MJ

quote:Originally posted by Boghos: By the way, does LTP play nardi ? Don't know. But I am sure, now he has a lot of time to play it.

quote:Originally posted by Boghos: I know. And you are quite right I just corrected myself. The edit function reminded me of Orwell's 1984, you can alter the past . Have you seen the movie ? Where is Steve, the cat ? Let's talk about all the terrible things the Brits did . Doesn't ring the bell, but thee cat, I think, is positioning himself for the next jump.

quote:Originally posted by Boghos: MJ, I meant "it is not fair", as the traditional left has always blamed the US for the coups whereas they were really locally engineered products. That's what I thought you meant. Therefore, perhaps you meant to say further down, "...were a result of American policies" rather than "...were not a result of American policies." I pretty much am trying to convey the same message as you are. I just don't think that while some "innocently president was playing nardi/tavlou" CIA was conspiring overthrowing him. Overall, my remarks are directed at not losing the site of the reality, and not blowing our characterizations out of their real proportions.

quote:Originally posted by Boghos: It is probably not fair to say that the various military coups that took place in Latin America (Brazil in 1965, Uruguay, 1973, for example), were not a result of American policies, but did have American "Cold War" logistical (finance, intelligence, diplomatic...) support. Boghos, Did you mean to say "It is probably not fair..." or "It is probably fair...," above? Also, please note that I have not questioned the CIA involvement in Chile, Angola, or elsewhere, but have attempted to put it in the right context of the "Cold War," where the two camps have fought for the "zones of influence."

Ambitious, I think I understand you. And I think the issue at hand has/had overwhelming implications on the dynamics of the historic developments of the Armenian nation. This dichotomy of “I” vs. “We” may be traced to be a primary source of loses of the best Armenian minds and personalities to assimilation, for example. The Armenian social establishment does not readily accommodate the “I,” unless it is strongly subordinated to the “We.” In some ways, perhaps, this is a universal phenomenon, since all the societies have a little bit of the mentioned dichotomy. But the harmony of these societies vs. their individuals depends on the measure in which the “We” wants to see the “I” dominated. I think this is indicative of one of the greatnesses of the American society. This issue obviously takes us back to the subject of tradition. The justification of the suppression of “I” is frequently found in the argument, “Because our forefathers have done it this way, you should do it to.” But the fact is that in our case, as the facts come to demonstrate, our forefathers have done the things in a lousy manner, and they have inherited nothing but a universe of serious problems to us. Every other generation has to start building or attempting to build from the scratch, rather than building on the basis inherited by the “We.” What is it that makes us to gravitate towards the “We,” which means the status quo of the past, I cannot understand? It makes me to conclude that the “We” has done something incredibly wrong and harmful for centuries. Then, one should find the most fundamental forms and attributes of the manifestation of the “We.” Then, it would be a simple logical exercise, I think, to understand where does the contradiction in our society, or better to say in our consciousness reside.

Beautiful. Hope to see her competing with the adults, soon. [ August 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Dear Aharon, I think Garo can better answer your question. And I am sure many in the forum are nostalgic about Ararat.

