KnightOfArmenia

Well, not all of claimed Kurdistan would fall into Armenia; however, they do claim much of our homeland (Christ, they actually try to say that Van was an ancient Kurdish city. Idiots.).

Uhm, we shouldn't. LOL. I don't think anyone here would try to argue that.

Laugh or not. The fact that a religious fundamentalist party won an overwhelming victory in the elections, and the army having to warn the new government that it would launch a coup of the government became too religious and not "Kemalist" enough shows that the dream of a strong turkey is your fantasy, not reality.

Hey, "Nakharar," if I were a ruder man, I'd say "screw you!" I don't have anything to lose? My cousin is turning 18 in Armenia, and my uncle has already served. My older brother was visiting Cyprus when the Karabagh War broke out and served there for 8 months. Don't tell me that I have nothing to lose. You're the same type of person who kept counseling Armenians against any action against the Ottomans because something bad might happen, who kept telling us how they were strong and we were weak and things would be good if we just kept quiet. Or said that Karabagh was a lost cause and that we should abandon it so our neighbors would think we were civilized. My name for people like that is "traitorous cowards." You're talking about what turkey should do to live well, how they should be, blah blah. If there was a little emoticon showing "disgust," it would go right here. The point is that turkey is completely imploding. It's your wishful thinking to see it as a stable country, apparently. They have a history of military dictatorships and a populace that is severely fundamentalist Muslim (they haven't forgotten that they were the last Caliphate). Only recently a massive supply of heavy arms and rockets was intercepted on its way from turkey to Iraq; that means that the fundamentalists are in the army as well. Plus we have the extreme left Marxists and the revolutionary Kurds. That is called a hotbed for revolt; the only reason the nation exists is because the US has pumped billions into it over the years. With Iraq, the US doesn't need turkey anymore, so, quite simply, you'll see it implode over the next few years. Despite your warmest wishes towards our murderers.

The fact that there was a genocide in Yugoslavia helped. Besides, everyone in Yugoslavia wanted to be independent; they were independent states before being joined. The US still came up with a plan to keep Yugoslavia as a nation, but with very loose central control, and this was rejected out of hand.

Border changes are anathema to major powers; states are viewed as inviolable, so even wars are now accepted as not involving border changes by the major powers. Why do you think the US accepted the fall of the USSR but recognized ALL the current borders of the individual states, despite the fact that they were made by the Soviets (and, in many cases, by Stalin himself)? A Kurdistan gives a LOT of other stateless people ideas, and it hurts the US image for established nations (they create chaos, if they ever enter our nation all these little minorities will tear chunks off it, we should annihilate these people while we can to ensure our stability).

Well, of course they won't stay loyal forever. Any Kurdistan would eventually make decisions that would benefit itself, even if those would come at the expense of the US. "National gratitude" and "eternal friendship" are words; look at Europe, for example. The time limit for such gratitude is usually about two generations; by the time the third generation rolls around, people have forgotten about the past (not literally, but as in it isn't in their immediate mind). The point is that for the immediate future (with the way the world is at the moment, trying to plan beyond 10 years on subjects such as political power play is an exercise in futility) Iraq is the 51st state; it is within striking range of Israel (meaning that no Arab country would ever even CONSIDER attacking Israel now, because the US can directly strike at them with land forces), Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria (these are the most important nations in the region, naturally).

The US did just receive such a state: it's called Iraq. When you conquer a country you can pretty much do what you want, and you'd have to be pretty naive to think that the Iraqis are going to have full, actual sovereignty over their country. They'll be about as independent as South Vietnam.

Oh, don't get me wrong; in no way am I trying to say that we should not arm ourselves to the teeth because we have papers (I am from the most militant party in modern Armenia). Quite the contrary, actually; I've argued for a PLANNED Armenia, one that makes itself strong. All we need is to teach a strong nationalist sentiment (history shows that this is possible if you are part of that nationality; look at China, both Koreas, Japan, etc.), and go from there; army service becomes mandatory, but most soldiers do civic works, such as infrastructure construction, unless there is an actual war on. An Armenian version of the Boy Scouts of America (the way it was in the 30s-50s), teaching an army life to young people. The problem with Armenians is that they fight when directly threatened; they are literally unable to see a block ahead of them and prepare for that danger. For example, there had been rumors for weeks that on May 27th, 1990, Armenians would topple the statue of Lenin in Yerevan and raise the Tricolor. But almost no one prepared for some sort of Soviet military response. They were shocked when it happened. Likewise, going back, the Armenians of one city would do nothing when their neighboring city was massacred by the turks; rather than preparing to fight or even going out and trying to rescue their brothers (any idiot can understand that an army that is spread out butchering a population is in no position to fight and can be annihilated themselves), they told themselves that the others "brought it upon themselves somehow" and that if they only stay quiet, they'll avoid the same fate. This sheep mentality still exists, particularly among older Armenians; hell, when I wanted to go join the protests against "Operation Iraqi Freedom," my own mother told me "don't get involved, they might come to our door. I haven't raised a son just to have something happen to him." Here!

