey has a very fragile security system. It only looks strong. As soon as it attacks Armenia it will face joint Iranian, Syrian responce in the East, a real threat of emerging Kurdistan, Greek and Bulgarian political pressure etc.
Moreover, Turkish direct attack on Armenia is the final trap for Turkey. If they want the Wilson plan and Sevre to be on the table again attacking Armenia is the best way.
They could also consider just shelling Yerevan which they can do at a minimal cost, which will result in big psychological pressure for Armenia but I'm sure Turks no the following.
The West tolerates Turkey only in its current shape and only as a huge millitary base. When Russia is out of Caucasus and Iraq more or less settled Turkey is next on the list. The worst thing they could do in this case is to attack Armenia. They will be finished that very day.
Turkey's problem is not Armenia, not Karabagh. It has a more dangerous threat to face. It doesn't fit the regional design of the West. I mean where do you put present Turkey? Europe? Middle East? The only way is to devide it between Europe and the Middle East.
When this time comes we must have a relatively strong army just to hold in for some months.

#12 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 03 June 2004 - 10:50 PM

QUOTE (ArmenSarg @ Jun 4 2004, 12:27 AM)
treaties never mattered and will never matter.

Finally someone understands this on this board smile.gif Treaty is a just a piece of paper reflecting the real power relationships of the time. What matters is the real power of a nation, not the paper. Even if there was a treaty stating that half of the world belonged to Armenia, would it be worth a penny? Not really.

Armen, but I would not share your optimism regarding Turkey's diminished importance. The scenarios that you are describing may not be realistic.

#13 KnightOfArmenia

KnightOfArmenia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 11:33 PM

As long as "order" in some semblance exists in the world, treaties will matter, if only for justifying later action. Justification IS important (note how heavily the US tried to justify its war against Iraq and make that ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing"). Obviously might makes right, but treaties are a good way of increasing that might (they are one of the strongest forms of transforming hard power into soft power and vice-versa).

#14 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 04 June 2004 - 02:55 AM

QUOTE (Sasun @ Jun 3 2004, 10:50 PM)
Armen, but I would not share your optimism regarding Turkey's diminished importance. The scenarios that you are describing may not be realistic.

Sasun, you may be true. I just have one question. Are the Amercians going to establish a Kurdish state?

#15 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 04 June 2004 - 03:06 AM

QUOTE (KnightOfArmenia @ Jun 3 2004, 11:33 PM)
As long as "order" in some semblance exists in the world, treaties will matter, if only for justifying later action. Justification IS important (note how heavily the US tried to justify its war against Iraq and make that ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing"). Obviously might makes right, but treaties are a good way of increasing that might (they are one of the strongest forms of transforming hard power into soft power and vice-versa).

Armenia is in a position were hard power is what we have to be concerned about. We are few in number, we are not considered "a market" by any country, we have no strategic territorial deepness for retreat and we're landlocked. No one is going to listen to us if we bring papers as arguments. That has always been our mistake.
People look at your papers only if you show them your gun. Just review the history of the treaties you listed above. Current international situation may seem relatively stable but Caucasus may become Balkans any moment. I don't remember treaties playing any role in the Balkans in 1990-1995.
I agree that treates have an importance as a justification but not in our case. You need to be an important country like Iraq (oil) to be worth a justification. No one was concerned with either Rwanda or Bosnia although there were UN calls for action, resolution etc.

#16 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 04 June 2004 - 08:00 AM

QUOTE (KnightOfArmenia @ Jun 4 2004, 01:33 AM)
As long as "order" in some semblance exists in the world, treaties will matter, if only for justifying later action. Justification IS important (note how heavily the US tried to justify its war against Iraq and make that ridiculous "Coalition of the Willing"). Obviously might makes right, but treaties are a good way of increasing that might (they are one of the strongest forms of transforming hard power into soft power and vice-versa).

Well, treaties matter as much as what is behind them matter. Treaty is a commonly understood and agreed upon scheme of relationships. The existence of a treaty means that there is something real behind it, and that the parties involved see it the same way and agree. So yes, treaties matter but only when what is real behind them matter. If time passes and powers change, the relationships change, treaties become obsolete pieces of paper useful in archives, and the relationships of the past become history with or without any bearing on the present, depending on the situation.
In our case, the treaties mentioned above do not correspond to the reality of the present. Armenia is not as fragile as back then, Turkey is not the same, Russia is not the same, the world is not the same. Can an old treaty undo all the changes that have happened throughout time? My point is, we are not bound by those treaties per se, neither we can rely on a treaty because it is written on a paper. If at a given time an old treaty becomes realistic for the present then we can quote it and use for our advantage. But I don't think that is a guaranteed course of action. So in the end, not the treaties of the past but the present opportunities matter. If we are powerful enough we can make new treaties that reflect that power and play in our advantage. There cannot be a shortage of advantagous treaties if there is an advantage but there is a shortage of advantages as of present.

#17 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 04 June 2004 - 08:16 AM

QUOTE (ArmenSarg @ Jun 4 2004, 04:55 AM)
Sasun, you may be true. I just have one question. Are the Amercians going to establish a Kurdish state?