China - like Russia a permanent member of the Security Council has always advocated the lifting of sanctions. India - I included India in my post because its the 2nd most populous nation, and it too advocates (although less strongly of course) the lifting of sanctions. Indonesia - Indonesia was included because it is the 4th most populous nation and after the US supported Oz in the Timor affair it became a strong advocate for Iraq, and their President even came close to visiting Saddam. Arab countries - Most of the Arab countries have shown their dissatisfaction with the sanctions by ignoring the no-fly zone and normalizing relations. Thank you for the information. I’ll keep it in mind. Since you claim that most of the Arab states are ignoring the no-fly zone and are normalizing the relations with Iraq (if I understand you correctly), do I assume that the sanctions are over? Also, have a question. Next time China, India, Indonesia, France, Russia, etc, decide to do business with Iraq, and send an airplane with goods to Iraq, do you think that the US military will shut their planes? You sure have the right to doubt that “the US would have chosen a different policy if the respective African and Latin American countries were truly democratically elected.” But are your doubts based on knowledge, information or faith? The US made a secret pseudo-alliance with South Africa in 1970s. By which the US would refrain from complaining about the apartheid in South Africa too much and South Africa would aid the rebels in Angola against the government. Clear? I saw an American documentary on this only last week.... I even recall the name of the documentary which is also my source of information on Chile "Cold War". You might have even seen it. Sorry not clear, yet. In your past accusation you were claiming “the US supplied the rebels and even made an ally of South Africa (at the time of apartheid) in order to overthrow the government” in the context of overthrowing the democratically elected governments. I still don’t understand what were you saying. Besides, isn’t the US a beautiful country? Who else allows making such documentary films about its “secrets?” Please you know this as well as I do, all armies of the world have 'defense' somehow attached to their names, and if they were only used in defense then there would be no wars. That’s OK. As I have said before, with the age you may adjust an opinion or two. This topic [of America forcing itself to the impoverished countries –MJ) was bought up on BBC (a few weeks ago) and largely dealt with American corporations and government behavior in African nations especially in relation to oil. Can you give us some details, please? Which impoverished African countries are we talking about, how did the US eliminate its international competitors and the local businessman. Since you have seen a BBC report on the subject, I assume you know a lot about the topic, and wouldn’t mind sharing it with the rest of us? I am not going to be bothered commenting on the last paragraph of yours as I don’t see how it bears any relevance. Not necessary to comment. Just keep it in mind, and periodically check yourself. That is, if you want to.

Do you not address someone when you reply to them, or do you address the air surrounding you? As I mentioned before, you seem to be not diligent enough, and either forget or miss what you read. But that’s not a problem. With the age it will change. I am not sensitive to anything, I have only shown anger after inappropriate comments were made by yourself, such as the your post before this one. I don’t think so, buddy. And I am willing to fulfill my duty after you fulfill yours, as I would like to follow your set example.... Please do so. Would this mean agreeing with your point of view? If it doesn’t I will like you to show me where I have not behaved maturely on this forum, taking into account of course the fact that my English is not perfect. Nope. No need to agree with me. It would suffice if you would agree with yourself after showing some diligency. Btw, your English is fine. It is just your declarations are not…

Ambitious, I think most of the people, including our compatriots, when claiming “I am Christian, because I was raised as one,” don’t really mean Christianity in its spiritual sense of the word. They just think it is a good way of asserting their cultural affiliation. However, as we know, the Christianity is a whole different category, not directly related to any culture, though its roots trace to the Judaic culture and tradition. I also think that the assertion “I was raised Armenian” doesn’t have much merit. If you would look at all differences that exist among Armenians, you would find that we are so different from each other, and there are so many different Armenian nations around that sooner or later someone feels tempted to pursue a search for the “Real Armenians.” I see myself as a human being first, who happens to be Armenian. On such capacity, I am neither proud nor ashamed. That’s just who I am, and it feels right. No problems with that identity, nor any reasons to boost about it. If we would look at our history with a critical eye, I think we can arrive to a conclusion that as a nation we don’t have much of achievements. In fact, as a nation we have failed on a large scale more than we have achieved anything substantial. Our achievements are exactly in the individual domain. The number of individual Armenians conquering unparalleled heights in the spiritual, scientific, cultural, etc, domains is quite large. And we have always achived very substantial achivements inside the structures of other nations, rather than our own. Hovhannes Tomanyan writes in one of his publicistic articles that "if Hovahhes Ayvazovski would've lived in Armenia, under the best scenario he would've become an art teacher of a local prisinct gymnasium." Unconsciously, we even realize this fact on a national level. That’s why I think, we take pride not in our national achievements, but in this or the other historic figure or celebrity being Armenian, or having at least some Armenian ancestry. As far as the assertion on our traditions is concerned, I find it being a ridiculous one. I don’t think that we have many of “our traditions.” A lot of our traditions are adopted from the Persians, Turks, Arabs, Russians, etc. There is very little in our traditions that we can claim to be “ours.” And it is natural. For the well dominant part of our history, we have been under the rule of other, stronger nations. In general, I feel there is nothing more harmful to our future than our bond with our traditions. As I have claimed here few times, before, I see the traditions as a stone on the neck of the nation, dragging it down to the bottom. If it was in my power, I would've said, “No more traditions! Just aspirations.” [ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: MJ, Is this another threat? As far as I know I have not broken any forum rules or have come close to doing so. I do however realise that my views are quite different to yours and therefore you may try to use your position as moderator on this forum to your advantage. Juggernaut, First let's agree that I have not addressed you here. You have addressed me, and I have replied accordingly. Second, you have obviously all the rights to express whatever views you want. However, if you have come to a public forum, you should not feel too sensitive when your views or your facts are challenged. And it is your duty to provide adequate arguments for supporting your assertions. We are not obligated to take your assertions at their face value. If these are unimportant assertions, others would let them go. If these are important assertions, we may challenge them. If you cannot take it, don’t post. Additionally, if you want to come across as a non-teenager, you have to position yourself correspondingly. Finally, it is a very insincere statement of yours when you claim "Is this another threat? " When have you been threatened by anything or anyone, here? When has anybody else been threatened here other than when violating the rules of the conduct?