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).

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.

Georgians? Pshah. C'mon, they are our bastard sons; bastardized son of our Church (until they attached theirs to the Russian one, I believe), bastardized son of our Alphabet (which they have mysteriously stopped accrediting to St. Mesrop Mashtots, I wonder why...). Armenia's military could topple Georgia in a straight fight; hell, Javakhk is basically off-limits to the Georgian military, as armed to the teeth as it is (more Armenians live there than in Artsakh; by some estimates, nearly 800,000). Georgia isn't a threat, it WANTS to be a threat. It is selling itself off to the United States in an effort to break away from Russia, but that is about as stupid as possible; I mean, c'mon, the US didn't back the Kurds against Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War, and that was SADDAM HUSSEIN. We're talking about RUSSIA in this case. 20,000+ nuclear missiles, second (or third, depending upon who you believe) strongest army in the world? The fact that Russia has basically recognized the autonomy of S. Ossetia and Javakhk, among other places, shows that Georgia will never be able to stand independent, since much of its population is not Georgian. Consider that Tblisi's population at the start of the 20th century was nearly 80% Armenian, and even NOW is only some 70% Georgian. They barely make majority in many of their provinces, and are a minority in quite a few. You just can't make a strong central government if the ruling ethnic group DOESN'T have the numbers to back that. Oh, and as for the Russophile? Russia's actions, directly or indirectly, have led to the worst tragedies that have befallen our people. We have never received anything but a spit in the eye from the Russians; from the lies told to Davit Bek and Mkhitar Sparabet to get them to fight the Ottomans and Persians (and thus occupy them while Russia secured its own position then asked for a peace treaty, thus abandoning and dooming the last of the Armenian warriors) to the harsh Russification campaigns of the 1880s-1950s to the support of Azerbaijan for so long during the liberation of Artsakh (and the massacres of Sumgait, in which the "heroic" Russians waited a "short" 3 days to actually get out of their base and roll into town) to the occupation of Yerevan on May 27, 1990. I believe that it is high treason for someone to say "never forgive the turks, look what they did!" and "never forgive the azeris, they are monsters!" but to then roll over like a dog to the Russians. Wake up and smell the blood of your slain countrymen for Christ's sake. The only ones Armenia needs are the Armenians; if we actually stop betraying eachother for money and petty power-plays, we could become a powerful actor, not only in the Caucasus, but in the Eurasian sphere. Our nuclear power plant gives us a bargaining chip most people haven't realized (if, some day, Armenia is actually overrun by turkey, Great God forbid, be absolutely sure that enough nuclear material would have "vanished" to allow those "crazy Dashnaks" to either nuke or dirty bomb Constantinople, Ankara, and any other major turkish city), and our Diaspora is very skilled at PR (hell, we got France to recognize the Genocide with what? Charles Aznavour?). Also, don't forget that we ARE a martial and very militarily capable people; we have proved this time and again. Once more, it is only the BETRAYALS that have led to our downfalls. Again, consider: Metzn Tigran: defeated Rome, but his own son rose up in revolt against him and attacked him from the east with a Parthian army at the same time that Pompeius Magnus attacked with a new Roman army from the west. Vartan Mamikonian: had a history of defeating enemies, but lost when a third of what was supposed to be his army fought on the Persian side under the arch-traitor Vassak Syuuni. Gagik II: defeated Byzantium, but was captured after going to Constantinople to sign a peace treaty, and lost when the Catholicos and several major nakharars opened the unbroken gates of Ani to the Byzantine Greeks. Levon d' Lusignan: even though he wasn't an Armenian, he held off the Mamelukes repeatedly and had made Sis impenetrable, but lost when many other cities betrayed him when their nakharars chose the Mamelukes rather than a Catholic king, and when his ministers advised him to surrender the city so that the people might be spared (they weren't: Sis was massacred). Davit Bek: defeated the Ottomans, but was finally beaten when nearly half of his nakharars, fearing Ottoman might, surrendered the most heavily defended and valuable cities to the turks. Generals Nazarbekian and Silikian: defeated the turks at Sardarapat, Bosh-Abaran, and Karakilise, but were not permitted to follow the annihilated forces and secure Greater Armenia, or "carry the war to the turks" while the situation was favorable, thus dooming the Armenian Republic to the renewed turkish advance some 3 years later. Monte Melkonian and many others: defeated the Azeris, but were not permitted to follow the annihilated forces and secure as much territory as possible, thus forcing the Azeris to the peace table, rather than giving them enough land and enough of a favorable position that they still rattle their sabers at us; furthermore, the lands that Avo was aiming for are now the ones through which the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline is going to run. There are many more cases, of course; we have always been betrayed by our own, and it is still happening. There are always those who worship some other race to the point of fellating it, calling their own countrymen stupid for not wanting to devote themselves to this other race. These are usually the ones who also end up betraying our people to this other race at the earliest convenience (Armenian Bolsheviks, for example, did at least as much to destroy the First Republic as did the turks).

