KnightOfArmenia

Again, I disagree. The two-party system is an absolute joke. Originally, the primaries were a voting system. You realize that, correct? They were implemented at a time when the choosing of presidential candidates was not done democratically. Party officials met and haggled about who would be the party candidate - the entire "primary season" we just saw was condensed into a period of 3 days, and done without the public. Read into, for example, how FDR was chosen for a third term - literally, the folks who ran the audio equipment were FDR supporters, and basically cut all the mikes for others, played a recording that asked "we need FDR again!" then a recording that chanted "FDR! FDR!" THAT is how he was chosen as the Democratic candidate for a third term, and which got his name on the ballot. Not to mention that, originally, who got the VP slot was also a hotly debated, rather than just "announced" by the presidential candidate. I'd rather have 100 political parties, and a lack of a clear majority for any so that runoff elections and coalition governments lead the way, as opposed to a 2 party system in which 50.1% of support allow the government to disregard the remaining 49.9% of the population.

While I generally agree, Turkey trying to replace the MINSK group would simply lead to the end of what little talk there is. Plain and simple, it wouldn't be invited by the Armenian side.

...wait... you're arguing that, because you dislike someone or something, then everything they do is villainy?

Really? That's hard to believe - they've been dumping millions into their defense spending. Not that it would matter - we have a well-equipped and well-positioned army in entrenched mountainous land. The US army would have a hell of a time getting Artsakh now, let alone the Azeris. They won't be able to establish air superiority, so it'll be a land battle, and that will be in our favor. Though I pray it never comes to that.

Nice writeup. Should be noted that the ARF's official policy is that the Armenian SSR, being a "puppet republic" lacking democratic foundation and at the control of Moscow, was not a legitimate state and therefore the Treaty of Kars is null and void. Personally, although this is solid in an ideological sense, it has no sense of realpolitik. Compare that to the politicians in charge today - by claiming that the government accepts "the agreements inherited from the Soviet Union," it clearly states that it was a USSR agreement that Armenia is agreeing to, not an Armenian agreement; more importantly, it uses the same agreement to call Turkey to task. Turkey had to agree to all those matters because it was dealing with the USSR, which even at the time was a strong nation - it is now bound by those same agreements, and until and unless IT meets them, any repudiation of the treaty by Armenia would be valid (which leaves open the claims of territory in W. Armenia). VERY politically savvy.

Except if you did that, you'd have cries of nationalization and communism from the Western world, and we'd lose the millions of aid we get from the United States immediately. Regarding OP: Tanks are not that vital for us, in all honesty. Tanks are mainly an offensive weapon, and we don't need any overwhelming offensive capability. Our land is mountainous (making it less useful for tanks), and our defensive positions are entrenched enough for some solid anti-tank weaponry to wreck havoc.

What does it matter to invite him? The ARF protest showed - clearly - that the entirety of the Armenian population, even at home, were not in favor. Arpa was talking about how it was embarrassing, and how there's supposedly some "bad Armenian" stereotype in the world (which I've never heard of). I pose a different view - Armenia is democratic enough, and stable enough, to invite even an enemy leader as a sign that, although it pursues its interests, it is not some N. Korean regime. The people are allowed to protest, and do so civilly, without violence, as in other democracies. Again - simply because you dislike someone or something doesn't mean everything they do is evidence of some villainy.

Not at all - simply because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't doing an amazing job. For example: Armenia receives massive amounts of aid from the United States despite being a chief trading partner of Iran (diehard enemy of the US), a military ally and trading partner of Russia (a former - and, lately, current - US rival), an enemy of Turkey (a decades old close ally of the US) and in a state of war with Azerbaijan (a NATO hopeful that also supplies oil to the US). If you don't think that is an absolute diplomatic coup, then you're letting your personal dislike for individuals cloud your judgment.

Turkish diplomacy is actually very very poor. It relies on money and their geographic location. They "got away" with everything they've done thus far, really, because the U.S. didn't want to risk them falling into the Soviet sphere. Honestly, the smartest political move they made was staying neutral in World War II, rather than going fascist, which is what was very heavily considered and almost done (for an attack on the Caucasus during the Drang nach Osten of Germany). For example, look worldwide - the "huff and puff" threats they levy on any nation that recognizes the Genocide. Look at France - they withdrew their ambassador from France and canceled several deals with the French... only to come crawling back later, as they needed those economic ties more than the French did. It made them look ridiculously weak. Or look at the warzone that is eastern Turkey. They have the second largest military in NATO, and they haven't been able to defeat the Kurds in 30 years. It's a human rights embarrassment for NATO, one they rarely discuss in the Western media for obvious reasons.