Wh00t, Feel free to post in Western Armenian, if/when you want. Pretty much all of us who understand Eastern Armenian, can understand, speak and write Western Armenian, too. [ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

How ironic… So you have selected to bash the US because it is not “humiliated and hated enough for the wrongs they have committed in the past?” About Iraq’s economic sanctions… As you understand, Russia, France, China, India and Indonesia are not Arab states. In my previous note I had mentioned that Russia and France are pushing very passively for the lifting of the sanctions because Iraq owns them substantial debt. Turkey is an energy starved country, and is definitely interested in the lifting of the sanctions, so that to by oil from Iraq. Even its oil pipelines start getting rusty. However, Turkey readily continues providing support in enforcing the “no fly zone” over the northern districts of Iraq. Otherwise, the isolation of Iraq couldn’t benefit Turkey more, since it provides them with a pretext of running over the Kurdish gorilla camps in Northern Iraq. I am not familiar with the circumstances of Chinese, Indian or Indonesian push to lift the sanctions against Iraq up. Please illuminate me. Finally, in what way have the “rest” of the Arab states expressed their desire to lift the sanctions against Iraq up? . In what forum have they done it? In fact, as much as I know, all of the Arab states that I know of, want to see Iraq being contained further, since it is perceived to be a threat for all of them. That’s why they supported the Golf War in the first place. And in what way do you think the US may force them, as well as Russia, France, or China to do business with Iraq? Btw, even Armenia does business with Iraq. With all this said, I think the sanctions in current scale need to be lifted up. Somehow, when I hear the expression like “democratically elected Socialist government” of Chile or “democratically elected communist government” of Angola, I can smile only under the best scenario. When in the 60’s or 70’s have you heard of any democratic elections in Latin America or Africa? Your assertion about South Africa also needs some clarification. It is not clear what you are saying. Please continue elaborating your message further, only with greater clarity. You say that the US tries to militarily dominate the world through its missile defense. May I refer you again to a good dictionary so that you learn the meaning of the word “defense?” And could you also articulate here the essence of the –anti-missile defense program of the US, so that we make sure that you know what you are talking about? Or do you think that the “Missile defence. nuff said” expression is so powerful that it requires no further elaboration? Also, tell us please how many “smaller and in many cases impoverished nations” do you know that so far the US has forced to favor its corporations over local and international competitors. I can bring one example related to the topic, myself. I know well of a small nation which is practically begging the US to bring its corporations over, but so far it is not yielding any results. That nation is Armenia, as you can guess. Yes, the USSR was good deterrent to US 'despotic rule over the world.' Now there is no balance, and the US does whatever it pleases. I would refrain from commenting on your statement referenced above. I think it is very transparent on its own. Dear Juggernaut, In conclusion, I hope that as you grow, you would put more effort in educating yourself in a multiple of platitudes, and on becoming a good professional. I do strongly believe that you have all the potential needed for it. The position you demonstrate is a stage in life, that many of us have passed through. Many of us, much like you, have tried to assert our individuality through such arguments. And less mature we were, larger prey we hunted for, so that to add it to the list of our trophies, and to become a hero overnight. With the age comes the wisdom, however, and we learn not to bite what we cannot swallow. It will be the same with you, too, believe me. In most of the cases, these arguments are just a search for the truth, whatever that may mean. Please stick around, and feel free to jump in anytime. Your participation in the forum is appreciated and valued. And please don’t take these arguments personal. We like you and we love you, and we want to see you grow with the forum. My best wishes to you until the next encounter.