sigh My views on the Armenian democracy are not the highest. Honestly, if I had my way, the system for Armenia would be radically different; then again, the entire system I've come up with is designed with Greater Armenia in mind, rather than the rump state we have now.

Good luck. Javakhktsis are even more stubborn than Artsakhtsis. Hundreds (thousands, actually, but that would imply something like 30,000 or something; more like 2,000) Javakhktsis went to Artsakh to fight the tachik; when the ceasefire was declared, they took back the weapons they had used. Hell, they stopped Shevardnadze and held him for a while when he was passing through the region. The difference is that the Adjarians look at themselves as Georgians, whereas the Armenians simply don't. It's also not surprising that the ARF is as strong (perhaps even stronger) in Javakhk than it is in Artsakh.

Ahh, our dear language... I had completely forgotten it. I was completely illiterate some 2 years ago... Couldn't read or write. Then I memorized the song "Aryunot Drosh," had my mom point it out to me in a songbook, and taught myself how to read (and write, by extension). LOL.

It's times like this when I have to remind myself that good turks also exist: I point to Taner Akcam and Kemal Yalcin; hell, the latter also says that we should have our Hayrenik returned to us.

Honestly, many of the words that we believe are "Iranian" have more to do with Indo-European. For example, many people believe that "stan" is taken from the Persians, and that it is disgraceful that the name of our nation is "Hayastan." Actually, "stan" is an Indo-european root that has stayed on (funny especially since the Persians don't really use "stan" except when describing other places). Other than the religious aspects of Zoroastrianism, many of those things have more to do with the ancient language than with modern Iranian (even without its Arabic additions).

I'll definitely e-mail you, Expat. Oh, and this isn't a religious pilgrimage; heck, I'm not even necessarily religious. Now, I have my faith, and, in my rather atheist group of friends, I'm known as the "religious one," but that isn't the reason I'm going; rather, it's the fact that it IS my Hayrenik. Oh, I can't wait... I just know I'm going to break down and kiss the ground as soon as I get off the plane. And, ahh, Ani... I have to be careful at the "border." I doubt my family would much appreciate it if I get shot by some mongrel turk while doing something at the "border," haha. How much of Ani is visible? I've heard the shoon tatchiks have done their best to obliterate everything.

Mini-skirts? Latest fashion, eh? Oh, and will a thousand spend well there? I know that the places that cater especially to foreigners/mafiosos charge a lot, and I'm more planning on going to the smaller places where my money will really help the people rather than fatten the pockets of the Grzo and crew, lol.

bellthecat: What?!?! The term "Hayrenik" has never crossed your path before? Sip: The term would be semantically correct, as I am returning to the place where my family originates from; as I connect myself to my family, it is a return. From what I've read and reported on, Gyumri and Spitak have improved greatly; international help, and especially help from Kirk Kirkorian, have at least met the needs of the people there.

On June 16th, 2004, I shall be returning to Armenia for the first time ever; aside from my uncle, I'll be the first of my family to have gone there since Shah Abbas forced us to leave Jugha. I'll be staying there for two months exactly (returning on August 16th), and am making a checklist of everything I'm going to see. Here is a partial list (if you know of anything in particular that I simply have to see, feel free to add): Sardarapat Tzitzernakabert Yerablur (in particular, the graves of Monte Melkonian and Andranik Zoravar) Republic Square Khor Virab Echmiadzin Stepanakert Aragats Tatev Note, this is a small portion; I'm not mentioning most of the myriad things to see in Yerevan (I'm also bringing a grand US, to help out the economy in some small way). Also, glad to be back to the forums... College this year is much harder than I thought it would be.

