Jump to content


Photo

Mischaracterization Of Nagorno-karabagh


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

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

Posted 25 January 2005 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 24 2005, 04:36 PM)
I don't think she had the choice, her statment was against democracy, calling a democratically elected government "criminal."


US always has a choice. Democracy is not a permanent US value. It is applied selectively.

#22 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 25 January 2005 - 03:24 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 24 2005, 11:36 PM)
I don't think she had the choice, her statment was against democracy, calling a democratically elected government "criminal."


Are democratically elected governments immune to that? There is a deficiency of transparency and accountability if that is the case.

#23 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:07 PM

QUOTE (Armen @ Jan 25 2005, 01:03 AM)
US always has a choice. Democracy is not a permanent US value. It is applied selectively.


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. smile.gif So the appology followed.

#24 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:07 PM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Jan 25 2005, 04:24 PM)
Are democratically elected governments immune to that? There is a deficiency of transparency and accountability if that is the case.


I don't see the relevency of your post with mine. Unlighten me.

#25 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

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

Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 25 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.  smile.gif So the appology followed.


Saying something on purpose and appologising is not that rare in politics.

#26 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:26 PM

US insistence on democracy or to put it correctly elected governments with a representative face is only a recent phenomenon. The Americans liked to work with dictatorships who were more receptive towards since it always turned a blind eye to human rights abuses and what not. But it changed during the Clinton presidency especially since they couldn't use the Cold War factor in justifying their acts. The spread of democracy, if one can call it as such, is concurrent with open markets and the market economy is essentially the sine qua non of American Foreign Policy. Now that closed markets are in essence non-democracies and cause increasing difficulties to US interests, the US prefers to work with countries that are relatively weak economically and don't have a strong democratic structure and thus are more malleable to its wishes.

#27 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (Armen @ Jan 25 2005, 05:10 PM)
Saying something on purpose and appologising is not that rare in politics.


US Assistant State Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Elizabeth Jones...

smile.gif

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. smile.gif

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 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Jan 25 2005, 05:26 PM)
US insistence on democracy or to put it correctly elected governments with a representative face is only a recent phenomenon. The Americans liked to work with dictatorships who were more receptive towards since it always turned a blind eye to human rights abuses and what not. But it changed during the Clinton presidency especially since they couldn't use the Cold War factor in justifying their acts. The spread of democracy, if one can call it as such, is concurrent with open markets and the market economy is essentially the sine qua non of American Foreign Policy. Now that closed markets are in essence non-democracies and cause increasing difficulties to US interests, the US prefers to work with countries that are relatively weak economically and don't have a strong democratic structure and thus are more malleable to its wishes.



Fine, but I still don't get what you were not agreeing with my statment.

#29 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 25 January 2005 - 04:59 PM

A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this. But it's still no business of the US government and especially a minor American nitwit bureucrat to decide who is a criminal or not.

#30 kakachik77

kakachik77

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 737 posts
  • Location:New York, New York

Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:05 PM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Jan 25 2005, 04:59 PM)
A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this. But it's still no business of the US government and especially a minor American nitwit bureucrat to decide who is a criminal or not.


so you're saying that Artsakh government is "criminal" after all?

#31 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:07 PM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Jan 25 2005, 05:59 PM)
A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this. But it's still no business of the US government and especially a minor American nitwit bureucrat to decide who is a criminal or not.


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.

#32 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

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

Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:52 PM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Jan 25 2005, 04:59 PM)
A democratically elected government can have criminal elemnts too. Artsakh government is a shining example of this.


This sound like something from Radio Baku.

#33 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

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

Posted 25 January 2005 - 05:59 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 25 2005, 04:43 PM)
US Assistant State Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Elizabeth Jones...

smile.gif

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. smile.gif

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 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:12 PM

QUOTE (Armen @ Jan 25 2005, 06:59 PM)
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.


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 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:16 PM

QUOTE (kakachik77 @ Jan 26 2005, 12:05 AM)
so you're saying that Artsakh government is "criminal" after all?


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 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

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

Posted 25 January 2005 - 06:26 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 25 2005, 06:12 PM)
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.


This is what I wrote several posts back:

QUOTE
As one of my friends pointed out, how is it that US government provides governmental aid (if I am not mistaken US12 mln directly yo Karabagh) to a entity it thinks is a "criminal". Isen't it absurdity?


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 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2005 - 07:14 PM

Armen, I admit not having read your past statment.

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 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

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

Posted 25 January 2005 - 08:06 PM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Jan 25 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.


And how was Artsakh "a shining example" of that?

#39 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

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

Posted 25 January 2005 - 08:11 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 25 2005, 07:14 PM)
it wasn't a wanted mistake


Well, I am saying you don't know that. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I think we will have the answer in couple of weeks.

#40 phantom

phantom

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Location:U.S.

Posted 26 January 2005 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (Domino @ Jan 26 2005, 01:14 AM)
Armen, I admit not having read your past statment.

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