Thank you for posting your thoughts, Ambitious. First, I would like to express a technical disagreement with your statement that “In Armenian history we have a plethora of examples where heroes emerged.” In fact, I think there aren’t many heroes in our history. Sure there is a plethora of martyrs, however. Whether we should even search for heroes or not is a different story, however. I personally think that the heroes are in the eyes of the beholder. I also disagree that “The nation, the society accepted and adopted the values of an individual [st. Gregory – MJ] whose passion overwhelmed the entire multitude.” I think only a small fraction of the nation, better to say a small fraction of its ruling elite accepted it for more than 150 years. Only about 150 years later Christianity has became a recognizable trend phenomenon in Armenia. And by that time, I believe, there was nothing left of St. Gregory or genuine Christianity. Additionally, if we are to believe that St. Gregory was a genuine Christian, then his values should’ve been not “his” but of Jesus Christ. And I fully agree with you that nobody should speak in the name of the nation, except its President. But in our particular case, the President can speak only in the name of the part of the nation, unfortunately. I would also like to urge you to elaborate further your thoughts on the subject.

quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: MJ, Its either a typo or my crappy English, can you please rephrase. Juggernaut, This time you are closer to the truth. No need for rephrasing, I think. You should rather consult a good dictionary. The word "platitude" has several meanings. P.B. has given you one of them, not suitable for the context of my sentence. A couple of other meanings would be more suitable: platitude - plane, commonplace. The word has also other meanings, but they are not meant to be used for the context above. You have become a good boy. That was commendable. Always feel free to ask, when you don't know something. Either me or somebody else in the forum would be ready to help you. If we don't know the answer, we perhaps may do a little research for you. But you have to cooperate.

From all I have seen so far, the facts and you reside in two different platitudes, Juggernut.

I perfectly understand you, dear Rouben. The thing is that historically, Europeans have been the source of the troubles for the whole world, one may say perhaps without exaggeration. One may start, perhaps from the Romans, Byzantians and the Crusaders. The world goes in cycles. At some point, after the WWII, the US has behaved in the same way in some respects. And yet, it has been much better than the Europeans can claim credit for. However, the negatives of the US has to be seen, I think, as USA vs. USSR. One may argue that it has done the things we don’t like as a countermeasure to the exportation of the World Revolution by USSR. I don’t think that Bush deliberately lied to Armenians, as well as any of the previous Presidents. The only lying parties in that issue were the Armenian organizations, who wanted to make an impression that the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide depends on one or another President. I think Bush, from his heart, wanted to recognize the Genocide (as well as the previous Presidents), but when he came to the office, and was presented by the counterarguments by the Pentagon and the State Department – the career and not political officers, he couldn’t push for it, without considering the consequences in the international arena for the moment. The same is true about the prior Presidents. As it pertains to the electoral campaign in the US, it has gotten out of hand in the last 12 years or so. The public is very much concerned about it. It would be adjusted sooner or later, until lawyers find another loophole in the new system. This is a constant process. However, I strongly discount the allegations about the Presidents doing “certain things because they get certain support from certain circles.” I don’t thing that’s how it works. There are different competing forces in the society as far as their beliefs about the governance and priorities are concerned. When you have two distinct presidential candidates, you make your choices who to support based on the totality of issues. There is no one issue which defines a person. In this sense, I just disagree when people say that this or the other President is doing this and that because his contributors have donated money to his campaign. I find it to be a very simplistic approach, in general. You are absolutely right about objecting the US playing the role of the policeman of the world. That’s exactly what this President says, and what a lot of other politicians say in America. But the thing is, while Europeans may say they don’t want Armeniaca to be the policeman of the world, they forced it to do policing in Balkans, and even when the current president of the US tried to withdraw the American forces out of there, they (Europeans) fiercely opposed to the withdrawal. Additionally, the Europeans allowed for the slaughter of the Albanians in Balkans, as well as some slaughter of Serbians and Croatians in their back yard. The US policy of the last decade was deeply flawed in this regard. The current administration is trying to reverse it. As to vetoing the chemical warfare, sure it is better not to have chemical weapons. But the issue is I think more complicated that the US not willing to do so. Why wouldn’t the US want to do so, if it things the rest of the owners of chemical weapons are also ready to do so. The issue is, if say, the US signs it, the Europeans sign it, who else is going to sign it. In particular, is Iraq going to sign it? How about Turkey, Pakistan, etc. Besides, the current administration has not expressed an opinion on Chemical weapons, yet, has it? I am not much interested in politics, either. Neither am I an expert in politics, nor enjoy it. I just think that it is always beneficial to express balanced views, or at least if some views seem to be not balanced, I try to introduce the other side of the issue to the best of my understanding. Otherwise, I prefer talking about jazz, art, photography, etc. But I think we have to be even handed, if we decide to take a position. Not that I am saying one doesn’t have the right to support one side vs. the other. I am just saying there is no need to demonize the other side, especially when the facts don’t support it. And I agree very much with your last statement about cleaning our house, first.