Actually, you are a stupid little kid. First of all, no Arab state is "good" with us, with the exception of the former Iraq. Arabs allow Armenians to exist within their countries; since the Armenians' hatred is centered against Turkey, and the Arabs themselves hate the Turks, they don't run into conflict very often. But that doesn't mean that Arabs and Armenains are lovey-dovey. Christ, Egyptian Islamic militants almost wiped out the Armenian population of Cairo on several occasions. Second, any form of open aid that the Chechans send to Armenia will be a boon; since Russia can then claim that Azerbaijan is supporting terrorism, and the US will not wish to anger Russia (whose role as mediator between it and the EU is becoming ever more important), Russia will land on both the Chechans AND the Azeris with both feet. This means that Russia will take the Baku oil fields, and we'll get ALL of Artsakh back, including a much larger territory than now. And since this will give us a solid border with Russia (finally), Armenia will no longer be blockaded severely (since it will no longer matter) and the financial pains will almost completely vanish.

1) why Ottoman Empire had waited 500 years to kill the Armenians, who were accepted as the loyalist minority in the empire by the Ottomans? The Ottomans were a major power and untouchable by any others until 1699, when they were finally and decisively defeated before the gates of Vienna. The Treaty of Karlowitz and the subsequent Capitulations to the European powers meant that, now, the Christians dictated terms. This was quickly proven when, first, Napoleon took Egypt, then the British forced Mohammed Ali to not conquer the Ottomans, and then the Europeans supported the Greek revolt, which would have been crushed by the turks. This was followed by the liberation of the Balkan Christians, again with help from Europe. And, since the Russians were pressing for a warm-water point and had already made Armenia into a "protected people" during the Treaty of San Stefano and the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, the Armenians were suddenly viewed as a gateway for the Russians; what happened in the Balkans could easily happen there. It wasn't "hatred for the Armenians," but for what they were: a Christian people who had refused any form of assimilation into the turkish empire, and now that lack of assimilation could easily provide a casus belli for Russia. Abdul-hamid's massacres brought about European anger, and demand for reform; when the opportunity came for a planned extinction that wouldn't be responded to by the entire world presented itself, in the form of World War I, the turk government jumped on it. 2) how could be the members of the unwanted nation in the empire occupying the most important places in the Ottoman govertmet's directory, such as in the forign office? That was after the Young Turk revolution of 1908; by the time the more reactionary, right-wing, ultra-nationalistic Pan-Turkists came to power, cemented into the Triumvirate (in 1913-1914), Armenians had been removed from the highest offices (Gabriel Noradoungian, the Foreign Minister, was dismissed in 1912, and fled to Paris); furthermore, even though the state was now supposed to be secular and democratic, laws preventing Christians from possessing weaponry were passed. I wonder why? 3) how could be the traders of this unwanted nation, the richest persons of the empire, if the armenian minority was unwanted or a genocide was contemplated on it, there would be no need to allow them be rich? "Allow them to be rich"? You, apparently, don't know how capital works. The Armenians were a very industrious people (still are) who were good with money; even during the Imperial days, before the revolution, they were in charge of most of the military-industrial complex. These were only some 200 families, however, that controlled the big business; 80% of Armenians were rural peasants living in Armenia, with the remaining twenty percent in white collar work. 4) if Ottoman excuted a genocide on this nation, why it didnt touch to the Armenians in the west part of anatolia or how could Armenians lived in Turkey till now, there are many armenians particularlly in the west now, threre are also many armenian churches in turkey? is there a mosque in Armenia now? In the city of Kharbert, modern Harput, the Armenian Quarter is absolutely abandoned, except for a few turk and kurd families. The only remaining church in the city, the Cathedral of Kharbert, has one priest in it, who has no congregation, but has to continue services, or else the government will sieze the property. Only some 3-4 thousand Armenians live in modern turkey, and those in istanbul. They aren't allowed to refer to themselves as "Armenian," or to speak Armenian in public, because that is against turkish law. 5) what was the position of the Armenians in the first world war an also their relationship with outsiders? The Armenians wanted to survive. Most of them failed in this task. They took to outsiders gratefully, since most of those outsiders saved them (Musa Dagh, the American missions, Arab caravans, etc.).

No, TK. There was just recently a congress in Armenia that my professor, Levon Marashlian, attended; there is a lot of evidence that the nation converted in 305 AD. Either way, it was the first Christian nation in the world; the exact date is still hotly contested, however.

We share "stan" with the Hindu tongues, as well. They call India "Hindustan." Our language is of a different branch than Greek, and much older than Georgian. That simple. We have a unique language that developed thousands of years ago; the Afghanis are basically ethnic Iranians with a Sunni trend.