US always has a choice. Democracy is not a permanent US value. It is applied selectively.
Mischaracterization Of Nagorno-karabagh
#21
Posted 25 January 2005 - 12:03 AM
US always has a choice. Democracy is not a permanent US value. It is applied selectively.
#22
Posted 25 January 2005 - 03:24 PM
Are democratically elected governments immune to that? There is a deficiency of transparency and accountability if that is the case.
#23
Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:07 PM
True but iin this cases it is contradictory with the US global position... devide, instore democracy and rule.
Artsakh is all the above, in this case, it was a compleat ignorant statment, from someone that may be considered insignificant. So the appology followed.
#25
Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:10 PM
Artsakh is all the above, in this case, it was a compleat ignorant statment, from someone that may be considered insignificant. So the appology followed.
Saying something on purpose and appologising is not that rare in politics.
#26
Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:26 PM
#27
Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:43 PM
US Assistant State Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Elizabeth Jones...
She is far from being a US offificial, she is on the bottom of the chene that made an irrelevent statment by naming regimes just to show she knew of what she was talking about and Artsakh happened to be in her list.
I don't think that this insignificant statment displayed any US intention... the claim is obviously wrong, and she understood in what position she was when she knew that the government she calls criminal was democratically elected and that there were international observers on the scene during the elections. The elections there were exemplary, unlike Armenia.
#28
Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:43 PM
Fine, but I still don't get what you were not agreeing with my statment.
#29
Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:59 PM
#30
Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:05 PM
so you're saying that Artsakh government is "criminal" after all?
#31
Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:07 PM
BS! Let me requote: "for corruption to end there, for criminal secessionists who rule there"
The "criminality" here is not only because Artsakh government is not recognised... the government there has been democratically elected, those ruling are intellectuals whom have not used violence to take power. The corruption stories like the drug traphi stuff are nothing more than rumors waged by the Azeris side without any valid evidences.
#33
Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:59 PM
She is far from being a US offificial, she is on the bottom of the chene that made an irrelevent statment by naming regimes just to show she knew of what she was talking about and Artsakh happened to be in her list.
I don't think that this insignificant statment displayed any US intention... the claim is obviously wrong, and she understood in what position she was when she knew that the government she calls criminal was democratically elected and that there were international observers on the scene during the elections. The elections there were exemplary, unlike Armenia.
Maybe US president does not view her as an important official but she definitely is an important US official for the foreign minister of Armenia who spoke with her. Or else he would assign some electrician of the ministry to handle her. I showed that she is very important. When she arrives to Armenia, the president meets her. Do you want any more proves?
I can't understand what do you want to say. You say she is wrong? Yes, she is. But you can't say that her statement does not have an impact. Just view what it caused back in Armenia.
#34
Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:12 PM
I can't understand what do you want to say. You say she is wrong? Yes, she is. But you can't say that her statement does not have an impact. Just view what it caused back in Armenia.
Armen, correct me if I am wrong, the US financial help to Artsakh is administrated by its government. Is there many other non-recognised State whom the US financialy assist the government openly(not under the carpet) by letting it administrate all this money?
With a message like this, this women indirectly said that the US government finance a criminal government... and with the so-called anti-terrorist propaganda, I don't think that that was politicaly correct... So I have to conclude it was a mistake.
#35
Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:16 PM
I wasn't referring to the Artsakh government specifically but most governments. I have a problem with saying democratic governments are synonymous with righteous conduct. It should be the case, but isn't in almost all countries.
#36
Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:26 PM
With a message like this, this women indirectly said that the US government finance a criminal government... and with the so-called anti-terrorist propaganda, I don't think that that was politicaly correct... So I have to conclude it was a mistake.
This is what I wrote several posts back:
However, you were saying that she's not that big of a fish. She is a big fish.
Now you're saying that she made a mistake... To that I will answer that US officials can make mistakes in your face and not be accountable or responsible for them if they don't want to (what's the constraint?), the US president being a clear example of that. If I am a US official and you call me and complain about my mistakes I have plenty of ways to make you be very sorry for what you did. So, I will appologise only if I want to. So, the question rather is, why do I want to appologise?
#37
Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:14 PM
About the mistake, I meant to say that it was not her intention, and not something she said to make a point(it wasn't a wanted mistake).
Edited by Fadix, 25 January 2005 - 07:22 PM.
#38
Posted 25 January 2005 - 08:06 PM
And how was Artsakh "a shining example" of that?
#40
Posted 26 January 2005 - 03:44 PM
About the mistake, I meant to say that it was not her intention, and not something she said to make a point(it wasn't a wanted mistake).
I agree with Domino. This statement that some retarded third rate supposed diplomat/politician made was not directed to NK. And even if it was, which it wasn't, does it further our interests to rehash it and publicize it to the nth degree. I think we should completely ignore it, otherwise it brings us negative attention. This statement wasn't even directed at NK, but those who know nothing about NK might assume that it was directed at NK because of all the stink we are making about it, and they will further assume that since a US diplomat said it, it must be true. Not all publicity is good publicity, and this is not good publicity. If we hadn't made a stink about it, nobody (other than the Azeris) would have bothered to read into it the way we have, and nobody would have thought it was directed to NK.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users