In all likelihood no. They never said they would. Even if they said they would, they still would not deliver as usual. So given that they rule out a Kurish state the chances are very small that this will happen.
As it is now it is easier to control the Kurds. If they were given a state they would be harder to control and have influence on, so there is no benefit for Americans to create a Kurdish state. But certainly Kurds are useful for them with the limited power and autonomy that they have. They are as well a good threat to Iran, Turkey and Iraq in the hands of the US if the US chooses to push for such a state.

#18 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 04 June 2004 - 09:03 AM

QUOTE (Sasun @ Jun 4 2004, 02:00 PM)
Well, treaties matter as much as what is behind them matter. Treaty is a commonly understood and agreed upon scheme of relationships. The existence of a treaty means that there powerful enough we can make new treaties that reflect that power and play in our advantage.



Treaties do matter only when they are backed by a "ladle of steel" as opposed to Khrimian Hayrik's Tughte Sherep (Ladle of Paper).
Have Armenia and Armenians learned a lesson?
I think so!
To never again be caught by surprise!
WWI broke out.
We were not in any shape or form to take advantage.
On the contrary we were caught by surprise, and we were CAUGHT.
Skip, skip....
The USSR dissolved.
Once again we were unprepared. We have no long term vision!
Anatolia WILL implode. I am convinced of this. I will not call it Turkey since the latter is an artificial state. The "Decline and Fall" of the Ottoman Empire that was mercifully halted at a certain time WILL resume.
Are we ready?
Do we have "ladles" other than that of paper?
You may say we are small and poor. There are other states, one in particular that is much smaller, a state that is mainly a desert with no topography to hide such that is rumored to have "ladles" made of steel and radiant matter. Who will help us develop such "ladles"? It seems at the present not the West.
Don't count your chickens yet!
Remember Iraq that one time was a "staunch ally" of the West?
Rich natural resources. With pipelines to the north through Turkey, to the South at the Persian Gulf, to the west through Syria. Then! Pop! A demigod who assumed he could get away with murder.
Which brings to mind that other demigod aka "Saddam" Ilham of Baku. He may be betting on piplines to the north, south, east and west.
Wait till he becomes too big for his britches. Wait till he becomes too fat, too confident.
His land is not so uniformly monolithic either.
Wait till he becomes too emboldened to try and reclaim what they call Zangelan/Zangezoor. Wait till he becomes brash enough to reclaim what they call Iranian Azerbaijan!
I firmly beieve many of these scenarios will happer if not all.
Are we ready?
Do we have "ladles" other than the paper ones?
Do we have a plan?
How long a plan is it?
One year?
Ten years?
A hundred years?

#19 Sasun

Sasun

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ, USA
  • Interests:Art, Yoga, Spirituality

Posted 04 June 2004 - 09:50 AM

QUOTE (Arpa @ Jun 4 2004, 11:03 AM)
Wait till he becomes too emboldened to try and reclaim what they call Zangelan/Zangezoor.

This is quite likely to happen.

QUOTE
Wait till he becomes brash enough to reclaim what they call Iranian Azerbaijan!


But this is hard to do. A small country claiming a large chunk of a much larger country, well they can claim but can they really have it? If it comes to claims (manifesting as conflict & war) the opposite scenario is more likely to happen - Iran claiming and taking part of Azerbaijan, they had it before smile.gif

#20 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 04 June 2004 - 10:26 AM

QUOTE (Sasun @ Jun 4 2004, 03:50 PM)
This is quite likely to happen.



But this is hard to do. A small country claiming a large chunk of a much larger country, well they can claim but can they really have it? If it comes to claims (manifesting as conflict & war) the opposite scenario is more likely to happen - Iran claiming and taking part of Azerbaijan, they had it before smile.gif

I may understand your premise.
You may be saying; "how can such a small nation contend to rule over a larger territory"?
Let's see some examples.
Sudan; Area 996,500 sq mi, the largest country in Africa, one quarter the size of the US. Pop. 27 million, density 28 per sq. mi.
Next door Chad: 495,765 sq. mi. Pop. 5 million, density 11/sq mi.
Are any of the above more sophisticated than Yerevan Province?
Neither of these may be a model for Armenia.
Let us consider some closer to home.
Montana: 147,046 sq mi. Pop. 808,000, less than a million. Density 5.5/sq mi.
Alaska: 591,000 sq mi. Pop. 570,345 (1/2 million). Density, 0.99/sq mi.
As stated none of these may be used as a model for...
Yerevan Province: 11,000 sq mi. Pop. 3.5 million, density one of the densest in the world, 291/sq mi.

Once again none of the above may be compared, all the listed above are hundreds of times larger yet it seems with proper administration and authority many people are ruling over vast lands which are above and beyond their absolute need and at times beyond their absolute capability.
Shall we throw in the towel so to speak or can we hope and, PLAN, the keyword being PLAN for a land that will make our Homeland adequate to at leat make the population density slightly more amenable than it is?
Abatolia may be the next piece of real estate to "come and get it".

DON'T GET CAUGHT WITH YOUR GUARADS DOWN AGAIN!!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users