Yeas...?

quote:Originally posted by Boghos: Hello MJ... Hello Boghos, Wussup?

quote:Originally posted by Paul bunyan: HEAR YE!,HEAR,YE!, I declare and swear to the fact that I am not a muslim or a turk, or a azeri, or a chechen, german or a georgian, (tibilisi) How about explaining your last statement MJ,? My last statement? You still puzzle me.

Hmm... Interesting question. We have used that word in Armenia in the form of "ambitia." Clearly, in that form, it was borrowed from the Russian. It carried some negative coloring in it, though the same word in English carries more of a positive human feature. And I can see where you are coming from hinting on the idiosyncrasies of the national psyche. Interesting subject. By the way, welcome to the forum. What do you trade? What's its volatility, today?

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: I do not, but "according to some", Harvard University Professors are pretty good on that as oppose to Chicago University. It depends on the depratment. The Department of Economics or Finance in the University of Chicago are pretty anti-Marx establishments. As a matter of fact, these departments are where the modern financial theory was born. However, their Political Science department is a cradle of socialism, as most of such departments in the Academia worldwide are.

But you haven't said whether or not you are an Azeri activist. But of course, Azeri activists ARE a secretive bunch its well known. On a more serious note, I don’t even care whether you are Armenian or Turk. I don’t judge about people based on their ethnicity. I know a lot of Armenians that I wouldn’t like to associate with, and know some Turks that would enjoy associating with. I am just trying to demonstrate you that “what goes around comes around.” And I can also add that I find your declarations lacking consistency very frequently, and that's what puzzles me.

Rouben, As you said before, I would start the cleaning from our own house. First, I would hold responsible our Armenian organizations, if they believed that Bush or anybody else is going to be able in the near future to sign what we expect them to sign on the subject of the Genocide at this time in history. If they didn’t believe it, but yet pursued it because of the decision that we have to do our best, then it is fine with me. We didn’t succeed this time, we will try again, and again. I think Bush (as well as any other President) had two alternatives – to reply to the Armenian plea that he would sign a declaration on the Genocide or to say that he would not. To say that he would not sign would’ve meant, at least in my view, that he opposes personally to the recognition of the Genocide. I don’t believe that any of the previous Presidents, including Clinton, personally opposed it. Neither does Bush. His best bet would’ve been not to reply to the Armenian plea, at this time, I think. But you know, I assume, our organizations, and how pushy they may be. Therefore, if he had to reply, between the non-signing and signing he sure should’ve said, from his position, that he would sign. Additionally, he has not stopped the initiative of the Congress, the way his predecessor has done. So far, he has not yet declared his recognition of the Genocide as a President. As the French example demonstrates, the Genocide Resolution is more of a legislative initiative rather than executive. If the US Congress passes a resolution, and Bush kills it, I think we may have more valid points to against him. Remember, even the French recognition didn’t go smoothly. Whether he would sign a petition of the Congress under analogous to the last year circumstances, I don’t know. We would see. However, we have to come to accept that even we have different approaches on this issue among ourselves, while we all agree on the basics of the Genocide. And I agree with your comments regarding the schools, etc. I care very little whether anybody would recognize the Genocide, though would do what depends on me to have that recognition. What I care is whether we wound find the strength and the wisdom to build a country that Armenians would be proud of, rather than denouncing for centuries their national identity in the manner of consistent assimilation. And as Bush’ balanced policies go, I honestly think that he conducts very balanced policies. And things in such matters are seen only in comparison. As a US citizen, so far I am very happy with the US President, and I keep it constantly in mind that he is not the President of Armenia. [ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

That would be great, Garo. Thanks.