Agreed. Turkey is important geopolitically because it's a NATO ally on the doorstep of both Russia and the Middle East that is ruthlessly governed by a military that the US can depend on. Had things in 1920 turned out differently, this wouldn't be the case; unfortunately, they didn't. Considering the substantial - and that is an understatement - pressure on Armenia, it has done amazingly well: with its borders almost entirely closed, hostile neighbors to all directions except south (which is a neighbor hostile to everyone else on the planet, basically), it has survived and actually won a war right in its infancy, energy shortages, corruption, political turmoil, and constant threats of renewed war. Armenian politicians may have sucked 15 years ago, but now - with the help of the far more savvy Armenian politicians that have been working in the West for decades - have become very good at the Great Game.

I already gave you a definition of revolutionary. Though if you want the history lesson, political parties were outright banned in the three empires of the region in 1890 - furthermore, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, especially, had been prey to Kurdish depredations and hostile Turkish laws for centuries. The ARF participated in numerous defenses of towns, driving off Kurdish bands and fighting Turkish gendermerie (successfully in some cases, unsuccessfully in others). Armed action to defend the people was revolutionary enough; call for Armenians to be equal to the Imperial powers and have the rights of autonomy and, later, self-determination was even moreso. And they do call themselves socialist - there is more to a party than just the name. Notice that the Democratic and Republican parties of the US, in no way, state any liberal or conservative views in their names - they have the extremely bland names of "Democratic" and "Republican," even though they are both democratic and republican because the United States is a democratic representative republic. You have to actual read things like their mission statement, which quite openly state their political views. If you don't make the effort to try to learn, however (especially when the information is freely available), you can't blame them for not teaching you. To say that Armenia doesn't have more than 70,000 voters is extremely facetious. And I think it's a healthy dose of democracy - why should people settle? Again, you advocate the two-party system, despite the fact that actual political analysts across the globe call the two-party system of the United States (and to a lesser degree, the similar situation in Great Britain) as a farce. Most democracies - and democracies ranked substantially higher than the United States under the Economist's Democracy Index - have multi-party systems, which rarely allow any party to gain the majority of the votes necessary to rule by itself, and thus force coalitions among parties that generally serve the public will greater, since a higher percentage of the population's interests are therefore met. In this, Armenia is actually doing quite well - a ruling coalition guides the country at the moment, of several political parties, as opposed to one party ruling unopposed (as is the case now in Russia). Your personal distaste of multiple political parties, and desire to be "more like America," are not necessarily what is best for the country. I personally think that which is more democratic is healthier.

Arpa, I couldn't disagree with you more. First, the biggest criticism that strong democracies have against the United States is the two-party system - it's also why voter participation is negligible in the United States to the point where cynics can make a strong argument that it's no longer an actual democracy. Second, you dislike the parties. That's your choice. But half the things you say are just silly - simply because you're ignorant of facts, doesn't mean the facts don't exist. If you're asking what the ARF is - rather, why it is called the "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" - then I can answer you: Armenian is obvious; Revolutionary is because it is a Socialist organization, and one of its core ideals is the belief in the Proletarian revolution, though colored in this case by a belief in nationalist ideals, as well as the revolution against the various Powers that held dominion over the Armenians; Federation because, at its founding, it was held as a federation of different Armenians from different parts of the nation (from the Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, and Persian Empire) and different political parties. Thus, Armenian Revolutionary Federation. You don't change the names of institutions simply because "right now, they no longer apply" - hell, arguments can be made that they still apply, very much, since much of Armenia is still not in Armenia, and it's a federation of Diasporan and Republican Armenians.

Friggin' pathetic.

As I said - the biggest reason LTP had any supporters is that he played the racism card. There has always been a very strong undercurrent of racism in the Republic of Armenia, dating from Soviet times till today. The aghbars were the most dramatic example of that, and the worst sufferers. The target now is Artsakhtsis - the fact that they keep referring to Artsakhtsis as non-Armenians is evidence of this. If RK and SS were born in Yerevan, there would have been absolutely no issue at all.

I generally only accept proven things as facts. For example, if there wasn't evidence that this had happened, I wouldn't believe it. I find being skeptical has lead me to being far more successful in life. The one place I make this exception is in the inherently unprovable, i.e. religion.